william.scherk

From Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida. The moderator, Bob Schieffer. At bottom, some suggested questions from the LA Times dude Jon Healey. [schieffer has not shared his questions with anyone he say. He says the Audience has agreed to shut the fuck up] Gentlemen, rules, divide in segments. 2 minutes each, then a general discussion. 50 years after Cuban Missile Crisis. Unexpected threat from abroad. Challenge of a changing middle east and the challenge of terrorism 1st question Libya. Four dead. What happened, where was policy failure .... Romney, you said unravelling before our eyes. R. Obfiously an are of great concern to the whole world and america too.l Hope oderation opportunity womenb public life economic events. Instead .... Syria 30L deak Libya 4 some tyope of terrorist Mali Egyipt MUuslim prseident Can't kikll ouer way out fo thuis placel Comperhensive strategy for Islamic xtremism Must have comprehensive stragegy O: Keep america safe end war on Iraq. Foc7us on core leadership of kilole3rs.l Transition ouf od afghaistanb. Bulid allienance c ombat future threats. Libay debate phone call. Secure americans, investigate. Goi after those who killed bering to justice. Zstep back and think what happened. I and ame3ricans international coalition. KLow cost, 40 years got rid of a despot who hgad kille3d Americans. America is our friend,k marchingb in Benhazi. Romeny, gotta tell you, your strartwegty is alkl ovcwer the plkace. R. go aftwer the bad guys. Broader. Kety pathgway. Rejec t on its own righgt courase. go after leaders against anit-am groups.l Arab sc holars help the world UN . More econo mic aid, development, direct foreign inbvestiment Educationb Womenb Rule of Law Rioting tide of Chaoes Alqaeda rusginbg in Libay Egyp 80 million.l Mali \Syria, Kill own people. And of course Iranbn ...., O: You said Russia. You said Russia. Cold war over twennty years. Our foreign policy, you want the 1980s. Not interested in Iraq? More troops? You shouel have gone into Iraq, despite. Still have teroops. Indicated we should not be passing treaties with Russia. 77 sentator.l No timeline, Yes, . No, Maybe. Confused. WS Strrong steady leadershgip, not all ove tyhe map.; Yoyir opinions all over the map. R: they not accurate. Middle East reject terrorist tumult and c onfusion. Attacking me is not an agenda. Stem tide of bioelnce Russia is geopolitical foe. Iran is our I have clear eyes about Putin, after the election he will get more back talk. Status oif forces agreemenbtn No says Ob ama. 10000 troops. Romney, I concurred. O: we should still have troops in Iraq. R: you failed O: I have learned as commander in chiefl You have to be clear and firm. That is not a recipe, yours, opportunity, challenge. Canbnot just meet military, I will numb wer one supporin g coutern terrorism. two stanbd by Israil. Threa relspect ereligious minorities and womeb., four Econcomin. fivc e can't continbue to do nationb bulinbg there, nationb builkidb gthgere at ghomne. Scghieffer: Syria. Lebanon 1000 people killed, domos (wrong) Mr Prez,l you told Assad to go, should we reassess our policy ? O; we organized the internationbal community,k sanctins, isolation, humanitarianb, syrians must determine its ownb future. We coooperated with Israel and Turkey. heartbreaking. Ev erything we can to help opposition. We can get entangled is serious, we have to be careful.l We have to watch weapons. What we cannot do is sim0ply suggest we give heavy weapionbsn to the opposition is a simpple poropositions. R: Syria 30k dead. Iranbn route to the sea to Hezbollah. Seeing him go is critical. three we want military involvement without military invol ment get a coucniel then give them arms.l Wrong hands. coordinated alies, with Israiel. >Saudi Qatar Turmys. Effective policy arm the inbsurgents. HE will go. Have friendshipo wit peo0ple who take its place. Syria as our friend is critical. Prez said UN. Kofi Annan. Russians. We should lead, not on the ground with guns. O: we do. Libya. How we make choices. We could go in, gaddafi. Romeny supported libya. You suggest missionb creep. We pull out? Blood on US hands more than Osama. We did it careful thoughtful, used forces for moderation work with on the gournd. Same on Syuria. Sch: No fly zone? R: no military in Syria. New government friendly to us. Get armed then. Remove assad. Not military involvement on the side of our troops. Support our troops. Time for American role. Find parties, bring responsible parties. Insurgents are unified with coucncil.American can make that happen. Then get arms. O": quick.; Romney says blah. We are doing exactly what we should be doing. We will continue. Sch: Inb Egypt, you said Mubarak go. Regret:? O: no, JFK Us leadership. I say now democratically government, they must protect religious minorities and women. Critical. Education women. abide by treaties with Israel. RED LINE. Cooperate in counterrevolution.Re Younbg people with opportuniites, must like here. jobs, swhcool, roof over head, better life. We do it. Conferences with Egyptians, not corrupt, transparent. FoR us TO be like out there int he world, we have to do things at home. We cannot lead without blah. Sch: Mubarak? R: better vision of the future. Energy for freedom transition, not explode. Explode felt same as Prez. Egypt Principles. Crushing people bad. What is our purpose. We are peaceful. Bvright prosperous future. Mantle of princi0ples of peace is for ameraic. Principle of peace means we must be strong,k Iran debt amkes us not a great country. Debt is national security weakeness. Strong military. Terrific soldiers, blah. No military cuts. Allies essential. We have allies 42 allies aroun d the world. In nowhere today is America's influence stronger than four years ago. Q: Role. R: Princi0ple to Peace. Freedom list vote princ8iples Conflict. wha t to end conflict Must be strong. America must leAD 23 MILION OUT OF JOB Kids in college no jobs economy go8ing. Strengthen our mnilityar. Confront challenges. No terror in 200 debate Alies tentions unfortunate israel Poland. Disrupting. Green revolution principles Iran strong O: we are strong. We ended Iraq, focus, on alliances neglected. Alliances never stronger in Eur Asia, Africa. Threat Po sition ourself to rebulid amercia Manufacturing Education jobs retraining tomorrow ontrol our own energy,k get iol imports down, lclean energy. c ut expo0rts in half Leadership. Reduce deficit. Reposnible. Weatlthy pay more. Research Technology. Ronneyt takes a differnce apporack Wronbg and Reckless. Bush Cheney. Back to those days. Not the way we take leadershio; R: I knowq what it takes to create millions of jobs. Fouer years. unemploym ent Get america working again, rising pay. Five simple steps. Iole. Oil. GTrade.l Latin Amecian. Latin economy. Almost a big as china. Latin America. Traning program.l Schools with parents first teacher and unions behind. Entreprener. Greece. Going to greace spe3ndinbg and borrowing binge. Sma ll buisness. New business 30 years down. Get hgood jobs. O: what do we ned to competer? IN Mass you were low small business develop0. You don't help. Small business is not you and me. Example.; Education po.licyt.L>eader Reform education. Gains in schools. Straring to make progress. Hire more teachers in math and science. Make a difference Romney said class sizes do not make a difference. M<athi teache rs need support that will new business, hig skill, your budget, not a dime more, slash suppoert for education undermines our long-term importance. power. R: proud of our 4th graders and our 8th graders. How did we do it. Education bipartisan. Great teacher in classroom. Ten years in office kept shools numbwer one. Graduation examijnh, Compete quarter tuition free ride? Sch: We have heard this You want bigger navy, Where's the money? R: Curt 5 percent discretionary. Come on our website 8-10 yaers., Obamacare. Can't affort. Day One. Programme after programmed get rid of. Keep Midciad poor give to states efficient. Giv e me programme. I can run better Arizone prove Mideical does cost-effectiviely. Balanced budge. Milki Military: Should have answered the first qauestion. O: Math does not work. Trirllion on military. up each year spend we spend china russian france you tname it. I worked with joints staff. What we can'[t do is spend 2 more trillion. Five trillion. Close loophols do not name. Somehow deficit. Math does not work. Military not just budget but capabilities, cyberseceruity, deri en by what we need. That our budget Reduce deficie. security concern Project military power overseas. R: Olympics, balanced budgets. cut taxxes. President not. I expect to balance the budge. Our navy is small. we headed to the low 200. We need ships we need FDR air force two conflicts at one. change . Highest resonsibility. i will not cut our military budget. Sequestration cuts. Less certain. O: Sequestration will not happen. It is not reducing. Submarines are not ships. How are we goind to meet all our defence needs. Veterans suppoert. That is not reflected in your budge Sch: REd lines. would either of you be willing to declare that an attack on Israel is an attack on the US. Would this deter Iran, this worked with the Soviet Union. O: If America stanbd with Israel if attacked, Strong military alliance3. This week Iran, will not get nukes. We organized coalintion. Crippling econommmy, ishamblkes Reason is the treat to Israel . Cannot have arms race in this part of world. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorist Israel wiped off. Iran has choice take diplomatic route of united world and take nothibgn off the talbe. Premature miliatryer action . Last resort. R: Underscore Obama. Israel. Iran. No question nuclear Iran unacceptable. Blah canbnbot take it any more, Schieffer has laid out six general areas to explore, including Afghanistan/Pakistan, the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon and what Israel might do about it, "the changing Middle East and the new face of terrorism," and China. But the topic that could draw out the clearest difference between the candidates is the one Schieffer calls "America's role in the world." Or, in a word, leadership. Here are a few questions I hope Schieffer asks that could help viewers cut through the posturing to see how Obama and Romney might handle foreign-policy challenges in different ways: Under what circumstances should the United States go it alone to advance its foreign-policy interests, as opposed to working in concert with its allies? Russia and China have blocked or undermined a number of U.S. foreign-policy efforts, such as pressuring Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program. What's the right U.S. response to those two countries? Does the United States' image in the rest of the world matter, and if so, what's the best way to enhance it? Under what circumstances would you commit U.S. combat forces to intervene in an uprising such as the ones that have been occurring in the Middle East? If Israel bombs Iranian nuclear facilities, how should the United States respond? Both candidates have said they intend to withdraw combat forces from Afghanistan in 2014. What developments, if any, might delay that withdrawal? Should there be a peace dividend with the end of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or should the United States maintain its defense spending at its pre-withdrawal level? The administration has come under sustained criticism for its evolving explanation of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya. What should the administration have done differently, and what's the lesson for how to comment on such incidents in the future? What limits should there be on the use of Predator drone strikes outside the battlefield in Afghanistan? What steps, if any, should the United States take to promote a better global response to climate change? Finally, is China illegally manipulating the value of its currency? If so, what can the United States do about that without triggering a trade war, or giving other nations an excuse to brand the United States a currency manipulator based on the Federal Reserve's efforts to bring down interest rates?

According the Wikipedia article on Yaron Brook, "Yaron Brook was born and raised in Israel. His parents were Jewish socialists who were originally from South Africa." I assume his first language was modern Hebrew, not Berlinish**. It is usually not nice to make fun of or point out a speech impediment. In this case, more fun can be made of doing somersaults to imagine Brook's troubles with R are an accent. It doesn't matter to viewers/listeners, I would wager. The fact that he speaks funny will be put to 'accent' alone. Many Americans have 'odd' accents, and it is not a bad thing. I am always amazed at the strikingly-convincing American accents put on (or adopted for good) by Kiwi and Aussie and UK performers: Russel Crowe, Heath Ledger, Hugh Laurie, Nicole Kidman ... they are professionals who have programmed their mouth parts to do this. Brook has no need to programme his mouth parts, since he is Objectivist, and is mostly perfect anyhow. This is from a guy who loathes Brook's policies in re targetting civilians for US wrath (when 'necessary'). This insanity has nothing to do with Objectivism and much to do with his attachment to dead-end military fascism. It could have been him looking like Doctor Strangelove on Bill O'Reilly, but the craziness would have been in his words and convictions, not in an Elmer Fudd presentation. After all, the dulcet tones of Peikoff's particular voice are not what make him odious, but his cruelty and stupidity. ________________ ** Here's Marlene singing Where have all the flowers gone. For the life of me I cannot discern a Bwook-level Fuddishness with the phoneme R. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKxaMAxC3Go Where have all the gwaveyawds gone?

We kind of know what to expect from this moderator. He has a bit more gravitas than Candy, and the format is under his control -- meaning he can use the ten or so minutes not capped in the 2-minute initial statements to direct followups. I hope he has given some teeth to the murkish subject areas already defined. How can any moderator get two determined men to get off Platitude Island? For my part, I think Romney and Obama will use the same tropes of strength, power, USA rah rah, responsibility, security -- it just goes on and on what can be said without coming down from the clouds. I expect very sharp exchanges over Benghazi/Libya/Obama weakness/shabby intel/WH overmassage and so on, but I think it may be undercut by a few forward-looking questions. As for the Iran/October surprise, Romney will get burned if he brings that up, because on the surface there is not one thing in Romney's stated policy to separate his from official policy of the USA. If he is well-briefed, Romney will know the details of all the freaking acronyms, and be able to answer to his position of the success/failure/goals of the P5+1 talks, and the standing policy of 'engagement' carrot and stick, and IAEA, PKK, KYD, FJP, AKP and blabbity blah blah. If he is as smart as his smartest advisors, he will remember that he is not speaking only to the US TV audience. He will adopt, if wise, a Presidential tone and carefully curb his remarks. Any unusual belligerence without content ("I will make more belligerent statements, and um, yeah, Israel") will mark him out as the awkward amateur he was in his abroad visits so far. I wll be looking for anything that pertains to Syria and its travails. If the level of detail comes out on the Libya/Jihadi/Arms to Syria issue, I will be especially watchful for some money-where-mouth-is. By this, I mean, if Romney gives the least indication that he will really get belligerent with Assad -- and lay on some stingers and other Manpads -- then I will switch my hopes to a Romney win. Realisticly, the US ship of state does no quick turns. It travels on a generational-time mission. One aspect of the Bush Doctrine (a deliberate US involvement in 'Freedom' from tyranny in the Middle East) directly contributed to the Arab Spring, and it continued in modified form under Clinton. So, will Romney actually (once in the pilot seat) start pushing thrust and swinging the wheel? Will Iran suddenly get all weak at the knees from mere words? Will Romney commit his own energies to intensely, personally manage the Iran file? Will Romney contribute to the downfall of Assad, really? I just do not yet see him doing anything different, and certainly not in the first week or month of his Administration. American action will be in Obama's hands meanwhile. What happens in the world during a lame-duck season? I hope Romney can navigate the minefields surrounding Republican policies, whether Afghanistan or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Bahrain or Kuwait or Iraq or Libya. If he has his own, great, hope he can clearly articulate them. US voters will make a decision. the watching world can only wait/hope/fear. Yeah. But it looks like a full half hour will be devoted to 'the new face of terrorism.' I am trying to think of what I would hope both men would demonstrate: a sophisticated understanding, not just talking points and campaign sludge. On China, the only thing I get from Romney is Tough Talk. He will declare China a currency manipulator. Then what? What else? What does he want with China? Is China as much an enemy as his declared Number One Adversary, Russia? Will there be any tough questions for broader US policy: Why does the US have a firm ally in oppressive religious autocracies (ie, UAE minus Qatar, Saudi)? I don't think either candidate will be able to say anything coherent or convincing about Freedom/Liberty/Yadda while in bed with the royals, emirs and strict fundamentalists. This bizarre hypocrisy rises from the a-realism of the Bush Doctrine as it pertains to 'friends,' but is embedded in both parties over-arching security-first stance. In other words, both men will have to defend an incoherent mess of Middle East policies going back fifty years and more if they want to stress American principles of justice and individual freedom and opportunity. Both men have exactly the same policies in re Iran save for the wrapping paper. I do not think Romney has much more than a 'talk tough' knob to turn. In the end, I am pretty ignorant about the importance of foreign policy to those who will vote. It may be that enough undecided voters will like the 'body language' and 'tone' of one or the other candidate. Will voters be swayed by rhetoric, splendid rhetoric, and if so, to which side? If the taint of Bush militarism can be applied to Romney, it might smell good to just enough stunned undecideds to push him ahead in the battleground states. I do wonder how we can assess the competence of the two in this area, how to assess the assessments of the voters. I expect purely sectarian reactions (Fox: Romney Wins Big!, MSNBC: Obama Crushes Magic Pants!) and then a hurricane of spin spin spin. Do you have any pointed questions you would like answered of both men, Robert? -- I should mention that the most ironic part of present Objectivish Romney supporters is that they previously considered him dogs-breakfast Republican junk.

Or worse, Justicialism. I am afraid to listen to Uncle Kookiepants, but I will. Maybe the Doctor is wrong and the wisdom drips like pure sweet honey. Here is the leading Justicialist in the world, recieving her sash of office:

Do you watch the debates. Brant? You do not have much to say about foreign policy differences between the two candidates**. I guess we can both imagine Magic Underwear having a lot of platitudes ready (America Strong Power Israel Strong America Power America blah) but what is the difference? How do we expect the slaughter to be accomplished on these topics? America's role in the world Our longest war - Afghanistan and Pakistan Red Lines - Israel and Iran The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism - I The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism - II The Rise of China and Tomorrow's World Here's some things to consider for those who have not already watched the debate in their imaginations. It may make no difference (as Adam says, "it's over" and Romney will win) ... (this is from the New York Times blogger Daniel Sanger. Perhaps not as interesting as the research from The Globe ...) -- there is more at the link. But some of us know already, don't we? __________________ ** (added) Brant actually weighs in on 'basic' policy differences: Romney's not much different than Obama in terms of basic policies

Yes. You get a small piece of apple (treated with BT) for your ability to hit some buttons. If you watch , Jerry, you can see it took the star pupil quite some time to get to the level of proficiency displayed above (that's right, over a year of practice). For those who think less like a chimp (mmmmm, BT apple) and more like a human (I can read and you can't), here is the paper that claims something extraordinary about Chimp memory: Inoue, S. and Matsuzaka, T., (2007). Working memory of numerals in chimpanzees. Current Biology 17 No. 23 [Full text] From the Youtube description of the Nat Geo video poked out by our resident Chimp: -- From a second Cook and Wilson paper abstract (Do young chimpanzees have extraordinary working memory?): One more visual treat for you, Jerry -- Chimpanzee Porn! Not quite as sexy as your cousins poking at a screen, but hey.

You are right. This is not an "October Surprise" to anyone but me, it seems. The proof of the Obama gay killing spree? Not from the World Nut Daily, nope. I got to start paying more attention to 'alternative' news sources for the real truth ...

Here is something that is much more October Surprising in re Obama. As reported by Adam's trusted news source WND:

In post # 4 and # 5 above, Ninth and Reidy called "bullshit" on the report on the Iranian double agent's revelation about the October surprise just about three (3) days ago and lo and behold, the NY Times comes out with this today! Yeabut. Adam, the two stories are not the same -- the WND is not the NYT story, neither in content nor in claim. It is the WND story that had the stink of BS to the two worthy gents. Surely you see that distinction. If Iran has finally agreed to one-on-one talks with the USA, this is not what he claims. He claims that an agreement between the two governments has already been detailed, in terms of abandoning enrichment in exchange for lightening the sanctions that are destroying Iran's economy. (see Secretary Clinton's remarks from October 4th) I am more interested in how you estimate the difference between the USA sanctions/negotiations/P5+1 talks and what Romney has yet to mumble mumble backtrack on his 'plan.' I hope that the 'one on one' item comes up in debate questions and followup. Both men should be held to the fire on what their endgame is and how they would get there. _______________ The original WND story has an update prepended (emphasis added): Editor’s note: Tonight the New York Times is reporting the Obama administration is opening direct talks with Iran in uranium enrichment issues. WND’s earlier reports, including this one, provide the depth and context for this announcement. Reza Kahlili will discuss this breaking story on an upcoming edition of “Fox and Friends,” time to be announced.

If I read this story correctly, the pseudonymous writer (who is supposedly a double-agent, by his own admission) claims an agreement has been reached: halt part of the nuclear programme, get some sanctions lifted. This NYT story claims that Iran and the USA have agreed to One-on-One negotiations. This Reuters story (as did the NYT story) contains an official denial of the 'agreement on talks.' Question for Adam: how does the NYT story relate to the WND story? You lolled that you are accepting 'apologies.' What for? -- the next debate should be extremely interesting, as both Obama and Romney will be closely questioned on Iran and the nuclear issue. I have followed Romney's public statements on Iran. Besides rhetorical excess, he has not yet shown a plan that has the least bit of daylight between his own and the present US plan. Here are the supposed topics that will be covered in Boca Raton (from the Commission for Presidential Debates: .

Hands broken, Brant? I found a long, poorly-sourced article from the fabulist Ann Coulter. Here's what she said, in piece republished at Human Events: Massive amounts. 10,000 occupants. 5 times safe. 96 percent. Blah. Or, a report from Wikipedia that does contain sources (which I leave in): But I read something somewhere. Blah. Didn't check. Hoo haw. Here is a report from the Taipei Times (cited above at supra note 16):

She "often" confused aesthetic and moral criteria? I can only think of one example off the top where she might have done that, the one-word reply on Maxfield Parrish. Was she talking aesthetics or ethics? Is that all she is known to have ever said on the subject of Maxfield Parrish? "Trash"? I wonder (in trepidation) how the Parrish quote has been spun by the Rand collegiates. Jonathan, can you remember anyone expanding that one-word answer into a stunning argument? I found an image of Parrish used to illustrate a Rand-inflected book. From Amazon:

I think someone (not the Salon writer) is mistaking 'presidential campaigns' with 'incumbent presidential campaigns.' I don't know who originated the legislation or refined the rules or by what process, but this is the root of the regulation (from the FCC): I don't think that needs too much interpretation. Lowest Unit Charge is available to both campaigns. SuperPACs are not able to avail themselves of the lower rate, neither those acting for Obama or those acting for Romney. The differences in strategy between Obama/Romney and various SuperPACS is outined in the story cited by Mike E. Does that answer your question, Adam Mike?

I have to agree with the broad strokes here: a pragmatic genius of 'the socialist experiment' is one thing -- I do not find a genius in socialist pragmatics, not at all, while I do think that no 'socialist experiment' can find success without a (relatively) free economy. But to understand my agreement with the point that Socialism Need Capitalism, I will try to illustrate, even give a tie-back into electoral politics in the USA. I think the socialist experiment in the USA and in Canada began at roughly the same time. I give an example of Worker's Compensation and State Pensions. Those who are familiar with the history of these two experiments will note that the experiments were designed to 'fix' something. In the first case it was litigation costs following earlier laws that allowed workers to sue their employers for injuries recieved on the job. The compulsion (making Worker's compensation mandatory) was introduced following court decisions that found compulsory schemes constitutional. In every case, states can compel (and penalize non-adherence) employers to subscribe to state schemes. State pension's first experiment in the modern age in the USA (notwithstanding military or service pensions offered following the revolutionary and Civll wars) began more or less at the same time as Canada. These experiments compelled contributions. Skipping ahead to our age, the socialist experiment of worker's compensation and state-mandated pensions has also been added to by various 'social welfare' schemes for the indigent or victims of disaster, for children and for other social groups targetted: the unemployed, widows of breadwinners, etcetera and so on.. None of these experiments have elsewhere achieved the full range of products that are the norm in the so-called Western Democracies -- not in the former or current Communist nations, not in 'emerging nations,' and definitely not in the poor and struggling nations. China has fuck all for pensions or assistance for its people since the fall of the Iron Ricebowl. No countries other than the rich and productive have managed to provide the range of compulsion and social products mandated by nations of the West. Folks who think that Canada is 'socialist' while the USA is 'capitalist' are making a mistake, a category error. -- to bring back the electoral angle on socialism/capitalism/compulsion, I mark out the two times Romney mentioned Canada; in one instance he highlighted the difference in corporate income tax levels. Canada's are (by his reckoning) significantly lower. In the other instance he hammered on a 'pipeline from Canada.' What I got out of that was his idea that 'Energy Independence' could be achieved in America by importing its present day comsumption from, um, foreign sources -- from us. In my opinion, US energy independence (from the Middle East/Venezuela/Libya) is a pipe-dream. There simply is not enough immediately recoverable oil in North America to feed the beast, not without new energy sources to displace - and not without forcing Canada to abandon its other markets for our products. Recall that Canada has the third largest world reserves after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela -- and more than ten times the amount recoverable from the USA.

But how likely is it that the moons of Jupiter are composed of pistachio flavored halva? Not a scintilla of evidence exists which would I think somebody is kiddink here. The moons of Jupiter are 67 in number. The major moons we know as Io, Callisto, Ganymede and Europa. Maybe Tony is playing with his idiosyncratic concept of 'skepticism,' wherein nothing can be known. Funny in this context (of Halva with pistacchio). But, to play along with the jest, Io is believed to be composed of silicate rock, with a molten iron or iron sulfide core. Most of the surface is shows evidence of sulfur or sulfur dioxide 'frost' (according to WIkipedia). Io is the first image below. I can see how Tony might mistake this for halvah in his current lighthearted mood. I will leave it to him to give us some counter-evidence supporting his "fond belief" about items in our solar system.

That could happen. The latest polls from Pennsylvania (won by Obama in 2008) show variation between the lowest Obama percent (of likely voters) at 43% to Romney's 40% (Siena College, Oct 9) and Public Policy's numbers from Sept 29: Obama at 52% and Romney at 40%. Possible too, I suppose. The latest numbers from 270towin show Obama at 49%, Romney at 39%. The highest percentage reached by Romney is from July's Public Pollicy sample, with 46% versus Obama at 50%. What polling do you use to push PA out of the Obama win column into a Romney win, Adam?

If this is Adam's final answer (I hope not), then the electoral map would show something like this: -- this screenshot of a 327/211 split is from http://www.270towin.com. The interactive electoral calculator is a handy way of putting scenarios in play. By observing swing-state polling, one can make more or less reliable guesses. I think Adam's guess is way off, judging from today's soundings. Polls from both swing and solid states are agglomerated at 270towin's polling section: http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/

I forgot to mention a low point in my viewing, a gambit by Sharpton in a post-debate scrum. He observed that only two visible minority folks had asked questions, couldn't figure out how that could happen in the consitutiency in this part of New York. Why only one 'black' question? I waited for someone to quickly remind him that these were undecided voters, and that the black 90% plus committed to Obama kind of self-excluded from the pool. Did anyone else take a lesson from the channel bias in the snap polls? It makes me think of the psychological term 'demand characteristics.' -- as for the Benghazi affair, I think the administration deserves as much raking over the coals as they can get. It is a terrible thing that there was not more protection or intelligence. I don't think the president has adequately responded to concerns, and I hope Romney can better articulate his line. As ever, the swing-states swing. We all look at the sme electoral votes, even if we watch different news channels that skew our perceptions of the same race. Some of us here have already called the race, some have not.

Drier than usual, Brant. If I can entertain your question, neither a conservative nor a radical for freedom. I would like to choose my own party label. There are two kinds of people in the world, those who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who do not. I found a neat set of insta-soundings from a review of the post-debate snap polls. On seeing MSK's note on a Luntz focus group, I wondered if this ref was from news feed/crawl/update or from online source, so searched up "network polls debate" on Google News. I haven't yet see Fox polls or seen details of Luntz's group, but CBS and CNN reported snap polls so far of Obama/Romney 46/39 and 37/30. Here's some other bits I found pertinent to divining what 'the public' hold in their minds at that moment, from a press release by the wonks at Public Policy Polling. I found this audio version of what I guess was a TV appearance but did not get the details of the group beyond undecided and Nevada. Sounds like homespun gold.**

I have parked it at my blog because of its atrocious spelling and syntax, but I think I nailed it at least in broad strokes. I toyed with putting it under Humour. I love the Town Hall format. We try to do it in Canada, but here we cannot structurally deliver the focus of a US debate. With five party leaders, we do not put on the same kind of encounter. On points, I do not know how to reckon it. Obama's demeanor lost him the first debate -- vexed, fatigued/lazy, wonkish, irritated, not in control of the temper of the encounter or the format. In tonight's encounter I saw two fact-check-on-aisle-two moments, one of which Romney fumbled. The best Obama moment I thought was when he got quietly aggressive and used prestige of office to undercut Romney's Libya moment. The look on Romney's face was indicative to me of bad briefing. The best Romney moment came with his crisp summation of the figures of the staggering 'recovery.' If Obama turns out to have edged Romney tonight, I credit the Town Hall format. That's because the format allowed both men to talk louder than in the first, use the cadences one uses with a crowd, and here I think Obama is better at emoting. All in all, I feel frightened, alone, vulnerable that the US might take a Republican lurch, fearing I might soon be deprived of the teat by knock-on. Burp. In truth, if I felt Romney had more conviction on bold action (as in Syria, where he uses more threatening language than Obama) and a more assertive power (I am a closet security hawk) and could enunciate American principles (freedom, rule of law, democracy) as well as Bush did in the Middle East (yes, I secretly credit Bush with groundwork for the Arab Spring), I would pine for his win. But I think he is bullshitting. Best word: sketchy. This election could be exciting, bite-your-lip stuff. I hope we can have a cliff-hanger and then a good party afterwards here at OL, one way or the other. We Canucks have only longings and cultural affinities in the race, no votes, and zero influence.

First question to Romney. From a college kid. Romney, college kid Philadelphia make it easier for kids to afford college John and Abigail adams scholarships Loan programmes Key ... can you get a job after school I know what it takes to get our economy going More debt, less jobs, I know what it takes Kids recognized Middle class crushed Jobs scarce. Obama Your future is bright. You made an investment Most important jobs good-paying jobs build on 5 million jobs Build manufacturing] Detroit go bankrupt Not just in Detroit Change tax code to exp Make sure we have the best education Student loands Community coillege retraining Our own energy Future sources Invest Reduce the deficit Invest War money, roads bridge schools Romney: Q 40% unemployed long term Romney 23 milliion job President policies haven't put americans back to work Percentage 5 point plan (?) Prez said. Bankrupt, come out stronger Took bankrupt. You did. Process was necessary. Hire more people. I'll tell more ... Obama: take in bankruptcy GM Chrysler Romney says 5 plan One point plan Folks at top play by a different set of rules Make lot money ship jobs overseas, Bankrupt make money Middle class families Fought back four years to get out To Obama: Romney, shut up Your energy sec 3 times Gas Prices Control our own energy Oil production up Natural gas production up Coal We can't JUST produce traditional sources Car go twide as far on a gallon of gas Lowest oil imports Drilling Priority 600,000 jobs natural gas How we have efficient energy, gas prices low Romney. let oil companies write energy policies Think ten years from now. China Germany, jobs bulit here in the USA Romney: lets look at policies President is right. None came of federal land. Down this year Pres cut in half licenses North Dakota Administration criminal action 25 birds were killed criminal Oil, Gas, Coal, Nuciear, solar I was in coal country cannot build a coal plant Energy sources for the future Energy North American energy independence Abundant more drilling pipeline from Canada I'm going to do Obama: new normal four dollar gallon No doubt demand is up, very litte of Romney is true More public land drilling Natural gas ... working with industry Romney coal guy -- This Plant Kills ... shut it down So what I try to do is be consistend Cleaner and smarter Fewer imports Cars Save money in your own product Not true More licences Romney .. bicker Oil companies public land. You cannot do it on your own schedules Use it or Lose it Rewriting Absolutely true Federal lands Coal production not up All of the above You had your chance That wasn't a question I will fight for all coal and gas Price at the pump 1.86 gallion. Pipeline from Canada Gas prices Obama --- if your energy policy is working ... ? Economy collapse from Romney polictyy Back in same mess Pipeline ... ignore other half of the equation Imaginary jobs. Right now? Working wind power manufacturing jobs Romney says get rid of it. Crawley Romney. butt in Candy. Wind jobs in Iowa. make sure very aggressive energy policy Obama let me interrupt you ... Q you hage stated tax -- deduction, mortgage, charitable, child tax, education credit .. what is yoru position Romney. Bring rates down. (deduction?) Deduction .... Deductions? Middle income crushed ... rates down across the board. Limit deductions ... top five percentage. Stay the same Middle income people get break 25,000 fill in that bucket No tax on capital gains, savings, investments on less that 200k I will not reduce the share of high income 4000 dollars Get on Track Help families Obama: My philosophy is simple. Middle class relief, Hit hard. 20 years. Cut taxes -- continue tax cuts on small business In addition to spending cuts, wealthy do more 200, 000 no change Ready to sign that bill Romney;s chums Bill Clinton ... tax deficit Romney has a different philosophy Fair ... Fundamental differences What grows economy. A year of campaigning .... I am going to give tax cuts Romney: my tax plan. top five Rates down, lower exemptions [Numbers?] 54 percent individual tax business Hire more people Four years -- we can do better Unemployment 31/2 million more women Energy independence China] Small business Obama: top 4 percent. Not settled Cost of lower rates, elimate estate tax, corporate 5 trillion dollars. Military programmes seven trillion dollars. 8 trillion. No deficit ... how are you going to do. can't tell you which deductions 14% haven't heard specifics. Big Bird, Planned Parenthood. 8 trillion dollars. tell you after the election. No sketchy deal. Deficit Additional spending; alternative .. YOu are goidn to be paying for it. Nobody believes it Governor Romney, if it does not add up. Of course they add up. Businesses balance budget. balance budget. 4 trillion dollar deficit. My real plan. Four years 18 trillion deficit Road to Greece. i know what it takes. Offsetting Q. New ways inequality in workplace? Obama: single mom, grandma. secretary, no college. Smart as whip VP. Glass cieling. Lily ledbetter. Doing same job as man. Pay less. No suit. No way of finding out. we fixed that. Women are breadwinners. Family issue. means we gotta make sure can afford college. Pell grants. Millions of young women. 60 million dollars to middlemen. Young women ... enforce the laws. Every walk of life,. discrimination. Push for four years. Romney: I learned as governor. Cabinet. Qualifications. can't we find women. Find women to cabinet. Help us. Binders full of women. UNY. Massachusetss senior women. Why ... recruiting. Flexible. Kids in school. be able to get home. Make dinner. Find. Flexible schedule. New economy. Employers will be anxious to hire women. Povery women. Help you women with strong economy. Flexible. Look forward to doing. Know what it takes to make an economy work. economy economy job. Stronger economy Obama: Ledbetter? Not the kind of answer women need. other issue. Succeed in work place. Health care. Governor comfortable with washington health care coverage. Contaceptive. Health, economy. Oppose. Employers make decision contraception; Not what women need. Planned parenthood. Mammograms, pocketbook issue. Make a difference. child care. Credits. Makes a difference. Not just women's issues. Family issues. Women get the same fair deal. Q: Undecided. disappointed in progress. Attribute problems of Bush. Republican .. fear a policy return. What is the difference. Romney: make sure, my last answer. Bureaucrats in Washington. every woman. Completely and totally wrong. Five point plan. New technology. Arabs venezuelans. Robust all energy Trade; Crack down on china. Latin American free trade. balance budget not Bush. Deficit. More deficit. Small business ... I understand how hard it is to start a small business. Regulators. Obamacare. Troubling. Keeps me from hiring more people. Bush ... small business. Obama: losing 800 thousand jobs a year. 41 months of job growth. Romney says plan. Tax cuts. Surplus to deficit. Tough on China;. Pioneers of outsourcing. Surveilance spy. Get tough, you are that last person. Trade. Task force. American workers. Twice as many cases unfair trade practices. China. Protectionist, says Romney; Tough trade actions. Medicare into a voucher. self deportation. Planned parenthood. Not on economy policty. Extreme on social policy ... Q: Michael jones. I voted for you in 2008. Not optimistic. Expensive. Obama. Tough four years. Iraq, tax cuts. 9/11. Al |Qaeda. Jerk you around. Afford health care. wall street reform. making progress. Auto industry. You. A lot of us strugges. Savings. education. Rebuild America. Control energy. Make a difference. I kept my promises. Not lack of trying. Pay attention to campaign. Romney promises. Troops . Repeal. ME too. Obama care. Me too Not the kind of leadership . Whose promise are better. Romney: I think you know better. Elect Obama, get what you got for four years. 5.4 percent. 9 million americans. didn\t get there. Plan to reform medicare, social security. No proposal. Immigration. Nothing. Not been able to do what he said he would do. Double deficit. Premiums. Obama care is implemented. Middle class getting crushed. get economy working again. Record. Looking for work. Poverty. Food stamps. 57 million. Growth of economy. Obama Dodd/frank. Take off and grown. Got example.Five million job. Little low. Dropped out fo work force. Tried. Great as speaker. Look at record. Deficit. Medicare Social Security. 23 million. wHO CAN GET middle class ... W what are your immigration plans. Step back. nation of immigrants. Welcome. Dad. Wales. Mexican. Legal immigrants. streamline. Shouldn[t have to hire a lawyer. Green cards, skills. Science, Math. Legal system. Stop illegal immigration. No amnesty. Employment verification system. Sanction. No driver\s licences. Kids. Kids should have a pathway .. military service. Filed a bill. Reform. Didn't do it. Super majority. Illegally. Obama: Nation of immigrants. Ellis island. Talent all around. Laws. I said fix broken immigration ... sought cooperation. streamline. Easier, simpler, cheaper. Good for growth. Business. Make things happen. Border control. Undocumented workers lower than 40 years. Do it smart. Gang members. Not students. Feed families. Done. Young people. School. Think of themselves as American. Pathway. Romney says. Veto agreement for access. main strategy. Self-=deprotation. Miserable, Arizona law model for the nation. Stop check papers. Your daughter like a citizen .. I don't want to empower. Can fix this system. Obama did not try? Not true. Hard for Republicans to support reform when leader. Candy: self-deportation. Romney: e-verify. Model for nation. Hispanics. Univision. File legislation. Standard bearer. four years a go. File legislation. Licking my wounds Not standard bear. Honour promise. Self-deportation. not going to round up. make up own minds. Not if favour of rounding people up. Agree with president. Chinese .... Romney make it short. Investment blind trust 8 years. Chinese companies. Pension? Pension? Pension? Let me give you some advice. Invest in China .. Cayman's. Crosstalk. Obama: Arizona law is his policy leader. All around the world American land of promise. Intel, Google. Smart and comprehensive. Divisive political issue. Bipartisan. We have not seen .. at all. Get serious. Q: braintrust global telecom Libya. state department. Refused extra community. Who denied extra security Obama. I send them there, I knwo these folks. Benghazi. three instuctions. Beef up security. Investigate. Accountable. Hunt them down. When folks mess with Americans we go after them. While we were dealing with our diplomats, Romney make political points. Not when it is happening. Not everyon agrees with me. I mean what I say. Iraq. Transition. Afghanistan. We are goign to find out, held accountable. I am responsibie. You know I mean what I say. Romney: Obama buck stop. Takes responsibility for security. Feel deeply sympathetic. Memorial. Family. --- We did not know what happened. Fundraiser. Actions symbolic, material. call the eye-witnesses. Not a demonstration. Calls into policy. Syria Egypt Libya. Israel. Daylight. Iran nuclear bomb. Syria strategic player. President leading from behind. strategy unravelling. Candy: Secretary Clinton; Full responsibility for attack on Benghazi Obama; she works for me; I am responsible. the day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden. Hunt down. I wAS THERE greeting the caskets. The suggestion that anyone on my team, anybody would play politics when we lose one of own -- that is offensive. Romney: interesting. On the day after the attacks. An act of terror. ? Romney lies ... Q nina gonzalez During DNC ... limit access to assault weapons. Too many incidents Aurora. Lost people. i saw a mother who I met at the bedside. Shot son, in head. 2 months later. Showed up good as new. Lot of famlied did not. Keep guns out of criminal hands. Weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theatres do not belong on our streets. Can we get an assault ban; Schools are working. Catch it before it gets out of control. Strategy. Mentally ill. Get into community. Catch violent before it occurs. Romney; of course automatic weapons are illegal. change the culture of violence. Agree with Obama. Parents. Moms and dads. Two parents in home. Tell our kids to get married. Two parent family. Child make changes in culture. Greatest failure is fast and furious. Programme to don't now. Automatic gave them to drug lords against citizens and americans. I can;t imagine. Great tragedies. American people would like to know. executive privilege. Mexican drug lords. Candy: Assault weapons ban rescinded. Why did you change your mind. Pro gun anti Hunting. Washington gridlock. No leadership. Bi partisan, my state. Obama; changed his mind on assaut ban. On the record. Importance of parents and schools. Opportunity. Mentally disturbed. Make young person american regardless chance of success. Eduction. 46 governors. starting to see gains in math and science. Community college, retraining. another chance. Employers looking for skilled workers. Access to higher education. Candy. Move along. Obama. Choice in this election. Romney says hiring more question. Crosstalk. Q: Outsourcing of american jobs overseas. Romney. China. used to be USA. half million manu jobs lost. Offshore is more attractive. Less attractive. Come to america again. Trickle down government. More government. Attractivew to entrepreneurs. Terade by the rules. China. Value of currency. lose sales. Manufactureers cannot compete. Currency maniputor. One day one, I will label China a currency manipulator. I will out in place rules, tariffs. I willb e strict. American make attractive. tax rates. Wanna be here. Canada's tax rate. Where to start. Comepetitive. Regulations quadrupled. Under attack by own government. Obamacare extraordinary manuracturing jobs. Rising incomes. Unemployement. I know hwo to make it work. Obama. we agree, lower our corporated tax rates. close loopholes. Move to china, profit offshore. tax advantages. Make a differnce. Romeny wants to exopand overseas tax breaks. Don[t pay US taxes if you infest overseas. Jobs in China, India. Not how we are going to do it. Double our exports. Tens of thousands of jobs. Trade deals getting ag ood deal. China. Pioneers of outsourcing. Currency manipuation. China currency is up eleven percents. Candy; time for quick discussion. Ipan labour is cheaper. Bring manufacturing home? Romney. China steals, manipulates, hack. Fair basis. Most attrative place. Obama" low wage low skill jobs are not coming back. Science and research. Add to deficiti by tax cuts. sell products aroudn the world. Traning engineers. Lead this world's ecoomy Romeny: government does not create jobs. Q: what is the specific misperception. Set us straight. Romney: president has tried to ... I care about our kids. I understand what it takes. I am a guy that wants to help. My passiojn. I believe in god; Missionary, Pastor in my congregation. Sat with people t0ough times. Olympics on track. Government of my state inbsured all the kids, number ne in nation. I undersatnd we do not have to settle unemployment 47 mulliion food stamps. I;;l get us working again. i will. Reform medicare. President didn[t. I have done these things. Obama: a lot fo theis campaign. I think government creates jobs. Free enterprise system is the greatest, Individual initiative. Everyone should ahve a fair shot, play saime rules. Greatest middle class. Fundamental difference. Governor R9omney is a good man. bgehind closed doors. 47% wgo is he talkiing about . Veterans, old people, fighting hard worker, payroll tax gas taxl. I wannba fitght for them. Granfpa fought in woorld war tow;. G*I bill not a handout. Thanks you, blah..

I am not following. You wrote (to Tony) "[D]o you not think that awareness without memory is possible? My post illustrated this notion with reference to HM, and the hypothesis of Damasio. If you followed my link above to 'Core consciousness,' you will have read this: What I find odd about our thread here is that, yes, we can indeed restrict ourselves to consider only what Rand has written about consciousness, or restrict ourselves to thinking about consciousness in purely adult human terms. I had thought I was adding to the breadth of understanding, but I think I may have failed. Sorry about that! To PDS, who tried to whistle up an Old Dog from the gallery, I have been compiling a collection from Rand's publications (with great help from the Lexicon) that pertain to consciousness. I will post that in a day or so, with some commentary. Calvin, If we try to define consciousness simply, reductively, strictly, I think we lose some deeper understanding and appreciation of the wonder of consciousness in humans. To my mind, it is fine to delimit the boundary between human and non-human consciousness for certain purposes, but to understand that we share levels or elements of consciousness with other animals deepens our understanding of our abilities and our heritage. So, when you say we do not need a definition, we need only rely on a Randian axiom, I want to beat my head against the wall. It feels like a curb on thought.

This is good, but I don't think Tony is familiar with what you are talking about -- in terms of what I might call (borrowing from Damasio) "core consciousness." This kind of "core consciousness" is the thing that makes us kin to animals (to my mind). The way I read your remarks make me think of the relatively famous (in consciousness studies) person known as HM ... Now, what was missing in HM was not procedural memory, nor did he lose the ability to subconsciously learn physical tasks -- but his day to day world of consciousness was without memory consolidation. As he said above, each day is alone by itself. Considering how important memory is to our human selves, how crippled we can be without a working memory, can we still imagine a pre-self-conscious human (a toddler before she 'knew who she was' -- during the years subject to childhood amnesia) who has one up on HM, with functioning hippocampus? If we can imagine this, can we say that this small human did not have 'consciousness' ... ? Can we say that HM did not have 'consciousness'? I think not. HM, without a hippocampus, was able to converse, walk, write, read, etcetera, and could identify himself. He was 'conscious' of himself and his surroundings. Another way to look at this tangle where emotion, memory, self-awareness and consciousness intersect and work together is by looking at animals that are closest to us (in terms of primate evolution). Here is a short (5 minute) video of Damian Aspinall and his reunion with young gorilla, Kwibi. I am hoping we can stop banging the pot for Rand and think about what this brief vignette can suggest to us about identity, self/other, memory, emotion and .... consciousness.

Ah. Pope == germ.

Hello and goodbye in five short comments? Too bad. As fellow tired, old, frustrated, repressed, angry and impotent site veteran PDS remarks, there was an element of style, if not sparkle, in the five comments left by the person known only as Pathogen. Is this voice forever stilled because of Group Recoil? It's worth thinking about; there might be a bar to newcomers. The better among us tired and old frustrated vets might extend a warmer welcome if there was more to hang a hat on. An avatar and a moniker is pretty thin information. MSK's note is neither here nor there -- I do not know if the Pathogen was proxy-served from La Brea: what if he (or she) was, how is that pertinent to Hello? Maybe Pathogen was attempting to ape or otherwise mirror a tone of discourse. We will likely never know, nor will we know age, gender, lifestyle, opinions on Diana Hsieh, opinions on PARC, nor likely anything at all. All we have is a brief flash of wit in the sky, arch dialect and then darkness. A high bar for an entrance? So many try to make a big splash, an entrance fronting their best values, with depth and sophistication. So many fail.