No, this is not what Chicagoens do! This is what I do. I figure my roommates have to think I’m pretty odd because of all the reading I do; but once a nerd, always a nerd.

Well, epiphanist, I don’t understand the quantum mechanics concept well enough, but I would say that part of it is the idea that by observing the world I actually change the world. This seems immediately to be false. When I look at my table it doesn’t move. Considering a concept doesn’t change the thing itself (if it did, we could never understand anything because that thing would change on impact, so to speak). So, based on my pathetically small understanding of said concept, I disagree with it (or at least a portion of if).

Regarding epiphanies, I’m with you! I’m a firm believer in what I call the non-rational, things that I haven’t deduced (and can never deduce) but that must be accepted to continue (but which I am unable to refer to as irrational). I would call epiphanies, or the start of an idea, non-rational.

————-

So, the election is tomorrow! Who should win? Should the universe spin in my direction, it would be a reasonable, charming, well-spoken, and winsome McCain. But since such a thing does not exist, we’ll have to settle for the usual.

“Finally, what about the statement by the McCain campaign manager that the election is not about issues?” Well, I listened to that clip, and there wasn’t enough to go on there. I think that man could easily be referring to the fact that, in general, people want someone they trust. If this is the case, then he’s right. That’s all. He’s not necessarily saying that the campaign SHOULD not be about issues; instead, he may just be saying that for most people it’s not. He has done no active condoning of such a situation. But, again, context is needed for that statement.

Your link to the NYtimes article – fabulous. Perhaps change is coming – except, when I hear someone as well spoken as Obama, I always wonder this really cynical thing: does he actually have more than words? And my speculation is that he doesn’t. He’s young, idealistic, lacks experience, gushes words and concepts, and is facing deep gritty complexity. There’s my cynical conclusion: I don’t believe he’s all that and a bag of chips like a lot of people do. But I do believe he speaks well. Maybe he should be a speech teacher.

Oleg – I’d love to hear your view of the current Russian political state… as that is your home nation.

Again, I’m sorry! I intend to be attentive from now on… we’ll see how that goes down.

So, regarding your points above – hmmmm, perhaps Palin ain’t so hot? I’m with you on their hastiness to go to war. That is incredibly concerning. I hope to read your thoughts and articles more carefully and get back to you soon.

I’m sorry again Oleg that your comment was stuck in my list of comments to be approved.

Palin was shielded from the press – GOP was concerned about reporters asking her tough questions. IMHO, if she is not ready to answer questions, then she’s not ready to be a VP. Also, I’m concerned about Palin’s responses regarding Georgia in her recent interview. She seemed to feel too easy about going to war with Russia. Just imagine what the second day of that war would look like. The fact that McCain and Palin are so hasty with war decisions and that they will have access to nuclear codes does scare me.

They steal the “change” slogan from Obama, however their policies seem to be too similar to those of the current administration, which proved to be a trainwreck in my opinion. Obama doesn’t excite me very much either, but him and Biden seem to be a “lesser evil” at this point.

Finally, what about the statement by the McCain campaign manager that the election is not about issues?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUYSwqI2sZ0

Personality and values alone wouldn’t win my vote. It seems like McCain’s campaign tries to turn this into a high school popularity contest.

Here is another op-ed from NYT, this time by Bill Kristol:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/opinion/15kristol.html

Unfortunately, I’ve read it quickly so here’s my first glance response: the author’s right on in saying that, at this point, Palin’s primary contribution is purely superficial. She brings novelty and reroutes attention from the media-guzzling Obama campaign and focuses it squarely where McCain wants it: back on himself. Smart. Brilliant. They deserve points. McCain needed that. All the charges lobbed against Palin in that article, well, they could all be true. I haven’t researched them. What is unnerving, because it’s believable, is the accusation that McCain acted quickly, viscerally, kind of like we know the Bush camp to do. That has proved dangerous. McCain to me gives off the air of wanting to be the bull-dog that acts first and thinks later – that has obvious consequences and doesn’t endear him to the more contemplative, like me.

Sum of the matter – I should read the article better. But thanks for bringing it up!

Did you have thoughts on the matter?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/opinion/07rich.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

————–

I’m just kicking some ideas around Epiphanist. So, let’s assume it’s not over, as you have. Now what do you have to say to my ideas? I’d like to hear.