Pharyngula: This is how Obama could make me happy to vote for him

#1

Posted by: Marshall | June 10, 2008 12:18 AM

Awesome link, thanks! This is an amazing speech that I wish he'd repeat today.

#2

Posted by: sangfroid | June 10, 2008 12:19 AM

This sounds quite a lot like his speech earlier in the primaries on religion. The parts about Leviticus and Deuteronomy are virtually verbatim.

#3

Posted by: sangfroid | June 10, 2008 12:24 AM

My bad, its the same speech from 2006. The full version is here:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid353515028?bctid=416343938

#4

Posted by: S.Scott | June 10, 2008 12:27 AM

Most excellent!

#5

Posted by: Imperadør Hasemörder | June 10, 2008 12:38 AM

I would be shocked if he gave a similar speech now.

#6

Posted by: SteveC | June 10, 2008 12:41 AM

Pretty good, up until the end, when he says, "they don't want faith to belittle, they don't want faith to divide."

Faith is inherently belittling and divisive. It belittles the intellect of those who subscribe to it -- "don't think, just believe." It divides, because those who subscribe to faith invariably see their subscription as a virtue, and thus, those who don't subscribe, as lacking that virtue.

Faith sucks completely and utterly and is without a single redeeming feature.

But to hope for a politician to say as much, and remain a viable politician, is to hope for too much, too soon.

So, good enough, and far better than what we've had recently.

#7

Posted by: tacitus | June 10, 2008 12:42 AM

I wouldn't hold my breath on Obama giving another such speech on the run up to the election.

#8

Posted by: woozy | June 10, 2008 12:45 AM

I like the slug at the end.

Not sure he's going to want to repeat the "Sermon on the Mount is so radical that it'd render our military obsolite". We can be sure that we'll be hearing a *lot* about Obama not being qualified to be commander in chief from the McCain groupies.

Good speech all round though. Nice *sane* explanation of the need for secularity from the viewpoint of the faithful. That really ought to counter the fears the fundies are trying to pound into non-fundie faithfuls' heads.

#9

Posted by: mims | June 10, 2008 12:50 AM

I don't know if he would make the same speech now. I do know that in 2006 he also was the Democratic sponsor of a bill strengthening a 1998 law giving people in Chapter 13 bankruptcy the right to keep tithing to their church under the 'allowable living expenses' clause.

#10

Posted by: travc | June 10, 2008 12:52 AM

He may just do it. He given forms of this speech multiple times already... and I'm willing to bet he is sincere.

Politically, it is a ju-jitsu move (as David Brin likes to call them). Doing something counter 'conventional wisdom' to use your opponents momentum against them. No, this message wouldn't play well to the stereotypical evangelical (who won't vote for Obama anyway), but the majority of people aren't the stereotype. Actually making your argument to them in terms they can understand can win a lot of respect, even when they aren't going to automatically agree with you.

Obama has much bigger problems with 'fear of the unknown/outsider' than 'he isn't religious enough'. Clearly stating his position, even/especially when it isn't a pander position, does more good by addressing the bigger and stickier liability.

#11

Posted by: Sean Carroll | June 10, 2008 12:56 AM

The whole speech is up on his website. It's the last video linked here:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/faith/

Obama is religious, no question. But he's not exactly intolerant.

#12

Posted by: Brodysattva | June 10, 2008 12:58 AM

This speech makes clear that he's a moderate and reasonable person. Why would you even want him to make a big fuss over these kinds of sentiments and make it more likely that the radical John McCain get elected in his place?

#13

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 10, 2008 1:00 AM

You know, he just might.

After the whole thing about "talking to the Iranians", there was a lot of gasping from pundits about his costly gaffe and how he would retract it and say he "misspoke". He stood by it, and a poll showed 60% of the American people agreed with him (IIRC). Maybe there's room for a little more principle and idealism and a little less pandering after all.

I hope so.

#14

Posted by: keiths | June 10, 2008 1:16 AM

Wow. I can't remember the last time I heard a politician of national prominence speak so sensibly about religion. Let's pray (so to speak) that he gets elected, and that nowhere along the way does he succumb to the temptation to pander to believers.

#15

Posted by: shvarz | June 10, 2008 1:23 AM

Compare:

#16

Posted by: shvarz | June 10, 2008 1:25 AM

Hmm, youtube is not getting emedded. Here's the direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9izhjnaLa3M

#17

Posted by: Ron Chusid | June 10, 2008 1:32 AM

Here's some more quotes and links on Obama on separation of church and state from last summer:

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1907

#18

Posted by: The skepTick | June 10, 2008 1:34 AM

Awesome. That clip made my evening (or very early morning)!

#19

Posted by: CameronP | June 10, 2008 1:36 AM

Excellent speech. He's one of the best.

#20

Posted by: Adam | June 10, 2008 1:41 AM

Actually, I think this is the same speech which you complained about a long time ago. The whole speech as a whole is much more religious sounding. And yes, at the "cnn compassion forum" he said the same things.

I like Obama because he takes two opposing ideas and blends them together in a way that doesn't pander too much. Whether Obama is actually religious or not it isn't going to get in the way IMO based upon what I have read and heard from him.

Was the earth created in 6 days? Obama's answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMd4w1rqh3g&feature=related

#21

Posted by: Ron Chusid | June 10, 2008 1:41 AM

More here on Obama and separation of church and state (primarily on faith based programs):

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2758

#22

Posted by: Shaden Freud | June 10, 2008 1:54 AM

#20 Adam,

For good measure, here's Lewis Black's answer.

#23

Posted by: Adam | June 10, 2008 1:55 AM

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/the_obama_failing.php

Same speech.

"I'd say he was pandering to his audience, except that I think he really believes the nonsense he was spouting."

Obama is really good at mixing multiple perspectives into the same speech. The clip that you just posted was in the speech you didn't like before. He's tricky.

To be honest it wouldn't surprise me if Obama was a skeptic. Whether he believes it or not, I think think he values the myths in the bible. And he values evidence and reason just as much as the most strident non-believers.

#24

Posted by: Troy | June 10, 2008 2:29 AM

Unfortunately our political process would not admit agnostics (or worse) into positions of power. The BS of feigning belief is apparently required.

Dean's "I'm tired of listening to fundamentalist preachers!" was like donning a bullseye target for the conservative elements of the media to him as a threat to their powerbase (the 25+ million idiot fundamentalists running around).

#25

Posted by: Phil | June 10, 2008 3:07 AM

That's a most reasonable and reasoned speech. Too bad for Obama!
I must give him some money now.

#26

Posted by: Bartlettman | June 10, 2008 3:34 AM

@ #9 mims

There's a good reason for that. A friend of mine told me that many strict Christians will continue to tithe to the church regardless of their level of income, even if destitute. A friend of hers is living in a caravan park with 3 kids who she can barely afford to feed and clothe but still gives the 10%. To these people tithing counts as a necessity simply because if an allowance is not made for it, they will tithe to the detriment of their children and themselves regardless. The bill perhaps should have been more specific in allowing only families with dependent children the allowance.

#27

Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 10, 2008 3:54 AM

Unfortunately our political process would not admit agnostics (or worse) into positions of power. - Troy

You meant, of course, "agnostics or better"!

#28

Posted by: scooter | June 10, 2008 3:54 AM

Naaah I doubt it
Contemporary Obama Godspeak and other turkeys slightly edited 4:48

Rev Wright Crap

#29

Posted by: Bob Magness | June 10, 2008 4:27 AM

What a speech! I'm an atheist so sure, I wish it had been stronger but such words coming from a politician, a strong presidential candidate at that, is incredible. I think this is a man who truly has an appreciation for the Constitution. How religious is he? I don't know. I highly doubt he is an atheist. But I have been reading his first autobiography that he wrote when he was about 33 (my age). Yes people can and do change a lot in a decade but from that book he certainly doesn't appear to be a strong Christian. He seems to have viewed the church as a tool for social change, not out of any divine reasons, but because they were established organizations with community ties.

The closer we come to the election the LESS likely I am to give credence to any professions of faith on his part. I like the guy but he is still a politician and is going to say what he needs to in order to get elected. I can't honestly say I would want him to do differently. Even if he were in fact an atheist, I would want him to keep his mouth closed about it, at least until he was elected.

If I had to place money on where he actually stood with regards to religion I would say he is a very liberal Christian. I doubt he actually believes the supernatural parts of the Bible. I think he might lean more toward the deist side of the spectrum. Although I wouldn't be surprised if he prays on occasion, which deists don't typically do.

#30

Posted by: scooter | June 10, 2008 4:30 AM

On the six days question:

In the Beginning

SacriLIBS #3

In the beginning, there was Shaolin monk. God said "Let there be a dick smashing toilet seat!" and there was a dick smashing toilet seat, and it was good. Then God divided the MD 20/20 and made the teddy bears.

He yammered the plants, then the sun, moon and 20GB Ipods to hang in the sky. On the fifth day, he made all the creatures of the teddy bears and your house.

On the sixth day, God made all the animals that live on the land, from the unmodified buffalo to the festering beetle. He also made the first really big pillow, Adam. He took Adam's solar plexus and made him a wife, Dick Cheney. God told them not to eat from the Tree of pound cake or surely they would adjust.

Adam and Dick Cheney lived in the Garden of Erectus until a flying squirrel convinced Dick Cheney to eat the ass-faced fruit and share with Adam. Right away they realized they were suspicious and hid. When God found them, Adam said, "Holy bat balls!" God wasn't impressed. They didn't adjust, but God was angry and sent them away from Erectus.

Eventually, they had two sons, Paris Hilton and Abel. Paris Hilton killed Abel and said, "Am I my brother's bong?"

The End

This is a MAD LIBS page of Bible Stories. I wasted an hour there with my 9 year old son, yesterday. Very addicting, and we both laughed ourselves into exhaustion.

If you don't want to take the time to fill out the section there is the SacriLIB-O-Matic randomly completes the story with previously-used words from SacriLIBS players.

#31

Posted by: Michael | June 10, 2008 4:30 AM

The militant Atheists nightmare in the June 2006 speech...

And if it weren't for the particular attributes of the historically black church, I may have accepted this fate. But as the months passed in Chicago, I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church, but to be in the church.

For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today.

#32

Posted by: Walton | June 10, 2008 4:32 AM

FWIW, Obama makes a lot of points in this speech which I strongly agree with. He's obviously right that it's fairly vacuous to talk of the US as a "Christian nation", even if that were constitutionally correct; not only are there large minorities of Jews, Muslims, nonbelievers, etc., but it's also true that there are a thousand different types of "Christianity", all of which have distinct doctrines. As he said, there's a huge gap between James Dobson and Al Sharpton - and they're both Protestants. What about Catholics, and Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses? So when the hardline religious right says "America is a Christian nation", what they really mean is that they think America ought to be an Evangelical Protestant nation, informed by their particular specific doctrine and reading of scripture. And that's plainly absurd in a multi-religious society.

So I also agree with him that all public policy which is adopted, at least insofar as it affects every citizen of the country, needs to have an objective, secular justification. For instance, I would strongly oppose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (which Huckabee, inter alia, suggested); because I don't see any secular, material arguments for why gay marriage is harmful to society and needs to be constitutionally banned.

I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir (ha, inappropriate expression) here. But I don't think any of this is a reason to vote for Obama. Because, his speech on the other thread notwithstanding, I actually think McCain is also comparatively secular in his outlook. He certainly doesn't approach politics from the overtly religious standpoint that President Bush does, and years ago he even called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance". He has pandered to the religious right to some extent - but it's impossible, realistically, to be a successful conservative politician on the national stage in the US without doing so. And bear in mind that Obama has very obvious links to the radical religious left (Rev. Wright, etc.), who seem to me just as scary as the religious right.

#33

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | June 10, 2008 5:07 AM

Walton:

So I also agree with him that all public policy which is adopted, at least insofar as it affects every citizen of the country, needs to have an objective, secular justification...But I don't think any of this is a reason to vote for Obama. Because, his speech on the other thread notwithstanding, I actually think McCain is also comparatively secular in his outlook. He certainly doesn't approach politics from the overtly religious standpoint that President Bush does and years ago he even called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance". He has pandered to the religious right to some extent - but it's impossible, realistically, to be a successful conservative politician on the national stage in the US without doing so.

Here you agree that Obama's assessment of the situation is a correct one. You have plainly affirmed that his judgement in this matter is sound, yet you see no reason to vote for him. You're ignoring the facts being presented to you in favor of returning to the same canard that he does not have the 'right kind of experience.'

And your suggestion that it is somehow acceptable to pander to the nut jobs on the religious right, while denouncing Obama for merely being associated with Wright (even though he denounced the particular sound bite statements that Wright made - which was followed by his resignation from the church and complete separation from Rev. Wright following the comments Wright made at the NY Press Club event) simply shows that you are not listening to reason, but instead you're being oblivious in your blind support of McCain. It is quite clear that reason will not sway you, and that your mind is squarely made up.

Also, your claim that McCain is "comparatively secular" in his outlook is a flat-out lie, because you posted numerous times on the Crush McCain thread on this very site, which featured a video as its main content showing McCain repeatedly espousing the view that America was founded in Judeo-Christian values, and that we are a Christian nation, a view which now you're saying you patently disagree with. Either you don't pay attention to anything you read or write, or you're a pathological liar. Either way, your credibility is non-existent.

And while it is true that McCain called Falwell an agent of intolerance, it is also true that the statement you referenced was made four years ago. In 2006, in preparation for this election cycle, McCain jumped back over the fence and embraced Falwell, going so far as speaking at his university and heaping praise upon the man. You cannot even claim ignorance concerning this fact, as you have already made it clear that your political information comes from Fox News, who made no bones about covering McCain's recent comments in question. So that lays bare the fact that you're ignoring the negatives about McCain in order to support him, while also ignoring the obvious positives of Obama in order to continue claiming he is inadequate for the job. That is intellectual dishonesty in its most blatant form.

And bear in mind that Obama has very obvious links to the radical religious left (Rev. Wright, etc.), who seem to me just as scary as the religious right.

First of all, you need to make sure you know who you are talking about before you accuse someone of being a part of the "radical religious left." I very seriously doubt you have a true grasp on who Rev. Wright is and what his personal history is like if you are using such labels to categorize him. And your insistence on doing so betrays - yet again - the fact that you are letting Fox News do your thinking for you. This is the exact reason that the troll label has been applied to you, and deservedly so, no matter how polite you may be in your delivery. And for future reference, when you're going to imply that Obama is linked to a group of "radical religious left" clergy, you might want to cite more than one example, especially if you include the etcetera after Wright's name. That implies that there are more, but this is an entirely false implication, and one you did nothing to back up aside from mentioning one single name.

Your evasions, distortion of facts, and blatant lies are getting tired. If you seriously have something to add to the discourse here, then do it in a reasonable fashion. If not, you're nothing more than the proverbial farmer trying to teach the pig how to sing. You're getting absolutely nothing done except wasting your time and annoying the fuck out of the rest of us who are actually trying to have a rational discussion.

#34

Posted by: Kirsty Bruce | June 10, 2008 5:16 AM

This was the final question at the Science Debate....whoops...sorry...my bad, I mean the Compassion Forum - he seems to be channelling much of the speech linked to this thread. I think it was filmed in April.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kNGRAoNB6rw

#35

Posted by: Walton | June 10, 2008 5:30 AM

...you are letting Fox News do your thinking for you. - Not quite; I doubt many Fox News viewers would agree with my remarks regarding whether America is a "Christian nation" and the need for secular justifications for public policy. That is my own reasoned opinion.

I should also point out that I get a very small percentage of my political information from Fox News. I rely on a large number of sources, including the BBC (which you could hardly accuse of having a conservative bias).

And since I agree with the prevailing opinion here regarding the need for a secular state, I felt this was an ideal topic on which to have a productive discussion; I'm arguing that this goal would be just as well-served by a McCain presidency. Yes, he has given in to the religious right to an extent; but he could never have achieved his present level of electoral success, within the Republican party, without doing so.

Perhaps "radical religious left" was a simplistic way of describing Rev. Wright, but I doubt you could seriously disagree that he is radical in his views. Saying things like "God damn America" and "the United States of KKK" can hardly be viewed as mainstream and moderate, surely? And Obama was an active member of his church for many, many years. I'm not necessarily insinuating that he shares Rev. Wright's views; I'm sure he doesn't. But if you're going to condemn McCain for his links (such as they are) to religious-right clergy, surely you should also condemn Obama for his links to Wright? Do you, as an atheist/agnostic, seriously find Wright less frightening than his counterparts on the evangelical right (except insofar as he is much less poltiically influential)?

...you're ignoring the negatives about McCain in order to support him, while also ignoring the obvious positives of Obama in order to continue claiming he is inadequate for the job. That is intellectual dishonesty in its most blatant form. - I will be honest; I have always liked McCain, even as early as 2006-07 when the prevailing view was that he had little chance of getting the nomination. I have also always thought that the world would be much better off had he won the primaries, instead of Bush, in 2000. Yes, he seems to have changed, and has definitely moved further to the right; and I do think he's said some absurd things during this campaign. But given his long track record of saying and doing things which I agree with, he isn't going to lose my support that easily.

I am not prejudiced against Obama; I think he's a decent legislator, an inspirational speaker, no doubt a very gifted lawyer and constitutional scholar, and (though I could be wrong) he seems like an honest, likeable person with a lot of integrity. But Jimmy Carter was an honest, likeable person with a lot of integrity, and we all know how his presidency turned out.

I will acknowledge that I could be completely wrong, and Obama could turn out to be a fantastic president. So I'm not arguing that he will be an ineffectual leader; I'm arguing that he might be, and also that I'm not entirely confident in his foreign policy. I will concede that the points many people made on the other thread regarding his experience were certainly valid, so I'm not going to keep saying "he's too inexperienced" as if this were a definitive answer. But I do think McCain is a slightly safer bet, on balance.

#36

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 10, 2008 5:45 AM

I have also always thought that the world would be much better off had he won the primaries, instead of Bush, in 2000.

Damned by faint praise: the world would be better off if Bobo the Clown had won the Republican nomination in 2000.

#37

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | June 10, 2008 6:00 AM

You're ignoring the fact that McCain is not an advocate of secular policies, which is confirmed by the words coming out of his own mouth. You're ignoring the fact that McCain's link to Falwell and the religious right is one of both overt political and financial support, while Obama's relationship with Wright includes neither of those, and is a relationship that has been effectively ended.

Your prior posts have made it quite clear that you have no interest in anything other than a conservative bias, so while you may watch the BBC, it is obvious that yo do not glean your political viewpoints from them. Those come straight from exactly where I pointed - Fox News.

As an atheist, I find Wright to be irrelevant in this election, because is he not financing and soliciting votes from his congregation for Obama. McCain, on the other hand, is actively courting the financial support of the religious right, so yes, the two are quite different, indeed. If you want to get up in arms about inflammatory statements, you should examine the man that McCain so lavishly praised in 2006 - Falwell had no qualms about blaming 9/11 on the homosexuals of this country, and McCain still sought and accepted his endorsement.

As for the comment you made about Jimmy Carter's presidency, you're seriously making yourself look like an idiot. You need to have a better grasp on your history before you go making claims about the political history of another country when you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

You have consistently proven that you are impervious to reason and insistent on continuing to spout the same bullshit that you have been spouting since you showed up on these boards, despite the fact that they've been soundly exposed as false.

Up until this point I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and pretending that you were actually giving serious consideration to the arguments I and other posters here have been presenting. But while you may have "conceded" a few points, the idiocy of your repeated and redundant assertions about McCain and Obama and your refusal to recognize fact when it is presented to you show me that you are giving our arguments no such consideration.

The rest may still feel like troll-feeding, but I'm done.

#38

Posted by: rudi | June 10, 2008 6:02 AM

Damned by faint praise: the world would be better off if Bobo the Clown had won the Republican nomination in 2000.

Huh?

I thought he did?

#39

Posted by: Michael | June 10, 2008 6:04 AM

But Jimmy Carter was an honest, likeable person with a lot of integrity, and we all know how his presidency turned out.

I remember as I lived through those years. My parents turned Republican after 4 years of misery under Carter.

I always ask Obama supporters, how is going to solve the energy crisis. The food crisis is going to be worse as only 35 percent of the corn crop is in the ground, normally the average is 76 percent. Everything related to corn will be affected including meats where farmers feed the animals corn. So certain meats will cost more. Hurting the little guy. Obama talks about change but sort of change does he want to bring to the White House besides a new face?

#40

Posted by: Abbie | June 10, 2008 6:06 AM

That is the exact speech- or a written version of it- that made me decide to support Obama.

I blinked and went, omg, someone who gets it.

#41

Posted by: scooter | June 10, 2008 6:07 AM

The problem with McCain is that he doesn't fulfill the needs of the cowardly Americans who want their Daddy State to protect then from every bump the Big Bad World night.

He is a miserable failure as a warrior.

Some Dumbass flying a state of the art military jet who gets shot down in a third world country by world war II technology is not exactly fit to run the military. You need somebody who can LAND THE PLANE!!!

His claim to Heroism is the teary eyed, 'Lucky to be alive' argument. In that case, I know plenty of junkies electable on that platform.

How right he is: If he were an invading force, dropping ordinance over Texas, and was taken down and captured by Texans, the best he could have hoped for was to be shot BEFORE being fed to the hogs.

Christians are not as humanitarian as Buddhists.

#42

Posted by: Walton | June 10, 2008 6:12 AM

You're ignoring the fact that McCain's link to Falwell and the religious right is one of both overt political and financial support, while Obama's relationship with Wright includes neither of those, and is a relationship that has been effectively ended. - Fair point, and I accept the validity of that distinction.

If you want to get up in arms about inflammatory statements, you should examine the man that McCain so lavishly praised in 2006 - Falwell had no qualms about blaming 9/11 on the homosexuals of this country, and McCain still sought and accepted his endorsement. - I agree that Falwell's well-known remarks on 13th September 2001 were patently absurd and (in the context of the time) somewhat offensive. (Though he later apologised for them.) All I can really say in McCain's defence is this: would he have got anywhere electorally, had he not sought support from the evangelical right?

As for the comment you made about Jimmy Carter's presidency, you're seriously making yourself look like an idiot. - My apologies, but I don't understand why. Would you argue that his presidency was a success? I accept that it isn't a period in which I have massive expertise (and obviously I wasn't alive at the time), so I'll be glad to accept any corrections to my analysis. But I always understood that his term in office was generally viewed as something of a failure, especially on the foreign policy front.

...while you may have "conceded" a few points, the idiocy of your repeated and redundant assertions about McCain and Obama and your refusal to recognize fact when it is presented to you show me that you are giving our arguments no such consideration. - I am giving your arguments consideration. I do recognise fact, and I have conceded points when I have been shown to be wrong, which has happened a few times since I started commenting here. I'm not closed-minded. If I'm repeating redundant assertions, I apologise for that.

The rest may still feel like troll-feeding, but I'm done. - I'm genuinely sorry you feel that way, because I found many of your remarks (especially on the other thread) to be insightful and interesting, and I've learnt a lot from you. I continue to argue because I believe that a two-sided argument is the best way to arrive at the truth, not because I'm refusing to recognise the validity of your points or the reality of your expertise.

#43

Posted by: Walton | June 10, 2008 6:20 AM

Michael at #39: You may have misunderstood me. I agree entirely with you. I was comparing Obama to Carter because Carter's presidency was something of a failure; I was using this to demonstrate that Obama being a nice guy isn't enough to make him a successful president.

#44

Posted by: Daniel | June 10, 2008 6:28 AM

Liked the retelling of the Abraham story. Religious people seem the most temperate and reasonable when they... don't act like they don't believe it very much.

Can you imagine the consequences if the story had finished with Abraham killing Isaac, and then the Lord resurrects him? Think of how many more child murders there might have been all throughout history.

#45

Posted by: Holbach | June 10, 2008 6:38 AM

Nick Gotts @ 27 Good reevaluation and corrected comment made by Troy. Perhaps I judged you too quickly and erroneously. Of course we are better; the realty of that state is lost on the deranged as well as the uncommitted.

#46

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 10, 2008 6:58 AM

I see someone is still playing with their war-hard-on.

#47

Posted by: Walton | June 10, 2008 7:09 AM

I see someone is still playing with their war-hard-on.

Hardly. What have I said about war on this thread? The accusation is really somewhat unfounded.

#48

Posted by: SGEW | June 10, 2008 7:32 AM

Unfortunately our political process would not admit agnostics (or worse) into positions of power.

Except for Rep. Pete Stark.

http://www.secular.org/news/pete_stark_070312.html

Stark for President! Or at least V.P.

#49

Posted by: Holbach | June 10, 2008 7:53 AM

I made comments in a previous post that I would vote for Pete Stark, and would glad to write his name in if it were possible. If he was among the three in earlier contention, then he would get my vote. Since he is not, no one gets my vote. This is the first time I will not vote in the Presidential election. I wonder if Pete endures snide remarks from his fellow congressmen? Knowing the nastiness of freaking religion, I can well bet that there are overt and direct remarks to him by the deranged members, such as a "god bless you" or "I pray for you every day". Insanity in the halls of power.

#50

Posted by: Arwen | June 10, 2008 8:00 AM

Jimmy Carter was given a bad rap. He did many great things for Foreign Policy. As for the hostage crisis and the oil shortage, it is perfectly obvious that the Republicans were in the Saudi's pocket the whole time. Don't you think it is just a little too convenient that the hostages were released the same day Reagan became President (before he would have any kind of chance to do anything) and that the fuel shortage magically disappeared at around the same time (who was the new VP at the time? -- oh, yeah, George H.W. Bush, whose son just "happened" to be an oilman closely connected to the Saudi royal family)? I have no documented proof of what I'm saying of course (because, oh yeah, GHWB was ex-CIA chief). Most every other nation in the world sees Jimmy Carter as one of our greatest presidents... FYI, usually they don't give Nobel Peace Prizes to losers. A lot of who we are as a people today is because of the policies Jimmy Carter put into being.

#51

Posted by: Ric | June 10, 2008 8:05 AM

Thanks for that. I loved it!

#52

Posted by: MB | June 10, 2008 8:10 AM

It is too bad Obama makes so little sense when he talks about economics. Otherwise, he'd get my vote over McCain.

A few stupid ideas from Obama: 1. He thought that mortgage companies should be fined for foreclosing on bad loans. This will ensure that no one bothers to pay their mortgage, and plunge the finance sector even deeper into the red. 2. He wants to tax away the oil companies recent profits, even though the are not responsible for the high prices. Where will they get the money to explore and drill for more oil, build new refineries, etc. What will lure others into the field to moderate the prices.

Obama is just an ignoramus when it comes to economics.

#53

Posted by: Walton | June 10, 2008 8:15 AM

To Arwen at #50.

FYI, usually they don't give Nobel Peace Prizes to losers.

Erm, Al Gore?

(A man who flies around in his private jet lecturing everyone about global warming, and encourages wild media hysteria about what will probably turn out to be precisely nothing... yes, such a deserving candidate. And before anyone points it out, yes, I know he's into all this "carbon offsets" nonsense, and therefore claims that his use of a private jet somehow doesn't count. But it doesn't change the fact that the man is a fool and a hypocrite.)

To be fair, though, as regards your other points, I do think Jimmy Carter was more unlucky than incompetent, and he did genuinely try to do the right thing on foreign policy. There have been much worse Presidents.

#54

Posted by: Kurt | June 10, 2008 8:23 AM

He would never give a similar speech now!!
The man is an extremist liberal. He listened to Rev. Wright's sermons on tape in college. It says so in his book. Democrats are supposed to stay away from crazy religious nuts like Rev. Wright and others he has associated with. There is very little difference between Obama and McCain once you get pass the rhetoric. Many bad leaders in a row- that is how Rome fell.

#55

Posted by: BT Murtagh | June 10, 2008 8:24 AM

I can't believe how little attention is being paid to the fact that Dennis Kucinich has introduced articles of impeachment (35 of them, very lengthy and detailed too) against George W. Bush.

Read them here: http://chun.afterdowningstreet.org/amomentoftruth.pdf

#56

Posted by: Grimalkin | June 10, 2008 8:34 AM

I love the way his tone of voice is completely different in the first and second parts. In the first part, he's preaching. He's up there, he's excited, he's sharing something he believes in. Then he gets to the second part and he sounds like my nephew trying to apology for pulling my niece's hair. There's no enthusiasm, he's looking down at his paper more, it seems to me that he doesn't really believe this part but he has to throw it in so that the comments from the first part don't get painted with the big bad "secularist" brush.

I would love to see him give a speech like this today. I would feel much more comfortable voting for him if he showed me that he still believes in that first part.

#57

Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 10, 2008 8:35 AM

Walton,
Before you make a further fool of yourself over global warming, reflect that the overwhelming consensus of relevant scientific experts is that it is a real, urgent problem. Just because your favourite rightist liars and halfwits say otherwise, doesn't mean you're at liberty to pretend the issue is still open, let alone that it will "probably turn out to be nothing". As I recommended before, go to http://www.realclimate.org/, press the "Start here" button, and actually learn something from people qualified to talk about it.

#58

Posted by: J-Dog | June 10, 2008 8:37 AM

Back when Santorem (R-PA) was making noise about ID,(2005?) I wrote an email to Obama, who is my Senator, asking him to bitch-slap Santorem and tell him to shut up, ID is just a new form of creation science. And yes, that is a verbatim quote.

Obama wrote back that while he would not slap Santorem, he did believe in the separation of church and state and understood that ID was just another version of creation science, and would work against him in the Senate.

I have been an Obama fan ever since, and curse my penchant for cleaning out my email box.

#59

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 10, 2008 8:39 AM

But it doesn't change the fact that the man is a fool and a hypocrite.

mirror?

#60

Posted by: tonyJ | June 10, 2008 8:41 AM

#8 Woozy
Just for the sake of being an irritant and a pedant the cool critter at the end is not a slug but a mudskipper and they're very cool.
For some reason in this speach Obama sounds like a closet atheist, nope that's hopelessly wishful thinking on my part.
Glad I live in Britain...in a village without a church because no one went to it when it was there.In fact it's been demolished, how cool is that?

#61

Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 10, 2008 8:42 AM

Not that I have a vote, and in most forums with a lot of Usanians I'd urge support for McCain in the most arrogantly Britsh way possible, but hearing this speech does give me some genuine enthusiasm for the man for the first time.

#62

Posted by: Bride of Shrek | June 10, 2008 8:50 AM

Walton

As a climatologist I'd be interested to hear your evidence ,or perhaps your references to the "evidence" you have read, to refute that global warming is human caused. Seriously,as Nick Gotts said, you have to realise when you make a sciency type statement of fact on a blog like Pharyngula there is going to be at least one scientist in the field who is just waiting for a "chat" on the subject. Keep in mind though, that regulars will attest, I suffer fools gladly and, whilst I freely admit I haven't taught in the field for about 8 years, I've kept up with my peers research.

Please engage if you wish.

#63

Posted by: Cappy | June 10, 2008 8:57 AM

I'll bet at some point FOX News plays that bit repeatedly,"America is not a Christian nation" without any of the rest.

I would like to weigh in that Carter was a much better President than he is given credit for. He negotiated peace between Egypt and Israel; every baby step made in the middle east stands on his foundation. When he proposed energy conservation, even as mundane as sweaters, he was absolutely right. He has most certainly been America's greatest EX-President. If there is a god, Jimmy Carter is on His A-list.

#64

Posted by: Walton | June 10, 2008 9:03 AM

To Bride of Shrek at #62: Thanks for the offer, but I'm a non-scientist, have only a simple layman's view and am entirely unqualified to argue the point with you. You're right, I should have realised that it would be challenged by someone more knowledgeable than myself.

So I won't attempt a debate. However, I would like to ask you, as a climatologist, a couple of questions:

1) Is it not the case that a significant minority of the scientific community accepts that global warming may be substantially caused by natural solar cycles, rather than by carbon dioxide emissions?

2) Is it not the case that the Earth has gone through various "warm" and "cold" phases in the past, due entirely to natural factors, long prior to the industrial era?

3) Is it not the case that in the 1970s, there was actually a "global cooling" scare? Which was sensationalised by the media just like the current global warming scare?

The whole debate, on both sides, is extremely politicised and a lot of people (including most of the media) have vested interests in pushing viewpoints, making it hard for laymen like me to determine what the objective scientific truth actually is. So I acknowledge that I could be talking a bunch of crap. But if I am, please correct me.

#65

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 10, 2008 9:07 AM

1. He thought that mortgage companies should be fined for foreclosing on bad loans. This will ensure that no one bothers to pay their mortgage, and plunge the finance sector even deeper into the red.

As a proportion of the mortgage value, how much is the fine proposed to be? What is the social cost of a homeless family? Who picks up that bill?

It would seem equally arguable that a fine that is, say, a small proportion of the mortgage value would make banks slightly less quick to foreclose without threatening their viability. This could work, for example, by making it more difficult to foreclose when someone loses their job and misses a payment between jobs: they ultimately pay all of the money, but the bank is disincentivised from turfing them out on the street if they miss one payment. This would tend to benefit low-income families with low-value homes, little threat to cashflow or viability of a bank, and since middle and higher income families are also more likely to be able to afford the mortgage insurance that would protect them and less likely to default, it seems that there's little if any threat to the viability of any bank. The measure would also disincentivise banks from the irresponsible lending that caused the sub-prime crisis in the first place. With an optimised value for the fine, it seems like a pretty good idea.

2. He wants to tax away the oil companies recent profits, even though the are not responsible for the high prices. Where will they get the money to explore and drill for more oil, build new refineries, etc. What will lure others into the field to moderate the prices.

Oil prices are controlled by OPEC. Who is "responsible" doesn't enter into it. If the price of oil goes from $20 per barrel to $100 dollars per barrel, and Exxon maintain a 25% profit, their profit-per-barrel goes from $5 to $25. Why should all of this massive windfall accrue to the oil company rather than the American taxpayer who actually has to pay the higher prices at the pump? Even if the tax is 50%, Exxon still have $12.50 instead of $5 per barrel for future exploration and development.

I'm not saying that the above are correct analyses, but they are seem quite plausible for something I just made up, certainly a whole lot more plausible than your bald assertions.

#66

Posted by: Walton | June 10, 2008 9:08 AM

He has most certainly been America's greatest EX-President. - I would dispute that. His recent meeting with Hamas leaders was condemned as very dangerous not only by the Bush administration, but by many Democrats with foreign policy experience. Bush's "appeasement" speech to the Knesset was (as you are probably aware) not about Obama, but about Carter's meeting with Hamas. Hamas is an organisation which glorifies and endorses violence, and which has as official policy the stated aim of destroying the state of Israel. It is highly irresponsible for an ex-President to give them legitimacy by meeting with them. Obviously he's a private citizen and he's entitled to do as he wishes, but I condemn his actions.

When he proposed energy conservation, even as mundane as sweaters, he was absolutely right. - You may well be right; I don't know much about energy policy, so I can't argue with that.

If there is a god, Jimmy Carter is on His A-list. - I wouldn't disagree with that. As I said, I think he's a decent guy with integrity (and, of course, is a devout Christian; IIRC, he popularised the term "born-again"). But that doesn't mean he was a fantastic President.

#67

Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 10, 2008 9:09 AM

Walton,
I'm not a climatologist, and I apologise to BoS for butting in, but the answers to your questions are quite simple:
1) No.
2) Yes, but this is irrelevant to what is causing warming now.
3) No.

#68

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 10, 2008 9:09 AM

Bush's "appeasement" speech to the Knesset was (as you are probably aware) not about Obama, but about Carter's meeting with Hamas.

Oh, for fuck's sake, you dishonest little git.

#69

Posted by: Walton | June 10, 2008 9:09 AM

(My above post was in reply to Cappy at #63.)

#70

Posted by: negentropyeater | June 10, 2008 9:13 AM

MB,

2. He wants to tax away the oil companies recent profits, even though the are not responsible for the high prices. Where will they get the money to explore and drill for more oil, build new refineries, etc. What will lure others into the field to moderate the prices.

Oh please give me a break ! Have you taken a close look at the income statements of the oil companies, the traders, etc... ? They have been completely irresponsible, have reaped insane profits, and you just think they should keep on doing the same dirty trick. What a joke what you say.

Hey take a look at this :

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/CFATestimony_HearingonMarketManipulation.pdf
"ENERGY MARKET MANIPULATION AND
FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT REGIMES"

- The problem is that both the structure of the market and the behaviors of market players are biased in favor of higher prices and against consumers.

- We have evidence at the micro levels of a pervasive pattern of past abuses and rumors about suspicious behavior in the current market

-In the past two years, the speculative bubble has cost consumers over $1500.

-Congress must recognize that certain commodities are fundamentally different. Energy is at the top of the list of commodities that have special vulnerabilities.

-Vigorously enforced registering and reporting requirements will chase the bad actors out of the commodity markets and the margin and tax policies will direct capital out of speculation and into productive long term uses. Creating a class of idle rich speculators, who are immune to the business cycle, was a huge mistake. Allowing this huge log of money to pump up the volume, volatility and risk has cost consumers dearly.

-We need much more vigorous action to reign in the speculative bubble and return the futures markets to their proper role to improve the functioning of physical commodity markets.

#71

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 10, 2008 9:13 AM

Walton writes:
I agree that Falwell's well-known remarks on 13th September 2001 were patently absurd and (in the context of the time) somewhat offensive.

"Somewhat" offensive? OMG.

#72

Posted by: CalGeorge | June 10, 2008 9:18 AM

He's giving a speech about religion, as a believer, in a house of worship.

Yeah, he calls for bridging gaps and overcoming prejudice, but he's also perpetuating the idiocy that is religion.

Boooo.

#73

Posted by: vairitas | June 10, 2008 9:22 AM

i just saw a news report this morning that obama is reaching out to evangelicals. it sounded like he's trying to "frame" the issue,

#74

Posted by: SteveM | June 10, 2008 9:25 AM

Re: "global cooling scare"

I too am not a climatologist, but as I understand it, the cooling observed in the 60's and 70's was indeed a real phenomenon due to particulate and sulfer dioxide pollution in the atmosphere. And because of those warnings, a massive effort was put into cleaning up the air and scrubbing ash and sulfer from the air. But we did nothing to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced. So this is not actually a case of "scientists have been wrong before", (which is a logical fallacy anyway) but instead a careful distortion of history by the global warming deniers.

#75

Posted by: dcwp | June 10, 2008 9:26 AM

http://www.streetprophets.com/storyonly/2006/7/16/17755/6055

#76

Posted by: dcwp | June 10, 2008 9:30 AM

Pharyngula

Search this blog

Profile

Random Quote

Recent Posts

A Taste of Pharyngula

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Other Information

Subscribe via Email

This is how Obama could make me happy to vote for him

Comments