- Pseudo-Scientific "Proof" That Will Only Appeal to Idiots -

Professor Marcello Truzzi coined the expression Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  Carl Sagan popularized the slogan, a simplifying of the sentiment expressed by Hume and LaPlace in the 18th century: if you tell a tall tale, you need tall proof.

This slogan is familiar among skeptics who regularly challenge pseudo-scientific wackos to "put up or shut up."  If you want the claim to be taken seriously that a UFO landed in your back yard, you'd better have more than some kicked-up dirt to show for it.

The Truzzi axiom should also be familiar to Obama supporters.  If I were a pundit, I'd repeat it constantly: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - put up or shut up.  McCain's claim that Obama is closely associated with terrorists is supported by no more than the predictably ordinary evidence that Obama had a couple minor encounters with a shady character or two.  Nothing more compelling than standard political encounters due to simple geographic proximity.

But pseudoscientist McCain isn't done just yet.  Today he's attaching a "challenge" to his extraordinary claims: prove us wrong... prove Obama is not closely tied to radical terrorists.  Naturally, this challenge is as logically flawed as the basic claim itself, since you can't prove a negative.  It's Logic 101.

If I claimed somewhere on Earth there exists a unicorn, I'd be nuts to expect the rest of the world to prove me wrong.  But this is exactly what McCain's doing - instead of "proving" Obama's a radical, Muslim-sympathizing, terrorist-loving, Manchurian candidate, he's challenged Obama to prove otherwise.

But we shouldn't be too concerned this appeal to pseudologic will change the minds of many voters.  Like everything else about McCain/Palin's recent efforts, their "terrorist" claims and embracing of negative proof will only be blindly accepted by the most neanderthal of the neocon voter base.  You know, the same logically-challenged bunch of cretins who believes the Bible is wholly and literally true.

While most Americans probably don't know who Truzzi was, most understand the extraordinary maxim in their bones.  And most understand the absurdity of looking for negative proof.

McCain is in a nosedive, and I'm loving every minute of it.

..!..

• "You betcha!"
• "Yer darn right!"
• "Joe Six-Pack"
• "That's fer sure"

And so on.

(By the way, I'm looking forward to Tina Fey bringing down the house with more direct quotes from Palin's own lines.)

Among its other ills, sexism claims women aren't to be taken as seriously as men. If a woman says something profound, it must be a lie, or she must be a liberal. But if a woman can deliver a serious line while keeping the bimbo persona intact, well, that's a different story altogether.

No doubt Palin's performance tickled the hard right - it was obviously programmed to do so. But I think the reserve sexism angle will bother more women than it comforts.

Won't surprise me if most women come away from the debate with a lower opinion of Palin. Time will very soon tell.

..!..

• She was expected by many to perform poorly with Charlie Gibson
• She did perform poorly
• All over the news: Palin performed poorly
• Polls react - Grampy McSame/Caribou Barbie popularity plummet
• Palin sees the news; sees the polls, and so...
• The next time around, with Couric, she does even worse

And so the GOP realized Palin does what the press says she does. Problem? Not if they can use the press to take advantage of this fact.

Now you know why, after spending the past few days pouring confidence into the shallowest of pools, GOP strategists have "leaked" the story that their candidate is poised to thrash Joe Biden tonight.

By "warning" the press of Palin's imminent attacks on Biden, they're molding/coaching Palin into the pit bull they hope to see tonight.

Incredibly, this proves Palin is weaker -- intellectually -- than Bush. She's no good at the lowered expectations game; the GOP's only move is to play her up beforehand. Risky business. Even W was able to famously exploit the phenomenon of lowered expectations in 2000.

But Palin's so concerned about her image the GOP has nothing else to do than brainwash her, then tell the press she's in top form, and hold their breath for 90 minutes.

Yet another "Hail Mary" pass by the McCain campaign.

..!..

If He Knew; If He Didn't Know

Did McCain vet Sarah Palin? Here are the facts we know, just four days into Sarah Palin's VP nomination:

Palin is so wrapped up in a nepotism-themed legal battle that she's just had to hire a lawyer.

There's an abundance of video proving Palin lied about her position on the "Bridge to Nowhere."

Her unwed, teenaged daughter got knocked up in the 11th grade.

IF McCain did vet Palin, then...

1. He's willing to drag Palin's family through the mud. Including the pregnant daughter - 17 years old - through a veritable shit storm of political mudslinging. And this, coming from a guy who criticized Obama for letting his ambition get in the way of his good sense? Tsk tsk!

2. He's more desperate than we thought. Most of us immediately picked up on the desperation upon first hearing who McCain's nomination was. But for a person whose political life is in its infancy, and who we've only known for four short days, this seems satirical. Pinch me - am I dreaming?

3. He may be going senile. Eight years ago he didn't seem dumb, but these days he's more and more (apparently) losing it. How incoherent do you have to be to knowingly hire a woman with this much dirt? Especially the sort of dirt your party typically pretends is the provenance of the Democrats.

IF McCain did not vet Palin, then...

1. He's a liar. He's already gone on record stating he knew all these things before asking Palin to be his VP nominee.

2. He's a fool. Anyone with one-fourth the time he's had in Congress should know: vet, vet, vet! Everyone agreed the "estimated risk" in this pick was sacrificing his experience argument against Obama for a VP who would energize the base. But this is a base who thinks abstinence-only education actually works! Referendum on judgment? You bet!

3. He's a loser. In any competition, it's one thing to take a risk. But only the loser denies having misjudged the risk once it proves unsuccessful (see item 1).

One thing is certain: McCain has just handed the Democrats the election on a silver platter. Let's hope Obama really does stand for change - change to the way the (D)s handle silver platters.

..!..