Pharyngula

I'm very interested to see how the next 20+ months pan out. I listened to his announcement at the closure of his show today, and was happy to hear this, even though I already figured he would go for it.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 14, 2007 7:24 PM

I am so moving back to Minnesota! I'm going to apply to the U of M by the end of March... Why did I ever leave?

Posted by: xenophobic | February 14, 2007 7:33 PM

Go, Al, Go!!!! He's great!

Posted by: Paguroidea | February 14, 2007 7:58 PM

He had me at "Hi".

Posted by: Factician | February 14, 2007 8:19 PM

Strange. The embedded youtube video was broken inside the feed via Google Reader. Firefox 2.0.0.1 asked me to install a missing plugin then couldn't find t. But it works fine here.

Posted by: Aerik | February 14, 2007 8:25 PM

MN is really lucky, personally I love the two senators MI has but Al Franken? I'd like to see him in debates.

Make sure when they start the primaries start linking his stuff.

Posted by: Geral | February 14, 2007 9:02 PM

G. Gordon Liddy's wikipedia bio says he's friends with Al Franken.

My grandmother used to listen to G. Gordon Liddy's radio show.

I heard a few episodes.

Oh Dear FSM on crutches with Parmesan, someone PLEASE tell me that's vandalism ...

Posted by: llewelly | February 14, 2007 9:10 PM

He sounded sincere. That is always a good start.

Posted by: beepbeepitsme | February 14, 2007 9:22 PM

The dude's a little too chummy with the Clintons to suit me, but what the hell. If I can be made to believe he has a realistic chance of unseating that wretched toady currently incumbent, I might even vote for him.

Posted by: Louis | February 14, 2007 10:21 PM

He sounded sincere. That is always a good start.

It's nice that he's concerned about the issues because the issues affect his family too. But why not be concerned about the issues because the issues affect everybody.. Sorry, but he's already sounding like a politician with the "my family too" trick. Let the pandering begin!

Posted by: 386sx | February 14, 2007 10:28 PM

The last thing anybody needs is to be "empowered" by government!

Thank you for stating that viewpoint more eloquently than I could.

Posted by: Dave | February 14, 2007 11:04 PM

Regarding Al's baggage, I have no idea what that's about. What baggage? So he's a comedian. Far worse has been elected to Congress. Are you telling me he would be less qualified than Mean Jean in Ohio?

He was honest and up front in that video, and gives some of his personal back history, preconceptions be damned. Only Jim Webb sounded as much or more genuine during his campaign than Al is already putting forth.

With regard to Al's comments about government helping people, he obviously means as a safety net, not as an ATM. Get off the welfare Cadillacs and delinquent mothers with 9 welfare babies syndrome, and look at the program for what it is, not for how a single person or a few abused it.

Al has to prove himself to be sure, but this stuff about baggage doesn't make any sense to me. He has been loyal to his wife for decades of marriage, and has raised good children with her. How is his career baggage at all? People make it sound like he does mafia hitjobs on the side. He may be no Wellstone, but he's no Mean Jean either.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 15, 2007 12:12 AM

Hang on, he must be taking the piss. An American politician talking sense?

I thought the first half was a wonderful statement of what should be an important role of government: lifting people out of poverty, and helping them to better themselves. You only have to look at yesterday's report on child welfare in developed countries to see the effect of this approach to government. Sane (well, mostly), social democracies at the top.

Bob

Posted by: Bob O'H | February 15, 2007 1:13 AM

Dang! That should have read, "IF I was a Yank...."

PS - great website.....

Posted by: Bob Russell | February 15, 2007 7:59 AM

As a fellow scientist, atheist, and Minnesotan I have to say that there is no chance I'll be voting for Al, ever. Social programs to give people "boots" are a good idea, which is precisely why the government should stay as far away from it as possible.

Then please describe, in detail, where I would have gotten most of my college money if not for the Pell Grant and federal student loan programs. I was able to pay off the loan the day I graduated with the money I earned as a co-op student, but I wouldn't have been able to be in the co-op program if I hadn't been able to enroll and pay the tuition in the first place.

Get it?

Posted by: AC | February 15, 2007 9:43 AM

I used to be a "do it for yourself you lazy bum" type. Then I found myself disabled and unable to support myself. After being locked away in a psych ward three times to keep me from killing myself due to the shame and guilt, my viewpoint changed.

There, but for the grace of probability, may go you or I.

I wish people would get over this selfish mentality that their taxes are supporting lazy, shiftless bums and realize that what we have in this country is more like an insurance policy where we pay into a fund that can be used to help us if we happen to fall on hard times. It can happen to anybody, just like illness or a car accident, and the effects can be devastating, so it's just idiotic not to insure ourselves against it.

If there's anything to be said for how our welfare system works it is that it's not good enough. As we go through life, most people's fortunes rise and fall. If poverty acts as a sort of absorbing boundary, then more and more people will end up stuck in it, and we will become collectively less productive. We need a system that can rehabilitate rather than merely sustain people who have fallen on hard times.

Posted by: David Livesay | February 15, 2007 10:16 AM

Caledonian,

Quit trolling. craig is obviously referring to his bout with mental illness as the reason for the shift in attitude, and not the physical disability.

Posted by: Dennis | February 15, 2007 10:42 AM

I fail to see why college financial aid MUST come from the government, or why social safety net programs (however you're defining that) MUST be funded by the government. Clearly we're not at a point where we could morally pull the plug on government involvement in social welfare, but that's no reason to continue the trend of growing the government. Uncle Sam has a whole lotta inefficiency built in, and is by nature subject to the whims of the entire nation. Political factors constantly overwhelm even the best intentioned government activity. There seems to be some misunderstanding about what it is some libertarians, at least this one, are talking about. There's an awful lot of silly hyperbole getting thrown around here:

Of course the libertarian is always free to hole up in a compound in the wilderness and whine about how unfair it is that people choose to provide themselves help in time of need by the institutions that they consitute.

I was wondering when the libertarian would show up. I hate to burst your self-righteous bubble,

What? Are you serious? I'm all for disagreeing but is it necessary to use ad hominem attacks and exaggerated claims?

It's a case of anything the government can do, we can do better for ourselves. Sorry Al, your heart is in the right place but the end doesn't justify the means.

Posted by: Dave | February 15, 2007 1:34 PM

...is it necessary to use ad hominem attacks...

No. But sometimes it just feels good. Forgive me for indulging my baser side.

That being said, who do you think our government is if not ourselves? We constitute the government and we supply the people power to make the institutions run. Perfect? No. Pretty? No. But to think that the magic power of the private sector is any less prone to failure or screwup through negligence or overt criminalality is preposterous. It's equally preposterous to think that the individual can somehow do for themselves in times of dire need what their community can do when channeled through the institutions of government (again assuming an implicit social contract between the citizen and a government istituted for and by its citizens - all of its citizens, not just the rich and powerful).

Or, maybe we should put our well being in the hands of religious institutions and faith in a god. Gee, when has that worked out?

Posted by: Jim in STL | February 15, 2007 2:15 PM

I fail to see why college financial aid MUST come from the government, or why social safety net programs (however you're defining that) MUST be funded by the government. Clearly we're not at a point where we could morally pull the plug on government involvement in social welfare, but that's no reason to continue the trend of growing the government.

Huh? Where did anyone say government MUST fund these things? There are certainly a number of things many people think government SHOULD do, such as making college education more accessible. How about presenting an argument against that position, rather than the straw man you've put forward?

Also, I haven't checked the numbers recently myself, but I'd be willing to bet college financial aid hasn't been a significant source of recent government growth (I'm pretty sure it's remained more or less stagnant); I have no idea about the social welfare side, though.

Posted by: Davis | February 15, 2007 2:17 PM

I fail to see why college financial aid MUST come from the government

It comes from the government because the private sector wasn't stepping up to the plate and "we the people" decided to take matters into our own hands so that education would be more accessible.

And what do you know ... it works - and pretty well. Some people abuse Pell grants, but IMO a little abuse is a small price to pay for getting smart people who otherwise couldn't afford it into college.

It's a case of anything the government can do, we can do better for ourselves.

Are you advocating anarchy here? Because it sure sounds that way.

Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | February 15, 2007 3:14 PM

Actually, Cyce, PZ, I think I blogged this before either of you. So there.

Dave: Respectfully, I think insisting that government be more efficient and that it be accountable is a better solution than not funding both education and social programs. Failure to do this is handing our future over to the churches, to "market force" society (been there, done that, it was called the Middle Ages) or to just drop the ball entirely. Where is it written, by what fundamental code or requirement of nature or humanity, that we can't do what we need to do and pay what we need to pay?

The "no on my tax dollar" mantra is getting old.

Posted by: Greg Laden | February 15, 2007 5:00 PM

My bad. Tommy Thompson is some kind of coach, no?

What did Clint Eastwood run as?

Posted by: Steve_C | February 15, 2007 5:03 PM

I wish people would get over this selfish mentality that their taxes are supporting lazy, shiftless bums and realize that what we have in this country is more like an insurance policy where we pay into a fund that can be used to help us if we happen to fall on hard times. It can happen to anybody, just like illness or a car accident, and the effects can be devastating, so it's just idiotic not to insure ourselves against it.

Whether it's a good idea to have insurance against a certain type of risk is a separate question from whether it's a good idea to provide that insurance through the government. For most citizens, the government does not provide health insurance, life insurance, home insurance, or car insurance. Even for risks for which the government does provide insurance, its role is generally quite limited. For example, Social Security is intended only to protect people against the risk of poverty after retirement or in case of disability, rather than to provide sufficient income for a middle-class lifestyle (that's what private companies providing long term disability insurance, 401k's, IRAs, etc. are for).

Posted by: Jason | February 15, 2007 6:14 PM

And what do you know ... it works - and pretty well. Some people abuse Pell grants, but IMO a little abuse is a small price to pay for getting smart people who otherwise couldn't afford it into college.

What's the use of putting so many people through college?

Posted by: Caledonian | February 15, 2007 6:48 PM

What's the use of putting so many people through college?

Keeps guys like PZ employed. :-)

Posted by: David Livesay | February 15, 2007 7:07 PM

What's the use of putting so many people through college?

hmm.

i smell bait here.

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 15, 2007 7:15 PM

hmm.

i smell bait here.

Actually, no. Like so many things, there's a diminishing-returns problem associated with sending people to college. We could send ever single citizen, and get very little benefit out of it.

Posted by: Caledonian | February 15, 2007 7:20 PM

Many conservatives believe that the role of the government in providing health insurance should be expanded to some degree,

There are very few politicians of any affiliation that don't wish to expand the role of the government in practically everything.

Posted by: Caledonian | February 15, 2007 7:22 PM

No, it doesn't, but it mandates car insurance, then it hands you over to the insurance industry.

Wrong.

IF you want a driver's license, you must EITHER get insurance, OR have a certain amount of money on hand.

Posted by: Caledonian | February 15, 2007 7:34 PM

er, change "understanding" to "underestimating".

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 15, 2007 7:36 PM

I doubt many of them support single-payer publicly-funded universal health care, as in the health care systems of Britain and Canada. I don't think such a scheme is remotely politically feasible in the United States.

That's probably going to change soon. Have you noticed how GM, Ford and now Chrysler have been laying off thousands of US employees? That's because they can't afford health insurance. This is what Hillary Clinton tried to prevent way back when, remember? She didn't pull it off, in spite of support from the auto industry.

Now things have gotten worse. The kind of plans Hillary was trying to implement won't work now. We've missed the boat. We're either going to have to do something more drastic or the big three are going to go belly up, and that's just for starters.

Posted by: David Livesay | February 15, 2007 7:42 PM

Wrong. IF you want a driver's license, you must EITHER get insurance, OR have a certain amount of money on hand.

Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me! I should have said, "but it mandates car insurance, then it hands you over to the insurance industry--unless you're rich. Now that's fair!"

Posted by: David Livesay | February 15, 2007 7:47 PM

methinks you are understanding the current trends based on personal prejudice.

Methinks you're wrong.

Yoou can argue the reasons behind the recently expanded interest in this subject on the conservative side, but you can't argue that it is just a debate about "some degree"; both Arnie's and Chimpy's plans are rather far more involved than that.

Both of their plans call for only a limited expansion of the government's role in providing health insurance.

Indeed, it would be worth discussing at some point exactly what has caused the apparently large philosophical shift on this particular issue within the Repubs.

I don't see any large philosophical shift by the Republicans on the issue, just a modest increase in their interest in moving towards universal coverage through increased health insurance subsidies for the poor and expanded mandates on private health insurers. They seem as strongly opposed to major structural reform, and especially to a national single-payer system, as ever. Single-payer is basically just a pipe-dream of the far left at this point.

Posted by: Jason | February 15, 2007 7:53 PM

I really don't know. I have insurance, so I never bothered looking up the details of the alternative. It's a fairly large chunk of change, though.

Posted by: Caledonian | February 15, 2007 8:01 PM

Is this move by the Repubs simply damage control and misdirection?

Bingo.

Posted by: David Livesay | February 15, 2007 8:25 PM

I think that probably has more to do with the fact that their products tend to be inferior to the ones produced by their Asian and European competitors.

Now there's a novel insight. I don't think that's occurred to anyone yet. Maybe you should notify the people at GM, Ford and Chrysler so they can do something about it.

Gosh. I hope it's not too late!

Posted by: David Livesay | February 15, 2007 8:29 PM

Heliologue said:

I was wondering when the libertarian would show up. I hate to burst your self-righteous bubble, but Franken was trying very hard to distinguish between typical welfare states and the real purpose of social services, which is supposed to be more like a safety net than a handout.

Of course, you realize that you will likely never find a candidate putting the onus of responsibility back on the electorate: it's a contradiction. People elect officials to get specific things in return, not for the official to turn around and say "Do it your fucking self, you lazy bum."

I am all for social services that serve real needs, not for blanket coverage for the healthy and able. Our social services have lost any forward thinking vision they might have once had through the machinations of the "Political-Media Compex", apologies to Ike. To respond to your comments I say:

First of all, I am not a libertarian, though some of my opinions are mirrored by their philosophy of governance. I also have opinions that are mirrored by the two "popular" parties. If I took the time to cross reference all my opinions I'm sure there would be traces of just about any approach to the relationship between the governors and the governed that you or I could think of.

Second, there is a perfectly just (by virtue of necessity) purpose for social services. That purpose is to ensure that the "common welfare" is available for all citizens. The bogieman under the bed here is that it has become too easy to merely claim you need these services and many of us are persuaded that it is a "right" to insist on government sponsored welfare. It is easy to see that this greases the skids for those who could otherwise cope; either through increased personal effort and/or the assistance of family, friends and local charity but choose to go to the state instead. Note the word "choose".

Third, I would say that the reason that politicians don't put the onus of responsibility on the electorate is twofold: people steeped in the welfare state mentality would squeal like a pig caught under a gate and the press would have a field day with their protestations. The result could only be bad for such a bold poll. Furthermore, there is no inherent contradiction here. Ostensibly we elect people to lead, not to prepare a smooth path before us. This is what I see as the prime principle embodied by power being vested in the general population; we don't need to wait to be told because we are assumed to already know how to care for ourselves and our communities. We know this, presumably, through heritage and education and upbringing. I fear that this knowledge and sense of responsibility is seriously eroded in modern America. One thing you can count on in terms of any population is that there are always some who will not help themselves, let alone their neighbors come hell or high water. This knowledge was passed to me and my schoolmates in the Civics class that I mentioned in my previous post. My parents instilled self reliance and compassion for others in me at a young age. Since I became "politically aware" some forty years ago I have witnessed a slow replacement of civic values by entitlement values. In my opinion this is bad for America, and by virtue of her global influence, bad for all people.

I in no way intended to suggest, nor would I countenance any elected or appointed official implying that the citizenry should "Do it your fucking self, you lazy bum." Not belaboring the fact that there is a surfeit of lazy bums among us, such an attitude is not characteristic of, or tolerable in a leader. There is that word again, "leader". My contention in these comments is that we have begun to see what happens to the populace when the tasks of basic maintenance are gradually handed over to "agencies" and "departments" and "offices" operated under government auspices. If these agencies, et cetera, were properly configured they would busy themselves with providing the tools and environments required to allow us to maintain a healthy nation. Since they are too myopic for that task they have taken to providing basic commodities, thus undercutting the will of individuals to be self motivated and disciplined. I see this as unfortunate and destructive to the spirit of this republic.

In no way do I imply that those with real, demonstrable needs arising out of the vagaries of life and luck should be excluded. Indeed, most welfare programs began as services for the sick and broken members of our society. In my opinion, this group does not include those who became sick or broken as a result of their own actions or decisions. The simple fact is that lack of strong leadership at all levels of government, coupled with the seduction of media exposure (by nature restricted to mere gloss and mass appeal) has created the popular opinion that we have a right to supported by the state (read "taxpayers") in direct opposition to the notion of a nation of strong, confident, able, charitable and civic-minded citizens.

Oh, yeah. I almost forgot. I am not self righteous and I don't live in a bubble. I took my American History and Social Studies quite seriously, have been a news junkie since age nine and I have pretty good powers of observation, thank you.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | February 15, 2007 9:33 PM

Now there's a novel insight. I don't think that's occurred to anyone yet.

Well, make up your mind. You just said it was the cost of health insurance.

Posted by: Jason | February 15, 2007 10:23 PM

Well, make up your mind. You just said it was the cost of health insurance.

It is the cost of health insurance. The point of my sarcastic comment is that the quality issue was raised about 30 years ago, and the American Automakers have put enormous energy and resources into addressing it, and they have succeeded, so the quality complaint is just old news.

Posted by: David Livesay | February 16, 2007 6:27 AM

I thought it was a little too tv-aw shucks-sincere, but I'm glad that someone is at least saying those things (and that it's him). However, what I really liked was the cute way he says "gub'mint".

Posted by: Carlie | February 16, 2007 9:39 AM