Leigh wrote:
>>We're talking about a VP candidate with less experience than Obama, 
>>who is supposed to be ready to take over for McCain; McCain has a 
>>~14% chance of dying during his term, based on Social Security 
>>actuarial tables, with an addition 3% - 5% chance of being 
>>incapacitated and unable to carry out his duties. Those figures are 
>>based on someone of his age being in average health. However, for 
>>McCain's specific cancer, textbooks cite 10-year survival figures 
>>of about 60 percent to 70 percent. That was in 2000. That 
>>prediction means he has a 30-40% chance of dying from cancer by 2010.
>Jeez Marc (obviously resetting his doomsday clock) , did you forget 
>all about that old saw "lies, damned lies, and statistics" too?

Not at all. Statistics represent a population and probability, and 
never apply to an individual. But failing omniscience, it's the best 
we have. That's why the life insurance premiums on a 72 year old 
(like McCain) are a lot more than for a 45 year old; why they're 
higher for a smoker than a non-smoker; and why someone with diabetes 
and asthma basically is ineligible for life insurance. Can we at 
least agree that it is probable that both Obama and Palin will 
out-live McCain? And that the possibility that Palin will need to 
take over for McCain is some degree higher than the possibility of 
Biden stepping in for Obama? Actually McCain may well do better than 
statistics suggest, based on his free (to him) government provided, 
socialized health care plan.

The point is that Palin's views and positions are extremely important 
in this election. More importantly, McCain was attacking Obama for 
months on his lack of experience, then he picks someone with even 
less experience as his VP choice - someone who might have to take 
over. So despite a big chunk of campaign based on the experience 
issue, McCain suddenly says, by virtue of Palin, experience is 
unimportant. How can we possibly believe anything else McCain says?

>Required reading for skivt-l voters:
>Simply put, this is the best analysis on what I'll term the 'chrusch 
>syndrome' that I've read in a long time:

We'll get to that in another post. Short answer: I agree with many of 
Kalt's points; far too many liberal pundits are really missing a 
number of points (and some that have been made I find particularly 
galling); and being mayor/governor/small-town/redneck/appeal to 
middle America all have nothing to do with why we shouldn't vote for 
her and McCain.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit