I have my reservations about Obama, but I am seeing clear differences between him and the previous tenant of the White House already — good changes.
US President Barack Obama is expected to announce that he is ordering the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp within a year.
He is also expected to order a ban on abusive interrogations and a review of military trials for terror suspects.
Why do I suddenly feel this unfamiliar sensation? Is this what they call “hope”?
Obama is my man. I voted for him in my state’s caucus and I voted for him in the general election. I donated more money that I could afford to his campaign, and I put a lot of hope in him as a leader.
However, I don’t expect him to walk across the Potomac. I know there are going to be compromises and disappointments and failures. Thus I’m not going to get angry when we see only 70% of his promises kept. Think of how far that much will get us.
Hope indeed.
As racionalists we have our feet rooted deep on the ground.
But as a powerless citizen i cant help but to hope for
greater things to be achieved.
Certaintly its would be the end of idiocy and bigotry on America… its not the end, not even the beggining of the end.
But is at least, the end of the beginning.
At first, I was experiencing only the relief of knowing that shrubco inc was gone. Now I’m getting more optimistic as Obama starts taking charge – and doing what he said he’d do.
I agree: It’s nice to see some progressive leadership. We’ll see how bogged down Obama gets with his “pragmatic bi-partisanship” (part of me wants him to wipe the floor with the Republicans).
Isn’t it amazing how refreshing this all is? I don’t think any of us realized just how demoralized and “used to” the situation we’d become with Curious George in the Oval Office.
A lot of hope rests with Obama; let’s see if he can clean this country up and get it back in shape.
Yep. I think you are going to have to put the curmudgeonlyness on ice for a couple of months. He seems genuinely decent and competent.
Not to mention his rules on lobbying and push for a more transparent government.
It’s only one day, but it’s a good start.
It’s been a long time since I’ve felt this strange sensation, too. I tried to be cynical watching the inaguration but I couldn’t help crying with–hope!
To be able to be proud of my country again would be priceless.
Well as an outsider (UKian) I am rooting for him, for the world has many problems that need sorting and an involved and properly engaged USA is very much a necessity. From the little I have seen and read about him he comes across as a principled pragmatist who wants to get things done. I can relate to that. After the last eight years, here’s hoping.
Yep . . . it’s refreshing to go from “Whoever gets elected can’t possibly be as bad as Bush” to “Hot damn! Things are looking up!”
There was his shoutout to unbelievers too.
Hope is what you have when you trust something. Sorry, but I don’t find it in me to trust politicians or to have faith in government. They’re just one more priesthood and one more religion.
Hope, certainly – and there may be a little something foreign mixed in, to give it an exotic tang:
From this side of the Atlantic, there’s a feeling that after a long, sad time, it may be possible for us to start liking America again.
@#1: This highlights something I find very odd – private donations to political campaigns. How usual is that in the US? I get the impression that it’s relatively commonplace.
Here (UK), it’s a really weird idea. I can’t think that I’ve ever met anyone who would give up their hard earned cash to a bunch of politicians. Perhaps it’s because it actually matters who wins over there?
A rather pointless comment, I’ll admit, but I’m just ruminating on the differences between our countries.
I’m sorry, what?
@11
Agreed. As an atheist belief, faith, and hope are null concepts.
PZ asked: “Is this what they call ‘hope’?”
Yes, it is.
If you got involved in Obama’s campaign you should be getting all kinds of emails on such subjects.
His latest emails have been pleas to get involved in community service.
Yes, sounds good and I wish us all well. My optimism was eroded when Mr. Obama announced (1) expansion of the USG “faith-based” services and (2) the pathetic huckster Rick Warren thing. But I can’t shake the ominous feeling of all the nasties out there who would do terrible things to us and others (the same wingnut personalities that are increasingly common/vocal in the US). Of course, that’s not optimistic, but pessimists are usually better informed.
Guy G, in the UK many individuals give to parties. And that is ignoring the directly linked external organisations such as the unions and their ties to labour etc. Also you have party membership which usually involves a membership fee and which pays for the party apparatus. How do you think the parties are financed for they only get a certain amount of state money during elections based on either their share of the vote or number of MPs IIRC, everything else they have to supply themselves. Though admittedly, in recent years, most of the main parties have got their major funding from relatively small numbers of large donors.
I always figured we’d have much more sophisticated methods of interrogation by now. There was an episode of The Prisoner where they fed Number 6 some sort of hallucinogenic, and ran him around a fake old west set to make him think he was a sheriff back in the 1800s. Or some sort of sensory deprivation + virtual reality technique.
part of me wants him to wipe the floor with the Republicans
It’s a floor wax! No, it’s a political Party!
Bob (#15):
Uh, what?
No, seriously, what?
Sniff. Aahh. The air smells much cleaner today. I hope it keeps improving.
Quiet Desperation (#19):
“Living in Harmony”, the episode which was cut from the American broadcast schedule, ostensibly due to the hallucinogenic drug use (never mind the drugs in “A, B and C” and other episodes).
Quiet Desperation wrote:
Me too. Something involving MRI lie detectors and/or brain surgery perhaps.
It’s a good start. Let’s see what has been accomplished six months from now.
There’s still a hell of a lot of work to be done to undo or repair much of Bush’s damage, and still more to drag the US into the 21st century.
Not just Gitmo. Hes closing all the international CIA torture sites.
I know it’s been discussed before but that really meant a lot to me. Just that tiny little acknowledgement that reminds people that atheism is not unmentionable. To me it takes a little bit of the power of intimidation away from the “One nation under God” meme.
I like how he hit the ground running with the anti-lobbyist guidelines. Last night at my weekly hootenanny we sang “This Land is Your Land” and the whole bar (even the bartender, a notorious curmudgeon) sang the choruses together. It was uplifting and hopeful and after the last thirty years it felt really good, like rediscovering something you’d lost for a long time.
I expect to be disappointed. I look forward to it. Over the last dozen years or so, I had no basis for any expectations that might be disappointed, so the possibility of disappointment is a vast improvement.
Wait a minute, wait a minute! Certainly you don’t get your intellectual foundation from The Prisoner, simply because it was a cool show. That’s not much improvement over believing a certain book.
Ding dong, the witch is dead.
Which old witch?
The wicked witch.
One of my main objections to the Bushites was their obvious and distrust of the American people. Obama wasted no time in following up his pledge to bring openness to the White House. On his first day in office he signed an Executive Memorandum instructing his staff to produce a plan outlining steps necessary to operate as openly as possible without sacrificing national security.
That contrasts with Cheney hammering out a national energy policy behind closed doors with his buddies from the oil industry. Bush’s disdain for the citizenry, even his fellow neocons, was overwhelming. Let’s see if the new guy can do it right on this topic.
Hmm. Only negative I can come up with for this is, “Oh good, does that mean we are going to release hundreds of innocent, but pissed off people, who now **will** be terrorists, to get retribution?” Its a good thing, but, at the same time, its like deciding to close a poison factory, after 90% of the workers are already dying from cancer from the toxins. Your saving other people, but its too late to “fix” the original problem. To think otherwise is to be highly naive, and I am seeing a lot of naive from some of our allies when it comes to what the “think” Obama is going to achieve. :(
This still leaves the question fairly open about what to actually do with all of those detainees. Closing Gitmo itself is largely symbolic without a more detailed plan on that front. I don’t see how we can just release any of them if we have reason to believe that they will just rejoin the fight against our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Quiet Desperation(#19) and Norman Doering(#23),
Um, I’m hoping that you’re just musing on possibilities rather than suggesting that feeding them drugs or brain surgery are more acceptable means of interrogation than torture.
Ha! I just had the opportunity of a lifetime. A conservative colleague of mine (and bush syncophant) was denegrating Obama, and I replied “Why are you HURTING our troops by trashing the COMMANDER IN CHIEF?”
It felt damn good.
Paul (@1):
Hmmm… the way it felt in DC on Tuesday, he might’ve been able to do that with no miracles required!
Actually, I was struck by the fact that, despite all the talk about resonance with Lincoln, it was Washington that Obama referenced in his speech:
It takes a leap of faith (which I mean in a secular sense!) to speak of hope in such dark times… but it is essential to do so. I think what we’re seeing with these “good changes” is that even though he knows he must be a political pragmatist, and despite the urgency of our current situation, Obama has not abandoned the underlying principles that drew many of us to him to begin with.
I know Obama won’t always get it right, and that he will sometimes disappoint me… but I did feel a great sense of lightness Tuesday, not just when I watched Bush’s helicopter fly away, but even more strongly the first time I heard “President Obama” spoken in a present-tense sentence.
From Portugal: From across the Atlantic we are seeing (and hoping) a new USA. Congratulations. Your faces are really different :-)
With steps forward and back, is the XXI century finally beginning?
Maybe we can now has a discussion on airport security. I took the Redhead to the airport so she could fly to Florida to visit a couple of her friends. She sprained he ankle again and is not getting around too well. I dropped her off, but could only carry her bags just inside the door. Otherwise, the car could be towed, ticketed, etc., because nobody was attending it. Being able to leave the car for five minutes would have meant I could have got her bags tagged and onto the conveyor belt.
There’s a couple of other negatives:
What happens to the prisoners? Some of those people actually are genuine terrorists. However, if they are tried in regular federal courts much of the evidence against them will be tossed because it was obtained by torture.*
There are several Guantanamo “detainees” who could be released to other countries already, except those other countries don’t want to accept them. What happens to these folks?
*Thanks, Bushites, for fucking up your very own War On Terror™. If you’d played by the rules then this wouldn’t be a problem.
Actually I think the objection to “Living In Harmony” was his refusal to fight back, it was viewed as support for pacifism, since the Vietnam War was raging…
The Rev @33:
No, you can’t stop there! Tell us what he did, how he reacted!
Why can’t anyone tell a story right? I want to hear the part where he was flummoxed and stammered and fainted dead away.
Check out the Drudge Report’s latest headline NO BIBLE USED AT OBAMA RE-SWEAR. I just copied the headline and grabbed a picture in case it’s removed. I’m a libertarian but I will give Obama a chance. So far things are going alright, lets keep them going. Some of it may go against what might be my political beliefs but we do need to rebuild our infrastructure. I would prefer not to have another I-35 collapse as I would have been on it if a meeting hadn’t been canceled. No, I don’t believe it was god as I’m an atheist and a strong one at that.
This will be a very different administration. One that believes in following the rule of law and human rights. I think the most impressive shifts will be in foreign policy. The domestic stuff will be a hard slog… but he does have a mandate.
speedwell (@11):
Politicians are only a “priesthood” to the extent that ordinary folk are willing to be supplicants sitting quietly in the pews… but that’s not what Obama’s asking us to be: His campaign, then his transition team, and now his administration, begs us to be involved — to take personal responsibility for the success of the nation — to a greater extent than any administration has in my memory.
People who are dismissive of “politicians” as if they’re some sort of alien breed are sowing the seeds of their own enslavement: Politics is the business of the polis… the city… us. Sovereignty inheres in, and flows from, the people… unless they surrender it through cynicism and complacency.
KI (@27):
Sunday it was Pete Seeger (Pete Freakin’ Seeger!!) leading hundreds of thousands of us in that song, from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. It really is a new day.
This is certainly great news PZ; I’m also hopeful with the reported prospect that Obama intends to place a indefinite hold on all the lame-duck executive orders implemented right before Bush left office…
JasonTD wrote:
I’m not saying that drugs and brain surgery are necessarily more acceptable, but I do think they would be a far more interesting philosophical and ethical problem. That’s the problem with the Bush administration, they can’t even come up with an original sin — they have to go back to the evils of the Spanish Inquisition. There is no challenge to their evil, it’s too obviously wrong.
Sam, the birthers are still claiming that “Barry Soetero” isn’t a natural-born America citizen. Drudge whining about a bible is nothing compared to that.
A nice beginning. But where, oh where, are the prosecutions of those who enacted the policies that led to Guantanamo? So far, Obama is leaving them with the distinct impression that there are no consequences for having carried out torture.
There will be another Republican administration in the white house some day. Like most administrations, they will probably higher many who got experience in the white house under the previous administration of the same party. Just as G. W. Bush selected many who had been in the white house administrations of H. W. Bush, Reagan, and Nixon, the next Republican president will select people who were in the G. W. Bush white house administration. And they will return to the white house knowing there are no consequences for torture.
Posted by: Robert W | January 22, 2009 10:17 AM
I agree: It’s nice to see some progressive leadership. We’ll see how bogged down Obama gets with his “pragmatic bi-partisanship” (part of me wants him to wipe the floor with the Republicans)
*********
The “bi-partisan crap is crap. If Obama doesn’t want to offend the Thugs then we are screwed. So far, the “olive branches” include allowing the Thugs to add amendments to the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and preventing the addition of Bankruptcy reform to the next give away to the banks.
He’s also expected to overturn the ban on stem cell research soon.
Obama is a HUGE contrast to Bush II. So far, everything is just fine. His only bows to religion have been political expediency. We aren’t going to get everything we want. Everything we want will never pass congress, just as everything the religious Right wants will never pass congress.
Next: Watch Obama rescind the international abortion gag rule …
Mr. Obama is the best person for the job right now. There’s no one I’d rather see in that seat right now.
I’ve never been so excited about an election in my entire life (I’m roughly contemporary with PZM.) I was too young to know about JFK. When I grew up, with a career military officer father and lots of books in our home about: WWII, the Korean War, other wars; and the Vietnam War was on TV every night. I thought the US was literally always fighting a war somewhere. The first presidential election I was able to vote in (and did vote in) brought Reagan to office. I’ve had to live with Republican presidents from my entire adult life, except for Clinton. And Clinton was certainly a mixed blessing.
And, the cherry on top is: Obama is the first black president. I got to experience a true historical moment. He’s also the first president who is younger than me (yikes!)
I am enthusiastic about Mr. Obama; but not star-struck. He’s going to disappoint in many areas I’m sure. Warren at the inauguration was one (nicely balanced by his acknowledgement of “non-believers.”) But look at his publcily stated positions: this is the best I’ve ever seen.
Ask yourself this: Who would you prefer to see in that office, who also would have had a realistic chance to be elected? Hillary Clinton is the only other possible choice in my opinion; and I don’t think she could work “across lines” as well as Obama appears to be able to.
Obama has a lot of REALLY IMPORTANT work to GET DONE. I think he’s our best shot. I feel very fortunate.
Like PZ said: I have this bizarre feeling, one that I’ve never had following a presidential election: hope.
Er, hire, not higher.
I second Blake.
Huh?
Blake & Rev BDC, I believe that Bob was doing the old “atheists have nothing to live for because they don’t have faith and hope” shtick. I hope not, but my faith isn’t strong on the subject.
Hey Rev. BDC,
Did you get my email?
@15
“Agreed. As an atheist belief, faith, and hope are null concepts.”
That’s funny, I thought the opposite was true. I think humanism is a very hope-giving philosophy, faith in your fellow man and hope for a better future free from the pains of our sectarian, religious past. In short, belief, faith, hope should be grounded by rationalism, not destroyed by it. You must be one of the atheists the religious are always accusing of being dry, boring, depressing rationalists. Lighten up.
Bill@42
It was Pete and Bruce that inspired my bringing it up. We sang the “commie” verses, too!
Dont forget the restauration of the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act).
The Republicans are already trying to angle ways to slow down any climate change based regulations.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/first-shot-fired-in-the-gop-battle-against-action-on-climate-change.php
Scum bags.
And I love that NASA reported that Antarctica is warming too, it’s funny what having satellites can do for global research. Wonder how the deniers will spin that.
“Hillary Clinton is the only other possible choice in my opinion; and I don’t think she could work “across lines” as well as Obama appears to be able to.”
*********
I think Hillary would have initiated War Crimes investigation…Bush is a “Nice Guy” and working across the isle makes me very nervous. The time for Obama to hit hard and undo the Bush/Cheney police state is now. His popularity and political leverage is likely at it’s highest now and will likely go down as the economy continues to deteriorate.
I know you’re all optimistic and desperate for something better after the Bush years. In the UK we went through this in 97 when Tony Blar was elected after the Conservatives. New progressive dawn, people did walk round that day with a smile on their faces and a spring in their step. He was charismatic, spoke well.
He turned out be a craven lying warmonger, so far up the arse of big business he had his feet tied to a plank to stop him disappearing completely.
I hope I’m wrong. If Obama’s 25% of what he seems you have a great leader. And we could do with a bit of optimism right now, I wish him and the US all the luck in the world. And the youtube of Pete Seeger is just fantastic.
I think Obama was the world’s candidate for pres.
Just remember, the guy is gonna have to bend over on some stuff in order to get his way on other more important stuff. The nutty religious stuff is fine, as long as it doesn’t inform policy (Bush’s foreign policy anyone?)……
Have faith oh Faithless! We who have no faith can rejoice in our faith in HOPE!
Keep hope alive!
DL.
Peter Mc@#59: Occasionally Obama makes me think of Blair too, but if he is the same sort of venal bullshitter he is much more convincing at it. Even at he start, it was possible to see the joins where Blair’s act was clumsily sewn together.
Good start, but WTF does he need a year to do it? If I were in his position, I’d make damned sure it was closed at the end of the week…
If we didn’t believe in hope, why are we posting all this writing? I’m hoping what I say here will be of interest, maybe do some good, and at least let me learn form other’s reactions.
President Obama has to close Guantanamo for two reasons. First, as a symbolic act, even if it just means shuttling all the prisoners off to somewhere else (he’s not going to just turn all of them loose) for decisions about eventual release. Second, the agreement with Cuba that allowed a re-fueling station there (written back when coal was the fuel and trips were shorter) specifically prohibits use of the area as a prison.
@Kagehi #31–
Hmm. Only negative I can come up with for this is, “Oh good, does that mean we are going to release hundreds of innocent, but pissed off people, who now **will** be terrorists, to get retribution?”
http://www.livevideo.com/video/92079991BFAE41488D1EE7BF1F7041ED/tripod-suicide-bomber.aspx
The group: Tripod. The song: “Suicide Bomber”. Worth a listen!
Obama is a yuppie lawyer representing Zionist Israel.
How could you miss it?
Obama’s gigantic attorney’s fee is confidential because all attorney fees are confidential – “it’s the Law.”
Lawyer Joe Biden’s fees are much less; but, as a Senator whoring for Israel, Joe Baby has been collecting from Israel for more than 35 years.
Yalie Lawyer Hillarious is up next to batter & murder the the Palestinians and she will deliver for her Zionist Israeli client.
Hey, how can you knock “our first black & Jewish president?”
No doubt they’ll fix it pretty quickly, but ya’ gotta’ love the unintended poetry of this HuffPo headline:
I realize it was just one sentence in the speech but I was much heartened to hear him say “… restore science to its proper place…” in this country. A real test will be if he actually stops funding the asinine and hopeless “abstinence only” sex dis-education program. Ah, a new day.
Must liberals have some reservations about Obama, like the Civil Liberties people who wished he voted against the NSA warrantless wiretrapping, or the economists who think he should present a *more* agressive stimulus plan, and yet they cheer and have Hope.
First because litle could be worst than Bush, Mccain or any modern-day Republican, actualy. So Obama seems a *great* improvement over the dark age that the NeoCons where planning. Second, maturity is realising that no one is perfect and the ‘less worse’ is everything we have. Third, he seems to be a partidary of participative and open democracy, so you Americans still can try to change his mind on the details, and hope to be listened.
Meanwhile, we dirty foreigners have to sit and watch and hope that you dont mess everything up again :)
Give it a rest Gerald.
People who are dismissive of “politicians” as if they’re some sort of alien breed are sowing the seeds of their own enslavement: Politics is the business of the polis… the city… us. Sovereignty inheres in, and flows from, the people… unless they surrender it through cynicism and complacency.
Bill, I understand what you’re trying to say. I have a bad taste in my mouth from politicians shitting in it over the years. I’m from Texas, dammit. It takes a certain kind of rascal to want to take power within the political structure that exists today. You can (and I do) say a lot against a fellow like Ron Paul, but at least he isn’t complacent and complicit; he does work hard on behalf of lots of people who are being abused by the way things work now. If we had more politicians like him, we could expect better than him.
I’m just not getting my hopes up. My demagogue-following organ fell ill during Jimmy Carter’s administration and died permanently when my mom fell heavily for James Dobson’s cultish lies. I finally excised the dead thing along with my religious affiliation. I’ll only believe all the pie-in-the-sky promises when it gets suddenly dark, I have a headache, and I taste cherries.
I’m impressed PZ… how hard was it for your lips to form the word “hope”?
And there’s this;
NEWS ANALYSIS
Scientists Welcome Obama’s Words
“If you look at the science world, you see a lot of happy faces,” said Frank Press, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences and former science adviser to President Jimmy Carter. “It’s not just getting money. It’s his recognition of what science can do to bring this country back in an innovative way.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/politics/22science.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
People bemoan the risk of letting the detainees out, and the problem of where to send them.
That sidesteps the issue.
The issue is, we’re holding people illegally. There may be current, unconstitutional laws in place that seem to make it illegal, but those laws fly in the face of the constitution. Those prisons are un-American and a greater threat to our way of life than a few airliners flying into buildings.
Provide those prisoners with either freedom or a speedy trial, if you think the evidence merits a trial. Otherwise let them go. If no nation will take them, make them American citizens and give them the rights and privileges due to each of us.
Yes, there are terrorists that will go free. Yes, some of the released detainees will now become new terrorists. Tough shit. We earned that. We let it happen.
We won’t be helpless against those people. Our police and FBI are still doing their jobs.
If the police arrest a criminal, then screw up the evidence and violate his rights so badly that he doesn’t get convicted, then he *shouldn’t* go to jail. We need to apply that sense of justice outside our borders, as well as inside. Our first line of defense against future terrorism is to be just and fair and right. Sure, there’s a cost associated with it. Tough shit.
Or as the wingnutosphere calls it, “The second full day of the failed Obama presidency!”
I first felt the sense of joy being expressed here several weeks ago, when I heard three words: Doctor Steven Chu.
Imagine, a real Nobel prize winner, in charge of scientific policy.
That’s just the way it’s supposed to be. This is in opposition to scientifically illiterate, yet religious, folks being in charge of scientific policy.
For me, this was the first ray of sunshine after walking through a foggy swamp for, oh, 8 years (the number 8 not chosen randomly).
I’m not sure how a bunch of Clinton retreads and Rubin boys are going to suddenly reinvent themselves into “meaningful change”.
As the second half of the real estate mortgage crises gets underway, and the commercial real estate sector takes a big shit, and more and more big box retailers fold up their tents with stars circling overhead and crosses in their eyes, are we finally going to see Obama admit that the house of cards has to come down BEFORE anything can be truly fixed?
And that that house of cards was a natural denoument of the federal government’s over-zealousness and desire to command and control?
Central banks, central government, central “too big to fail corporations” all at the center of things…
Bah!
Give me community, local production, local government, mom and pop stores and a nice local bank over the monstrosity cheap credit and easy money have given us over the last 30 years…
Yay, gerald is off his meds again. Just what we needed.
I hope you guys are enjoying having a president who respects science, acknowledges that gays and nonbelievers exist, and can speak.
I think when Nelson Mandela sends a letter saying that this is a really inspiring event, you’re allowed to feel positive about it.
A couple more days of these temps and he might well try. I just went to grab some lunch and when I was outside, it looked as though there might be a couple of solid inches of ice on the damn thing.
I’d be really impressed if the Obama administration starts proceedings to prosecute the criminals who approved the use of torture.
Point to Obama for ordering Gitmo closed. Let’s see whether he also takes the extra step of renouncing the power Bush claimed to hold a person indefinitely without trial. Restoring habeus corpus is rather more important than where a person is imprisoned, IMHO.
-jcr
Hope? That is a holy word – you shall not speak it!!!
Such “Audacity” :-)
Forgive my ‘Murrican ignorance of British politics, but how much of that is our fault? From this remove, my impression is that Blair might well have been what you thought you were getting when you elected him, if he hadn’t tragically lashed himself to the mast of Bush’s insane Iraq policy. Frankly, I’ve always blamed Bush for derailing the career of someone who could’ve been a great statesman.
But maybe I’m deluded on this score; perhaps Blair would’ve been a “craven lying warmonger” even without W’s assistance.
On a somewhat different subject, but still regarding Gitmo: besides closing the prison, how about abandoning the naval base there and ending the lease? Cuba doesn’t want us there, and in this day and age I don’t see any particular benefit to maintaining a naval station on foreign soil less than a day’s cruise away from our bases in Florida.
-jcr
I did not like George “Two Ewes” Bush even before he was elected the first time. (I didn’t like his father very much either.)
But when Two Ewes first took the oath I decided to with hold judgment for at least a year. I ended up giving him closer to two years before concluding that he actually was as poorly equipped to be CEO of America as he had appeared to be. I did not like having to come to that conclusion.
Now comes Obama, and he has reached the pinnacle where there is room for only one and I am going to give him the same grace. At least a year. Until then, I watch, listen, read and converse.
And I really, really, really, REALLY! hope that I will find good cause to judge him fairly and truthfully as a defender of the Constitution and the liberty it was crafted to preserve.
Go well, Mr. President, and good luck to you. See you in a year or so.
Give me community, local production, local government, mom and pop stores and a nice local bank over the monstrosity cheap credit and easy money have given us over the last 30 years…
While we’re at it, let’s remove the impediments to investment in smaller businesses. Wall Street has a lot of people’s money in behemoth mutual funds that could be far more productive if it were dispersed.
-jcr
Bill Dauphin #182
“Forgive my ‘Murrican ignorance of British politics, but how much of that is our fault??”
You must remember that England is a country that still worships kings and queens and believes in princesses.
;^ )
@#18, John Phillips:
Perhaps I was being over cynical about the UK public’s attitude towards politics. What I’m really surprised about is just how common it is to donate to a political party in the US, as opposed to here. Whilst I realise that most party funding does come from individuals, I had the impression that it was more a case of a (very?) few people giving big donations (like you say).
From media coverage etc. it seems almost the norm to give a little cash to the candidate of your choice in the US, whereas here I think it would be highly unusual.
It’s a smaller factor in what (to me – YMMV) seems like a vast difference in US and UK attitudes to politics. I just can’t imagine the same level of celebration at the election of a new leader. I seem to remember it being a mildly big deal when Labour came to power in 97, but absolutely *nothing* like the celebrations and parties that are going on just for Obama’s inauguration (let alone his winning).
Just musing, anyway
Removed? It wouldn’t surprise me if the Drudge staffers are at this very moment photoshopping a blazing American flag into the fireplace beneath his bible-free hands to ‘update’ the story.
Barack: “Hi Honey. I’m home.”
Michelle: “Whatcha get up to at work today Dear?”
Barack: “I made the world a better place to live in.”
Good Job!
:)
You can (and I do) say a lot against a fellow like Ron Paul, but at least he isn’t complacent and complicit – speedwell
Nor is (or was) Osama bin Laden. Ron Paul is a fucking nutter: creationist, AGW denialist, racist. The only reason you like him is that you share one particular aspect of his nuttiness.
That’s a nice It’s a Wonderful Life world you’re imagining there, Scott; do you think your version won’t have its Mr. Potter?
Speaking of which, am I the only one who thought Cheney in his wheelchair and with his cain, looked just like the aforementioned dastardly villain?
Bob: Agreed. As an atheist belief, faith, and hope are null concepts.
Only to a very naive and vulgar atheist.
All your questions have to be built on assumptions — beliefs.
Faith may be more universal than that of a religionist, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t have faith in external reality, the rising of the sun and the earth under your feet: only an ignoramus could believe that he had empirically and skeptically determined the reality of any of those things.
Hope is just an emotional reaction to an expectation — you don’t claim you don’t have “expectations” of the future? Or is it just that you believe yourself to be from your own subjectivity?
Grow the hell up — even a college freshman philosophy student should have a more sophisticated concept of skepticism than to dismiss their own fixed point; anyone who pretends to be a universal skeptic is simply full of shit.
I see the whacko Libertarians have invaded the thread.
All you have to do is pull the string on an Ayn Rand doll and you will hear the same tired naive utopian BS they repeat ad nauseum.
No UK prime ministerial election can really match the sort of event we saw the other day, partly because the PM is not the head of state, just the head of the government, partly because if that many people got together in one place the country would tip over and we’d slide into the Channel.
The ’97 election was pretty cathartic; not because Blair and Labour were that great, but because the Tories had gone so rancid that a massive national enema had to be administered. Everyone felt better. Were you still up for Portillo?
For me, this was the first ray of sunshine after walking through a foggy swamp for, oh, 8 years (the number 8 not chosen randomly).
O, I hate to pee in our soup, I do I do…but already Dr Chu was heard telling the senate confirmation committee that “clean coal” might be done, and is certainly not the WORST Nightmare, as he had previously proclaimed.
Nor is (or was) Osama bin Laden.
Oh, give it a rest. Osama bin Laden hates America and freedom, and he trains and deploys terrorists; Ron Paul loves America and freedom and he’s a practicing obstetrician who has been known to work for free to deliver poor black babies. So he has significant weaknesses; I didn’t and don’t deny it. In fact, I remember expressing a wish for politicians who are better than him. Can’t you read?
@ Bill Dauphin
Yes! My husband and I both remarked on the similarity. A ‘warped frustrated old man’ indeed!
naive utopian BS
You trust and fawn upon a fucking politician and you call me a naive utopian?
God (so to speak) help President Obama when he can’t fill all of your hungry bellies immediately and you turn on him. He’s just one single human being. He’s being exposed to the massive inertia of a system left over from the Bush administration. Even if I was convinced he was actuated by the most angelic intentions, I would expect him to make compromises just to get along. He can’t be everything to everybody. You’re the ones who are expecting that.
“…am I the only one who thought Cheney in his wheelchair and with his cain, looked just like the aforementioned dastardly villain?”
The first thing that struck my mind was Dr. Strangelove,
especially when he stiffly raised his hand.
Um, I’m hoping that you’re just musing on possibilities rather than suggesting that feeding them drugs or brain surgery are more acceptable means of interrogation than torture.
Maybe.
The brain must be prepared.
Diced.
Aside from all the other little straws of hope I’m clinging to from Obama’s inaugural address, I’m enjoying the fact that he listed curiosity as a national virtue.
As for walking on the Potomac: I did see pix of people walking and sliding and generally disporting themselves on the Reflecting Pool as the crowd broke up on Tuesday. Would that do as a substitute? Maybe he could arrange an outdoor press conference there and show the nation a more literal, less nauseating kind of slippery.
One thing I’d forgotten about hope is how it hurts, with the peculiar electric-seeming spasms you get when you stretch a long-cramped muscle, or the deep ache when you get circulation back into frostbitten hands.
All else aside, I’m still getting waves of relief, nearly pride, that we didn’t elect another set of Bushoids. Whatever the hell else happens, at least the nation isn’t quite that hopelessly bad.
So good to see that violation of international law being dismantled – it’s enough to make this cynic lower his defenses.
Great start of Obama’s presidency.
He’s trying to get confirmed. He’s going to say a lot of things that seem friendly to the energy companies. The coal companies are going to keep mining, doesn’t hurt to suggest finding ways to make it “clean” even if he knows it’s non-existent.
@speedwell
Sometimes it’s not all about you…
I didn’t know you were a Libertarian and wasn’t referring to you.
And FTR I didn’t vote for Obama in the primaries and have no illusions
about the challenges he faces and mistakes he will make.
@#94, Stephen Wells:
The head of state thing is an important point, but I don’t think it’s the main thing. I’m of the suspicion that it’s to do with the polaristion of US politics. With such Hollywood-like division into good and evil (of both sides from both sides), how could you not get at least mildly interested?
(As for “Were you still up for Portillo?”: it might be rhetorical, but at that time I hadn’t really the slightest clue as to what was going on in politics, and so didn’t care less (this was age related rather than just plain ignorance). I just remember the election being a rather big thing)
Cheney as Blofeld, Mr. Potter, The Big Lebowski and Dr. Strangelove all rolled into one.
Unfortunately the whole thing got ruined for me because my husband got laid off his job on the 20th. That was certainly bad timing!
Bill @ #82: You’re spot on, except to add that Blair caught a nasty case of religion while in office, and God told him that invading Iraq was OK, just like Bush. Then we had the biggest demonstration against the war (the biggest demo ever in British history), but he ignored it, and still thought he and God knew better. Maybe Bush’s cronies fooled him into thinking that the intelligence was good, or maybe there was something in it for us if we went along – something we haven’t received yet…
Sometimes it’s not all about you… I didn’t know you were a Libertarian and wasn’t referring to you.
Oh. OK, sorry. Here, let me get a rag and help you wipe that spittle off your shirt front, and let’s go have a beer. :D
Patricia,OM @ 107
Sorry to read that Patricia, and we all know that he is not alone and among the last. So in addition to the eggs, why not start a broiler business, fresh chickens cooked and ready to eat from your car! Hey, you can call them “Darwins Favorites” and perhaps all the atheists and freethinkers in the area will come running!
You know why Chaney had the cane, even in the wheelchair? So he could still smack orphans.
No you idiot it is called mass hysteria and delusion…plus kissing capitalism and out way of life goodbye
“Oh. OK, sorry. Here, let me get a rag and help you wipe that spittle off your shirt front, and let’s go have a beer. :D”
Thanks. If you carried around and used a handkerchief
you wouldn’t have such a mess to clean up.
;^ )
Only if it’s Negro Modelo, Bass Ale or New Castle.
He’s certainly off to a great start!
“Pig ignorant egotistical stupid wackaloon” is more accurate.
Way to engage the issues, dude.
I hope I haven’t said this here already, but one of the things I really like about Obama in general is that when he talks, he talks like a grownup addressing other grownups.
Bush, no matter who he is talking to, or what he is talking about, always comes off like a hungover frat president dressing down a bunch of pledges for daring to question one of his arbitrary commends during Hell Week.
Mike the Library Guy #112
His post makes about as much sense as his wingnut blog.
It astounds me how wingnuts love classic rock but apparently never listen to the lyrics.
What is it they don’t they understand about sex, drugs, counterculture, peace and love?
But anyone who would put a pic of Chuck Norris on his blog as a point of pride clearly has no limits on idiocy or bad acting.
Mike @ #112: I’m going to assume you’re just making fun of the nutbar tendency to say things like that despite them being utter bullshit, for the sake of my sanity.
Blake@20, not really sure what your question is? I thought it was a pretty simple statement, what exactly don’t you understand
CSN@54
Humanism may be, but where did I claim to be a humanist? Why do you feel a lack of faith, belief, and hope to be dry? That sounds like more of your shortcoming than mine. Sounds like you use the same cognitive processes as the religion, but focus on man rather than god, or perhaps deify humanity in some way.
Patricia, sorry to hear about your husband. We lost a temp in my department that we thought we could keep. The economy keeps a lot of us worried.
Thanks for the kind thoughts!
Bob, #15: As an atheist belief, faith, and hope are null concepts.
and #120: Sounds like you use the same cognitive processes as the religion, but focus on man rather than god, or perhaps deify humanity in some way.
Are you claiming to be an atheist? Sorry for the puzzlement, but the first phrase sounds more like what evangelicals claim about atheists rather than what real atheists think or feel, and the second is exactly the description of “secular humanism” right out of the evangelical playbook.
davem (@108):
Don’t I know it! He’s teaching “Faith and Globalization” just down the road from me at Yale. Brilliant Daughter won’t get to take his class (nor would she want to, with a subject like that), but maybe she’ll get to see him give a speech or lecture or some such during his tenure there (which has just been extended through 2010, IIRC).
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/01/22/executive-order-watch/#comments
That is a list of other Executive Orders, and it’s rumoured that he’ll be overturning the Global Gag Rule today or tomorrow, too. It’s a good time to be a woman in America! FINALLY!
Patricia:
I saw the expressions of compassion before I saw your original note, and feared something far worse! Sorry for the setback. The ESOL program my wife teaches in also had to reduce staff on 1/20. My wife wasn’t affected (except that the resulting reshuffling of classes caused her some rework), but even a near-miss clarifies the mind amazingly.
I trust your husband will land on his feet… as, FSM willing, may we all.
I thought it was interesting that he mentioned nonbelievers, and the paramountcy of science.
This non-believer is definitely feeling hope. I like it. I said previously, sure, they’ll be times/events/days/policies/deicisons I end up disagreeing with, but overall, I do think things feel more positive, more problem-solving as opposed to more reacting out of fear, generally more hopeful.
Not sure why feeling hope would somehow invalidate my lack of belief in things supernatural.
Bill Dauphin said it all better than I did anyway =)
Article today in The Daily Texan about the science curriculum hearings here in Texas scheduled for tomorrow. Still tons of folks who want to “teach the controversy,” insisting it actually makes for better science.
The work continues.
Patricia, sorry to hear about your husband’s job situation; here’s hoping (!) for quick success in securing new employment.
No kings,
Robert
“All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.” (From President Obama’s memo)
Did someone heat dessert in the microwave? I think I smell pastry.
‘Hope’, hmm. I looked it up — it’s in the dictionary. Well, I learned a new word today. I’ll try using it at every opportunity to reinforce this new learning. Thanks, PZ.
Negro Modelo!, New Castle … mmmmmmmm
Mayhempix might be a great drinking buddy. Good beer, good conversation.
Desert Son:
I am sharing your anxiety over the Texas science curriculum hearings. I’ve still got one son in school, and then there are the future grandkids to think about.
Patricia: Sorry to hear about the job situation too. Hang in there, both of you.
Bob- Just a hit and run troll.
Libertarian motto: I reject your reality and substitute my own 1950’s television version.
I had the opposite reaction when I heard the thing about Gitmo. It’s a little prison camp that houses a couple hundred prisoners. There is no way that a year is needed to close it. It feels like he is dragging his feet on this. He should have immediately started the process of transferring the prisoners into the justice system and had the place closed down in a couple months, not a year. This, to me, seems like a clear case of Obama compromising to appease conservatives and I say this all as an Obama supporter. He really dissappointed me on this one.
Patricia, best wishes for your husband and yourself.
That’s it Bob, I have hope for mankind therefor I deify humanity. I didn’t say you were a humanist, you said atheism nullifies faith/hope/belief and I named a philosophy common to many atheists which contradicted your asinine claim. As has been pointed out, anyone claiming universal skepticism (and what’s more claiming that that philosophy isn’t “dry”) is hopelessly naive. And stop pretending to be thick, it is annoying.
Bob (#120):
Hope is a state of mind which has nothing necessarily to do with supernatural beings. One does not have to be delusional in order to be hopeful. A person can lack even the tiniest shred of god-belief and still hope that the grocery store has fresh blueberries.
And as for faith, well, if you take the definition of that to be “belief in things unseen”, then one could be an atheist and have faith in something other than gods. “Faith in the free market” springs to mind as a trite example, but one could also have faith in finding one’s true love, for example. Empirically speaking, many self-identified atheists also lack these other kinds of faith, but this is not a necessarily logical consequence of atheism proper.
@132: why do you think “within a year” means “not until a year from now”? Can you not read? The guy moves on the issue on his first day and you think he’s dragging his feet? Sheesh.
frog@92
Oh my, froggy boy insults me and tells me all sorts of things I have to believe. Whatever am I to do…
Chiroptera@123
When did atheist become synonymous with secular humanist? Why does my lack faith (believing things without proof) and belief (the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true — at best propositions are provisionally true, just as for instance, someone’s belief that panda’s are more closely related to racoons than bears might be) and hope (the general feeling that some desire will be fulfilled) mean I must have faith, belief, and hopes in humanity as a whole? As long as the evidence indicates that a certain set of knowledge might be useful, then I will consider it useful. When the evidence shows otherwise, then I will no longer consider it useful.
“Ron Paul loves America and freedom and he’s a practicing obstetrician who has been known to work for free to deliver poor black babies.”
What’s wrong with delivering rich white babies and getting paid for it? This Ron Paul guy sounds like a socialist, communist, and racist all rolled into one!
I don’t care who you are, that’s funny.
Blake@135
There are all sorts of people who self-identify themselves as atheist. Many simply have substituted another deity without calling it god. I would not call those atheists. You apparently would.
He’s been on the job for two fricking days!
You guys should check out the video of Hillary coming to the State Department… they are ELATED the neocons have been shown the door.
I think Obama has the right ideas, and will be able to achieve a lot, even if he is thwarted from time to time.
However, what having Obama as leader has already done is changed the setting of “normal”.
I am hoping that the “dumb is cool” thing that has been shackling people in the US for so long now (since Reagan? it wasn’t always that way, surely) will begin to fade.
No single person can fix the mess that exists, but a good leader can inspire and change the culture. I think Obama has already begun that process.
that man is making it real difficult to stay a grumpy cynic *grumble grumble* ;-)
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | January 22, 2009 12:19 PM: (#67)
Bill, what do you see in Peter’s comment that implies Blair’s behavior is the fault of Americans? I’ve read it twice and I can’t see it.
Bob, #137: When did atheist become synonymous with secular humanist?
I didn’t say that you made that claim. I’m simply pointing out that you are using buzzwords that are usually associated with evangelical Christians. I rarely, if ever, hear atheists say the things that you are saying. I’m not saying that no atheist would ever feel this way, just that it has not been a common experience for me.
Especially the linking of the word “humanism” with the phrase “deification of humanity”. That is a common buzzphrase among evangelicals, and if you are an atheist then you are the first I have ever seen use it. That is what piqued my curiosity.
llewelly
Sorry, not what I meant. I was saying I thought Blair’s downfall might have been rooted in his commitment to maintaining an historical alliance with the U.S., even when our policy didn’t deserve his friendship.
I speculate that he might have been closer to what had Brits smiling when he was first elected… if only he hadn’t had the the bad fortune to overlap terms with our Worst President Ever.
The “forgive my ‘Murrican ignorance” and “maybe I’m deluded” parts weren’t intended as snark; I was simply trying to acknowledge the limits of my information.
llewelly, I think the point was that Bill thought it was Dubya’s fault (not that Bill thought Peter was saying it was Dubya’s fault), and wanted an explanation/confirmation/refutation from Peter (or another UKer) on this point.
Chiropter@144
I don’t see how an atheist could feel any other way, though. Christians always point to things like Stalin for how atheists are evil. But they weren’t really atheists, they deified Stalin; the same cognitive process one uses for believing in a god were used, but directed at Stalin and Communism as well.
Blake@135
I’d like to expand on your hope example a bit, as I would argue that what you are citing as hope is in fact based on supernatural beliefs, and is not different from prayer save that is it not directed to a named deity. As you go to the store looking for blueberries, suppose you do hope they have some. Does that influence the outcome of whether they do or not? No. But you hope because it makes you feel good. Why does it make you feel good? Because on some level you have an expectation, most probably not an conscious one, that it will influence the probability they have the blueberries.
Bob wrote:
I hope you realise this sounds like something you just made up. If it’s not, can you give any indication that you’re basing it on anything other than what you’d like to be true? Because I can’t see that you’ve got any grounds for making the claim.
Well, to be fair, in politics (and even moreso in the law), “within X” tends to mean “on the day before X.”
Hopefully, this case will be different.
Bob, #147: I don’t see how an atheist could feel any other way, though.
Well, I’ve conversed with lots of atheists and found that many feel in all sorts of different ways. Some the same as me, some different but in ways that I understand, and some in ways that I don’t understand.
Part of the human condition I guess. Atheists aren’t a monolithic group that all feel exactly the same way.
Which is why I’m not disputing that you’re an atheist. You just see things differently than most that I have met before.
Chiropter@144
Also, I was an atheist prior to the widespread use of the term secular humanism, so perhaps that is why I don’t see it the way other atheists you may have met.
wowbagger@148:
It is based upon my studies of human psychology and cognitive processes. Among other things, the book “The Anatomy of Hope” by Jerome Goopman. So, now may I ask you: Do you always spout of without doing any research of your own?
Bob,
What would liked me to have ‘researched’? You didn’t include any references with your assertion.
In future either include them (or at least allude to them) when you post something like that or learn to tolerate it when people are suspicious about your tactics when you equate hope to prayer.
Perhaps yanking the stick out of your butt would be a good idea, too.
So, once again…
…the air smells clean.
…the birds are singing.
…the baby squid are playing in the ocean.
Hope has returned.
@Patricia
So sorry to hear it. No day is a good day to receive bad news but why on inauguration day? Was the employer a Palin fan or just socially challenged? Best to him and you.
I think bob is confusing plain, simple “hope” with “hope against all hope”.
when I’m hoping that the store will have cheap blueberries around Independence Day, that’s reasonable hope, and sometimes it’s simple motivation (if I didn’t think there was a chance of cheap blueberries, I might not even go to the store). To hope for cheap blueberries in January on the other hand is literally “hoping for a miracle” and is mental masturbation similar to prayer
similarly, “hoping” that your sports team will win against all odds is also similar to prayer. on the other hand, hoping that your team will win because it’s done well in the past and is playing a good game is simple optimism and the (more or less cautious)joy of expectation.
Wowbagger@152.
Asking someone why the feel a particular way is quite acceptable and expected. Accusing someone of making something up when you have no knowledge of the subject is just just plain stupid.
Jadehawk@155
I defined above what I am referring to when I use the word hope.
@E.V. #131
“Negro Modelo!, New Castle … mmmmmmmm
Mayhempix might be a great drinking buddy. Good beer, good conversation.”
Thanks. Maybe someday we can. I Also love the motto…
“Libertarian motto: I reject your reality and substitute my own 1950’s television version.”
not really bob. all you’ve said is “hope (the general feeling that some desire will be fulfilled)”.
when there’s no reason to believe that a desire will be fulfilled, then hope is very much like prayer. when there’s perfectly good reasons to think that your desire might get fulfilled, then a joyous optimism is fully warranted and no way resembles the “if i just wish for it hard enough, it will happen” sort of hope you seem to be presuming. the vagueness of language in this case however is no reason whatsoever to lump those two things together and declare both to be irrational mental masturbation.
Bob wrote:
Acceptable and expected where? You’re new to Pharyngula; here the standards of what is ‘acceptable’ and ‘expected’ are specific to this site and those who post here.
You made an assertion about how someone hoping there’ll be blueberries at the store equates to them praying that there’ll be blueberries and even thinking that, by hoping, they will increase the chances of there being blueberries.
I’m not the only one who considers that a somewhat extraordinary claim. On this site, where you have posted, it is ‘acceptable and expected’ that if you make such a claim, you back it up somehow. You didn’t do that, and I called you on it.
And as for’know[s] nothing about the subject’ – you’re making a wild assumption there. You know nothing about me.
Bob – glad you defined YOUR use of hope. Of course, your usage and everyone else’s usage in this instance may not be and in fact are not the same.
In this case we are talking about hope in an outcome based on an individual. Specifically our new president. This sort of hope is derived from observing actions and extrapolating where those actions might lead – in this case it is to a better place for our country than we have seen in a long time. This is not blind or wishful hope, merely the feeling of a potentially promising outcome based on current observations. It feels good to see some indication of a resurrection of what many of us feel the US should strive to be. The common phrase for expressing this good feeling is “Feeling hopeful”. Yes, it is slightly irrational as we cannot predict the future, but it is no way akin to prayer.
I suspect that you already know that this is what was meant and are simply baiting for the sake of argument though.
Blind hope on the other hand can be compared to unfocused prayer… but then again the human mind is quite clearly wired to engage in this sort of behavior. If it wasn’t we, as a species, wouldn’t fall into religion as easily as we do.
Personally,I have no problem with proposing that the evolutionary or social basis for the feeling “hope” might be that our brains are wired in such a way that we feel that hoping for something might alter the chances of a positive outcome,which makes us feel all warm and fuzzy.
Hell,it might explain prayer too.
“Give me community, local production, local government, mom and pop stores and a nice local bank…”
Scott from Oregon (76), for the umpteenth time, take the white male privilege outta your ass. That scenario gives a lot of the rest of us the heebie-jeebies. ‘Nice local banks’, for example, are often only ‘nice’ to the ‘right kind of people’. If the moms and pops decide you’re not welcome in their store, it’s harder to get by. There’s nothing on this earth pettier than bad local government. Small-town communities can be supportive, or they can be creepy and vindictive and horrible. And if the sheriff’s drinking buddy beats his wife, where can she turn?
Take off the rose-tinted glasses, unpack your invisible knapsacks, and your idyllic pastoral fantasies don’t look so good. Sure, they’re great if you have a reasonable chance of being one of the good ol’ boys. But not all Americans do.
I can’t help but shake the feeling that what Bob’s trying to say is that the cognitive processes that occur when a an atheist hopes and those when a theist prays are identical (or at least very similar) and that somehow undermines the validity of atheism.
And that, so to ensure we aren’t accidentally thanking a god for something, we shouldn’t hope for things. Which I guess is okay in principle, but extremely bleak, even for a jaded old cynic like myself.
Or, alternatively, he’s suggesting that if we are hoping for things then we’re really praying and are therefore really theists in denial – coinciding with the revelation that Bob isn’t really an atheist at all, but a theist out to prove atheism doesn’t really exist.
If this isn’t the case, Bob, then I do apologise. But we get plenty of trolls here trying every conceivable method to attack our godless choices. And that includes trolls-in- sheeps-clothing.
Call me paranoid if you must.
Wowbagger,
Thats how I read it.
And I was trying to make the point that it doesnt devaluate hope or hoping if prayer is based on the same or similar process in the sapiens brain.
Certainly says fuck all about atheism.
clinteas,
re: Bob – well, he has something against the idea of hope; his first post was this:
That, to me, is the calling hard of a theist who seems to have deliberately misconstrued (and is misrepresenting) atheism as nihilism. Later posts haven’t exactly swayed me from that initial perception – especially when he described humanism is ‘the deification of humans’.
So, either he’s taken atheism to a whole new level or is an obtuse theist trying to prove a point – but is doing so while standing knee-deep in strawmen.
Agree.
Didnt see the null concept thing.
Just in case it wasn’t posted: Pete Seeger, his grandson, Tao, and The Boss standing in for Woody
I couldn’t make it to the Inaugural. The last time I was in DC was for the anti-war march in April 2003. It’s been a long wait to be rid of the Great Shitstain. Here’s to hope.
Steven Chu gave a 30min talk to the DOE and National Labs today that was also quite hopeful while still recognizing that there are realities on the ground that will take time to change. Yes, he did touch on “clean coal” but it wasn’t so much “the (preferred) future” as recognizing that other countries aren’t going to give it up, and even in this country energy companies with billions invested in plants aren’t going to walk away from them. So we need to face it head on and deal with it by finding the best way to minimize the impact.
He also talked about AGW and how we need to hit that iceberg with a glancing blow rather than head-on by making changes NOW. How the ship that is Energy doesn’t turn on a dime and while there are day-to-day crises to deal with we need to keep our eye on the horizon and think long term.
I’m all a tingly with anticipation of energy R&D being to this decade what space was to the 60’s.
Bob,
“Agreed. As an atheist belief, faith, and hope are null concepts.”
NB: This is not a statement about you personally, this is a statement about an entire group of people. You can go with whatever derivative of atheism you wish but don’t project that on the rest of us and don’t be surprised when we object to your presumption. For someone who does not believe in the absolute nature of any knowledge (only in its potentially transient expediency) you do seem quite sure about your interpretations (read that word again) of other people’s motivations and thought processes.
Dear Bob and others,
stop fighting (debating, bickering, whatever) and read this: http://www.xkcd.com/167/
:)
Night Runner, I suspect Bob would consider chasing squirrels to be some form of animal worship and therefore a religion. So you might as well be going to church and reading the bible.
A True Atheist enjoys nothing – apparently.
Looks like it’s business as usual for the War on Drugs:
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=5654
Not that I ever expected Obama to do what he said he’d do, but that sure was quick.
-jcr
@173: You link to an article pointing out that Obama hasn’t had time to change policy yet or even put much of his team in place- the Republicans are blocking his AG appointment, for pete’s sake- and you think it means Obama will continue old policy for ever? Let me quote the first paragraph of your link:
“- The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) raided a medical marijuana dispensary today in South Lake Tahoe, California, in the first days of the new Obama Administration. Even though President Barack Obama had made repeated promises during his election campaign to end federal raids in medical marijuana states, many high-ranking Bush Administration officials have yet to leave office. For example, still at the helm of the DEA is acting Administrator Michele Leonhart, who has been responsible for numerous federal raids in California, following in the footsteps of her predecessor Karen Tandy. Neither Eric Holder, President Obama’s pick for U.S. Attorney General, nor a new DEA Administrator, have taken office yet.”
So, you know, reading comprehension, please.
The “War on Drugs” is a silly way of approaching the problem of drug addiction. Can a sane society really justify expending vast law-enforcement time and resources preventing people from using small amounts of marijuana (a drug less physically and socially damaging, and less addictive, than alcohol or tobacco) for medical purposes?
In a free society, drug prohibition cannot be justified on paternalistic grounds; we don’t have a right to prevent people using drugs merely because “it’s bad for them”. The government is not a parent, and its job is not to dictate what citizens can do with their bodies; otherwise we’d have to reinstitute prohibition of alcohol, and put all obese citizens on a compulsory low-fat diet.
Rather, drug prohibition can only be reasonably justified on the grounds of what Milton Friedman calls “neighbourhood effects”; having a society in which many people take recreational drugs, with the consequence of family breakdown and higher crime rates, has negative effects on everyone in the community. This argument has great force when it comes to highly addictive and very harmful “hard” drugs, such as heroin and cocaine.
But this can’t justify the criminalisation of marijuana and other soft drugs. Any argument which one can make against the legalisation of marijuana can be made with equal or greater force against the legality of alcohol and tobacco. Our present law is radically incoherent; and one is therefore led to the conclusion that we ought to decriminalise the possession of marijuana for personal use.
It’s a good start. If all Obama succeeds in is closing Gitmo and the CIA black sites, he’ll still have done much towards restoring this country to what it was intended to be.
There’ll be defeats, compromises, but I am confident many significant changes will be made and the U.S. will be vastly improved from the sorry state the Bush admin left it in.
And no, Gitmo can’t be closed in a week. The order gives up to a year for the process to be completed. The facility could be mothballed in days, but the legal clusterfuck Bush created there is going to take awhile to untangle. As someone mentioned above, this would have been pretty cut and dry if these people had simply been imprisoned lawfully, interrogated legally, and tried fairly and in a timely manner. The fault is the previous admin’s. Don’t blame Obama that Bush’s fuckups aren’t going to be easily fixed. This isn’t a flat tire, it’s a smashed car. The mechanic isn’t going to be able to get it done on your lunch hour.
I’m wondering if they’ve worked out yet that it’s cheaper and more effective to _buy all the opium in Afghanistan_ rather than keep trying to suppress it. If you just made poppies the cash crop of the country, you would (a) give it a functioning economy (b) starve terrorist groups and criminal gangs of drug money and (c) have lots of opium to process into medical opiates. Hard-drug addiction should be treated as a medical problem, offences committed by drug addicts can be sentenced per the offence rather than per the drugs, and can we please stop fretting about people smoking marijuana. I think a driving-while-high law would be sufficient.
The “War on Drugs” is a silly way of approaching the problem of drug addiction.
If by “silly”, you mean “evil”, then we’re in agreement.
-jcr
I am confident many significant changes will be made and the U.S. will be vastly improved from the sorry state the Bush admin left it in.
I hope you’re right, but I certainly wouldn’t count on it. It’s one thing to make promises, and quite another to actually keep them.
-jcr
I’m wondering if they’ve worked out yet that it’s cheaper and more effective to _buy all the opium in Afghanistan_ rather than keep trying to suppress it.
Try thinking that through. You’re proposing to create a massive new demand for opium production, at taxpayer expense. If the a government is willing to buy an unlimited amount of it, then production will rise to a new equilibrium, and the black market will still get all the opium they can pay for.
-jcr
Prohibition failed big time, making bootleggers heros. Criminal gangs were necessary to smuggle the booze and distribute it. Absolutely no correlation between the “war on drugs” and prohibition. No sir, none at all. (/rant)
@180: because obviously the opium-production capacity of Afghanistan is infinite? And black marketeers can buy it with money they don’t have because they’re running out of opium to sell and the addicts they were selling too are getting medical-quality heroin on prescription in therapy programs and don’t need to buy from the black market any more?
Think it through!
I completely agree with those who want Obama to return Guantanamo Bay to its rightful owner, Cuba.
GB is basically under an illegal occupation by the U.S.. The agreement to lease the bay to the U.S. was broken when they turned it into a prison (explicitely forbidden in the agreement), and the agreement was not legitimate to begin with since the Cubans were basically forced to sign it.
Obama can end the occupation and in return can force some reforms by the Cuban government. Double win for all parties.
Australia has been asked to take some of the people who will be released from Guatanamo, and I can tell you right now that the great unwashed are not happy!
This just in:
Obama will end the “global gag rule” today.
Enjoy!
Obama has also ordered all “midnight” regulations enacted by Bush to be ceased pending his direct approval. Hopefully, the physician “conscience” regulations have been ceased.
I am awaiting Obama’s decision as to whether he will investigate crimes committed by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, etc.
Bill Dauphin@185,
Excellent! That’s a policy change that can be expected to save lives, reduce suffering and empower women throughout Obama’s presidency.
speedwell,
I was pointing out that not being “complacent and complicit” does not imply either virtue or sanity. In Ron Paul’s case, I repeat: the guy’s a fucking nutter. You presumably know his views on abortion, in addition to the idiotic beliefs I mentioned earlier. It was you brought him up, so don’t complain if others express a contrary opinion of him.
because obviously the opium-production capacity of Afghanistan is infinite?
Not infinite, but I’m sure it can handily exceed the US taxpayers’ capacity to buy it all. You get what you pay for, and if we pay for increased opium production, we’ll get increased opium production.
-jcr
Will he close CIA linked interrogation centers in the rest of the world?
ooopsie…..
Hmm, still not much discussion here about how to better handle prisoners taken in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nor have I seen any movement in that direction from the new administration reported in the media. Hope that Obama will do things “better” than Bush is all well and good. I even share that hope in some areas (science, environment, education). But fuzzy good feelings don’t lead to accomplishments on their own.
A couple of posters have mentioned moving detainees into our justice system, the restoration of habeus corpus, etc. Restoring some form of habeus corpus is a necessary move, but using our criminal courts to deal with people we suspect of trying to blow up our soldiers and allies in foreign countries is ridiculous. Law enforcement and criminal justice requires restraint far beyond what is reasonable in a battlefield situation due to the presumption of innocence. I am sure that Obama is smart enough to recognize this. Anyone that has ‘hope’ that prisoners detained as enemy combatants will be afforded the same civil rights that we enjoy as U.S. citizens is likely to be sorely disappointed.