jasonpatterson's Blog

jasonpatterson Commented on Franken Camp Puts Off Resting Case Until Tomorrow; More Franken-Voters To Be Counted by Eric Kleefeld

2009-03-12T01:20:47Z

Sorry, but my fondest fantasy about this involves Norm Coleman and a giant, cartoonish, 2-ton weight. Perhaps a tiny umbrella and a little sign that says, "help."

jasonpatterson Commented on Legal Expert: Minnesota Court Likely To Rule By End of Month -- For Franken by Eric Kleefeld

2009-03-11T04:59:58Z

This has nothing to do with anything, but is it just me or does the picture of Norm at the top of the article look an awful lot like Nick Nolte's crazy haired mugshot, minus the crazy hair?

At least we know who is going to play him in the movie now... (Gary Busey might do the job if Nick is busy.)

jasonpatterson Commented on Flashback: Coleman Said To Spare State Cost Of Recount -- But Is Now Angling For Multi-Million Dollar Election by Eric Kleefeld

2009-03-10T15:39:04Z

Norm Coleman being hypocritical? Never... How could you imply that he desires anything more than to see justice done? For shame!

In all fairness to the slime ball though, this is fairly typical behavior for a politician. Not that that makes it right, but it's not unusual by any stretch of the imagination.

jasonpatterson Commented on Obama and the Boy Scouts by jasonpatterson

2009-03-04T17:56:00Z

Tycho Brahe is pretty awesome. :-)

jasonpatterson Commented on Franken Camp: Our Case Won't Take Nearly as Long as Coleman's Did by Eric Kleefeld

2009-03-03T02:58:36Z

Though it would be far less entertaining, let's hope that Franken's team is less idiotic than Coleman's. Thus far their work appears to have consisted of shooting down a series of poor arguments, which is a lot easier than introducing something sound of their own while someone else is picking it apart. I also never underestimate the ability of a politician to attempt to get away with the same thing that he or she has just cried foul against in his or her opponent...

Either way, I'm searching the internet for an Eric Kleefeld action figure for my desk. Keep up the great work!

jasonpatterson Commented on Minnesota Court: Count Some Of Those Rejected Franken Voters -- But Not All by Eric Kleefeld

2009-02-11T04:31:34Z

It seems likely that Reid is not going to send Franken a birthday card this year, but they had no real problem letting Lieberman jump right back into the Dem caucus after he crapped all over them in the election.

The Senate just won't appoint someone without the election certificate and that hasn't been issued because of this ridiculous court case. It may not be the law that they can't appoint Franken, but it's Senate procedure, and they are all about the procedure... Perhaps if there were a pressing issue that didn't look like it would pass and Franken was still cooling his heels 8 months from now, the Senate might act, but I'll be surprised if they do anything without the approval of the Mn court.

jasonpatterson Commented on Right-Wing Talking Point Watch: Will Obama "Cut" Defense Spending? by Elana Schor

2009-02-04T17:18:16Z

While the war should be considered part of defense spending, putting them into the defense budget is not a good idea. It is much easier, politically speaking, to add money to the budget of an agency than it is to remove it. Once the DoD had an additional kajillion dollars (the actual price of the wars, as calculated by me) it would be political suicide to take it back out. Look at this ridiculous garbage over not increasing DoD's budget at a sufficient rate as it is.

For any reasonable person, this approach would make sense, unfortunately, our government is not a reasonable person, it's a group of people whose first priority is to get reelected.

jasonpatterson Commented on Minnesota Election Judges Toss Coleman's Faulty Evidence, Tell Him To Try Again by Eric Kleefeld

2009-01-27T02:27:03Z

From what I've been able to gather about this, this case is not like the Burris mess in Illinois. In that case, the Senate didn't have the right to refuse the Burris, plain and simple, regardless of the awkwardness of his appointment.

It's not that Reid is resisting seating Franken because of potential political embarassment or anything like that, instead Franken has yet to be appointed Senator by Minnesota state law. It's the same law that gave Franken the legal right to a recount originally, and it does not appoint a Senator until Coleman exhausts his legal options or concedes. Unfortunately Coleman isn't smart enough to concede, and fortunately a re-recount isn't written into the law. It's hard to see how he intends to do anything other than spend vast sums of money on legal fees.

So, at this point, Reid can't seat Franken. I'm sure he'd like to (at least compared to Coleman...)

jasonpatterson recommended Why Do We Support Israel? by jasonpatterson

2009-01-12T16:42:11Z

jasonpatterson Commented on Why Do We Support Israel? by jasonpatterson

2009-01-13T17:36:19Z

The historical support for Israel makes total sense (at least to the extent that Cold War 'logic' made sense) but I have to agree that modern lobbying is what's propping it up now. I guess what really baffles me is that one lobbying group has the level of power that it clearly does over our nation's elections and foreign policy. How does this continue???

Heck, look at Obama's campaign. How many times was he required to say that he was a staunch backer of Israel? How many times was he accused of being insufficiently pro-Israel? It's absurd. Can you imagine someone accusing a candidate of being insufficiently pro-British?

jasonpatterson Commented on Why Do We Support Israel? by jasonpatterson

2009-01-13T17:07:17Z

This is such a typical inflammatory attack against anyone who questions the US government's support of Israel. If you read what I wrote, it was clear that I was referring to federal support, primarily military and monetary that is given without question to a nation whose actions are often questionable at best. Instead, you simply assume that anyone who doesn't throw full, unquestioned support behind Israel in everything is an antisemitic fool.

The only thing that I wrote that I honestly think can be construed as antisemitic would be that governments really didn't want Jewish immigrants, which is pretty much historical fact. It's not something I personally believe, but it's what happened.

If you have any reasonable argument, that is, something beyond a personal attack, feel free to spell it out. Otherwise, you bring nothing to the discussion but anger and accusation.

jasonpatterson Commented on Minneapolis Gives Up On Finding The Missing Ballots by Eric Kleefeld

2008-12-09T06:09:28Z

Changing the Senate would require massive restructuring of the federal government, constitutional amendments that would never pass, and if it became based on population alone, then the Senate would essentially be a second House.

The founders of the country created the Senate to give the people in less populous states a voice, and it has worked as a moderating influence on law more recently (senators have to be closer to the center to get elected, while representatives tend to be farther left or right.) Again, the filibuster prevents the majority from forcing extreme laws on the minority by requiring 60 votes to overcome it, exerting a moderating influence. Without it, the Republican years we just passed through would have been even worse; now that Democrats are in power, they should expect much the same that they gave when they try to pass more liberal legislation.

jasonpatterson Commented on Coleman Camp: The Missing Ballots Don't Exist; Officials: Yes, They Do by Eric Kleefeld

2008-12-05T18:02:17Z

Zaphod Beeblebrox and Veet Voojagig searched for a planet populated by all of the lost ballpoint pens of the universe, but claimed to have never found it. He later began a lucrative second-hand ballpoint pen business.

Why do I remember this? Cause it's a great book!

jasonpatterson Commented on Why eventually electing an atheist would be the best idea by crazedandconfused

2008-11-07T05:18:57Z

Apologies Tankard, I missed your definition in the bulk of text on here. I personally would consider your version of belief to be faith specifically. However, if I accept your definition of belief, I don't disagree with you in the slightest, except for the implication that I'm somehow trying to sneakily make atheism into a system of faith instead of a lack of one. I have yet to see a convincing argument against what I wrote using my definition of belief for a real person who isn't an atheist through ignorance of the question.

If it isn't belief (i.e. faith), what would you call the logical process that is atheism? Just curious.

jasonpatterson Commented on In Private Meeting, Reid Tells Lieberman That It's Unlikely He'll Keep Committee Slot by Greg Sargent

2008-11-07T05:03:51Z

Agreed that they'll hold off on booting him until the unlikely case that all three mentioned races go the Dems way is eliminated (or completed, one hopes) but can he even be trusted to vote with the Democratic caucus on the big issues? What are they going to do, threaten to remove his chair if he doesn't? Then they're down to 59 anyway. If he actually plays along, maybe he could make up for some of the crap he pulled, and I guess it's worth it to keep him around for the chance of 60 and that alone, but I can't wait until he goes up for reelection. Those should be some pretty fun campaign ads...

jasonpatterson Commented on Palin On Not Revealing Whether She Voted For Ted Stevens: "I Am Exercising My Right To Privacy" by Greg Sargent

2008-11-04T17:58:54Z

It helps to have paid off the populace by increasing their oil revenue checks by $1,000 per year per person. Fortunately that doesn't work on everyone, unfortunately, it works on most...

jasonpatterson Commented on Tell Us Your Voting Stories by Greg Sargent

2008-11-04T17:54:42Z

Ft. Wayne, IN: I voted relatively easily at 6am (45 minute wait) but some of my students are reporting much longer waits.

One of them was told by a poll worker that he wasn't allowed to use the 'straight ticket' button to vote all Dem or Rep since it was his first vote. (Trying to save votes on down ticket races Republicans?) According to him (good kid, honest, and smart, and unfortunately voting Republican ... turned 18 on Halloween) he was told that if he used it his vote wouldn't count. I tried to get him to talk to the voter fraud folks, but he didn't want to bother with it...

Hoping Indiana goes blue!!!

jasonpatterson Commented on Why eventually electing an atheist would be the best idea by crazedandconfused

2008-11-04T12:17:02Z

Personal insults aside, I said much the same thing you did here in the last paragraph of the post to which you are replying. If someone was completely ignorant of the arguments for or against the supernatural, then he or she would be an atheist by default and be without belief. Diogenes, find me this honest man.

I clearly am not of the opinion that every person has a belief on every topic (what's your take on quantum chromodynamics, for instance?) but to suggest that there are a significant number of atheists who are atheists solely because they are ignorant of the idea of a god is absurd. We are atheists in spite of that. Perhaps in some far flung corner of China where atheism was enforced by the state for two generations there is a pocket of people who are atheists for having not considered the question, but my 3 year old daughter, living in a household with two atheist parents who haven't even mentioned Santa Claus asked me what god was.

jasonpatterson Commented on Why eventually electing an atheist would be the best idea by crazedandconfused

2008-11-04T02:59:24Z

So your argument is that atheists don't necessarily have a conviction in the truth of arguments against the supernatural, but instead merely lack a belief in the supernatural? Just trying to clarify... (Substitute god/deity/Santa Claus for supernatural if you like, but an atheist who believes in ghosts is a fool...)

jasonpatterson Commented on Why eventually electing an atheist would be the best idea by crazedandconfused

2008-11-03T20:32:19Z

To many, particularly Tankard2 and Sara F:

The argument of whether atheism requires belief or not revolves around your definition of the word 'belief.'

Webster says that belief is "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence." From that definition atheism most certainly is a belief, far more than religion, which appears to be based on faith, a more constrained version of belief. (Webster: Faith is a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."

From what has been said, some confusion of the ideas of faith and belief is present here, and declaring someone's comment wrongheaded based on a definition of belief that is likely different than the one that the comment's author was using do not serve you well.

Again, do you believe in the Tooth Fairy? Almost certainly not. Is that lack of belief also a belief in and of itself? According to Webster it is; according to you it isn't. I'm not appealing to authority to make my argument, just demonstrating that without clearer statements of definition, the arguments that have been made here are fairly meaningless.

Attempting to legitimize atheism by removing belief from it is wrongheaded, in my opinion. Faith, most certainly... I have absolutely zero faith in the presence of the supernatural, as there is overwhelming negative evidence and no positive evidence (none that holds up to scrutiny anyway.) If atheism does require belief, using Webster's definition of the term, then that's just fine by me. What is wrong with belief as defined above? If atheism isn't a belief, then what the heck is it? It most certainly isn't a lack of belief ("conviction of the truth of an argument, etc.") It is a lack of faith, or perhaps to put it in a more positive light, an acceptance of reality, regarding the supernatural.

Now perhaps there is someone out there who has never considered the question at all, who legitimately has NO view on the supernatural, no belief, one way or the other, but you'd be hard pressed to find that person.

jasonpatterson Commented on Why eventually electing an atheist would be the best idea by crazedandconfused

2008-11-03T20:08:08Z

A small point: Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb for logic, it is not a law of nature or somehow built into the fabric of space.

jasonpatterson Commented on Conservatives Making Yet Another Welfare Queen Argument by jasonpatterson

2008-11-03T19:52:26Z

To make my point again, and to nobody in particular, I'm not expecting to convince anyone actually making this argument that Obama is the right choice. What I said is that both sides are arguing for the ears of moderates. If you don't believe that folks in the middle are at all affected by ignorance like this, then you live in a fantasy world. Obama is getting the Democrat base, McCain the Republican, and without huge turnouts on one side or the other, the middle of the political landscape decides the election.

If you are talking politics with a mixed group of people (why bother talking to a bunch who agree with you after all, they already know what you're going to say) then someone sooner or later is going to make an asinine argument like this and if you are unable to defend against it, then you, and your viewpoint, look worse for it, whether the argument is trash or not. I'm of the opinion that it is far better to be knowledgeable than ignorant. If you disagree with that basic statement, that's your prerogative.

jasonpatterson Commented on Election Central Morning Roundup by Eric Kleefeld

2008-11-03T16:21:03Z

It's certainly going to make things a little more complicated, but here's how it could work:

Poll 1: Standard voting place exit poll, with 3,000,000 election day votes
80% Obama
20% McCain

Poll 2: Poll all residents, find enough early voters to get good numbers, and perform a separate 'exit poll':
1,000,000 early votes
60% Obama
40% McCain
(Yes, the election day votes are going to skew from early votes, but unexpectedly, they're going to go Obama's way!!!)

Each poll has a margin of error, those two would be combined in a statistically rigorous way, but putting the numbers together for raw vote percentages yields:
0.8 x 3,000,000 + 0.6 x 1,000,000,000 = 3,000,000 Obama votes

0.2 x 3,000,000 + 0.4 x 1,000,000,000 = 1,000,000 McCain votes

Obama wins 75-25.

Any problems with sampling error, false responses, etc, would be accounted for in the margin and ought to trend in the same direction for both polls.

Of course, for some states there just aren't polls to indicate how early voting went, so I guess we'd have to wait until they actually count the votes to know for sure, but most of those are cases where the state is expected to be a blowout one way or the other anyway.