Notice that our map still has President Obama at 277 electoral votes, or seven more than he needs to win the election. Romney, now at 235 after our rating change in Florida, needs to pick off the remaining toss-ups — Colorado, New Hampshire and Virginia — to get to 261 electoral votes (of those, the Granite State is probably the hardest lift). Then Romney would need either Ohio or Wisconsin, or both Iowa and Nevada. Compared with the earlier map, Romney doesn’t need a giant transformation — and this should cheer the GOP.
Now I’m going to fight this map:
…with some analysis of my own.
(1) Nevada is gone. Write it off for the Dems.
(2) Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida are firmly in the GOP camp. Sorry to break it to my Democratic friends, but we all know that it’s just gonna shake down that way.
New Electoral College math at this point? Obama 243 Romney 248.
(3) Wisconsin and Iowa are probably going to lean Democratic. This brings Obama to 259.
That presents the gentle reader with precisely three battleground states at this point in time:
Now if you lean just with these numbers, the game is over — Obama takes 281 electoral votes to Romney’s 257. With 270 needed to win, that’s not exactly a great showing…
However, let me throw a kink in all this poll averaging and so forth…
(4) Ohio goes Romney. The momentum is in full swing three weeks before the election, and Obama is talking about Big Bird? Got it.
(5) Is Colorado really going to vote for Romney? Sorry guys… Colorado has been invaded by Californians. It’ll be a fistfight… but Colorado will not come our way. Even if it does, it will be at the last minute because one little state will still be counting the votes…
(6) New Hampshire. That’s your canary in the coal mine. If New Hampshire decides to live free rather than die and votes Romney in a convincing fashion, the West Coasters will take the cue and Colorado will swing right. If New Hampshire goes Democratic or “the votes still have to be counted” and recounted and recounted… you create just the sort of environment where Democratic voting is imperative in a swing state like Colorado — just in time for the evening news.
If Romney wins New Hampshire, the game is over and Mitt Romney is your next president. If the national conservative resurgence is so strong as to carry New Hampshire, I predict Romney will more than likely carry Ohio and Colorado. If Romney wins New Hampshire and carries only Ohio, it doesn’t matter how Colorado sorts out — Romney wins with 270.
Yet if Romney loses Ohio… the game is over entirely.
…but if it’s going to be anything but a nail biter, New Hampshire has to vote Republican. If they don’t… then the rest of the evening will be very long indeed.
So what’s the catch for the Democrats? Strategists on the left love to talk about paths to victory. The GOP has one single path. It runs through Ohio. It still remains up to the Dems to provide any path to victory around the GOP monolith. Those options for mapmakers such as Professor Sabato are narrowing quickly — and have narrowed dramatically — over these next few weeks.
Should Paul Ryan provide the KO punch tonight to Joe Biden, Obama may very well feel the relief of knowing he will not have to shoulder a second term… and perhaps come out swinging in the second and third POTUS debates.
Since scientific knowledge is still growing by a factor of ten every 50 years, it should not be surprising that lots of facts people learned in school and universities have been overturned and are now out of date. But at what rate do former facts disappear? Arbesman applies the concept of half-life, the time required for half the atoms of a given amount of a radioactive substance to disintegrate, to the dissolution of facts. For example, the half-life of the radioactive isotope strontium-90 is just over 29 years. Applying the concept of half-life to facts, Arbesman cites research that looked into the decay in the truth of clinical knowledge about cirrhosis and hepatitis. “The half-life of truth was 45 years,” reported the researchers.
In other words, half of what physicians thought they knew about liver diseases was wrong or obsolete 45 years later. As interesting and persuasive as this example is, Arbesman’s book would have been strengthened by more instances drawn from the scientific literature.
Now the answer for why “facts” are being disproven every day is oddly comforting thanks to two factors: time and knowledge. The more we know, the more our facts begin to approximate truth… and all of that occurs in the function of time.
Just the simple knowledge that “what you know” has a half-life is an oddly comforting thought. Constantly having to reassure yourself of facts as they pertain to truth means the kaleidoscope gets turned every once in awhile…
Comments Off on Reason: Half of the Facts You Know Are Probably Wrong
I will be the first to proudly admit this. I own a fountain pen, and I am damn proud of it.
…and I wish I had paid more attention to handwriting class at Montfort Academy:
For each of us, the act of putting marks on paper with ink goes back as far as we can probably remember. At some point, somebody comes along and tells us that if you make a rounded shape and then join it to a straight vertical line, that means the letter “a”, just like the ones you see in the book. (But the ones in the book have a little umbrella over the top, don’t they? Never mind that, for the moment: this is how we make them for ourselves.) If you make a different rounded shape, in the opposite direction, and a taller vertical line, then that means the letter “b”. Do you see? And then a rounded shape, in the same direction as the first letter, but not joined to anything – that makes a “c”. And off you go.
Great article, and it looks as if it’s a great book, too.
Comments Off on UK Guardian: Why Handwriting Matters
Patrick Deneen writes about “the philosopher despot” Allan Bloom:
While I continue to learn much from Bloom, over the years I have arrived at three main judgments about the book’s relevance, its prescience, and its failings. First, Bloom was right to be concerned about the specter of relativism—though perhaps even he didn’t realize how bad it would get, particularly when one considers the reaction to his book compared to its likely reception were it published today. Second, his alarm over the threat of “multiculturalism” was misplaced and constituted a bad misreading of the zeitgeist, in which he mistook the left’s tactical use of identity politics for the rise of a new kind of communalist and even traditionalist tribalism. And, lastly, most of his readers—even today—remain incorrect in considering him to be a representative of “conservatism,” a label that he eschewed and a worldview he rejected. Indeed, Bloom’s argument was one of the early articulations of “neoconservatism”—a puzzling locution used to describe a position that is, in fact, today more correctly captured by its critics on the left as “neo-liberalism.”
I’ll be the first to admit that I am not an Allan Bloom fan — more so because I have an inherent suspicion of the Nietzschean idea of history than anything else — but I certainly appreciated the concept that competing ideas shouldn’t arrive at relativism (as is so often done today… “your truth isn’t my truth” nonsense) but rather allow people to challenge their own ideas on what is indeed Truth.
Of course, what’s interesting in all of this isn’t quite so much the discussion between nihilism, liberalism, and natural law — though Bloom never uses that term specifically, though he does reference the Declaration of Independence — but rather how Bloom sowed the first seeds of that orphan of foreign policy: neoconservatism:
Bloom’s argument became a major touchstone in the development of “neoconservatism,” a label that became associated with many fellow students of Strauss but which, ironically, explicitly rested on rejection of the claims of culture, tradition, and custom—the main impulses of Burkean conservatism. Bloom continuously invoked the natural-rights teachings of the Declaration and Constitution as necessary correctives to the purported dangers of left multiculturalism: rather than endorsing the supposed inheritance of various cultures, he commended the universalistic claims of liberal democracy, which ought to trump any identification with particular culture and creed. The citizen who emerged from the State of Nature, shorn of any specific cultural, religious, or ancestral limitation, was the political analogue for the philosopher who emerged from the Cave. Not everyone could become a philosopher, Bloom insisted, but everyone could be a liberal citizen, and ought rightly to be liberated from the limitations of place and culture—if for no other reason, to make them more tolerant of the radical philosophers in their midst.
Bloom’s was thus not only an early salvo in the culture wars, but an incipient articulation of the neoconservative impulse toward universalistic expansion. Burke’s willingness to acknowledge the basic legitimacy of most cultures—his “multiculturalism”—led him, in the main, to oppose most forms of imperialism. The rejection of multiculturalism, and the valorization of a monolithic liberal project, has inclined historically to a tendency toward expansionism and even imperialism, and neoconservatism is only the latest iteration of this tendency. While many of the claims about Strauss’s influence on the Iraq invasion and the neoconservative insistence upon spreading democracy throughout the world were confused, there was in fact a direct lineage from Bloom’s arguments against the multicultural left and rise of the neo-liberal or neoconservative imperialistic impulse.
In other words, if multiculturalism descends to nihilism, and cultures are designed to compete with one or the other more accurately embracing Truth… then imposing that truth in conflict is a natural consequence.
Especially if you’re right.
…and even more interestingly, it’s a complete reversal of everything conservatives, classical liberals, libertarians, and interestingly enough, what Bloom himself believes.
The tension between nihilist and crusader is tenuous at best. Searching the world for monsters to destroy — whether in the classroom, one’s community, or on the global stage — is the evil that humanity must constantly avoid.
Examples work far better. The old Delphic inscription “know thyself” is probably the best remedy to both the nihilistic impulse and the scourge of neo-everything.
Comments Off on The American Conservative: Allan Bloom and the Neocons
Naturally, beauty in chess is not the exclusive property of those who break with convention; but I have struggled to find any game of Duchamp which could be described as truly beautiful. This may partly be because he was not as strong as most of the masters he was matched up against when he played for France in various Olympiads: they were just too good at destroying the patterns he was trying to create.
Starting in about second grade, I picked up on chess and never let go. It’s pretty unfortunate that what started out as a craze among kids in the 1970s after Fischer, Kasparov, and Karpov has somewhat demurred into Call of Duty and Mario Kart.
Great article from The Atlantic on the failure of modern education to teach students how to communicate:
Hampden-Sydney College is one of four or, depending on how one counts, five liberal arts colleges for men in the country, and teaching students to write and speak well has been a primary focus here since our founding in 1775. With that in mind, it’s not surprising that our graduates include such wordsmiths as William H. Armstrong (Sounder), Michael Knight (The Typist), and Stephen Colbert.
But not all of our incoming freshmen are naturally gifted with words. Our college has made writing a high priority for all students, and since 1978, the college’s rhetoric program has been the institutional center of that effort. Our students read and analyze classic American works by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, along with essays by E.B. White and George Orwell, Annie Dillard, and Virginia Woolf. But they also read contemporary creative nonfiction by Scott Sanders, Rebecca Skloot, Pico Iyer, Lee Gutkind, Anne Fadiman, and Phillip Lopate, among many others.
Good writing is clear writing, no doubt. But the best writing is engaged, passionate prose that unites head and heart in an individual voice.
Our students read not just to encounter or appreciate these writers. Instead, they examine how these authors combine an attention to structure with creative and innovative personal styles, all in the service of what they wish to say. In this regard, writing classes at Hampden-Sydney no doubt resemble those at other colleges nationwide. But Hampden-Sydney’s rhetoric courses also embody the belief that familiarity with our language’s rhetorical structures prepares students to use sentences and paragraphs purposefully, and thus helps them develop an individual writing voice that is clear, engaging, and persuasive.
Anyone who has hired folks over the last 5-10 years knows that this is a systemic problem among current graduates — and a particular reason why I insist upon a classical education that reinforces logic, grammar, and rhetoric over a liberal arts education that seemingly allows for ad hominem and crying to pass for credible argumentation (see: modern political environment).
Great piece from The New Republic on the last dying gasps of Ba’athism in the wake of the Arab Spring:
Baathism, then, the original idea from 1943, was an anti-colonial and pan-Arabist doctrine, not unwilling to ally with the Axis. It was a revolutionary doctrine. It claimed a pure blood lineage to the origins of Islam and, at the same time, invoked the mid–twentieth century ideals of socialism. Baathism was dedicated to the purification of Arabic political speech. And it was a psychological doctrine, dedicated to healing the wounded modern psyche by repulsing what Aflaq called “Western civilization’s invasion of the Arab mind.”
Aflaq was nominally a Christian from a Greek Orthodox background, but, to be honest, Christian influences in his doctrine are hard to see. It is true that, when he invokes Islam, he does so on nationalist grounds. But this is not unusual even among overtly Islamic thinkers, who conventionally invoke the ancient caliphate as proof of Islam’s divine origins. And Aflaq speaks repeatedly of the Arab nation’s “eternal mission” and “spirit,” which hints at more than worldly concerns.
The article is a masterful tour de force on the origins of the Ba’athist movement in the Middle East — almost more of a reaction to Westernized Ottomanism rather than a true rejection of the European West. So why is Ba’athism failing, while the Muslim Brotherhood has seemingly inherited the mantle of pan-Arabism under the guise of pan-Islamism? Much of this has to do with the way both are organized — Arab kinship and tribalism vs. Islamic values and Islamic scholars — and the pillars on which they are founded.
Here is another difference between the Baath and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood has always been a mass organization, never a conspiracy, and its reliance on scripture and Islamic scholarship has meant that no one, not even a supreme guide of the Brotherhood, could alter the ideology at whim: “Oh, I think I’ll recognize the Zionist entity.” But Baathist ideology is what the coup leaders say it is. Or it is what Aflaq chose to say—which, after he was done with pure blood lineages and the “eternal mission” and Arab “spirit,” began to sound, in the mid-’50s and afterward, ever more left-wing, as if his philo-communist origins were stirring into renewed life. “The Baath is scientific socialism plus spirit,” said Aflaq in the ’60s, which suggested that Baathism, having already claimed to be an addendum to Islam, was also an addendum to Karl Marx.
At the end of the day, Karl Marx proved to be less of a prophet than Mohammed. “Unity, Freedom, Socialism” simply didn’t hold a candle to the Quran. Ba’athism was far more bloody and tyrannical than the comparatively light touch of shari’ah at the end of the day.
What’s more, given the choice between an eternal proletarian Ba’athist revolution and thy nostalgia of the Islamic caliphate… the Arab Street chose it’s inheritance — and went straight to its cultural DNA — rather than be led along towards a Ba’athist-dictated socialist future that promised a great deal while fulfilling nothing.
So am I the only guy who thinks this MSM appointed “victory” feels a lot like this?
…so just 24 hours ago, the mainstream media was evil.
Today? Heroes… because they have anointed Mitt Romney the winner of the first presidential debate.
Huh?
I was watching the entire debate via C-SPAN. No commentary, just the raw feed. What I saw was President Obama talking about the issues he wanted to talk about, and Mitt Romney defending a non-existent record.
On two separate occasions, Romney had clear and unobstructed shots to land hard punches on Obama: (1) with regards to the $5 trillion “tax cut” vs. the $5 trillion in deficit spending Obama has already racked up, and (2) the $2.8 billion in subsidies to oil companies vs. the $90 billion devoted to Obama’s campaign contributors through failed firms like Solyndra.
Both times, Romney could have won the entire election. Both times, Romney wanted it too bad and flubbed it. Instead of home runs, he swung wildly and settled for base hits.
…and the media calls it victory.
…and conservatives swallow it whole.
There were a number of things not discussed that I would have loved to have seen brought up: civil liberties, life, government involvement in non-profits, ending the Fed, the gold standard, qualitative easing, etc.
So why am I so distraught at Romney’s debate performance vs. Obama’s debate performance? Seven reasons:
1. Romney looked into the camera precisely two times. Obama did it frequently. In terms of debate technique, Obama (apart from the fact that he was clearly distracted and did not want to be there) did it perfectly — separate yourself from the opposition, speak to the moderator, make your points to the public. Romney? The precise opposite.
2. Romney wanted it too badly. You could tell — he was a kid in a candy shop whose mother couldn’t hold him back. Obama? A guy who was trying to explain himself and make the case to stay the course. Which he didn’t do, objectively… but he tried.
3. Two opportunities to KO Obama missed. $5 trillion and Solyndra… wide open hammer shots. Completely flubbed.
4. My inner libertarian just cringed. No discussion of civil liberties, just a conversation about how we’re going to make Barack Obama’s policies better. Egads… I think the conversation should have been firmly on whether American constitutional rights are being and will be upheld. I know many people were keen to hear the ‘difficult’ subjects being discussed, particularly gun rights. Concealed carry is a hot topic in second-amendment-supporting circles right now. Conservative politicians would do well to discuss matters like ccw reciprocity as these are likely things that their voters care about greatly.
5. Nothing on social issues. Nada, zip, zapola.
6. Overall, the American people wanted to see whether or not Mitt Romney was an acceptable alternative to Barack Obama — and the answer to that question is now a “yes” by any standard. By and large, people are just plain fed up with Washington and everything Barack Obama stands for. Mitt Romney didn’t blow anyone away… but he wasn’t the antichrist that the progressives have painted him to be. Ergo, Romney wins the interview for the POTUS slot.
7. Obama was distracted. The last two times President Obama was that distracted and gave such a horrible performance as a public speaker, we (a) tagged and bagged Osama bin Laden, or (b) the Arab world exploded in a day of rage that cost the lives three Americans — one of whom was an American ambassador. What’s on his plate this time?
The worst part of it all? The MSM is the one declaring this a Romney victory. They build us up just to let us down? Don’t be shocked if it comes true, folks…
