October 8th, 2004

beartato phd

(no subject)

Had a good time at D's but got somewhat flustered arguing with tom near the end of the evening. My confidence has gotten shaken up a bit with regard to how I judge arguments to be reasonable or not. I thought my little comment here was essentially without any merit, not just that it's merely a weak statistical boost to how much we should think Kerry's anti-terrorism policies are better than Bush's, but that it's a broken reasoning tactic from the get-go. I felt that it was merely a viscerally plausible thing to say, a sleight of hand that bypasses all of the statistical roadblocks one puts in one's own way to forestall premature conclusions. But tom was arguing that it had some true force to nudge our rightful opinions of Bush (at least with respect to anti-terrorism policy) down a bit, and I was unable to satisfyingly refute the refutal. Rebuttal. Whatever. I'm really fucking tired and I have an advisor meeting tomorrow. Maybe I should go to sleep instead of blogging the night away.
beartato phd

(no subject)

Interesting debate goin' on.

Bush says Missourah, Kerry says Missouri. I think that's good tactics for Bush.
Bush talks all over the moderator --- this may come off good or bad. Taking charge? Not playing by the rules? Could go either way.
Kerry keeps talking about how he's "working for you". Kind of overtly populist-sounding. I'm not sure how people'll take that.
Bush talks about "being on the offensive" and "whole new world since 9/11". Nothing new there.
Bush invokes current world leaders, Kerry big-name former US presidents. Both mentioned Reagan. Somehow I feel more stirred by former US presidents. Something about a decade or three of dust settling on a name to give it a certain oomph.

Seems a little bit more energetic --- even angry --- than last debate. A lot of bolder assertions of factual correctness.