Why can't we have a Democrat like this?
Category: Politics
Posted on: October 25, 2007 5:16 PM, by PZ Myers
(via Green Tea MN)
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Search
Profile
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Random Quote
(Complete listing)In his book, Spare the Child: The Religious Roots of Punishment and the Psychological Impact of Physical Abuse, Philip Greven (1992), a professor of history at Rutgers University, says that the roots of America's unusally angry, violent, and crime-ridden society lie in the country's Judeo-Christian heritage. Greven examines cases of childhood punishment and the rationales for physical punishment among those with strong Protestant conviction. The latter usually boil down to the belief that it is necessary for parents to break the will of their children to gain their respect and obedience. In reality, he says physical assault only breeds rage and hostility, with negative outcomes.
Marlene Winell, Leaving the Fold (Oakland, CA: New Harbinger, 1993), p. 126.
Recent Posts
- Nice lecture
- A little light of reason shines in Indiana
- Excuses, excuses
- Orac on Gupta
- First out of the starting gates: Oklahoma!
- The ways of the Bush administration are inscrutable and stupid
- Unclear on the concept
- The scientist in the white coat
- I'm not so sure about this pick
- Today the buses, tomorrow…the world!
A Taste of Pharyngula
(Complete listing)The burden of bearing a massive penis
A complex regulatory network in a diploblast
Recent Comments
- Kemist on Excuses, excuses
- Aerik on Unclear on the concept
- John Morales on Nice lecture
- Paper Hand on Nice lecture
- Nathan on SENATOR Al Franken!
- Sondra on I'm in good company
- Kel on I'm in good company
- Aseem on First out of the starting gates: Oklahoma!
- Kemist on The scientist in the white coat
- damnedyankee on Nice lecture
Archives
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
Blogroll
(Complete listing)Other Information
Subscribe via Email
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« “The topic of religion is so inherently funny” | Main | A fall break experience I do not care to repeat »
Find more posts in: 
Politics
Comments
Posted by: mayhempix | October 25, 2007 5:31 PM
No kidding... it makes me sad every time I think about.
And then you ended with that Bushlicker Norm Coleman.
Posted by: mayhempix | October 25, 2007 5:33 PM
... ended up with...
Posted by: yoshi | October 25, 2007 5:36 PM
Like what? Someone who lied about only serving two senate terms and then leaving?
Wellstone was right in this case I'll grant you that but he was wrong about many other things and he wasn't that effective as a representative of his state.
Posted by: Alex | October 25, 2007 5:43 PM
Thought I'd mention that the lady he interviews a lady with "CHRIST IS THE ANSWER" on her door at 5:03 (38 seconds into the video. Not really relevant, but I thought it was funny considering this is Pharyngula.
Posted by: Jason | October 25, 2007 5:47 PM
Why can't we have a Democrat like this?
As president, you mean? Because he's too far to the left.
Posted by: Brownian | October 25, 2007 5:48 PM
Well, what's the question?
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 25, 2007 5:50 PM
Yoshi,
Your primary gripe with him is that he ran for a 3rd term? Wow, you must hate half the Republicans in Congress then, eh?
Posted by: BaldApe | October 25, 2007 5:51 PM
Why can't we have an effective liberal politician who can keep his pants on?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 25, 2007 5:53 PM
I don't know. His enthusiastic shouting completely distracts me from what he says.
Posted by: justawriter | October 25, 2007 5:57 PM
Ezra has a lovely remembrance.
Posted by: raindogzilla | October 25, 2007 6:00 PM
BaldApe, It's not what's in- or out, of a man's pants that matters but the content of his character. The Clenis schtick is getting old. I still miss Paul Wellstone and I've never lived in Minnesota.
Posted by: lolife | October 25, 2007 6:01 PM
/me cries
yoshi, yer an idiot. He explained himself on that topic many times. If you want to debate that issue, at least debate the facts. He did not "lie" he changed his mind and he was right to do so.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | October 25, 2007 6:24 PM
I know Wellstone was Al Franken's political hero; what do those of you who've seen him up close think about the potential for Franken to become "a Democrat like this"?
Posted by: Efrique | October 25, 2007 6:25 PM
relates to #8,#11 ..
I don't completely understand the fascination in US politics with politicians' bedroom habits.
How on earth does that relate in any way to their ability to make good choices for their constituency?
The previous prime minister to the current one here (Australia) admitted (while in office) having affairs. There was definitely sympathy for his wife, but the admission had very little effect on approval of his performance in the job.
I did see one case a couple of years ago here where a politician did take a very big hit (lost an election after a huge swing) after his affairs came out. That was because he was running on a conservative-religious "family values" type platform. Now hypocrisy definitely comes into perceived ability to do the job.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | October 25, 2007 6:30 PM
If we had a veto-proof majority of Wellstone Democrats in both houses we'd be far better off than we are today. Feingold is the closest, and he barely ever gets talked about, which is unfortunate.
Posted by: qedpro | October 25, 2007 6:31 PM
CHRIST IS THE ANSWER???
was the question just as stupid?
Posted by: Dustin | October 25, 2007 6:38 PM
I assume that was a Clinton jab. That was moronic because Clinton wasn't really much of a liberal, and because it was a Clinton jab.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 25, 2007 6:47 PM
in the "anything's better" dept., Buscho is at it again; hacking science reports with a virtual machete:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/GlobalHealth/story?id=3775766&page=1
there is NO administration in US history that has attempted more "rewrites" and snuffs of fed agency reports than the current administration.
sickening.
Posted by: J Myers | October 25, 2007 7:09 PM
As for American politics, and American thought in general: facts simply do not matter. Many of my fellow Americans are arrogant, self-centered, and ignorant enough to think that reality has some obligation to conform to their personal preferences. This is why some of our politicians can retain support no matter how ridiculous they become, and why such a large portion of our population believes such asinine shit.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 25, 2007 7:12 PM
Because the Democrats are too weak and too foolish to find and field a quality candidate.
Posted by: Dan | October 25, 2007 7:17 PM
The question is: Name a ridiculously over-valued piece of Israeli yard-art.
Posted by: CalGeroge | October 25, 2007 8:10 PM
Wellstone was right in this case I'll grant you that but he was wrong about many other things and he wasn't that effective as a representative of his state.
Maybe he should have sucked up to more corporations.
Posted by: Tabitha | October 25, 2007 8:10 PM
With regard to #13, I think Al Franken is the closest Minnesota is going to get to Wellstone. I heard Al speak a couple of times; he's wonderful. He has great passion and a genuine concern for people, especially those whose voices can't be heard.
Posted by: No More Mr. Nice Guy! | October 25, 2007 8:18 PM
In whose name does every nut and loony in the world claim to speak?Posted by: J | October 25, 2007 8:26 PM
I often say that we are long overdue for a "good one" in office. Wellstone was such a good one and it was a profound loss for all when he died; I just wish his message and ideals hadn't been lost at the same time.
Posted by: Dahan | October 25, 2007 8:45 PM
Somewhere in my garage there's a Wellstone yard sign, probably still has the black ribbon the volunteers tied around it when he died. One of the things I liked best about him was his ability to admit making mistakes (like when he voted for the defense of marriage act or for saying he would only serve two terms). That's a trait you don't see in this administration, Nancy Pelosi, or damn near anyone.
Posted by: articulett | October 25, 2007 9:17 PM
Wellstone was a teacher in MN; PZ is a teacher in MN. Maybe Wellstone wasn't the last of his breed; information evolves.
Politics, PZ?
Posted by: David Wilford | October 25, 2007 9:38 PM
Politics, PZ?
I don't see P.Z. as being interested in actual politics, even though he's politically active on the subject of evolution. I think another professor, Paul Krugman, would be a good politician though. If Krugman was interested, in 2008 he could run as a Democrat for the U.S. Senate in New Jersey if Frank Lautenberg steps down.
Posted by: Guy | October 25, 2007 9:39 PM
The reason is that we have millions ignorant voters that support the wrong candidates too often. Greed, false ideological beliefs and corruption make bad leaders; ignorance is what gets them elected.
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 25, 2007 9:42 PM
I'd be a terrible politician, no one would ever want to vote for me except the godless minority, and I simply don't possess the organizational skills or political interests that Wellstone had.
Posted by: mandrake | October 25, 2007 9:59 PM
BaldApe:
glass houses. Stone.
any questions?
Posted by: Eamon Knight | October 25, 2007 10:12 PM
In whose name does every nut and loony in the world claim to speak?
Good answer, but quite a number of them claim to speak for Allah, or Krishna, or Xenu, or any number of equally imaginary beings, or aliens from Bellatrix, or some technically godless (but still loony) political theory.
The diversity of firmly-convinced human whackjobbery is wondrous to behold.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | October 25, 2007 10:13 PM
I'd never vote for PZ, he would be too quick to surrender to the Cephalopod Overlords. He's probably in cahoots with them now, anyway.
But with all due respect, Caledonian, fuck you. And I mean that in the most sincere way. It's easy to stand on the sidelines and jeer, in your case about everything.
Candidates are chosen for the wrong reasons, in the case of Minnesota the Democrats made a bad choice to run for governor in 2006; but a good choice for senate. We have good congresscritters in our delegation. And whether Ciresi or Franken gets the nod this year, I will be happy with the choice.
But we have good, quality candidates. And we have some good candidates for president for next year, too, whatever you may think of the front runners. Even the ones that I don't support, I respect for actually running. Having worked on campaigns I know that it is a stressful, constant, agonizing process and one that you would never have the guts to try. But it's real easy to bitch, isn't it?
Posted by: Epistaxis | October 25, 2007 10:21 PM
For those who don't know what a Minnesota accent sounds like, listen to the narrator, especially the vowels.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 25, 2007 10:29 PM
Because the Democrats are too weak and too foolish to find and field a quality candidate.
so by extension, the rethuglicans are too stupid and spineless to field a candidate that is willing to avoid sucking the cock of the religious right?
and the libertarians are too busy avoiding politics altogether to even field ANY candidate?
Posted by: Caledonian | October 25, 2007 10:43 PM
Essentially, yes.
I think we can start the "doom song" now.
Posted by: Stogoe | October 25, 2007 10:59 PM
Okay, Caledonian. You can give up and take your ball and go home.
The rest of us will do what we can to make the world a better place with the tools and the candidates (some of whom are also tools) that we have.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 25, 2007 11:04 PM
The system no longer functions. How long will you wait before using your tools to replace it?
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | October 25, 2007 11:14 PM
Actually, I guess there has been some miscommunication here. We thought that you were busy designing a better system, and we were waiting for you to explain it so that we could implement it.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 25, 2007 11:18 PM
At this point, almost anything would be better - as long as its vulnerabilities were sufficiently different that the strategies people have used to corrupt this one no longer function properly.
Eventually that new system will also have to be scrapped because the strategies have evolved again, but we'll at least have a functioning government for a brief time.
Posted by: Jiggscasey | October 25, 2007 11:30 PM
The election process is stacked like a pyramid scheme against anyone who isn't of the giant douche or turd sandwich party. Those two groups have been offense and defense for the same team for 30 years.
Posted by: Dahan | October 25, 2007 11:51 PM
Caledonian,
I often disagree with you, but still usually enjoy reading your comments. That said, you're acting like an idiot here. We've got two possible ways out of our current political situation. You can work inside the system, fighting with what you have, or you can go the way of the bloody revolution. And when I say bloody, it would have to be a "rivers in the street" sort of thing. You ready for that? Remembering that that blood would probably include yours too? If you are, take the first shot man! If not, then maybe you should rethink your comments here.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 25, 2007 11:58 PM
How extraordinary that you really seem to think those are the only two options!
Most governmental systems were designed, not to further good decisionmaking, but to reduce the violence and disruption that came from people struggling to take positions of power. Kings aren't particularly good at ruling, but having a single ruler with a clear line of succession reduces infighting over which warlord gets to rule this week.
You'd probably be making the same argument no matter what system of government we had - 'sticking with what we've got is better than trying to replace it'.
Most people aren't even interested in the actual machinations of politics - they'll support whatever faction they identify with, but generally if the country's going well economically people are happy with the government, and unhappy if things are going poorly, regardless of whether that government's policies are responsible for the condition or not.
We like to talk about how we can transfer power from one leader to another peacefully. Why don't we try transferring power from one system to another peacefully?
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 26, 2007 12:05 AM
I think we can start the "doom song" now.
cue the Imperial march...
http://gdejuvigny.free.fr/mp3/John%20Williams%20-%20The%20Imperial%20March%20%28Darth%20Vader%27s%20Theme%29%20-%20Star%20Wars%20-%20The%20Empire%20Strikes%20Back%20Original%20Soundtrack%20-%2001.mp3
Posted by: Colugo | October 26, 2007 12:09 AM
Caledonian: "Why don't we try transferring power from one system to another..."
The very thread shows how implausible that is. If you think the current system is bad, how many of you would care to live in Caledonian's perfect society? Or mine, for that matter? (And it's anyone's guess what that would look like.) The current arrangement doesn't sound too bad now, does it? (Hillary it is. May as well start getting used to it.)
Posted by: Dustin | October 26, 2007 12:16 AM
I think he was actually making an Invader Zim reference. I somehow know that despite my professed hatred of Jhonen Vasquez.
Anyhoo, here's Liberals vs. The Empire.
Posted by: Dahan | October 26, 2007 12:46 AM
Caledonian,
"How extraordinary that you really seem to think those are the only two options!"
"Why don't we try transferring power from one system to another peacefully?"
Well, that's kind of the idea of what's going on isn't it? The Republicans are trying to convert our current system to one more aligned with the idea of emperors and etc. They are currently more attuned to a theocracy which would give almost unlimited powers to interfere with issues such as procreation and religeon. The Democrats favor a more socialist agenda, the idea of shared burden and reward. Sorry to speak in what could be construed as condescending terms, since I know you're not an idiot, but that's what it is. So, both sides try to nudge things toward their ideals. They try to make the transfer from our current system to another...in peace. Huh, sounds like what you just mentioned. Now what is the other recourse...bloodshed, and lots of it. Guess that leads me back to my original point. Response?
Posted by: green tea | October 26, 2007 12:50 AM
I agree, they don't make em like Paul anymore..
I sure miss him and will always wonder if he would have finally made that run for President..
Posted by: Jason | October 26, 2007 1:18 AM
No, the system isn't broken. It works just fine. No, the Republicans are not trying to create a theocracy. No, the Democrats are not trying to create a socialist state. The majority in both parties is committed to the same broad political principles of liberal democracy, individual rights, and a mixed market economy fueled by private enterprise but also strongly regulated by the state. The differences between the two parties amount to variations on this theme. Their shared beliefs are much more fundamental than the things that divide them. Most Americans understand this reality and have learned to tune out the absurd hyperbole of extreme partisans on both sides.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 26, 2007 1:29 AM
The differences between the two parties amount to variations on this theme. Their shared beliefs are much more fundamental than the things that divide them. Most Americans understand this reality and have learned to tune out the absurd hyperbole of extreme partisans on both sides.
no...
you have simply managed to filter out the ACTUAL rhetoric that generates various legislative initiatives on both sides.
congress has NEVER been more divided.
I put a link to the actual Congressional Record in the other thread where you began spreading this idiotic concept of ideological parity between the two parties.
here it is again:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html
now, go spend some fucking time actually LOOKING it to see how wrong you are about how similar the two parties are in practice.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 26, 2007 1:31 AM
...the only thing the two parties share in common is a general ignorance of things beyond their own personal interests.
that's about it, really.
Posted by: Sortition | October 26, 2007 1:38 AM
Q: Why can't we have a Democrat like this?
A: Elections.
Posted by: Gun Of Sod | October 26, 2007 4:44 AM
I think America should look at reforming it's political system first. why not try an MMP (mixed member proportional) type of representation? Get rid of the two party system and for pity's sake limit those political donations.
Posted by: truth machine | October 26, 2007 8:02 AM
Why can't we have a Democrat like this?
Because they die young, sometimes mysteriously.
Someone who lied about only serving two senate terms and then leaving?
You're the liar here, asswipe.
he was wrong about many other things
Name many.
Why don't we try transferring power from one system to another peacefully?
Caledonian the moron strikes again. Name one concrete action that anyone here can take that would transfer power from one system to another.
Posted by: truth machine | October 26, 2007 8:06 AM
I think America should look at reforming it's political system first. why not try an MMP (mixed member proportional) type of representation?
Another silly goose making a foolish category mistake. "America" is not an individual capable of choosing between actions; it's made up of many individuals, and the ones with the most power have no interest in making changes that take it away from them.
Posted by: truth machine | October 26, 2007 8:10 AM
Sortition
That's swell, but what actions can any of us take that leads to bringing it about, other than spreading the idea?
Posted by: Caledonian | October 26, 2007 9:35 AM
And the masses, who individually have virtually no power but together have more than the powerful individuals, are too afraid of change and uncertainty to alter the system.Posted by: Caledonian | October 26, 2007 9:37 AM
The differences are skin-deep. Oh, they generate a lot of friction, because each party can maintain its hold on its membership only by having as the only alternative a group that's even less attractive, so each because the only 'practical' option. But the ideological differences are minor compared to the ideological differences between parties elsewhere.
You're confusing partisanship with ideology, Ichythic.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 26, 2007 9:40 AM
Name one action that the Indians could take against the British Empire.
See? Nothing. Clearly they were right to accept the inevitable and work within the system they had, and clearly you are right that we need to resign ourselves to the status quo.
Posted by: Dahan | October 26, 2007 11:09 AM
I have to take it back, Caledonian. In my last post I said you weren't an idiot, but after reading your last few posts I've been proven wrong.
To give an example of a group of people who were in an impossible situation in the past is not the same thing as giving us a realistic proposal as to how to make this "transfer of power". You seemed to claim earlier that my view that either working in the current system or bloodshed were the only viable options was naive. However, you still have yet to give us another option. Your logic is hopelessly flawed.
Posted by: Stogoe | October 26, 2007 11:37 AM
HA![/Krabappel]
Posted by: Nathaniel | October 26, 2007 11:47 AM
PZ sayeth:
"...no one would ever want to vote for me except the godless minority..."
This is the main reason I care about public discussion of atheism: it's that neither my wife nor I could ever plausibly run for office or participate in public discussion at a visible level: we're athiests, and therefore would be dismissed as evil right away.
Everything I've ever heard about Wellstone made me like they guy. The question isn't 'why isn't there another one', but 'why aren't they ALL like that'? How do we build a society where they are?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | October 26, 2007 11:49 AM
That was certainly my sense of him from listening to essentially the entire run of his Air America show. I'm glad to hear he looks that way from the campaign "front lines," as well.
Posted by: Sortition | October 26, 2007 1:14 PM
> Sortition
> That's swell, but what actions can any of us take that leads to bringing it about, other than spreading the idea?
Hold on while I pull this rabbit out of my hat...
Seriously though, there are no easy solutions. I think that making people aware of the existence of an alternative (namely sortition) is a crucial first step. Just complaining about the current system without offering an alternative is not nearly as effective as suggesting something towards which to work.
Posted by: Dustin | October 26, 2007 1:24 PM
If the transfer of power between individuals isn't going well, I can see no reason that a transfer of power of the second kind will be anything other than a total disaster.
In the west, we're pretty unique in our dysfunction. What's more, most of the western nations are social democracies which, if some of our favorite political theories are to be believed, should be more rife for abuse than a constitutional republic. That makes me think the problem isn't "the system". The problem is Americans.
Posted by: Kevin Conway | October 26, 2007 8:29 PM
Um... We do have a Democrat like this. His name is Dennis Kucinich. Vote for him, not the insufferable Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 26, 2007 8:44 PM
Wow. I do not recall coming across something this stupid in recent memory.
Congratulations, Dahan, you've rendered me speechless.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 26, 2007 8:46 PM
Just to make it so clear that even you could understand it:
The Indians won, Dahan. Do you see the subcontinent being part of the British Empire? 'Cause I don't.
Posted by: Dahan | October 26, 2007 9:53 PM
Caledonian, if I were a religious man I'd thank god that you are finally speechless.