Pharyngula

Posted by: Texas Reader | December 2, 2009 12:59 PM

count me as one who has turned away

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | December 2, 2009 1:05 PM

How is anyone surprised that he's doing what he said he'd do about the war? He said all along Afghanistan was the war we should be fighting, and that we should be focusing there and getting out of Iraq.

Posted by: Andy | December 2, 2009 1:08 PM

I'm withholding judgement for now. After all, he's pretty much doing what he said he'd do during the campaign in Afghanistan. I still think he's a brilliant guy, and while I would have chosen to bring the troops home, I also think there's a possibility that he actually knows better than I do, and by the end of the first term this may have been a relative success.

We'll see. If we get a health care bill, even an imperfect one, that's a big Obama win. If a bill gets passed ending DADT in the military, that's a big Obama win. If the vast majority of the troops come home from Iraq in the next year or two, that's a big Obama win. If the vast majority of the troops come home from Afghanistan in the next two or three years, that's a big Obama win. If a climate change bill, even an imperfect one, is passed, that's a big Obama win. Same goes for an energy bill.

Are all these things likely? I don't know. But they all still see very possible in his first term. If he gets all that stuff done, than he will probably have been the best president in a couple of generations, possibly rating as one of the best presidents ever. I am still hopeful- it hasn't even been a year yet!

Posted by: john | December 2, 2009 1:11 PM

Fairday friends are just that! To many dem's seem to think "ask not what your government can do for you, but running the world can and does leave all with bad tastes in there mouths so quit!" Both sexes have a pair reach down deep friends and do your best to grab a pair!

Posted by: paulR | December 2, 2009 1:14 PM

Of course, PZ will vote for Obama in 2012 because there will be another Republican candidate who, if not stopped, will Destroy the Country.

It's the same on the conservative side.

Every election year the new Democratic candidate is always portrayed as more liberal and evil than the last, and that's why we have to hold our nose and vote for Bush/McCain....if not, Gore/Kerry/Obama will Destroy the Country. And it works! All the little (D)'s line up and vote for the (D) candidate and the (R)'s line up and vote for the (R) candidate- even if they despise them. It's insane.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | December 2, 2009 1:15 PM

I'm disappointed, but does he have an exit strategy? Is it possible that he is going in to swoop up Bin Laden once and for all? Even though he is dragging out the retaliatory war, his direction, oversight, and reason for prolonging it may (or may not) be superior to G.W.'s.

Posted by: john | December 2, 2009 1:19 PM

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 2, 2009 1:14 PM

To many dem's seem to think "ask not what your government can do for you, but running the world can and does leave all with bad tastes in there mouths so quit!"
I'm a progressive independent, not a Democrat, so FU.
Fairday friends= FF

Posted by: claw | December 2, 2009 1:20 PM

perhaps people might want to check out Obama's response letter:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/30/809130/-An-Open-Letter-to-Michael-Moore-from-President-Obama

Posted by: deep | December 2, 2009 1:21 PM

http://www.kucinich.house.gov/Contact/ContactForm.htm

Tell Kuinich to quit his anti-GMO nonsense. Then have an actual liberal run!

Posted by: Whatbluedot | December 2, 2009 1:26 PM

I'm not turning away. He ran with this on his platform. If you didn't know it was going to happen, you're a fool. I'm hoping it will go well. But, I'm not a one issue voter, even this one.

Posted by: BluesBassist | December 2, 2009 1:27 PM

I just read Moore's entire rant; wow, what a blustering idiot (to steal one of PZ's insults). Moore seems to be the Rush Limbaugh of the left.

(For the record, I also strongly oppose the troop buildup in Afghanistan, but that doesn't imply I agree with much of what Moore writes.)

Posted by: Joffan | December 2, 2009 1:45 PM

If it's worth having a military, they should be doing something useful. Reducing the chaos in Afghanistan (following the also-justifiable removal of the Taliban) seems to me to be a defensible choice of troop use.

And military strength, regrettably, is still a necessity. The degree of expenditure is a fair point for debate.

For those hoping for a third party choice, I would advise putting everything into completely crushing the Republicans next time around. Currently they're loading the shotgun for you; finish them off. Once that's done, the space for new political alignments opens up.

Posted by: The effin' bear | December 2, 2009 1:53 PM

Reprinting Moore's letter is a good way of advertising your lack of credentials in matters of policy and politics. Moore borrows from creationists' playbook and leaves out/distorts details that contradict his analysis. 100 Al Qaeda remaining in Afghanistan -- what is the source of that figure? As Obama said, Al Qaeda and the Taliban's goals are, at present, convergent, and as David Rohde reported in his account on being kidnapped, the Taliban has full control over entire cities within the border region.

As the chief said last night, “We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country.” His argument is that that cancer poses a serious national security threat.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 2, 2009 1:59 PM

effin' bear

As the chief said last night, “We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country.” His argument is that that cancer poses a serious national security threat.

Fair enough... and I think it's a noble thought. But let me ask you... do you think that goal is truly achievable, in any time frame, let alone in 18 months?
I'm not just being argumentative... I would actually like to know if you believe that and why.

Posted by: Ben | December 2, 2009 2:01 PM

I would like to respond to the very common meme of "he said he would escalate in Afghanistan during the campaign, so you can't criticize him for doing so now".

First, yes we can! Nobody can reasonably be expected to agree with all of a candidate's positions during the campaign. So just because that candidate won, and even that you voted for him, doesn't prevent you from opposing policies that you disagree with vehemently. Moreover, you can't attribute the electoral victory with his position on one particular issue, so you can't pull the popular mandate card either.

Second, there were many of the left who voiced opposition to escalating the war in Afghanistan. However, we were told before the general election campaign heated up that, "don't oppose the President on this right now. We need to exhibit solidarity in order to win in November. We can discuss differing policy objectives once we're in power." To turn around and now claim that we can't oppose him now, because he made clear his positions during the campaign, is disingenuous.

Third, newer information since last year can justify a change in position from supporting to opposing a surge in Afghanistan. Our economic plight has only worsened, so that we are less able to afford the luxury of imperialistic forays into the Muslim world than we were before. Moreover, this surge is coming off the heels of a stolen election in Afghanistan, reducing the legitimacy of our support for the existing regime. Finally, the military experts I've read suggest that adding 30-40,000 additional troops won't make a bit of difference to the outcome of the conflict. Obama is splitting the baby, as he appears to be doing in all aspects of his presidency. In an attempt to please everyone, he's ended up pleasing nobody.

Fourth, I don't think the opposition from the left would be this strong had Obama delivered on his other promises. I think dissatisfaction from his policies generally is seeping over into the war escalation. In other words, he's keeping the promises I wanted him to break, and breaking the promises I wanted him to keep.

Finally, Obama has been lurching to the right because he thinks he has liberal votes in his hip pocket. The only way we can change his course is to convince them that our support is conditional, and that he actually has to work for it.

Posted by: 3B | December 2, 2009 2:10 PM

The Obama administration deserves high praise for reversing efforts of the Bush mob to weaken the responsibilities of the Presidents Intelligence Advisory Board and the Intelligence Oversight Board. Obama deserves credit for halting torture and abuse and reversing the extraordinary renditions policy that Bush started. What the president refuses to do is stand up and address the escalating militarization and centralization of the intelligence agencies. The time for sober soul searching regarding the role of the National Clandestine Service and the intelligence organizations under it is long over due. As long as Obama continues letting Robert Gates, Hillary Clinton and other Bush holdovers influence his decisions, any type of meaningful change will not happen. Robert Gates has a long history of falsifying intelligence to suit his political purposes. We need intelligence agencies that are NOT beholden to political interests.

Posted by: amk.myopenid.com | December 2, 2009 2:13 PM

Suggested reading on topic: Craig Murray, Glenzilla on the causes of terror. In addition to his link, people should be aware of Dying to Win.

Occupying Afghanistan puts us at greater danger from "Islamic" terrorism. This should be self-evident, but plenty of evidence can be found in above links.

Posted by: amk.myopenid.com | December 2, 2009 2:18 PM

... and an female Afghan MP on why the continuing occupation is bad for Afghanistan. (via Glennzilla)

Posted by: Ben | December 2, 2009 2:33 PM

@3B #31:

That indeed would be a great achievement, if he had actually done so. Sure Obama started his term paying lip service to ending torture, but the slightest criticism from Darth Cheney caused him to completely abandon that stance. Obama has largely ratified the positions of Bush regarding civil liberties abuses. They are excellently explained and documented on the excellent blog of Glenn Greenwald at Salon, which I highly recommend.

Posted by: amk.myopenid.com | December 2, 2009 2:38 PM

This ‘escalation’ is larger in terms of troop commitment than Bush’s 2007 ‘surge’ — the positive results of which were apparent one year later

The "surge" also coincided with:

1. The bribing ("subsidising" in the British Empire terminology) of the Sunni clans to switch sides

2. The near completion of the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad and other centres (Baghdad is now overwhelmingly Shi'ite)

3. The Mehdi Army demobilizing after agreement with the Iraqi and Iranian government

As such there is no reason to believe the "surge" had any effect whatsoever.

Posted by: claw | December 2, 2009 2:47 PM

24# "Claw... that is NOT Obama's response to anything, as it is not Obama writing it... surely you realize that, no?"

I'm gonna assume that the caps are for emphasis and not for shouting or sarcasm, so I'll not respond with excessive snark. One would think that any link that came from anywhere but the White House would be taken with a grain of salt when clicked, yes?
Especially Dailykos, as it is a blog/diary website, not a news-service.

If i had 'Rick-rolled' you, would you write "Claw... that is NOT Obama dancing to mind-numbing 80s music in a trenchcoat..."

Of course not.

You know the rules, and so do I.

Posted by: JBlilie | December 2, 2009 2:54 PM

Keillor is going after Obama a bit as well:

http://salon.com/news/opinion/garrison_keillor/index.html?story=/opinion/keillor/2009/12/01/truth_of_christmas

Posted by: Ciara | December 2, 2009 3:08 PM

As liberal as I am, I have to say...Michael Moore sucks.

Posted by: The effin' bear | December 2, 2009 3:14 PM

Quoting amk, “The "surge" also coincided with:
“1. The bribing ("subsidising" in the British Empire terminology) of the Sunni clans to switch sides
“2. The near completion of the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad and other centres (Baghdad is now overwhelmingly Shi'ite)
“3. The Mehdi Army demobilizing after agreement with the Iraqi and Iranian government”

These are all contingencies which one should hope to avoid. (1) was a concession to the reality of the situation, (2) was a situation that a US troop withdrawal (or stagnation) would not have aided, and (3) is somewhat region-specific. The problem with Pakistan is not that we are at extreme odds with them, as was/is the case with Iran, but rather that their government is somewhat ineffective in certain of the nation's hillier outskirts. Obama specifically addressed corruption, and perhaps the scale of the current troop increase is partly meant to reduce the necessity of resorting to (1) — or at least, to weigh the terms of such clandestine concessions more largely in our favor.

Posted by: Sherry | December 2, 2009 3:16 PM

I'm so disappointed that I want to emigrate to Pern.

He hasn't really done any of the things that are important to me. All I see is that he is pandering to the extreme Right and not making friends there either.

During my 10 years in the Air Force I knew so many Gays and Lesbians. They were as good or better than anyone else. Also, I was never sexually harassed by any homosexuals. I can't tell you how many asshole "straight" men caused me so much trouble. Everything from lost sleep to lost respect.

It would be so very easy for him to tell the Joint Chiefs to quit investigating or discharging military members who are homosexual. It would be great timing since we are sending more troops to Afghanistan. DADT is a bad program.

We sure didn't do females in Iraq any favors, did we? How can we NOT try to make things better for women in Iraq? Maybe we are the great satan because we don't give a damn about the tragedy around the world.

DAMN!!!!

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 2, 2009 3:22 PM

This ‘escalation’ is larger in terms of troop commitment than Bush’s 2007 ‘surge’ — the positive results of which were apparent one year later.

Appreciate the response... although I think I read somewhere that in addition to the troop surge in Iraq, tribes were paid money essentially to not kill american troops anymore... (I'm looking for a source / citation for this... perhaps someone else will find it quicker than I can)... That won't be the case in Afghanistan.

I'm just not sure the moving parts are the same as in Iraq, to think that any real stabilization can actually be achieved in a place so completely dis-jointed and tribal in nature. No-one else has ever been able to achieve this... not even the Afghanis themselves.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 2, 2009 3:24 PM

just saw amk's response... so I sort of repeated some of what he said... my bad.

Posted by: Charles | December 2, 2009 3:27 PM

Sorry, but offering writings by Michael Moore isn't going to convince me. He's just as nutty as Limbaugh, Beck, Huffington, and Maher, none of which I pay any attention to.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | December 2, 2009 3:48 PM

Barney Frank / Dennis Kucinich 2012!

Posted by: We Are The 801 | December 2, 2009 4:00 PM

30,000 soldiers and a Nobel Peace Prize.

Posted by: Cyg | December 2, 2009 4:11 PM

#52, Effin Bear, you're right about the substance of the comments generated by this "off" topic. So many of this blog's entries take the form of PZ saying, "Isn't X stupid?" followed by a monotonous chorus of, essentially, "yes, it is."

Still, the value of Pharyngula to me is PZ's skills as an aggregator of science and anti-superstition news. He is this topic's Matt Drudge. I'm simply expressing the hope that Pharyngula not devolve into "PZ's Personal Thoughts on Everything."

Posted by: teammarty | December 2, 2009 4:18 PM

It's nice to see Michael back on the left after years of "it's better to vote for the lesser of two evils who will carry out Republican policy anyway."
RIGHT ON!!!
I'd rather have him in the White House than O'Same anyday.

Posted by: Not that Louis | December 2, 2009 4:21 PM

If there is a 21st Century Sophocles somewhere in America, he or she is busily taking down notes on the career of our president.

Posted by: Dianne | December 2, 2009 4:29 PM

In the late 1980s the Soviet Union was mired in Afghanistan, its economy in shambles...and they had just elected a charismatic new leader who was going to fix everything. Hmm.

Yes, I know, the US's economy is vastly better than the 1980s Soviet Union's, but still...

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | December 2, 2009 4:35 PM

In my post #62 that should be 2000, not 1992.

Posted by: amk.myopenid.com | December 2, 2009 4:45 PM

Jellay:

US isn't fighting an "Afghanistan". It is fighting an evil and reactionary force allied with local tribalist bandits and drug-traffickers.

The US is also fighting with and for evil and reactionary forces allied with local tribalist bandits and drug-traffickers. Read some of my links above in #33 and #35.

the goals there are very benign

How do you know what the goals are?

Posted by: John Bode | December 2, 2009 4:53 PM

I'm with James Brown @30. Would you folks be happier if McCain had won? At least you wouldn't be disappointed in him. You don't want to vote for Obama in '12? Fine. Would someone like Sarah Palin be more acceptable (I say "someone like", since she's going to flame out spectacularly midway through next year)? Again, you wouldn't have to be disappointed in that person for not living up to your expectations.

I'd rather walk forward than run backward, but hey, that's just me.

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2009 4:56 PM

Why Ron Paul is bad - he:

...thinks evolutionary theory is equivalent to creationism in rigor.

Posted by: amk.myopenid.com | December 2, 2009 4:58 PM

Glennzilla's latest points out that nation building and human rights spreading was not included in Obama's speech, in spite of the propaganda benefits of including it. In other words, we're not there as "liberators" any more.

Posted by: Matt | December 2, 2009 5:07 PM

Look folks, no candidate is perfect.

But the two biggest issues facing our country in the last decade have been the economy and the pointless wars.

Ron Paul is right on both of these.

Do you really believe he would have bailed out Goldman and the rest of the Wall Street gang?

Do you think he would have escalated the Afghanistan folly?

So, ask yourselves, would you trade someone who believes in creationism, but basically keeps it to himself and anyway it would have minor if any influence whatsoever on policy, for being almost one hundred percent perfect on the two biggest issues facing, not just Pharygulites, but the entire country?

For Pharyngulites, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Posted by: amk.myopenid.com | December 2, 2009 5:15 PM

But the two biggest issues facing our country in the last decade have been the economy and the pointless wars.

Ron Paul is right on both of these.

Didn't RP oppose the stimulus and think the New Deal was a bad idea?

Posted by: jellay | December 2, 2009 6:11 PM

@Matt:
'He thinks gays and women should have rights in SOME places, SOME of the time. And he means it too!!' You are obviously a blind follower. Cheers.

@amk.myopenid.com:
Very well, I'll look at your links. From what I know now, however, it's pretty obtuse to equate the Taliban and their allies with the current Afghani regime.

@#72 Dianne:
The Islamic Republic of Iran will indeed fall as its younger generation desires change. Doesn't mean that anyone should treat the cleric-military dictatorship any better while it continues torturing political prisoners and shooting into the crowds. Think South Africa, or even Yugoslavia.

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 2, 2009 6:15 PM

Didn't RP oppose the stimulus and think the New Deal was a bad idea?

Yes. The stimulus is bailing out developers of indoor ski slopes for the incredibly wealthy in Dubai. Why would I not oppose it?

Posted by: 1984 | December 2, 2009 6:23 PM

If this happens:
1. Bush is a two-term president
2. Obama is a one-term president
then the American voters are even dumber than I thought.

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 2, 2009 7:12 PM

Do you (or RP) object to the details of Obama's stimulus, or do you object to Keynesian recovery methods?

Citigroup lent eight billion TARP dollars to Dubai during the Bush administration. We're only now discovering the consequences.

I object to a few hundred platitudinous politicians directing a few dozen politically appointed bureaucrats each to direct a few more bureaucrats who each then direct a few more, and so on down the massive, corporatist, authoritarian hierarchy, spending trillions of dollars that my children are obliged to repay, for their own self-serving purposes.

Yeah, I object to that, and I'm convinced that a far less centralized system of extending credit can reorganize idle resources for the benefit of laboring consumers much more productively, more democratically, more usefully, even more equally.

We can talk about why I believe so if you're really interested.

Posted by: Walton | December 2, 2009 7:24 PM

Michael Moore is a blithering idiot. He's the left's equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, and should be taken no more seriously.

I think Obama is wrong on a lot of issues, but I strongly support his policy of escalation in Afghanistan. The US has, for better or worse, taken on responsibility for Afghanistan, and is now morally obliged to ensure that the Taliban don't get back into power and impose their programme of reactionary religious oppression on the Afghan people. Whether or not troop increases are the best way to achieve this is a technical question of military strategy, but it's very clear to me that the war can, at least in principle, be defended on moral grounds.

At the same time, Obama has been genuinely disappointing on a number of issues - civil liberties, in particular. But that's outside the scope of this thread.

Posted by: MosesZD | December 2, 2009 7:33 PM

LOL. I said he was a spineless corporatist and that the only "change" he was interested in was the "change" from Senator to President.

This is nothing new. Nothing new at all.

He folded when he was in the Illinois State house. He refused, from a SAFE SEAT, to stand up for women's rights. The woman who covered for him was a LIAR as he was NEVER ASKED to vote "present."

He's worthless on gay rights. He's worthless on law and justice. He rolled over on the telecom immunity. He defended DOMA. He throws large bones to the wing-nuts, who will NEVER VOTE FOR HIM EVER. Obama continues all of Bush's unconstitutional, immoral practices with Gitmo. He sided with Bush to quash the "missing e-mail" lawsuit.

He continues to support the intermixing of government and religion. Not even Reagan did that...

He supports the death penalty. Even though it is not just and there is solid evidence that many innocents have been executed. The most recent that man in Texas (forgot his name).

I personally believe that if he wasn't black, he'd be a moderate Republican.

Posted by: MosesZD | December 2, 2009 7:48 PM

Posted by: Moshe Reuveni | December 2, 2009 6:21 PM Instead we got Kevin Rudd, who talked the talk, but other than ratifying the Kyoto agreement and apologizing to aboriginals for past misdeeds has done nothing constructive. In short, both leaders talk to the talk but both turned out to be completely incompetent in the action department.

I might be a Yank, but I follow Aussie politics because I've seriously considered moving to Tasmania the last five, six years... So, yes, I've seen that. And I've seen Australia import some of the worst of our politics, as well:
The Faithful Penguin: Exporting Stupidity Around the Globe

Makes me worried.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 2, 2009 8:26 PM

Restore the monarchy!
Princess 4 President!
Got it? Got it?

Posted by: llewelly | December 2, 2009 9:14 PM

Matt | December 2, 2009 3:58 PM:

Ron Paul 2012, he's no backslider, no negotiator. The neo-cons hate him, come on Pharyngulites, how bad could he be?

He introduced legislation that would allow states to prevent atheists from holding office, and is in general a right-wing religious nut⁽⁰⁾. His So-Called Alternative Medicine beliefs are as bad as Maher's, but he has a political position which he uses to turn them into legislation⁽¹⁾. He's sexist⁽²⁾, and he has a history of associating with racists and anti-semites.

(0) www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/why-atheists-shouldnt-vote-for-ron-paul.html

(1) scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/12/ron_paul_quackery_enabler.php

(2) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul#Abortion

Posted by: llewelly | December 2, 2009 9:33 PM

I have mixed feelings about the war in Afghanistan, but Revere's posting of a letter from a reader makes a much better argument against the war than Moore's letter to Obama.

Posted by: Candi | December 2, 2009 9:50 PM

It seems that a lot of people are overlooking the point he made about withdrawing troops in 2011. Of course, I think this is more of an ideal than it is a promise (because you never can tell how things will pan out in the future). But he did at least give his reasons, seemed to resent the choice he has to make (thanks, Bush, you over-emotional money-whore, for overreacting ... or maybe he was planning the whole invasion of Iraq beforehand anyway?).

I just think that we, as citizens, know far less about the intricacies of the Afghanistan war than they do. Doesn't mean that politicians can be trusted with making every decision as a benefit to the people of the U.S. and not just to themselves. But we place a certain amount of trust in them to make the right decisions anyway, thus the electoral process (which is a bit of a joke, however). In any case, I think that Obama made a responsible decision, given that Afghanistan SHOULD have been the main focus of the war and not Iraq -- thus prolonging the war effort there because of the half-assed way it was all conducted by the Bush administration (and friends).

What I would like to know is how is the psychological warfare being handled here in America? That's what the major effects of terrorism is: psychological chaos that seeps into the daily goings on of the average American, infecting a wide range of our social and political system. It's not something that you can combat with JUST military strength and physical warfare. It needs to be handled on the psychological level. What's the plan for this??

Michael Moore's letter is fucking stupid, by the way. He's significantly one-sided on the subject to the point of lacking credible historical accuracies to his points. Saying that Obama is a war president is just silly.

I'd like to think that I'm a pretty realistic sort of person, and realistically, war is not something that can ever be abandoned when populations are what they are today, especially when we are globally connected as much as we are now. Not saying war is "good" (abandon those ideas, "good" and "bad"), but war is a part of life (on the small and large scales of life). So condemning Obama for being a "war president" etc, is ridiculous.

Posted by: btj | December 2, 2009 10:18 PM

The Geneva Convention requires an occupying force to maintain law and order within the defeated nation, so it would not only be immoral to pull out of Afghanistan, it would also be illegal.

I don't like it. I understand why others also don't like it. As Colin Powell said, "You break it, you own it." At this point, there are no good options, thanks to GWB & Co.

Posted by: Matt | December 2, 2009 11:13 PM

Llewelyn,

Best case, you misunderstand his bill. Worst case, you lie.

His bill is about where these issues on sex, race, gender, and sexuality should be adjudicated. States rights bro, you know, the strategy the gay rights movement is currently using.

Furthermore, you lie about supporting quackery. He doesnt support it, he just believes you should be free to support it if you want to, without intrusion from the government. Live and let live. The man is a Dr. for crying out loud. I assure you be believes in vaccines and responsible antibiotic and painkiller use.

Finally, did you know there are anti-semites on both the right and the left and the center too. Sexists too! Read about JFK sometime, he was known to appreciate women for something other than their minds. And Obama had a white girlfriend who he broke up with because "she couldnt be black". His own words, read his book.

So cut the skirt-clutching moral highground act, and it is an act, and tell me what is more important to Americans, not just to you, than the economy and war in the recent past and near future, and tell me which candidates are better than:

End the Bailouts, End the War.

You know whose slogan that is. Is there someone who actually believes it, will act on it, and is an multi-culti atheist to boot? Fine, id be glad to vote for him or her.

In the meantime, tell me why believing in creationism is worse than Austrian Economics.

Keynsianism has done real damage to America. Most of those guys we creationists too. Clinton, Carter, Bush, Nixon, believers all, in both discredited ideas. RP offers a different direction in economics and war at least.

Posted by: Matt | December 2, 2009 11:19 PM

sorry for the double post. Please disregard #107.

Post #108 has a few corrections. Oh, and I love beer.

Posted by: llewelly | December 3, 2009 12:06 AM

Finally, did you know there are anti-semites on both the right and the left and the center too. Sexists too! Read about JFK sometime, he was known to appreciate women for something other than their minds. And Obama had a white girlfriend who he broke up with because "she couldnt be black". His own words, read his book.

Other people were racist too! Probably the stupidest possible excuse, and totally invalid. A red herring.

Posted by: llewelly | December 3, 2009 12:48 AM

Matt | December 2, 2009 11:13 PM:

His bill is about where these issues on sex, race, gender, and sexuality should be adjudicated. States rights bro, you know, the strategy the gay rights movement is currently using.

The text of the bill:

No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section 1738C or this section.

This prevents federal courts from using the Full Faith and Credit clause to require a state without marriage rights to accept the marriage of a couple from a state with marriage rights. In contrast, the current strategy of the marriage rights movement⁽⁰⁾ is to make gay marriage legal in as many states as possible (presumably liberal states), and then leverage the Full Faith and Credit clause to make it legal in the remaining states. The bill in question prevents federal courts from doing that, and strikes directly at a key element of this strategy. This bill is the religious right building fortifications to retreat to in the event that they loose their campaigns against marriage rights.

_{(0) That is, this strategy which seems to have a plurality, and current campaigns are much more consistent with this strategy than any other I know of. There are other strategies being argued about, however.}

Posted by: windy | December 3, 2009 1:18 AM

The Geneva Convention requires an occupying force to maintain law and order within the defeated nation, so it would not only be immoral to pull out of Afghanistan, it would also be illegal.

You are not maintaining law and order there now, but you can't withdraw since then you wouldn't be there maintaining law and order? Wow, Catch-22.

Do you think it was illegal to withdraw from Vietnam? Or for the Soviet Union from Afghanistan?

Posted by: Meathead | December 3, 2009 2:16 AM

Matt wrote: In the meantime, tell me why believing in creationism is worse than Austrian Economics.

Personally, I'd say believing in creationism is better than believing in Austrian economics. After all, it's better supported by the evidence - after all, the world *was* created at some point.

RP offers a different direction in economics and war at least.

My cousin is a bad driver, he speeds, he tailgates, he runs yellow lights, therefore I'll grab the wheel, floor the gas and jerk us off the road and over a cliff. After all, fuck it, it's a different direction.

Posted by: scooter | December 3, 2009 4:48 AM

We have always been at war with Eurasia

Posted by: Sean | December 3, 2009 5:21 AM

Anyone who is suprised at Barack Obama's escalation of the Afghanistan war deserves to be laughed at derisively.

Hey suprised voters, were you not paying attention for the ENTIRE Presidential campaign when he promised to do exactly what he just set into motion?

Just stupid.

Posted by: WhoCares? | December 3, 2009 5:30 AM

The sooner we get out of Afghanistan, the sooner the Taliban can take over again. Then we can go back to complaining about how the Taliban oppresses women, and how the only education boys will get will be in Madrassas, and about how young girls are married off at young ages and all that wonderful stuff. And if we complain enough, and are rational enough, and use our reason, the Taliban will change. Sha-Zam!

Posted by: Knockgoats | December 3, 2009 5:36 AM

Democracy all over the world is victim of the forced choice of "the lesser of two evil". - Francesco Orsenigo

True to a degree, but less so in countries where proportional representation determinines the composition of the government.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 3, 2009 5:55 AM

wiley, don't you fucking presume to speak for pharyngula, you piece of shit. You don't get to decide whom we find boring

matter of fact, it is YOU who bores us, and who is being hateful, not KG. Get lost.

Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2009 6:13 AM

Knockgoats ain't boring us, wiley — he's entertaining us by holding you to account.

A dirty job to be sure, but he's volunteered, and I for one cheer him on.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 3, 2009 6:42 AM

yes, you fuckwad, I decide who I find boring.

any fucking problems with that, troll?

Posted by: Mack the Spife | December 3, 2009 7:11 AM

I haven't turned away from Obama in disappointment because he hasn't really disappointed me yet. Bush and his cronies had 8 years to screw this country into the ground. I really didn't expect Obama to turn everything around overnight. It always takes longer to glue something back together than it took to smash it into pieces.
Obama made a controversial decision. Time alone will tell if it was the right or the wrong one. Personally, I think he made the right decision, going back to try to fix the country that the USA invaded, further destabilized, then left twisting in the wind while GWB chased after another war like a kid after a shiny toy.
No, he hasn't fixed every problem in the USA yet, but I think he's made a good start, given the state of things when he took office. As he himself has said, change takes time.
And before people start spewing about me just being an Obamabot, yes, I voted for him, but I hardly think he's worthy of worship. I also think that there's a lot more he needs to do. I have criticisms of him (not ending DADT promptly, continuing several lamentable provisions of the Patriot Bill, etc) but I think he receives far too little credit for the things he has accomplished thus far.
An assessment of his successes in the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/business/economy/18view.html
And, although I'm not actually fond of HuffPo, I think this is a nice summary.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/obamas-first-100-days-10_n_192603.html

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 3, 2009 8:22 AM

The libertarians are opposed to public-sector discrimination against gays. However, they are also opposed to laws prohibiting private-sector discrimination against gays.

Libertarians are a diverse group, but most favor free association to decrees of proper association by central authorities. If you don't want to associate with me because you don't like my hair or my dialect or my politics or my recreational pastimes, you choose not to associate with me, I associate with others, and I don't see the problem with it. Gays created their own communities in San Francisco and elsewhere in the twentieth century for this reason, and much of the political progress they've acheived since is a consequence of this organizational development.

The libertarian approach to gay rights seems to be to allow gays to buy guns just like everyone else, and then have a shoot-out.

Most libertarians don't assume that free people will go around shooting each other until their Supreme Leader tells them to stop.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 3, 2009 8:58 AM

I've tried repeatedly to get anyone in this forum to agree with me that cohabiting siblings should be entitled to any partnership benefits afforded to gay or straight domestic partners, without success. I've also argued repeatedly for addressing the discrimination issue by withdrawing these benefits from childless, straight couples, but these arguments also fall on deaf ears.

Has it not occurred to you that the relationship siblings have is not the same kind of relationship married or co-habiting couple have ?

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 3, 2009 9:07 AM

've tried repeatedly to get anyone in this forum to agree with me that cohabiting siblings should be entitled to any partnership benefits afforded to gay or straight domestic partners, without success.

uhhhhh...I'm just going to have to be honest. I agree with Martin Brock on this one. Now before you call me a sister-lover, I also believe that consenting adults of any number/gender/sex/relationship should be able to define their own social contract. I can't imagine why anyone would want to have a bazillion wives or husbands, but I support polygamy (obviously only if parties are coerced)...etc. I realize that there is a lot of slippery slope involved, but I have not heard a compelling argument denying this right to any of the above, nor can I see a clear line defining who should have these rights and who should not.

Sigh. Let the humiliation begin.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 3, 2009 9:15 AM

obviously only if parties are NOT coerced

*self loathing*

Posted by: Carlie | December 3, 2009 9:27 AM

I've tried repeatedly to get anyone in this forum to agree with me that cohabiting siblings should be entitled to any partnership benefits afforded to gay or straight domestic partners, without success.

Why are you limiting it to siblings, Martin? I personally think that as long as we're using "economic codependency" as a standard for giving people all sorts of tax and legal goodies, it should be available for anyone wanting to enter into such an agreement. Siblings, good friends, uncle and nephew, whatever. If I'm old and alone and have someone I trust who has a sharper mind than I do, who splits the rent, and we help each other navigate the world, damned straight I want to be able to give them power of attorney and leave some money to them when I die, and get tax breaks in the meantime. I think the aversion to supporting whatever it is you're proposing is that you have this odd fixation on cohabitating siblings and calling it equivalent to marriage.

Posted by: Rorschach | December 3, 2009 9:44 AM

I think the aversion to supporting whatever it is you're proposing is that you have this odd fixation on cohabitating siblings

Well, technically, he calls it cohabiting...;)

Posted by: Mack the Spife | December 3, 2009 9:53 AM

Antiochus: Sorry, you caught already.
Anyway, in regards to the OT that was brought up, I don't have a problem with mature consenting adults in relationships deciding for themselves what kind of social contract they want to live under, but withdrawing benefits from consenting adults in committed relationships because they can't/won't/don't want to reproduce isn't the way to go about correcting the situation (in regards to Martin's continued assertion that childless married couples shouldn't have the rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples who've popped out a couple of progeny).
This dreck

The civil union statutes I've seen explicitly exclude cohabiting siblings for example. Other legislation in this area explicitly requires proof of "intimacy", so the discriminatory test for "marriage" only shifts slightly to incorporate homosexual couples in the privileged class. No broader, egalitarian principle of non-discrimination operates in this controversy...cohabiting siblings should be entitled to any partnership benefits afforded to gay or straight domestic partners

is just ridiculous. Siblings who live together aren't getting the same benefits as married couples, so they're being discriminated against, just like gay people are? Bullshit.
Siblings don't have the same type of relationship either a straight or a gay couple in a relationship with a partner.
Marriage is a committed, romantic/sexual (sometimes economic) relationship as well as a social contract. Gay couples in committed romantic/sexual relationships want the same rights enjoyed by other consenting adults in committed romantic/sexual relationships. If siblings are in a committed romantic/sexual relationship with one another, they have a whole 'nother set of problems, but one that doesn't really have any bearing on the issue at hand, that of civil unions/gay marriage and the rights and benefits engendered therein. One of the biggest differences between the two situations, though, is that, siblings, (if they're straight), can eventually get married to other people, and have the same benefits as all other married couples. LGBT couples still won't be able to if civil union/marriage laws aren't passed.
(If this isn't entirely coherent, I apologize, I haven't been to bed yet and the caffeine boost ran out long ago.)

Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 3, 2009 10:24 AM

We have civil partnerships in the UK which essentially grant the right of marriage to same-sex couple in all but name.

When the legislation was making its way through the House of Lords a number of peers opposed it, and tried to have amendments passed. One of those amendments was to allow any two people to enter a civil partnership, including siblings and parent/son or daughter. It was a deliberate attempt to derail to legislation by a peer well-know to have been anti-gay rights (She is no longer alive).

Do you think Brock knows he adopting the same tactic as the anti-gay lobby in the UK ?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 3, 2009 10:27 AM

heh -

Friendly suggestion... it's not really friendly to suggest something as a "friendly suggestion" while being an insulting prick about it.

No-one's forcing you to read anything that's of an obvious political nature here.

Posted by: Raging Bee | December 3, 2009 10:40 AM

I'm not turning away either, and I think it's incredibly babyish to do so. Obama has numerous options WRT Afghanistan, and they all suck, and he's gonna get shat on by uncaring Republicans and snotty simpleminded lefties (the kind who made Bush Jr. look intelligent and compassionate back before 2004), no matter what he does.

This will not end quickly, or neatly, or in a way that will satisfy even a large minority of Americans. Bush Jr. gave us two horiffically bungled bloodbaths, and we're stuck with cleaning up the mess. Which is, of course, exactly what the Republicans intended from day one. Get used to it.

Posted by: heh | December 3, 2009 10:44 AM

By the way the "Obama regret" post is full of comments setting some of you clueless people straight about how the political system works (such as Congress, etc.).

Also, all this doom and gloom less than a year into office? Geez.

Posted by: heh | December 3, 2009 10:49 AM

Some informative comments from the other post (in addition to the ones about how moronic it would be to just pull out of Afghanistan and let the Taleban take over):
---------------------------------
P.Z., I think your disappointment is not with Obama, per se, but with the Democratic party and our archaic system of government. You also seem to be forgetting that change comes slowly in a democracy. Give our man the full 8 years, and see all that's been changed by the end of his second term.
---------------------------------
Re: the Stupak Amendment.

Why blame the president for something that is entirely congress's fault?
---------------------------------
While he is temporarily escalating the Afghan war, (as he kept telling us he was going to do throughout the campaign), it is with a firm deadline. Under Obama, the Iraq draw down has already begun with a firm end date to that conflict. Now we have the same in Afghanistan. McCrystal and Patreus get two years, no more.
---------------------------------
In summary, it appears that most of your complaints about Obama are due not to inaction, but dissatisfaction at the rate of his action. We're all impatient for change and feel like it's taking too long. Well, Obama isn't the sort to shoot from the hip. He is a slow, methodical thinker willing to make compromises to get things done. He takes his time and does his homework building alliances and boxing in his opponents. Besides, it hasn't even been a single year yet.

I'm impatient too. But look at what he's already managed. Iraq is winding down. Health-care reform has the first real chance at passage since the 60's. He's just won a commitment from China on CO2 emissions, as well as made his own commitment, the first one this country has made. The economy which was on the brink in March is now in a slow climb. KSM is going on trial, a real trial.

He stepped into the biggest meltdown this country has seen in generations and has largely kept his head. I'm not happy with everything he's done either, but that doesn't blind me to the progress we've already made.

Give the guy a break, at the very least give him a little more time.
---------------------------------

Posted by: heh | December 3, 2009 10:53 AM

@Matt Penfold, I learned from the master (you).

You know, when I see these sorts of irrational rants from someone like PZ, I always get really depressed. I would expect these sorts of thoughtless knee-jerk reactions from religious nuts, not from a SCIENTIST.

Posted by: heh | December 3, 2009 10:57 AM

Perhaps even more depressing is seeing all these completely ridiculous comments about how Obama is a Republican, he is a right-winger, blah blah blah.

Are you people completely thick?

You are no better than the right-wingers who claim that Obama is a f'in Marxist!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 3, 2009 11:08 AM

If you look at where Obama sits on the left/right divide in the developed world then he would seem to be right of centre. He could quite happily fit into the Conservative party here in the UK, and would not be on the leftish extreme of that party either.

Matt don't you know that opinions and statuses outside the 50 states are utterly ignorable?

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 3, 2009 7:00 PM

Has it not occurred to you that the relationship siblings have is not the same kind of relationship married or co-habiting couple have?

Yeah. Cohabiting siblings don't stimulate one another's genitals, presumably. I just don't see why this difference warrants a tax break.

Two of my great aunts cohabited for their entire lives. Neither ever married. They shared a house, supported one another when either was ill or unemployed, kept house and ate together and did practically everything else suggested by "domestic partnership". They also loved each other, but they didn't have sex with each other. So what?

Traditional marriage is not primarily about romance and sexual partnership. We only started thinking this way in the twentieth century. A married couple with a non-working spouse doesn't get a substantial tax break to reward wealthy men in childless marriages with young, trophy brides. The break is not a subsidy of legalized prostitution. If it exists for this reason, then I oppose it for this reason, and I always have.

I took this position before gay marriage was even on the radar screen, when "gay rights" meant not going to jail. My position hasn't changed. I couldn't care less what sort of sex consenting adults enjoy.

Posted by: heh | December 4, 2009 4:26 AM

@Matt Penfold, your comment in no way addresses what I wrote. Obama must be seen in light of the political spectrum of his own country.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 4, 2009 4:55 PM

If you look at where Obama sits on the left/right divide in the developed world then he would seem to be right of centre.

Not really.

He could quite happily fit into the Conservative party here in the UK, and would not be on the leftish extreme of that party either.

And just which UK party corresponds to the Republicans ("heh"s reference), and would Obama happily fit there?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 4, 2009 5:23 PM

And just which UK party corresponds to the Republicans ("heh"s reference), and would Obama happily fit there?

equivalent in which way?

In Germany, the CDU/CSU is a large conservative coalition of two parties of which the more conservative half(CSU) once declared that there shan't be a party to the right of it. And indeed, almost the entire viable spectrum of German politics is to its left (Social Democrats, The Left, Greens/Pacifists), while the Liberals are pretty much even with them, just a different flavor of right.
Angela Merkel belongs into the less conservative half of that alliance, and on many issues, she's to the left of Obama, who would easily fit into the CDU, and maybe even into the CSU