Talk:Main Page

From RationalWiki

• General question about the site? See RationalWiki:Serious Business. Or post here anyways. See if I care.
• Issues with the "WIGO" section? Please head over to Template talk:AOTW Main.

Contents 1 Lurkers 2 Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr. 3 Brief announcement 4 Help, please 5 New project? 6 New Goatse 7 Potential electoral college results 8 Hillary's speech 9 PUMA (again) 10 PUMA, curiousity, spin, why not Joe ? 11 McCain's running mate 12 ACORN 13 To pander or not to pander 14 Happy Worker's Holiday! 15 Peer Review Service 16 Shiny RW 17 Not sure it's the right place but...

[edit] Lurkers

I wonder how many lurkers we've got. There must be one or two long time ones - there have been one or two recent additions to our named editor roster who have displayed an impressive knowledge of our history. Would it be possible/desirable to show the number of persons watching a page at any given time (like the forums)? I don't mean showing their identities (like the forums) just a number! Over to you Trent. Susan^{Antichrist (the) am I?} 10:47, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

We could start looking for eye tracks . . . ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 09:27, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.

Where have I heard that "Robinette" name before - Science fiction somewhere but teh little gray cells won't bring it up. Susan^{Talk(if you must)} 11:20, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Brief announcement

It is my somewhat mixed pleasure to announce that as of now, rather than being on hiatus, the CP Column is officially closed. I don't really want to waste more energy on those... people, and with WIGO@CP around to do it just as well, there's no real point, either. Progress!

My blogging energies will be channelled into the newly launched and probably almost entirely non-CP-related Vox in Deserto instead.

Thank you for your attention. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 22:11, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh well all things must end, good luck with your new blog. π 22:19, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

First post!! ^_^ Jellyfish!^{Make me a bureaucrat!} 22:21, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Don't forget to add it/replace it at the blogroll, and to self-promote the hell out of it at WIGO blogs! And, congratulations. Your blog was a haven in that dark time when RW was transitioning, and we I thank you for it. ħuman^{ly possible} 22:59, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Help, please

Why does my firefox put the fonts all farked up on some sites (usually blogs) and how do I fix it?

δλερνερ ^{διαλέγομαι | συνεισφέρω} 06:37, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

That is cool why do you want to change it? Go to Tool->Options->(If you are using 3.0)Tab:Contents and change the font, if that doesn't work ->advanced and change the fonts there or allow the website settings. Why are you reading Michelle Malkin? π

It hurts my eyes, When I do what you say it changes all fonts to Times New Roman, help me please! I read Ann Coulter too, I read what I want. δλερνερ ^{διαλέγομαι | συνεισφέρω} 06:52, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

On my ff (3 Beta 5) it's Edit → preferences → content. Susan^{Teh Antichrist am I?} 06:49, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

You also can set your preferred serif and sans-serif fonts. TNR and Arial are just the defaults. ħuman ^clues 15:34, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

More screenshot fun. π 07:02, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] New project?

I do believe that we've just been challenged. Perhaps this should be a new Rationalwiki project? Pinto's5150 ^{Molto Bene!} 15:17, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Is there a good, "fair" synopsis of the book (it's a book, right?) somewhere? After all, Behe did us the favor of posting an "interview" with himself about his book on Amazon, which made our work so much easier (and practical). Ideally, the synopsis would be similar - the author(s) themselves brief overview of their work. ħuman ^thoughts 16:50, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

This is the best I could really find, it seems to have a short, short, synopsis, in addition to having the text of the entire book (As far as I can tell at least). Pinto's5150 ^{Molto Bene!} 18:03, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Interesting. Maybe the "Introduction" could be attempted? ħuman ^{be in} 18:16, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Hehe... "If you have Christian allies in your class, it may be helpful to take turns asking questions. Also consider studying the issues together and praying for one another." IOW, gang up on the teacher with our talking points. Pray before the contest. ħuman ^waste 18:18, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] New Goatse

Now that Goatse has been relaunched and is 99% work safe (yes, check it out from work and laugh, the url is the only thing that might get you in trouble) has anyone considered that the ascii art of it might be completely appropriate to post on Conservapedia? --02:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Did they change anything? I didn't notice. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 11:15, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Potential electoral college results

Interesting thing, I was playing with numbers in the electoral college, and I found 2 not so far fetched potential results that could yield a tie in this election. Based on this map of who is currently leading where, the shift of NH to McCain (a very close race currently) would give both candidates 269 electoral votes. Also, if McCain picks Romney and he delivers Michigan, but Obama takes Virginia (a dead heat) the results are the same. The election then goes to the House of Representatives where the Democrats should still have a sizeable majority. This is still no guarantee for Obama, since all 435 seats are up the overall picture can change much more dramatically than it does in the Senate. Also, Representatives may switch party lines at times, and some may feel the obligation to vote the way their constituents did, regardless of their party. A tie in the electoral college would certainly highly favor Obama, but it would be an interesting thing to see. I think the House has only decided one election ever (I forget the exact year, but it was a 4 way race). Anyway, playing with this map is fun, and more educational then Dolphin Olympics.

Another thing I noticed is that the wp:National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could change things. If McCain wins the popular vote but Obama carries enough states to win the electoral vote, enough blue states would vote for the popular vote winner to give it to McCain. Since no states McCain is likely to carry have passed this law, it would not change the results if the situation were reversed (if McCain wins the popular vote, Obama won't even receive electoral votes from his home state). It's going to be an interesting election. DickTurpis 10:35, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Don't quote me on this, because I'm going from memory and don't have anything to reference in front of me... but I think the presidential election went to the house twice in American History. The first time led to the election of John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson (the infamous corrupt bargain) and then again in 1877, which resulted in the election of Rutherford Hayes.... I think those are the only two.... Fun Fact: the 1877 race was contested even more hotly than 2000. At one point, two mobs (representing different candidates) converged on each other in the middle of town and opened fire. SirChuckB^{I am The Gatekeeper} 13:48, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Now that you mention it, I think you're right. I forgot about the Hayes fiasco. My American history isn't as strong as it should be for a history major, particularly in the Reconstruction to the 20th century. But I concentrated in European history. DickTurpis 13:57, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

The website http://electoral-vote.com/ is particularly good for electoral vote questions and commentary. Might want to toss the votemaster a question and see what the response is. Virginia has been trending as a dead heat for some time[1]. New Hampshire has been Obama for a bit[2] though he has lost some of his lead. Still, if it was held today the trends suggest Obama win but just barely. And there is Dolphin Olympics II out now.[3] --Shagie 14:19, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I actually did pretty well at history, my near photographic memory really helps with dates and interesting trivia. In High school I got a huge extra credit boost for reciting all the presidents in order. SirChuckB^{I am the Eggman} 14:21, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

As far as NH being up for grabs, etc., the state has been trending more Democratic for decades now, although the entrenched GOP families have hung onto some of their seats. In 2006, both legislative bodies went Dem for the first time in a century or so, a popular Dem governor was re-elected with almost 75% of the vote, and both House seats went to the Dems (in my district a political noob spent 10% of what the incumbent spent and won). This year, a popular ex-Governor is running for the contested Senate seat. ħuman ^{be in} 14:30, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Another thing occurred to me. I've been a bit concerned about the Bradley effect in polling, making me slightly anxious that in a few key states Obama isn't really doing as well as it appears. But now I'm wondering whether the fact that it appears there's more excitement than ever among younger voters (far and away for Obama) means polling is under-representing that constituency. Most polling is by telephone, right? Do they ever call cell phones? If not, they're missing a large number of mostly young people who only have a cell phone. Could it be that, assuming that these young deadbeats actually turn up at the polls, Obama's support is actually understated in these polls? I hope so. How does my logic sound? DickTurpis 14:35, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

What you say about polling is becoming a major issue among those who care about it, yes. Historically there have been other poll-masking issues, but this one is going to force pollsters to come up with a workaround, as more and more people go "wireless-only". Perhaps it's due time we had directories that included cell numbers, but the geographic issue is a major headache (due to portability, many people don't live in their "area code" any more). ħuman ^{be in} 14:44, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I agree that the cell phone problem is an interesting one that will only get worse and needs to be addressed, and maybe skewing things all ready. However, what I wanted to address is the "young people will win the election" meme. I have been involved in politics since I was, well, a baby. I have done all the "grass roots" stuff for close to probably a thousand candidates in my lifetime. The majority of them have been local elections, local senate, house, legislature, hell even judges and city council. I have also done local campaign work for national campaigns. I have done mayors, I have done governors. I have been to national conventions, state conventions, I was ward chair, etc. All this to say I have been listening and viewing politics for a while. I have heard the "young people are excited and will vote for me" and the "first time voters are going to come out for me" lines many times. Every time I have heard it, every time, it has not paned out as expected. Relying on young voters, or new voters to win elections has always failed.

That said Obama seems to have won the nominations off that demographic. Is it possible for the first time in my lifetime at least, that a candidate can actually mobilize young and first time voters? If he can I will be amazed and I think it would be one of the more significant events in recent political history. But due to my past experience I remain very skeptical about it. tmtoulouse ^irritate 14:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Human, what you said about NH is true here in Colorado as well. in fact, we were one of the states that fell under the so called "Purple Paradox" that is, in 2004 we elected a Democrat for Governor, Senator, a large majority of the house, and gave control of both state houses to Democrats, but we went for Bush in the presidential election. Colorado is one of the purple states that Obama has a strong chance to win this year though. This stems mostly from the apathy of the Colorado Springs Religious Fundies, but also in part to the large number of new residents and techno geeks coming in. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 14:55, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Hey Tmtoulouse, can we get a list of what mayors and governors you've done? and I hope you were payed well for your actions.... (just a little joke, relax people) SirChuckB^{Are you the Keymaster?} 15:03, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Trent about the young voters (not so much about "new" ones though) - they have traditionally had little impact. I have heard it said that age groups vote in a similar percentage to their age, ie, the older people get, the higher the turnout. The cell phone thing is of course partly a separate issue - sure, it's about the under-30's in many ways, but many older people who have moved since 2000 have ditched the land line. A friend of mine has now had the same Texas-based cell number in CT, IL, and now MD. ħuman ^woo 15:11, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, my parents are still using their CO based numbers even in TX and now Alaska. As for what you're saying Human, I think this election, like 2004, is a little different for young voters. 2000 really hammered in that a few votes do make a major difference, and as the push to rid the country of that god awful electoral college gains momentum, we could see a major voting overhaul in our lifetimes. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 15:16, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Young voters don't "remember" 2000... ħuman^culous 15:31, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I disagree... I'm still considered a young voter (at 22) and I very clearly remember 2000... complete with the comedy sketches that went with it... On top of that, the new voters for this election (the 18 years olds) were 10 for that election. When I was ten, it was Clinton/Gore against Dole/Kemp and I remember much about that.... Give us younglings a little more credit than that. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden '08} 15:34, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

It's not a matter of "credit" - just that most people under 15 aren't following the political news in detail. Some certainly are - they probably end up being the 20-30% of 20-somethings that turn out to vote. ħuman ^{be in} 15:37, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I think that may have some truth to it, but judging from talk around campus, I think this election will have a higher turnout. Not only is there more buzz in general for politics, but Obama is making huge inroads with our demographic. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden '08} 15:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Some of the problems the polls are having:

• Cell phones - pollsters don't (can't) call cell phones. With the 18-30 year old degraphic having a higher number of cell phones and no landlines, this means that it is hard to get a representation of that group. Some polls will adjust by increased sampling until they do get the number if 18-30 year olds they want, others will weight those higher... which brings us to...
• Likely voter - you have to have voted before. This means the 19 and 20 year old is not considered a 'likely voter'. That demographic is underrepresented by the polls. With the higher turn out of the 20 somethings than past years there may be some upsets that the polls have trouble predicting. That said, don't count the electorates before they've cast. --Shagie 15:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Another major issue with the polling is the underrepresentaion of racist attitudes. This is reflected in the "Bradley Effect" (for those that don't know, this basically says that people will lie to pollsters, saying they'll vote for a (insert minority) candidate, but then vote differently. This includes exit polls and goes up by 20% if the pollster is in the minorty in question) but the bigger problem is that exit polls are voluntary. The highest amount of refusals for polling come from bottom income/little to no formal education. Their views are usually picked up by another group, but racism is one issue that seems to surface heaviest with this group, and without accurate information, it's hard to see what's really going on. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden '08} 16:03, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Another factor: has Barr's influence been taken into consideration much? There was, at least for a time, some consideration that he could be a spoiler, but I hardly ever see him mentioned in polls. I was considering giving to his campaign, figuring whatever small amount I can afford to give this year would have a bigger impact on his campaign, and perhaps he might take enough votes from McCain to make a difference. Haven't heard much about him recently though. DickTurpis 16:09, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and ignore my statement far above about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. I didn't read it carefully, so I missed how it won't change anything the total electoral count of the ratifying states is 270, which won't be for a long time. So it won't have an effect this year. DickTurpis 16:15, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Hillary's speech

Anyone notice that Hillary ended her speech with "Godspeed to you all"? Of course, there's nothing inherently funny about that, but after reading CP for so long, I'm almost hearing "fuck you all" when I hear that. Kind of amusing. I didn't think anyone said that anymore, except Andy and maybe some folks in SCA. DickTurpis 11:42, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I jumped on that at talk:wigo world. It's one of those phrases that conservapedia has forever altered in our minds... ħuman ^troll 16:14, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

And by the way, the last word was Godspeed - she ended "God bless you all and Godspeed" - actually an appropriate use, since it wishes well for a journey. That's why Andy's uses of it often carry a taint of insultiveness. ħuman ^{be in} 14:31, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] PUMA (again)

Ok, I know we have a discussion going on at talk:WigoW, but seriously.... Watch this video from the daily show, specifically the interviews with Clinton supporters. They're like little FUCKING kids..... SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 20:07, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

I think some of them are false flaggers, judging by one that Malloy played yesterday. They can't be real. Anyway, Hils nommed Obama for the job tonight... ħuman^ities 20:57, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Surely, they were all spoofs. Or am I just overestimating Americans? Genghis^marauding 07:03, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I can't speak for all of them, but the woman in the front row (the one with the cast) is not only real, but she's one of the biggest PUMA people out there (I guess she couldn't make the cut for Cougar) SirChuckB^{I am the Walrus} 10:59, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] PUMA, curiousity, spin, why not Joe ?

That PUMA video was funny, and the one of The Daily Show Tuesday August 26, 2008 was as well.

Was no one here in favor of Hillary rather than Obama early on? As a non-Liberal, i'm curious as to how you guys (not those that get interviewed on TV, that is so often hype) decided which you preferred, and i in no way wish to exclude those of you who are not American from the conversation. It would be interesting to know how you see the US campaign season, and what kind of spin your TV news puts on it.

I'm willing to bet Brits understand the US system better than the other way around.

I don't see the Liberals on RW as being typical Liberals, and i don't expect you see yourselves that way either.

Possibly nobody here is interested in my personal view as a Libt, but i was amazed from the start why Joe Biden wasn't the chosen one for the Dems -- i thought he had it all over Hillary and Obama in several ways. They are all three smart, but he was the quickest-witted, the most knowledgeable, has the most experience carrying water for Liberal causes, is well-liked by nearly everyone, is known to be honest (a big one for me), and knows well several world leaders.

-- Rem^Beau 19:37, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Speaking only for myself, not as some label or part of some group, in the very early days of the primaries I had a fairly clear idea of the procession of my favorites among the declared: Kucinich, then Edwards (lucked out there!), then Obama, then a close tie among several including Clinton and Richardson. I knew my first choice was not going to get the nod, but as I looked at the field, I was impressed that I could easily get behind any of them in the general election. Your points about Biden argue strongly for Obama's drafting him for the VP nomination, of course. He may not be "unpopular", but he was far behind Clinton and Obama (and Edwards) in national name-recognition this time 'round - I think the last major TV show he was on was the Bork SC nomination-killing. ħuman ^cabal 19:56, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm actually pretty close to Human, Kucinich is the closest to my personal viewpoints, but I knew right away that he didn't have a serious chance at the nod. Edwards was my second choice as well. Once it boiled down to the two, I was fairly undecided, there were good points and bad points about both. As the primary wound down, however, I turned a little more toward Barack, as I saw Hillary stooping to the lowest possible denominator in desperation. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 20:10, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Good points. What i find most interesting is that NEARLY every self-identified Liberal finds Kucinich to be closest in views. Even some that didn't think so took those on-line tests which return agreement percentages, and those show a 93% match with DK, or thereabouts. I don't know what to make of that -- it seems all wrong. Do they all pick somebody else because DK is an unlikely candidate? Is that the overriding consideration in everybody's thinking?

One important difference, i suppose, is that a Libt doesn't have a chance this time around anyhow, while your party does (and will almost surely win). This frees me up to vote for somebody close to my views.

Not only can Barack speak circles around McCain, he is clearly taller than McCain, which some say is an important factor.

-- Rem^Beau 22:10, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Altho choosing Hillary for VP would have been untenable for Barack, it would have clinched his election. Failing that, any choice other than JB would have been crazy, in my view. Biden was clearly a better choice than the rest.

As James Carville says, Pubs can't win this election, but Dems could lose it by making really dumb mistakes -- and are definitely capable of it.

-- Rem^Beau 22:23, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure Hillary was offered the VP. And I'm sure she refused it. As a matter of course, in both cases. So you really like Biden, eh? ħuman ^speakers 23:10, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Yup, and i would have said he would be formidable in a debate against whomever McCain would pick for VP, now i'm not so sure. His foreign policy credentials are such that he would outshine almost anybody in a debate, but his modus operandi may not play so well against a lady gov -- he'll have to be verrrry careful, and that will cramp his style. A clever barb that would normally come off as witty against a guy could backfire. Hard to look good when debating a grandmother.

-- Rem^Beau 23:49, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't know about that.... There was some serious smack lied down on Hillary during the Democratic primery, and there was very little offense taken. I think most likely, she's gonna get up there and make a fool of herself, much like Dan Quayle (You sir are no Jack Kennedy) anybody? SirChuckB^{The Law Won} 00:04, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Hmm. An interesting point. But given Hillary's reputation, i'm not sure many folks would see her as granny getting skewered. Altho her tears in NH DID generate some sympathy. Palin is as yet unknown -- that might make a difference.

-- Rem^Beau 00:21, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) but at the same time, when some of the most popular footage of her circulating is her firing an automatic weapon.... Do you really think she'll be able to play the abused little girl routine if Biden humiliates her? SirChuckB^{I Won} 00:33, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, it's an "appearance" issue, I think. At the debate she will likely not be armed with a defensive weapon of gun, so if Biden isn't careful he could look like a "guy beating up on a woman". If he can get her to bare her fangs first he'll have more leeway. ħuman ^troll 18:43, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't think so. If she gets like Andy-level destroyed at the debate, and the bloggers and pundits start complaining about it, all the liberal bloggers and pundits have to do is start running clips from her previous interviews and bring that tumbling down. Not to mention, is that really the character trait they want to push? Our vice president can't even fend off Joe Biden, and she's one heart attack from the Presidency? SirChuckB^{I Fought the Law} 18:57, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

If Palin comes off as a HAG (Humorless and Grouchy), she'll make Biden look good (especially if he just smiles at it), but if she betrays a lack of knowledge (say foreign policy issues) or stumbles, and Biden pulls a vicious shark attack, sympathy will be a factor.

If Biden clearly bests her in a debate (likeliest schenario), for sure "liberal bloggers and pundits" will pounce, but Liberals are already won over. Who else trusts Liberal bloggers?

// Our vice president can't even fend off Joe Biden, and she's one heart attack from the Presidency?

You make Biden sound like a lightweight, but that is not at all his image -- quite the opposite. Anybody reasonable would expect Biden to trounce Palin.

And it is a capital mistake to assume most voters are swayed by thinking that nuanced, "one heart attack from the Presidency". ("Nuanced" here is meant sardonically.)

Also, let me ask you -- had Obama chosen a Liberal version of Palin and McCain had chosen a Conservative version of Biden, would that "one heart attack from the Presidency" argument have impressed you, and caused you to change your vote? Not a chance; you know i'm right.

-- Rem^Beau 06:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

[edit] McCain's running mate

Sarah Palin. Just heard from the BBC. Kirkburn 10:44, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh noes - an affirmative action (female) running mate! (Has it been confirmed yet, as the BBC website still says that Sarah Palin is speculative?) Bondurant 10:48, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

(Edit: Yes - it has now been updated on the website - here Bondurant 10:50, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Is it me or did he pick someone with less experience than Obama? DickTurpis 10:52, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

It is curious. She's younger than Obama and pretty moderate for a Republican. I think the idea is to try to get some of the Hillary Clinton supporters, but I think he just totally screwed himself with most conservatives. --Edgerunner⁷⁶, B.A.H. 10:54, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

No kidding, she's three years younger than Obama, with even less experience than he has. By selected her, Mccain has just opened himself up for a massive attack. On top of that, she's currently under investigation for ethics violations in Alaska (she's accused of firing a state employee because he wouldn't fire her siser's ex husband's brother as a state trooper) and this investigation was launched by a Republican Controled legislature.... I know he wanted to try and court the Hillary supporters (as Edge pointed out above) but he seriously underestimates the extreme hatred his base has towards women. I really think this is one of the worst choices he could have made. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 11:46, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Moderate? She's flaminly anti-choice and she's a creationist. on all other political matters she's had 1 year of experience so she has no statements on record. how is that moderate?--Waiting for Godot 13:06, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Just look @ the activity on her Wikipedia page - 500+ in a day! Susan^{I am the antichrist} 23:45, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

SirChuck: // ... he seriously underestimates the extreme hatred his base has towards women.

Extreme hatred? Who are we talking about, and how do you gauge their feelings toward women?

And do we know who his base is? I doubt if he even has a base, unless you are defining his base as those that may vote for him just to vote against Obama.

// I really think this is one of the worst choices he could have made.

McCain is in a tight spot, and knows that his chances are very slim of beating Obama, given the trajectory of things so far.

Obama is a rock star with a huge number of adoring and enthusiastic fans, and is saying what most people want to hear; McCain wants to stay the course. McCain is an awkward speaker and comes off as a fogey; Obama exactly the opposite. That's just for starters.

So McCain, if he is to stand a chance, has to do something radical and unexpected, plus choose someone whose political philosophy could draw a loyal following that might constitute the base that McCain doesn't have.

Pundits are saying her inexperience will take away McCain's best offense -- that Obama has little experience. That is ridiculous -- they are out of touch as well as McCain -- almost NOBODY in the USA gives a rodent's derriere about experience. McCain had better race a different horse; that one is asleep.

Biden has tons of experience, and that is what makes him knowledgeable and confident, but you see how far that got him in his campaign for the nomination.

Pundits are flying without instruments in a dense fog, and couldn't care less.

If you just step back a moment from the election process, you'll see how farcical it all is, and have a good laugh (literally). No advantage to being grim as we head toward a nuclear winter.

"To those who think, life is a comedy. To those that feel, life is a tragedy."

-- Rem^Beau 00:11, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Wow. The GOP "base" is anti-woman. Obama is not a rock star, he is a politician, and a fairly good one. As far as the "experience" thing, you are full of shit... the GOp just skewered their giant "inexperience" meme. Rimbubba is "flying without instruments in a dense fog" and has nothing intelligent to offer, as usual. Although - we must admit - he thinks he is brilliant. ħuman ^{why is there a weird line through the "h" in my username?} 00:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) His base is the Republican base, that is to say, a lot of very bitter, women hating fundies. Just look at Conservapedia and read through any of their articles dealing with women's rights and you can guage those feelings pretty well. Best example, look at Andy, who has said on many many occasions that girls physically cannot compete with the big strong males in math and science. Now remember that his mother is considered a Conservative hero. I also disagree that Obama is a "rock star." Right after 9/11, GW sold out stadiums and had thousand of adoring fans as well, but he is simply a "great president," and an "inspiring speaker," whereas Barack is a Rock star? That makes no sense. I understant that McCain had to do something radical, but it's still the plain fact that he has just insulted the intelligence of every woman on the planet. He obviously thinks that women will trade away some very important causes to them, specifically Abortion rights, Gun control and Gay right (something that a lot of women seem to be involved in) just so they can put a woman in the VP slot. Is there anyone that can't see right through this? There was a great spot on the Daily Show tonight where Samantha Bee and Jon Stewart mocked this move mercilessly, this is pure pandering in the worst sense of the word. Why didn't he just choose Jesse Jackson? SirChuckB^{I Won} 00:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Michael Jackson, even better. Hombre, all the categories he would fill. If only his last name were Jackson-Alvarez. Plus McCain can't moon walk -- an important deficit MJ would compensate for.

-- Rem^Beau 00:51, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

You continue to make no sense at all. Rumjib, you also continue to embarrass yourself and your "position" with every comment you are making. ħuman ^{be in} 01:06, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Hey now, Human, that's not very civil. I actually took that final comment as fairly reasonable - not as a mockery of the idea they're trying to tick boxes, but as supporting it. Kirkburn 02:05, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, dang, sorry if I was uncivil. Care to explain why that made any sense? (either you, or Rimjub, or anyone else) ħuman ^sub 02:12, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

SirChuck -- As i recall, studies have indicated that males have a slight edge on math, and females a slight edge on language. Okay, it's possible, but i doubt it. Again they did a lot of backfilling, expaining why the differences. Had it turned out the opposite way, they would immediately have concocted "explanations". Anybody can call anything "science", and millions of know-nothings will agree, without even glancing at the data.

I heard that there was one study done, surveying students, that showed a strong positive correlation linking math skills and foot size -- then somebody realized the obvious, that older kids in the study had bigger feet. Maybe this is apochraphyl, but if somebody knows of this study and has a link to it, i would LOVE to capture it.

Read thru CP "articles dealing with women's rights"? Why bother, it is predictable that their views will be exactly opposite RW views, surely. I have offered them my article on Libertarianism, and if they take it i'll visit there, but so far there has been no interest. Maybe CPAdmin hasn't been back yet; it was only a couple of weeks ago, i think.

The thing is, neither the hard-Left nor the hard-Right will determine the outcome of this election, it is the mass of non-aligned (or barely-aligned) folks in the middle that get to decide. Only those that muster up the energy to go vote, that is. And NO-body knows HOW they think; it is laughable the conclusions pundits draw from the results of pols. I got a phone call just a few days ago (well before the Dem convention) -- a pollster asking me a few quick questions -- one was (i kid you not), "Do you want change, or maintain how things are done in WashDC?" (I gave her a short Libt spiel; she was nonplussed.)

If that doesn't make you laugh, you don't have a funnybone.

It doesn't follow that because Dubya was a rock-star immediately after 9/11, that Obama is not a rock-star now. From all i hear, Obama has the youth vote sewn up, and they are enthusiastic. W's favorability ratings were WAY down low last i heard (and probably dropping), topping only the ratings for Congress. Obama is pretty near the top of his game, don't you think?

Just McCain has insulted the intelligence of us all? And he is the only pander-bear? Wow. Quoting the perceptive Inigo Montoya. "I don't think that word means what you think it means". ("Pandering")

-- Rem^Beau 14:27, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I have to disagree with anyone here who says that Palin is an extremist. She has been an excellent reformer has helped to rid Alaska of an incredible amount of (Mostly Republican)corruption. She has often stood up to her party and has helped alaska in many ways. She is a wonderful woman who has made many contributions to Alaska and hopefully will make many more. I support Obama but if he follows along with these smears he will lose the votes of most open-minded individuals. As for the scandal it is a minor one, that has little actual relation to Sarah. If you disagree that is fine, but please learn more about Palin before insulting her. Thanks.The Alien^{Sick Freak!!!} 02:22, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

As I see the "scandal", with obviously limited information, she is being investigated by the corrupt system (the Alaskan legislature) she sought to upend? More details, please? ħuman ^sub 02:39, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

First repsonse to Alien, as that will be much shorter: When a woman is on record as being against abortion, pro gun, pro creationism, anti gay rights, pro death penalty and many others, that's a pretty good indicator that she's extremeist. Throw in that he has full support from both the NRA and National Right to Life, that pretty much locks that up. Not back to our Libertarian friend: I'm not denying that Males have a slight edge, but the fundies claim that men are just better and the poor little girls could never hope to match their ability. Whereas, most reasonalbe studies show that girls score lower because of preconceived(sp?) notions and gender stereotypes. No, neither the hard left or hard right will win the election for either candidate, but both of them can lost the election for their parties. Look at 2004, when the Christian vote didn't come out as strong for the GOP, they got their asses kicked. I'll have to ask you how to explain why Bush isn't a rock star after 9/11 because his ratings are down now (seven years later) but Obama is a rock star. I would also like to point out that I never said McCain was the only one pandering. But this selection is pure pandering and I repeat, he has insulted the intelligence of all of us. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 15:44, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] ACORN

Is this worthy of an article - I noticed a (negative) comment on CP (sorry can't remember where). They seem to be a leftist ... well leftist by US standards ... organisation with some connections to Obama. Susan^{Antichrist (the) am I?} 00:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't see why not... and who cares what CP thinks of them? ħuman ^bean 01:09, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] To pander or not to pander

SirChuck: // But this selection is pure pandering ...

Pander :: "To appeal to (base emotions or less noble desires), so as to achieve one's purpose; to exploit (base emotions, such as lust, prejudice, or hate)."

You're probably saying to yourself -- YES -- this strengthens my case! That is because YOU consider Liberal views noble and views opposite as base, and that THEY are prejudiced and hateful, while YOU are NOT.

When you read over several of these pages, do you not notice examples of prejudice, sometimes to the point of bitchiness? (I know, the Libt posts only.)

Bertrand Russell's "Conjugation of an irregular verb: I am firm, you are stubborn, he is a pig-headed fool."

(Side note: do Brits really say "ponce" instead of "pimp"?)

Question of the day -- is a Socialist pandering when he says things Socialists want to hear? (Serious question.)

// and I repeat, he has insulted the intelligence of all of us.

You only repeat that because you are looking thru a Liberal lens. If Obama had chosen a Palin-type that agreed with all your views, would you have felt your intelligence had been insulted? Would it have been pandering to the Left? You are entitled to believe your views are the most intelligent, everybody does (as a Libt, why would i pick views unless i consider them to be the most intelligent?), but to be insulted ...?

Just consider the simplistic approach to poverty: give them money. As a Libt i believe that approach to be unintelligent and counterproductive, but it is a popular view held by a lot of intelligent people, so for me to be insulted by that would be silly.

-- Rem^Beau 06:55, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Happy Worker's Holiday!

Yeah, North America is weird. We have May Day in September. Wonder if Andy & Co. are taking advantage of this lovely union-related holiday? --Kels 13:49, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Peer Review Service

Looking around this wiki, I am slowly starting to get the idea that a peer review service for articles could be used. I am not trying to imply that the articles here are bad, but there are a few I have bumped into that could use improvement. I am thinking of making a page (Rationalwiki:PEAS) (Peas would stand for People for the Evaluation of ArticleS.), which would review and rate articles on qualities such as grammar/prose, insight, concept, and snark/goat. Before I start this project, however, I would like some community insight regarding other possible qualities, rules for the service, and some people who would be interested in joining. At the moment, I am thinking this is what a page would look like

“Article Name” (with link) “Reviewers name” (sig), date submitted, date reviewed

Quality 1, score (out of 10?)

Paragraph on the aforementioned quality

Quality 2, score (out of 10?)

Paragraph on the aforementioned quality

Quality 3, score (out of 10?)

Paragraph on the aforementioned quality

Quality 4, score (out of 10?)

Paragraph on the aforementioned quality

Final score out of 40.

From what I am thinking, less than a 10 would be a possible delete, up to 20 would be a respectable article, around 30 would be average, and around 40 has potential for randomly featured. Input on the above would be appreciated. JAVASCAP Talk to ME BAN SOMEONE!

Why not a more intuitive title, like RationalWiki:article review? Anyway, one of my first reactions was that taking the effort to review a lower-scoring article would be better spent actually improving it. Also, not sure deletion should be a result? Many articles start small and would surely not get many points, and they slowly get better. In general, though, I see no reason why we couldn't have a "central" location as you suggest for such consideration of article quality. ħuman^ities 15:44, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

The other problem I see with this is the large variance(sp?) of attitudes towards humor and the differing opinions on what is and is not funny. I could review an article and give it a horrible score for whatever reason, where Human may think it's the best thing ever... The law of averages would balance, but that takes many many reviews before you can get an accurate picture and even that doesn't work (look at Amazon.com or Barnes and Noble.com and see how many people game the system to inflate or deflate book ratings) SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 16:37, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, to avoid gaming the system, we could limit the people who are allowed to post reviews to the main page of the review; other reviewers would have the opportunity to post reviews on the talk page, but they wouldn't affect the average. And we could even make it a new user group, goat knows we don't have enough of those at the moment. Thunderkatz^Ho! 16:47, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

People are already weighting their desire or need to write an article with the time and effort it takes. Subject them to a scrutiny like that proposed, and the number of articles will dramatically drop (unless everybody here is an exhibitionist who takes pleasure in having articles examined and rated). Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 16:57, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

That's assuming all articles would be reviewed, a task too big for the current number of users, especialy if we include old articles. Rather, articles could be submitted for peer review if someone feels either, 1) an article is living up to its potential or the standards of the site, 2) a good article isn't receiving the attention it deserves, 3) someone isn't sure whether the article is something they can trust and want to see other's opinions, or 4-infinity) any other number of reasons, as long as there is a reason. Thunderkatz^Ho! 17:05, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Anyone can nominate for cover story/best of ... and likewise delete/mission so we're already covered - no? Susan^{Antichrist (the) am I?} 17:30, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

@ Susan, yes, I think so - and we have the intercom as well as recent changes to bring people's attention to things we think need work. @Thunderkatz, "we could limit the people who are allowed to post reviews to the main page of the review" rather runs against the anarchic way things work here (join and don't vandalize for 72 hours and someone is likely to make you a sysop). ħuman^{e society} 18:59, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

No, I don't think that PEAS should be required. You CAN submit it for a review if you want, but you don't have to. JAVASCAP Talk to ME BAN SOMEONE!

'Scap, we pretty much already do that. On articles' talk pages, and partially via the templates that Susan mentioned. ħuman^culous 23:43, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

besides, peer review is carried out before publication. It's a bit late when the thing's out there. Silly Idea! Susan^{Antichrist (the) am I?} 23:54, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

The various points aside, I think we could expand or develop a way of highlighting articles with in particular categories that need special attention. tmtoulouse ^pester 23:57, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

[[category:article on important topic that still sucks]]? ħuman ^sub 00:03, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Shiny RW

So, here's the first screen-cap from Google's new browser. ANyone else downloaded yet? Генгис^rapping 16:15, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Does it have any claim to be better than firefox? (I've barely heard of it, so I simply don't know) ħuman ^cabal 16:47, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

It just came out, so no one knows. It is supposedly been redone from the ground up, the press kit and google blogs say it browses the web in a totally different manner than existing applications. It is also ultra-beta I think. We will just have to wait and see. It is open-source though so if it is brilliant Firefox can adapt its innovations. tmtoulouse ^beset 17:31, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

I've been checking frequently all today since ever I heard about it, so it has only been released for a couple of hours. However, it doesn't have a lot of customisation features so far. It does appear to be quite quick though. Генгис^rapping 18:37, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, it may have "just come out", but it wasn't written yesterday. Surely the manufacturer has some claims of what makes it better? ħuman ^thoughts 18:51, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

They do, but it is in comic form, I am not kidding. Here it is. tmtoulouse ^provoke 18:54, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

I think I'll wait until I hear whether it's secure or not. Sterile^snore! 18:55, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

<--I am running it now. I'll give it a couple of weeks before deciding if it's worth keeping. I'm going to guess that until the cache gets loaded up it's going to be fairly "clunky". CЯacke® 19:13, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

I must be reading too few comics, as that one reminded me of Jack Chick. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 19:18, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Your not alone, I wanted desperately to redo it with Chick dialog. tmtoulouse ^torment 19:20, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

<--It appears security is one of its "big" claims to superiority. Security, speed, and taking out the trash. I remember when I switched to firefox it spent a few days or more "learning" - at first I was getting timed out on wikis in an hour or two, and it gradually stopped, for example. ħuman^{itarian aid} 20:12, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and its goal is almost irrelevant to most of "us" - they want to make MS bust open IE, I suspect. ħuman ^speakers 20:14, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Most people think the goal is to provide a plat form for "cloud computing" which is where google seems to putting its eggs. tmtoulouse ^heckle 20:15, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm, yeah, run the "hard work" on server farms and keep the nodes mean and lean? People already mostly accept it for email. ħuman ^woo 00:05, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

<--It runs funkily. It will stop scrolling all of a sudden only to resume by adding ALL of the unscrolled...scrolls, ending up jumping to an unfamiliar place on the page. Additionally, the cursor doesn't always show links as links, (the cursor doesn't change shapes right away), one has to guess that what should be a link IS, in fact, a link. Minor points. BIGGER: The "back" button doesn't have a "list" feature, if you want to go back three or four pages back you have to go back serially. CЯacke® 12:30, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

It is certainly buggy in a few places, I have managed to crash it easily enough multiple times and get stutter steps. However, it does have that feature Cracker, you just have to click and hold the mouse button to get the list. tmtoulouse ^nettle 14:09, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Why is this section called "Shiny RW" when it's about Google's new browser? _Essayist RA ^{Ask away Watch and learn} Over 6,350 edits!_ 14:33, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

It is a secret cabal code. tmtoulouse ^provoke 14:38, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

I thought you used Morse cord? _Essayist RA ^{Ask away Watch and learn} Over 6,350 edits!_ 14:39, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

We do, the letters in the title correspond to particular morse code patterns that you can then translate into letters. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 14:42, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Beware the ides of ... September...Sterile^snore! 16:50, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

(GRRRRR edit conflict)There's this {{user chrome}} if anyone's interested. I'm using chrome for RW but I'm lukewarm on it so far. I like the way its spellchecker questions "google". Totnesmartin 14:45, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Did somebody say Chick Tract? NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 14:54, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

@RA - Have you worked out the relevance of the section name yet or do want a laboured explanation? Генгис^chilling 15:21, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Not sure it's the right place but...

Have a look at the Jon Stewart video clip! http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ Mick McT 07:57, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

And for those that have missed PZ's recent blog posts - vote for evolution at Belief.net. Генгис^marauding 08:34, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Currently we godless evolutionists are at 71%, evolution guided by god - 17%, loonies - 12%. Remember the truth is a beauty contest. Silver Sloth 08:41, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

When PZ first posted I believe godless evolution was in second place. Генгис^rapping 09:53, 5 September 2008 (EDT)