Pharyngula

Posted by: Ric | December 2, 2009 12:16 PM

Good frickin' luck, because that is exactly the choice you will have. Our current system makes it inevitable.

Posted by: David Wiener | December 2, 2009 12:17 PM

I agree. Where is the Democratic wing of the Democratic party? One swipe of the pen, and bingo, huge progress on gay rights. Too religious for my taste, but I suppose that cannot be helped.

Posted by: Invigilator | December 2, 2009 12:19 PM

Uh, guess what? You are going to have to choose between Obama and a Republican Lunatic. (Though I would not call him a Republican, but a centrist; there just haven't been many Republicans of a mostly reasonable cast of mind lately.)

Posted by: Deriv | December 2, 2009 12:21 PM

Most important thing: He has made it clear that climate change is none of his problem. Shame on him.

Posted by: Andrew Ray Gorman | December 2, 2009 12:24 PM

I'm not so sure I would refer to him as a republican or a centrist. My main issue is that we always have to choose between two candidates ultimately, and they could be vastly different to same-old same-old. Not ever too sure if I like party-based politics.

Posted by: TrekkinBob | December 2, 2009 12:27 PM

I have sadly come to agree with your sentiments, Professor Myers, and had higher hopes myself. (However, its "there", not 'their';)...

Perhaps we are asking too much. The Executive branch of our government seems to be only another pawn of industry and corporate America, the end product of which only panders for profit to the desires and gratification of our population. Hence, we elected another dog chasing its tail in front of the judges.

Posted by: bobxxxx | December 2, 2009 12:31 PM

His cozy relationship with Wall Street.

The last time I checked America was still a capitalist country. I would certainly hope our president has a cozy relationship with Wall Street. We don't need a Hugo Chávez leading our country.

And now, his expansion of the war in Afghanistan, and his support for a corrupt and failed state.

I don't much care for my tax money being used to pay for a religious war, but at least we are killing the Taliban, who are equal to cockroaches in my opinion. Also, unlike McCain or Bush, Obama will get us out of there eventually, hopefully before the next election.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 2, 2009 12:32 PM

It's stunning how someone who is supposed to be a "progressive" or some such thing is what would have been a "reactionary" in the 1970s.

One trouble is that Americans know less about political systems even than they know science.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Draken | December 2, 2009 12:32 PM

I somehow guess there must be some more or less reasonable old-style conservatives left amongst the Republicans- not my favourite taste but somehow digestible. In any functioning democracy, the GOP would have split in two parties by now; I'm fairly certain it would happen in for example Denmark or the Netherlands.

How come this sort of schism never happens in the USA?

Posted by: lose_the_woo | December 2, 2009 12:34 PM

I'm not sure how realistic your expectations are PZ. You know there are many powerful forces at play, and dare I say wheels-within-wheels. Setting courses and changing courses is probably more difficult than the Titanic doing a slalom course in the north Atlantic with icebergs.

In any case, I appreciate that he is far enough away from GWB (IMO) to keep me satisfied.

Posted by: Hillary Rettig | December 2, 2009 12:38 PM

Obama was clearly a centrist with too many Wall Street connections during the campaign, so he was my 3d choice. He's a disappointment, but could he have done better if the Democratic Congress had been more effective and had his back more?

Worried about the people saying they are disenchanted with the Dems and would vote otherwise. Isn't that how we got Bush to start with (Nader taking a few key votes from Gore?) I think a more productive strategy is to vote the "centrist" dems out of office.

Posted by: Dianne | December 2, 2009 12:40 PM

We elected a mainstream Democratic politician from Illinois. Why should we be surprised when he acts like a mainstream Democratic politician? I think Obama's campaign may have been a little TOO successful: people started actually believing he was about hope and change and so on.

Posted by: EB | December 2, 2009 12:40 PM

I understand the frustration but priorities:

If we had a majority-rule 51-vote senate, then the majority of those issues (and major problems like over 10& unemployment) would be solved. Now, because the minority party has such power in making legislation ridiculous, people don't know who to blame. Watch for Republicans almost to gain control of the House 2010.

Posted by: Kemanorel | December 2, 2009 12:41 PM

While I agree he has fucked up some things, he has done some things right.

For one, reducing the restrictions on stem-cell research was a great start.

Second, while he hasn't helped gay rights much, the progress that has been made with several states that now allow gay marriage probably would not have happened if McCain was president.

Third, he's actually set a date for pulling our troops out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. And, the number of troops that will be pulled out of Iraq will be much more than is being added to Afghanistan.

If (and I hate how I have to qualify this as an "if" statement) he sticks to what he said, we should be out of the middle-east in about 2 years. That much alone puts him a step ahead of Bush.

Posted by: Steven Mading | December 2, 2009 12:42 PM

Re: the Stupak Amendment.

Why blame the president for something that is entirely congress's fault?

Posted by: Peter G. | December 2, 2009 12:44 PM

Good luck with that. Even if someone could mount a primary challenge it is unlikely to succeed. Someone sufficiently progressive could run as an independent and draw off enough votes to give the Republican ticket a victory. There are no positive scenarios here. Before 2010 it might be a good idea to put health care reform in place that covers self inflicted bullet wounds to the feet. You're gonna need it.

Posted by: Todd Ferguson | December 2, 2009 12:46 PM

I can't see why anyone is surprised by Obama's Afghanistan decision. He consistently held Afghanistan up as the good war during the campaign, and promised to fix the situation in Afghanistan vis a vis the military mistakes that GWB's administration had made. He never talked about pulling troops out of Afghanistan the way he talked about ending the war in Iraq. Coming into office, he had 2 ways of dealing with Afghanistan-do something that might lead to some sort of victory, or just call it off, bring the troops home and let the Taliban take it over again.

Given his prior support for the Afghanistan war, the second option was never really and option, and there really doesn't seem to be anyway to improve the situation in Afghanistan without more troops-any other measures (redeployment of existing troops, et al) wouldn't actually fix anything and might even make things worse.

It would be nice if the US would just leave there, but I can't say I'm surprised by this, and I won't even say I'm disappointed. I knew this was the most likely thing to happen with regards to Afghanistan when I voted for him; at least he's kept his word on this.

In fact, he's kept his word in general. Check out Politifact's "Obama-meter" to see how closely the president has held to his campaign promises. I think the problem is that the people on the far left just weren't listening all that carefully.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | December 2, 2009 12:50 PM

@Steven Mading: Obama has a great deal of influence with congressional Democrats. In the healthcare debate, he uses it almost entirely to convince more liberal members to vote for amendments that Republicans and "blue dog" Democrats want.

Posted by: PaulR | December 2, 2009 12:51 PM

"Despite all the screamers on the right accusing him of being a socialist, what actually happened here is that we elected another Republican to office."

No, you've voted for a Republicrat. You've voted for a Career Politician. And you'll do it again in 2012, and 2016, ect. You'll vote for the Democratic candidate again and again, just as the conservatives will vote for the Republican candidate again and again, all out of fear of letting the Other Guy Get In Office.

In between elections people bitch about politicians, and even the fellow they put in office, but come election time they'll line up like Pavlovian dogs to vote for the Lesser of Two Evils.

Posted by: llewelly | December 2, 2009 12:54 PM

bobxxxx | December 2, 2009 12:31 PM:

The last time I checked America was still a capitalist country. I would certainly hope our president has a cozy relationship with Wall Street. We don't need a Hugo Chávez leading our country.

False dichotomy. Chavez is hardly the only alternative to being cozy with Wall Street.

More importantly, a successful capitalist society requires a modicum of honesty and competence from its members, especially from the most influential. The current recession is one of many clear indicators that many of the most influential people on Wall Street are neither honest nor competent.

Posted by: Endor | December 2, 2009 12:58 PM

The stupak insult is just about the last nail in the coffin for me and the dems. They are so willing to beat women over the head with "vote for us or no Roe!" bullshit while they are trying to get elected, but we (and the LGBTI community) are always the first ones they chuck under the bus.

Always the promise of "next time!" There's always More! Important! things to deal with. And always, more and more of our right to self-determination is chipped away while they sit there with their thumbs up their asses and their begging bowls out.

If that psychotically misogynistic amendment gets through - or a close facsimile of it- I will never vote dem again.

Posted by: Chet | December 2, 2009 1:00 PM

What power, exactly, do you think the President has to implement any of that agenda?

The idea that the President can just make legislation happen if he wants it enough is absurd. Remember Social Security privatization? Remember how it didn't happen because Congress decided that it wouldn't?

The problem isn't that Obama isn't liberal enough. The problem is that Congress isn't liberal enough. We still don't even have 60 votes in the Senate!

Posted by: Quatguy | December 2, 2009 1:02 PM

While I am not an American citizen, I strongly agree with #10. Obama is doing what has to be done. If the US and NATO leave Afghanistan now, the Taliban would be back in charge in 6 months and god help the Afghan people if that happens. In the medium and longer term Afghanistan would again become a sanctuary for international terrorists and then no where would be safe. Afghanistan was the training ground of the 911 attackers.

In my view, Afghanistan is the necissary war while Iraq was a politically and religiously motivated crime initiated by Bush and his cronies, who manipulated the 911 anger of the American people to finish the job his dad did not finish and secure a good source of oil. History will never forgive him for that.

As a Canadian, let me speak for many of my fellow citizens (and I believe many others around the world) to say that our belief in the institution of the United States of America was reinvigorated when you showed the world that most of you were strong enough and hopefull enough to vote for a half black man named Barack Hussain Obama. From my perspective, he has worked harder under your complicated, toxic, partizan two party political system than most presidents in recent memory. He is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but from my perspective (as an outsider), he seems to be taking on some pretty big and complicated issues that were not of his making.

Don't give up on him yet and please continue to support him where you can. The USA and the rest of the world does not need another right-wing fundie who will screw things up again.

thanks for the opportunity to vent.

Posted by: amphiox | December 2, 2009 1:03 PM

The American political zeitgeist is currently so skewed that a centrist like Obama is labeled a liberal. (A liberal like the Jesus of the first 3 gospels would probably be considered a communist and thrown in jail in the U.S. today)

But at least a centrist won the presidential election. Right of center candidates lost to a lunatic in 2000 and 2004.

Perhaps creeping normalcy will be our salvation.

Posted by: Richard Eis | December 2, 2009 1:06 PM

Considering the presidential candidates, did you guys really have much choice? I think most of you chose him because he and his running mate were at least literate.

When thats your standard is it any surprise you are left underwhelmed by your voting opportunities.

Posted by: bcoppola | December 2, 2009 1:07 PM

Bill Maher may be a fuckwit about a lot of things, but when he says we don't have a true progressive party in this country -- that the Dems are mostly old-style Republicans and the Republicans are simply insane - he's spot on.

As for the comment on all of them being more or less bought and paid for, alas and amen. Robert Reich is correct in "Supercapitalism": Too many policy issues in the US these days boil down to dueling corporate interests; actual citizens are mostly bystanders or pawns.

I would love to join any group that is actively pushing for one of his primary recommendations: to strip corporations of legal personhood. I've Googled in vain so far. Yes, I know that a case before the Supreme Court (about that right wing anti-Hillary movie) has bearing on that issue.

Posted by: bcoppola | December 2, 2009 1:09 PM

"All of them" = politicians. Just to be clear. And yes, I know there are exceptions but all too few.

Posted by: amphiox | December 2, 2009 1:09 PM

I don't really see what other viable option Obama has regarding Afghanistan. Withdrawal simply can't be done at this time. Bush/Cheney has mired America in the quag neck deep.

They ignored the very first principle of war, which is don't start one unless you're damn well sure that it is your best or only option, because once you start one, you're not in control of when it ends. (And only partly in control of how it might end)

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | December 2, 2009 1:13 PM

Chet said:

What power, exactly, do you think the President has to implement any of that agenda?The idea that the President can just make legislation happen if he wants it enough is absurd. Remember Social Security privatization? Remember how it didn't happen because Congress decided that it wouldn't?

I'm really getting sick and tired of hearing people complain about how Obama isn't passing legislation. Didn't you people get a BASIC education in civics? Presidents only sign legislation. They don't write it.

Posted by: francois boisvert | December 2, 2009 1:14 PM

PZ for president!!

Posted by: John C. Welch | December 2, 2009 1:20 PM

Um, i hate to, well, no i don't hate to point this out...Obama has been, since 2007, consistent that he fully intended to prosecute the war in Afghanistan.

Iraq he is against, but Afghanistan? No way. He's always said that Afghanistan is where our attackers came from, and so that conflict was the one we should have concentrated on from the start.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2009/12/we-need-to-stop-pretending-that-obama.html

In 2007 he was saying this. I'm sorry that no one was paying attention to what he said, or applying their own views on it, but the man has said that Afghanistan is not Iraq.

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | December 2, 2009 1:20 PM

jojame to bewail the socialist trend in the U.S. influenced by Comrade Obama in 4 . . . 3 . . . 2 . . .

Still learning,

Robert

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

My misgivings about Obama started long before he got elected. Actually, my misgivings about any president started long before they were even running. I now have misgivings about the actual office of president. We don't need one. No one has ever given me a good reason why we even need a president. Why do we need to give one man the power to override the will of our representatives? Why should one man have the power to overrule the will of hundreds of legislators? IMHO, the only reason we have a president is a throwback to our long history of king/master worship. Even many of us atheists who eschew the idea of an all-powerful, benevolent master-of-all still have a hard time realizing that placing so much power in the hands of any one man is a bad thing.

Certain functions of the presidency might indeed be needed, like someone to handle foreign relations, perhaps even a commander-in-chief of the military is necessary (but I am not convinced of that yet). But for any of those functions that really need to be in the hands of one man, would it not be better to elect people especially suited for those particular roles? One function of the president that we absolutely do not need is the right to veto legislation that has passed both houses of congress.

The constitution has some great elements, but honestly I think we can now draft a much better constitution that makes us more of a democracy and less of an oligarchy. Even the bill of rights could be much improved and expanded IMHO.

Can anyone give me a cogent reason why we even need a president in the first place? Remember that any single function that one might feel is really necessary to be in one man's hands can be filled by a person whose personal expertise fits the specific function to be performed. Should not a commander-in-chief have excellent military strategy and leadership experience? Should not a foreign relations man have solid experience and knowledge in world affairs? Don't these areas require and demand specialization in these areas? You don't hire an internist to remove your brain tumor, do you? Expecting any one man to have expertise in all the functions assigned to the president is unrealistic.

The first step to a truer democracy that will more accurately express the will of the people is to remove the "man in charge" permanently. Also, as another benefit, it will remove the easy scapegoat and force people to pay more attention to our legislators' actions. People put so much emphasis on the office of president that they feel that as long as they vote in the presidential elections, while ignoring local elections and the elections of their more direct representatives, they are praticing democracy. As I am sure we all know, that is far from the truth.

Posted by: John C. Welch | December 2, 2009 1:23 PM

And another thank you for reminding people that when the government isn't being run by latter-day monarchists, the president cannot, can.not pass legislation. He can try to influence congress, he can suggest, but it is *Congress" that has to create and pass legislation for him to either completely sign into law or completely veto.

Seriously folks, go watch Schoolhouse Rock, they explained how this works to little kids in the 70s.

Posted by: Quatguy | December 2, 2009 1:28 PM

Americans need to come together and declare a "cease fire" on the defacto civil war that is going on within your country right now. Both the far left and far right need to 'man up' and suck it up and get a grip on reality. If you cannot get your shit together to solve the major national and international scale problems we will all be in the shitter and communist-run China will take your place as big kid on the block (if it is not inevitable all ready).

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 2, 2009 1:34 PM

Odd that PZ talks about priorities yet never mentions science, a matter on which the Obama administration has made a major turnaround from the Bush admin. You can't rationally evaluate Obama by just listing disappointments and ignoring positive accomplishments -- CO2 as a pollutant to name just one of many on the environmental front.

And since it would have been grossly irrational to vote for the opposition, there's nothing to "regret". It's also silly to call Obama a Republican, when he is to the left of the Blue Dog Democrats, not to mention people like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, who may not stay with the party; hell, even Arlen Specter is a Democrat now.

It's stunning how someone who is supposed to be a "progressive" or some such thing is what would have been a "reactionary" in the 1970s.

It's stunning how ignorant of politics and history some around here are; the center of today is considerably to the left of the center of the 60's and 70's. Obama's views on the environment, on civil rights for women, gays, and minorities, on subsidized medical care, and on a number of other issues would have been seen as quite utopian then. As for expanded wars and failed states, he's right there with JFK (who beat Nixon in their debate by out-hawking him) and LBJ.

But that was then and this is now, and Obama is left-centrist on today's spectrum, just as informed people knew him to be before he was elected. Since it's virtually impossible within the U.S. political system to elect a president further to the left than that, one should focus on replacing centrists in Congress with genuine liberals like those in the House who pledged to vote against any bill that didn't have a public option -- without that minority of Dem Reps taking that hard line, the House bill never would have had a public option.

I'm hoping their will be some viable, liberal alternative to our crappy incumbent

I suppose that it's too much to hope that you get a clue about how the political system in the U.S. works. In any case, hope is even more useless than prayer.

Posted by: bonze blayk | December 2, 2009 1:37 PM

Sigh... as a clueless NY libertard with goo-goo tendencies, I voted for Obama not out of necessity (this IS NY) but because I wanted to contribute to a landslide victory, hoping that Obama was a principled liberal and would make the best of it (though I was never impressed by the hopenchange sloganizing). Ha!

bcoppola #51

I would love to join any group that is actively pushing for one of his primary recommendations: to strip corporations of legal personhood.

I wouldn't go so far as to join any such group, but I hope this proposal gains traction.

Posted by: bcoppola | December 2, 2009 1:39 PM

#67

...the president cannot, can.not pass legislation. He can try to influence congress, he can suggest, but it is *Congress" that has to create and pass legislation for him to either completely sign into law or completely veto.

Seriously folks, go watch Schoolhouse Rock, they explained how this works to little kids in the 70s.

Or read that classic text, America (The Book), Stewart, John et al:

"Though the president is very powerful, he cannot make laws.

"The president can suggest laws. The president can call individual congressmen and threaten, beg, and cajole them to make laws. The president can use the bully pulpit and appeal directly to the people to ask Congress to make laws...

"The president can only sit in his office and sign or not sign laws other people make. Sometimes this makes the president feel like a total pussy. Then the president realizes he is commander-in-chief of the armed forces and an island country is about to get a can of "police action" opened up on them. This makes the president feel better."

Posted by: Lynna | December 2, 2009 1:41 PM

The Stupak Amendment to the health care bill was backed by The Family, the most far-right wing of the Republican Party. How is it that we vote in a Democrat and still The Family does an end run around the democratic process? In part, because The Family is courting/corrupting Democrats as well.

Excerpt from link given above:

Rachel Maddow runs down the list for us of C-Street family members who also voted for Bart Stupak’s anti-abortion amendment yesterday. Nothing like having what amounts to a secretive religious cult making health care policy for women in the United States. As Rachel noted that list includes:
Rep. Bart Stupak D-MI
Rep. Joe Pitts R-PA
Rep. Ike Skelton D-MO
Rep. Mike McIntyre D-NC
Rep. John Tanner D-TN
Rep. Lincoln Davis D-TN
Rep. Dan Boren D-OK
Rep. Heath Shuler D-NC
     Jeff Sharlet joined Rachel to discuss The C-Street Family's ever growing influence within the Democratic Party.
     Maddow: What are Congressman Stupak and Congressman Pitts’ connections to C-Street and The Family? Is one of them more deeply involved than the other?

Posted by: bcoppola | December 2, 2009 1:42 PM

Oops, blockquote fail above.

Must...step...away...from...computer...now.

Posted by: Haunted | December 2, 2009 1:51 PM

@56
"Law and order would break down"??? What planet does this idiot live on?"

The coalition forces are the only thing stopping the Taliban marching right into the capital and destroying all the progress made by Afghanistan. No one here seriously wants to turn Afghanistan over to the Taliban (or do they?) and so the need to make sure the nation is stable before we leave it is paramount. It is the right thing to do after the mess the previous administration made of it.

Posted by: Joe Bleau | December 2, 2009 1:53 PM

Thank you, Ben@78, for that most excellent and cogent summary. I'm not sure I've seen it encapsulated any better.

Not sure I agree with you on this, though:

While our system has its disadvantages, it's also nice that we don't have to put up with the anti-Semitic party, or the Communist Party, or the anti-vaccination party, in Congress.

I might be some idealistic DFH, but I've always thought that the existence of vile consortia and odious collaborations is not only health, but vital for a healthy democracy. It encourages discussion and debate, and forces us to flex our ethical and moral muscles as we endeavor to defeat the bad and embiggen the good.

One of my least favorite aspects of our two-party system is that it encourages a binary, Manichean approach to political thinking. Us/them, black/white, in-group/out-group, win/lose. It's why the predominant frame for political discourse here in the U.S. is the very same frame that we use for sporting events and games.

It just seems that we're not really all that well served.

Posted by: BlueEyedVideot | December 2, 2009 2:00 PM

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.

Posted by: Patrick Tomlinson | December 2, 2009 2:04 PM

Dr. Meyers,

Point 1: Although I am not thrilled with his laid back approach to civil rights for gays, he as been quietly pushing for the end of DADT through the defense reauthorization bill in 2010.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/67349-frank-dadt-repeal-will-go-in-defense-reauthoriztion

There has recently been a large number of high ranking military officers openly questioning the policy for the first time publicly. But the time it actually happens, it won't be an issue at all.

And let's not forget the addition of homosexuals to hate crime legislation earlier in the year.

Point 2: Yes, the Stupak amendment is ridiculous, but let's not forget that it's attached to the most comprehensive reform of health care in forty years. Which would you like, a health-care bill with the Stupak amendment that actually gets passed, or a better health care reform bill that fails just like all the others?

These are the shitty choices we face.

Point 3: Well, yeah. And? Like it or not, Wall Street is the nervous system of our economy. I'd like the Doctor treating my body to be cozy with my brain and spine too.

And incidentally, while you may not approve of those associations, the fact remains that the economy is turning around, and more rapidly than many believed possible. The stimulus appears to be doing it's job, much to the surprise of many.

Point 4: 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. Do you really think McCain or any other GOP true believer would have ever had the spine to say "If it ain't fixed by X date, we're gone." I certainly don't.

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.

P@T

Posted by: Draken | December 2, 2009 2:05 PM

He can try to influence congress, he can suggest, but it is *Congress" that has to create and pass legislation for him to either completely sign into law or completely veto.

But Congress can be bullied and bent, right? All you have to do is mention the T-word, and how unpatriotic it would be of Congress not to comply with suspending civil liberty #X, or go to war #Y, and you're set. Mr George W was a master at it.

Posted by: Knockgoats | December 2, 2009 2:05 PM

The coalition forces are the only thing stopping the Taliban marching right into the capital and destroying all the progress made by Afghanistan. No one here seriously wants to turn Afghanistan over to the Taliban (or do they?) and so the need to make sure the nation is stable before we leave it is paramount. - Haunted

Haunted, you are not living in the real world. My point was, there is no "law and order" in Afghanistan. Its "government" is an unstable coalition of warlords, drug barons, and theocrats who happen to have fallen out with the Taliban. The recent "election" was a complete farce. The "coalition forces" are widely hated because they are rich infidel foreigners who bomb villages. They are paying local Taliban protection money not to attack the supply convoys without which they could not stay in the country. Afghanistan has never been stable, nor has any foreign power ever managed to maintain itself there. All Obama will succeed in doing is destroying any chance he has of achieving anything worthwhile at home or elsewhere.

Posted by: DonRocko | December 2, 2009 2:09 PM

Obama can't exactly reflect the specific motivations for every single person who voted for him. He HAS brought change, and he IS working towards many goals.

PZ, you have way to high of personal standards for the guy; he's been in office not yet a year. Once in a while, try seeing the glass as half full. You have said multiple times that you like his promotion of science (he did it again during his speech last night), so I know you two have significant common ground!

Posted by: Carl | December 2, 2009 2:26 PM

Man, if only there were some other names on the ballot besides the Republican and Democrat candidates!

Posted by: SteveM | December 2, 2009 2:28 PM

You also seem to be forgetting that change comes slowly in a democracy.

No, change can come fast in a democracy, maybe too fast. That was one of the major objections to democracy among the framers. That is why they designed a republic with all these checks and balances, to deliberately slow down government.

Posted by: uncle frogy | December 2, 2009 2:30 PM

I did not expect to see the whole world to change and it to be fixed and done once and for all.
thanks to the efforts to "republican thinking" for the last 30 years we are in one hell of a mess and there are many things that need to be changed.
In the real world we find ourselves in at all times and we recognize that "magic" does not exist. Just how do you actually get any of the things that need to be done accomplished?

I will say that even the big changes in the 60's of civil rights improvement has been and still is slower than I would have liked, I will go so far to say the the civil rights legislation that was passed and signed by LBJ might not have ever been passed without the death of Kennedy.

There ain't no all powerful leader/savior/ruler to sweep in and fix everything there is and will only be "WE THE PEOPLE" and it is we who make the decisions!

Posted by: Moya | December 2, 2009 2:34 PM

"...what actually happened here is that we elected another Republican to office. A moderate Republican, to be sure..."

I'm extremely surprised that you did not grok this about Obama *before* you voted for him, PZ! It was pretty clear to me (and other *real* progressives that I know) during the Democratic primary.

Go Green. They're the closest thing we have to a truly progressive party. We simply need to get on board with them and start voting for Green Party candidates. It's what I've been doing for years and, IMO, it's the *only* way we're going to get a legitimate third party into the mix.

Posted by: Ben | December 2, 2009 3:00 PM

@ mundrake #86:

You have "unclear hands" in ranting against Indianapolis for taking the Colts, as Baltimore stole the Browns from Cleveland. Moreover, at least your replacement franchise has been a successful one, while look at the pile of crap that we have in Cleveland.

Posted by: Captain Patriot | December 2, 2009 3:15 PM

What kind of country do you people want? No one in THIS country is as far left as Obama. Well, except for Cas Sunstein or some of his other fascist radical czars.

From the way you are talking Fidel Castro would be a viable candidate for U.S. President.

Sorry P.Z., Americans hate fascist socialist/communist/marxist dictators. Sounds like you need to move to Cuba or Venezuala.

If Obama is too conservative for you, then God help us all. Obama is by far a conservative. He isn't even a moderate. He isn't even a liberal. He is borderline socialist marxist. His preacher of 20 years preached black liberation theology which has its roots in socialist marxism.

I fear the type of oppressive dictatorship you seek and quite frankly so does normal Americans.

Posted by: JustTrolling | December 2, 2009 3:17 PM

His support for a corrupt and failed state.

America?

Posted by: bobisimo | December 2, 2009 3:19 PM

Posted by: lose_the_woo Author Profile Page | December 2, 2009 12:34 PM: You know there are many powerful forces at play, and dare I say wheels-within-wheels. Setting courses and changing courses is probably more difficult than the Titanic doing a slalom course in the north Atlantic with icebergs.

Agreed. Obama "was 10th-most liberal [senator, based on voting record] in 2006 and 16th in 2005." In 2007, he was the most liberal.

So again, I agree. Obama himself is fairly liberal. Obama as President is a different story. I get the feeling that this has less to do with what he wants and more to do with what he can accomplish. It really tilts my impression on the power level of a president.

Posted by: Jon | December 2, 2009 3:23 PM

Ron Paul told you he was no different. You called him a loon.

Posted by: Joe Bleau | December 2, 2009 3:26 PM

Capt. Patriot (ugh)@105

Of all of the comical drivel in your post, this alone rings true:

I fear the type of oppressive dictatorship you seek

'Patriot' indeed. If this were 1774, you'd have pictures of King George hanging from your cabin wall, and spend your nights ratting out the revolutionaries for a little walking-around money.

Posted by: hje | December 2, 2009 3:28 PM

And what rough beast, her hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Washington to be inaugurated?

/shudder/

Posted by: Ben | December 2, 2009 3:30 PM

@#111:

PZ called Ron Paul a loon because he is a loon who wants to return the US to it's 1920's state of laissez faire capitalism and isolationism in foreign policy. The man opposes everything, good or bad, so it's no credit to him to oppose bad things. We didn't call him a loon because he criticized Obama.

Posted by: stogoe | December 2, 2009 3:37 PM

Why blame the president for something that is entirely congress's fault?

Because Obama's ass-kicking enforcer, Rahm Emannuel, is over in the back rooms of Congress every rutting day twisting the dems' arms? Rahm gives marching orders to Congress, and Obama is at least supposed to be in charge of what Rahm is making them do.

I still think the most likely option of a truly progressive party is to let the Democrats soak up 90% of the seats of Congress and then kick the Blue Dogs out of the party. That way, we retain our majority and avoid the 'third party' stigma.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 2, 2009 3:45 PM

"was 10th-most liberal [senator, based on voting record] in 2006 and 16th in 2005." In 2007, he was the most liberal.

This sort of cavalier attitude toward facts is typical both of creationists talking about evolution or global warming and the average Pharyngulist talking about politics. Obama was never the most liberal anything -- rather, he was rated by Roll Call magazine as having the liberal voting record in the Senate ... during an election year, just as John Kerry was. Now, is there something different from the average Senator that characterizes presidential candidates ... like maybe being on the road most of the time? As Roll Call itself explained, these ratings are grossly skewed because the candidates only return to the Senate to cast votes for high-profile and critical bills, usually bills that most starkly represent differences between the parties -- that is, Obama and Kerry mostly voted on bills that were emblematic of liberalism, and thus their voting record was heavily skewed toward liberalism.

Of course the bogus claim that Obama, and Kerry before him, was "the most liberal Senator" was loudly trumpeted by the Republicans and the corporate media (which is owned and run by Republicans, despite most reporters being Democrats -- another fact that is used to misrepresent). A fact that they didn't trumpet is that John McCain -- the supposed "moderate" -- has been among the 10 most conservative Senators in terms of voting record throughout his 20+ year career.

Posted by: Feynmaniac, OM | December 2, 2009 3:52 PM

But, but, he speaks really pretty....

Posted by: Marc Abian | December 2, 2009 3:53 PM

The last time I checked America was still a capitalist country. I would certainly hope our president has a cozy relationship with Wall Street.

Right right, the person who makes decisions for the population. It's important that he's cosy with the business interests. Because the goals of both those groups are so closely aligned.

And that's without even mentioning the word corruption.

I did like this this part of his speech:

And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America’s authority.

Me too. It is pretty funny.

Posted by: Steven Sullivan | December 2, 2009 3:56 PM

Btw, if you read that site, you see that Obama was already long on record as saying he was going to send more brigades (two more, to be specific) to Afghanistan...which he considered to be the 'right' war vs the wrong one, in Iraq.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 2, 2009 4:02 PM

The Taliban have been in charge of Afghanistan all the time. That US forces managed to (relatively) secure Kabul doesn't mean they are in charge of the country. Outside Kabul Taliban warlords rule the country almost unopposed.

It would help if you could make fundamental distinctions, such as the difference between the Taliban and warlords. Here's a hint: poppies.

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

I have frankly been fairly impressed with Obama, but then again I had extremely low expectations so it wasn't hard to impress me.

Posted by: windy | December 2, 2009 4:16 PM

Btw, if you read that site, you see that Obama was already long on record as saying he was going to send more brigades (two more, to be specific) to Afghanistan...

He already sent those additional brigades this spring. When "at least two brigades" morphs into tripling the forces, is that necessarily what the voters signed up for? At a cost of $1 million per soldier per year?

Posted by: Finch | December 2, 2009 4:27 PM

As long as we're all bitching about politics, I'd say that the thing I'm most pissed off about is Obama's tacit approval of the government infringing on our civil liberties by not tossing out some of the terrorism-based laws passed by congress in the wake of 9-11.

The Stupak amendment may be terrible, but I think that's all on congress. Gay civil rights need backing, but until different states stop passing the ridiculous "man and woman" laws-constitutional amendments, we aren't going to see much there either. The democrats definitely needed to pass hefty regulatory measures on Wall Street, but now that the carrot's gone, Wall Street feels cozy again, and that won't happen. Oh yeah, and the war is a screwed if we do, screwed if we don't proposition.

Ultimately, the problem is that republicans are better at being the minority party. If democrats were sharp during the Bush years, the congress wouldn't have been able to pass 'almost' anything because the democrats would've said "filibuster" all the damn time, the way the republicans are now.

At least we didn't get McCain-Palin. The world economy would probably still be circling the drain, and Sarah Palin would have a chance to get her hands on nuclear keys.

Solutions: more viable parties, and/or less money in politics. Or less hateful politics, but I think the damage the republicans did for those 8 years is either irreparable, or close to it.

Posted by: Quincy | December 2, 2009 4:30 PM

I love it. I've collected on over $500 in bets involving Obama's approval ratings that I made right after the election. Hey, sometimes one can capitalize on being a cynical bastard. ;-)

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 2, 2009 4:37 PM

He already sent those additional brigades this spring. When "at least two brigades" morphs into tripling the forces, is that necessarily what the voters signed up for?

Voters don't "sign up for" anything, but foregoing a discussion of the errors in that mischaracterization, the question is what rational people can reasonably expect given the candidate's history and statements ... and Obama's stated Afghanistan policy is well within the range of expectation given his many previous statements.

Posted by: Michelle B | December 2, 2009 4:48 PM

Bravo, truth machine! You are the only commenter here that is showing any intellectual honesty or adequate knowledge about American politics. One is better than none, and I will take it.

Yes, the electoral system is archaic, not necessary in a country that now has a system of functioning, rapid communication. And yes, how would it be possible to get a constitutional convention convened or an amendment passed to change an obsolete set-up when such activities will necessitate the cooperation of the two-party system? Politics will remain locked in limbo.

My personal rating for Obama has gone way up than it was before he was elected. After all, he still is standing on his own two feet and has not been hospitalized with a broken back from shoveling all that shit from the corridors in DC.

Posted by: MJMD | December 2, 2009 4:51 PM

Hi all from Oz.

From here, where we have an incredible public health system, it is clear that the US health system is a diabolical mess of money making, non-treatment, drug company paying crud.

So something needs to change.

So regarding your healthcare reform, what I cannot find in the pages and pages of nonsensical, mindless junk written about it, is what the issues really are.
Everyone seems to agree something needs to change, but there's this huge "We MUST" and "We MUST NOT" going on.
The only issue I've heard with any clarity is that the current wording of the bill allows abortion to be provided. Some ppl are for it, some against. At least it's clear. Well, clearish.

So ppl, in point form, what's the PROBLEMS with the reform plans? 'Cause FSM knows, your system is scary.

Posted by: bobisimo | December 2, 2009 5:04 PM

Hm. :\ I'm not sure how you can read:

"was 10th-most liberal [senator, based on voting record] in 2006 and 16th in 2005." In 2007, [his voting record] was the most liberal.

and not see that I was saying he earned himself a liberal voting record. (Yes, I changed the wording slightly in the bracketed section, but I was continuing the thought so that should have been an obvious conclusion.)

Regardless, your primary point of contention seems to be that Pres Obama is not liberal and you can't look at his statements and voting record as accurate indicators of his political bent -- especially not when he's sending troops to Afghanistan, especially not when he missed out on many votes that may have led to a more accurate representation. Do I have it right?

Yes, sending more troops to Afghanistan may not be what the liberals wants, so that certainly is a strike against him on the liberal count. And there are definitely other comments you could make on that front.

But his opposition of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a check in the "for" column. As is his stance on protecting abortion, providing more benefits to homosexual couples, gun control, health care reform, opposing teacher-led prayer in public schools, energy alternatives, fighting against the death penalty, his taxation strategies, and many other issues.

Add it all up and what do you get? A guy who more often than not sides with the dems and opposes the republicans, a guy who is not the second-coming of Pres Bush, a guy who could safely be referred to as liberal in so far as his general agreement with the democratic party and the typically understood as liberal policy.

Posted by: Esve | December 2, 2009 5:13 PM

Obama is in a less than favorable position, it seems, with everyone bombarding him from all sides, and at least he hasn't completely caved in yet. What I regret is that he does not appear to have enough aggression to challenge his opponents, who are as influential as they are many.

I am neither 18 nor yet an American citizen, and so do not have voting rights. All I can do is cross my fingers and hope for much better health care in my future.

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | December 2, 2009 5:23 PM

President Obama is different - he is very focused and he is very methodical.

That he is not a radical - so well duh!! But he is somewhat radically effective even if many guns shoot his way daily ("franco tiratori" comes to my mind). It ain't easy - he has many entrenched bad situations and enemies.

He and the Dems are NOT always acting or producing to my liking by many measures. As a matter of fact for example I am pissed as hell over the Vietnam oh I mean Afghan strategy. But in aggregate he is inching his way and us upward.

IMHO any reasonable assessment of his Administration and of the Dems since his taking office gives us a sense of progress toward major things most of here might advocate in one form or the other.

Nothing is without drawbacks. Pols come with implicit warning labels - that is life - and like the pharms one has to realize one must choose and use wisely, as well as have realistic expectations and prepare for adverse reactions.

But decisions are always risk-benefit exercises. Our situation REALISTICALLY in politics is this: no one matches the President's value (or electability) in most pragmatic aspects; he'll have his ups and downs but in aggregate the linear regression seems upward. And I'll take that over the probable [RETHUGLICAN] alternative any day.

Give him a chance and some trust, and be mature - nothing is perfect -- geez if in year 3 the scorecard is like really bad - OK - but now is too early to judge it overall and unfair and disloyal to objectives to abandon the path point-man so early.

Do not hand our fate back to those who know only a RWA agenda and who are not afraid to use it. That to me would be like 1st grade stupid.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 2, 2009 5:33 PM

Part of the problem here seems to be the idea that the President rules the United States and can do what he likes; lots of American Democrats seem to have absorbed the Republican unitary-executive bullshit without realising it. Hence, for example, the blaming of Obama for the state of a health care bill which is being created by the legislature.

Posted by: gr8hands | December 2, 2009 5:48 PM

PZ, you seem so rational on so many other topics. Why go all nuts on Obama?

I must disagree with you -- only because you are wrong (take that to any stupid creationists/theists out there who think that we 'revere' PZ as 'infallible' or treat him like he's some kind of pope).

Our current incumbent is anything but "crappy."

True, I'd rather that he issue an executive order to end enforcement of Don't Ask Don't Tell until it gets repealed. Same with DOMA. But . . . during the campaign he clearly stated he was not in favor of same-sex marriage. He preferred domestic partnerships with all the same legal benefits at the state and federal level (clearly it is just the word 'marriage' that he objects to), so this isn't a surprise.

But I disagree that he's "cozy" with Wall Street. I also disagree that he's not gone against the Stupak amendment (he's been quite clear that he wants to keep the status quo, and opposes changes). I disagree that he's giving undue support to the Afghanistan government -- Obama clearly stated there was fraud in the election.

I don't want a liberal president -- I want a progressive president, and Obama is definitely progressive!

Posted by: littlejohn | December 2, 2009 6:08 PM

As for all of you touting Ralph Nader, give me a break.
He gave us George W. Bush in 2000. Furthermore, he simply lies and says he didn't.
He killed the Corvair, a perfectly good little car that was giving the WV Beetle a run for its money among the money-strapped, such as college students. The Corvair sometimes rolled when idiots failed to check the tire pressure. Otherwise, it was as safe as any small car.
OK, he gave us seatbelts a year or two earlier than we would have gotten them otherwise.
The man has done nothing useful for anyone, except George W. Bush, and he is an insufferable egomaniac. And what's with the goddamn skinny black ties?

Posted by: Jacqueline S. Homan | December 2, 2009 6:17 PM

Point 2: Yes, the Stupak amendment is ridiculous, but let's not forget that it's attached to the most comprehensive reform of health care in forty years. Which would you like, a health-care bill with the Stupak amendment that actually gets passed, or a better health care reform bill that fails just like all the others?

Here's the problem, Patrick. The Stupak Amendment endangers the health and lives of roughly 50% of the American citizenry, half the human race in this country: WOMEN, the givers of life.

Under the Stupak Amendment, poor women who would need an abortion for medical reasons, such as the pregnancy posing life-threatening consequences for the mother, or a woman who conceived as a result of rape, would condemn a significant number of women to permanent disability or death because the Stupak Amendment also forcess private insurers to drop abortion coverage. It would mean that women who miscarry but fail to expel the dead fetus would die from sepsis, because the surgical removal of the dead fetus is classified as an "abortion."

Human Rights Issue Grounds:

Forced pregnancy/forced birth is childbirth chattel slavery, pure and simple. Conscripting unwilling women into reproductive dhimmitude is a violation of human rights. Pregnancy and birth DO change women's bodies permanently, and I do not mean just cosmetically. Very few women are fortunate enough to recuperate with only a few minor stretch marks. Most are not so lucky — especially poor uninsured women...which, by the way, would be denied maternity and prenatal care too.

Ligament/tendon/bone structure damage to the lower spine and pelvis and a permanently compromised pelvic floor and pelvic organs are NOT resolvable with Kegel exercises alone. ANd fractured tailbones incurred as a direct result of labor and birth are not uncommon. Once ligament and tendon damage is done, you never recover and heall 100%. Even muscle tissue can be damaged beyond repair because of pregnancy...which is why many women never get their pre-pregnant abdominal and pelvic internal strength and structure back.

35-50% of all mothers (depending on age) suffer permanent bowel and bladder incontinence and diminished ability to enjoy sex as a direct consequence of giving birth.

I don't see how ANYONE can justify forcing women to sacrifice our health, bodies, and wellbeing to go through pregnancy and birth against our will when it is our bodies and lives that are 100% at risk. Quite frankly, if pregnancy was a drug, the FDA would have taken it off the market decades ago.

Until science can offer women a better deal than contraception which is not available for women who are in the 40-50 yr range who are exceptionally high risk for complications, and abortion to ameliorate unwanted pregnancies, there is NO excuse whatsoever for throwing 50% of the population under the bus. Especially since there is nothing out there that's reliable and safe on the contraceptive market for middle-aged women who should not be forced to choose between abstinence and dangerous unintended pregnancies. And especially since there's NO provision for tubal ligation or for prenatal care for pregnant women in the health reform bill with the Stupak Amendment. Sorry, but health reform is supposed to be access to appropriate health care for everyone — not just for men only whose bodies and lives will never be irreparably damaged by dangerous pregnancies and births.

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

So ppl, in point form, what's the PROBLEMS with the reform plans? 'Cause FSM knows, your system is scary.
* Forced purchase of expensive health care from private insurers.

* No true effort to control increasing costs to individuals.

* The public option is a joke.

* Pointless delay of most changes until 2014.

Posted by: mark | December 2, 2009 6:48 PM

The American people were gradually gaining some say in America mostly thanks to FDR. It started before him, but he accelerate it. Well, in the 1950's, the weakened ruling class decided they had to act. They created various think tanks like the Heritage foundation, and the CATO institute whose sole goal was to hoodwink large swaths of people to vote Republican. And it worked. But it took 30 years to really get going because liberalism by the 1950s was firmly entrenched in the USA. (Liberalism was the ascendant ideology in America from circa 1930 to circa 1980. A time that just happened to coincide with the biggest scream forward in American prosperity the planet has ever seen. NOT a coincidence.)

The key point is that it took the conservatives 30 + years to get the people to regularly vote Republican, and then over the next 20 years, move both the Republican and the Democratic party way to the right. During Eisenhower years, the top tax rate was 92%. And Nixon used price controls to sway inflation. This nation was quite leftist back then. And boy did we prosper!!)

So it took the conservatives 30 to 60 years to give this nation back to the ruling class. Yes they have been very successful, and Democrats helped and are still helping. And god himself wants it that way.

So you can't expect Obama to reverse all that in 4 years. Way way too many people are still being snookered into voting Republican, or voting Republican lite. That's the real problem and Obama can't fix that.

Posted by: windy | December 2, 2009 7:11 PM

Voters don't "sign up for" anything, but foregoing a discussion of the errors in that mischaracterization

"sign up" was metaphorical, of course, but go ahead and snipe at such things if it makes you feel better.

According to a recent Gallup poll, the president's approval rating stands at 49 percent ... among non-white voters (meaning in this case, African-Americans and Hispanics), Obama's approval rating remains stratospheric.

Obama's Strongest Supporters Suffering the Most in Recession, While Elites Thrive

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 2, 2009 7:35 PM

I'm not sure how ...

Yes, your deficiencies were already clear to me.

Posted by: Skeptic Animal | December 2, 2009 7:50 PM

Look up the name Chas Freeman on the web, and you'll see where Obama has REALLY failed from the start. Obama caved to a religious based lobby group (AIPAC) by throwing Chas Freeman under the bus. Setting this country on a collision course with the Islamic world for years to come. All for the benefit of one tiny, crazed theocratic state we call "friend".

Posted by: AD | December 2, 2009 7:58 PM

Oh hush. Except perhaps on financial reform, I think Obama and the current Dem congress has done pretty well. And no we can't just walk away from ANOTHER powderkeg, this one with a potential nuclear ending. Spare me the Vietnam anecdotes (some similarities, but weren't we saying the same about Iraq), or the tales of how no one has ever pacified Afghanistan (The Brits did) or it is a stone age society (most Mideast countries are also tribalized in the hinterlands). Despite my similarities (or identity) to the left on health care, global warming, Stupak, and most everything else I am actually finding myself increasingly fed up with the (self-styled, grassroots-only-authentic-Democrat) left wing and their headless-chicken conniptions over the war in Afghanistan.

Posted by: AD | December 2, 2009 8:03 PM

Skeptical Animal- You make some good points. Even if one thought Iran could be a responsible atomic power (hmm...) the mere idea that Iran has a bomb will make Israel double and triple down on repressing the Palestinians. Setting aside the possibility of a preemptive strike- although they've done this before, not sure it will set off WWIII.

Posted by: Aaron | December 2, 2009 8:20 PM

When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still get evil.

I'm not surprised in the slightest.

People may ridicule third-party-supporters, but when others stop trying to game the system and instead vote for candidates whose agenda they can truly support, THAT is when we'll see real change. As long as people believe we're stuck in a prisoner's dilemma with our choice of candidates, we will be.

Posted by: Patrick Tomlinson | December 2, 2009 8:50 PM

"Here's the problem, Patrick. The Stupak Amendment endangers the health and lives of roughly 50% of the American citizenry, half the human race in this country: WOMEN, the givers of life."

Hyperbole much? Let's see a woman be "givers of life" without the male contribution. It takes two to tango. And incidentally, although roughly 50% of the population is female, it's silly to claim that the Stupak amendment endangers all of them, unless of course you believe that all women will have at least one abortion as some point in their lives. I'd love to see evidence for that.

"Under the Stupak Amendment, poor women who would need an abortion for medical reasons, such as the pregnancy posing life-threatening consequences for the mother, or a woman who conceived as a result of rape, would condemn a significant number of women to permanent disability or death because the Stupak Amendment also forcess private insurers to drop abortion coverage."

Which will prevent them from getting the abortion? No. Poor women will get the abortion the same way they get their health-care now. Emergency rooms, free clinics, and urgent care facilities that can't refuse them care even if they can't pay.

Further, the Stupak amendment, as I understand it, only forces private insurers to drop abortion coverage from those plans that receive federal funding. Idiotic, yes, but hardly the same thing as what you have suggested.

That being said, I don't support the amendment, I think it's moronic and the Dems supporting it should be run out of office on a rail. However, if it's going to be this or nothing, I'm sorry, I'll take this and fight to change it later.

Posted by: Rorschach | December 2, 2009 9:04 PM

I can understand the criticisms about Obama's policies regarding gay rights and the war in Afghanistan.
I can see the argument being made of him being centrist or moderate repub rather then left.

Keep in mind though what the alternative is in the US at present.Religious lunatics,essentially.And I suspect that is part of the reason why Obama is still treading carefully with his politics.

As to Afghanistan, what is the guy supposed to do, pull out and leave the country in tatters now ? The problem is the drug trade, and the connections this pseudo-government has to the drug barons(Karzai's brother, anyone?
I don't think anyone knows what is really going on behind the scenes in that place and what the motivations of Bush/Cheney were to start a war there, just that it wasn't what they told us, namely to go after the terrorists and chase Bin Laden, and protect the US from terrorism.Still waiting for someone to explain to me how it came to pass that so many Saudis and members of the Bin Laden familywere flown out of the US urgently and secretly on 9/12/2001.
If the US meant what they are telling us their motives are, they would weed out the drug lords, give the farmers something else to farm then poppys, and we had seen some results by now.

Posted by: bobisimo | December 2, 2009 9:41 PM

Yes, your deficiencies were already clear to me.

At least I've figured out who provides the entertainment.

Posted by: amphiox | December 2, 2009 10:27 PM

"give the farmers something else to farm then poppys"

I recall reading somewhere in the past a proposal, perhaps not fully serious, to buy up all those poppies and then sell them to some Big Pharma to manufacture into morphine and other opiate painkillers.

Posted by: Fred | December 2, 2009 10:42 PM

It is one of the great travesties of our time that when popular discontent in the US became so great it was channeled into 'Yes We Can'-hope speeches of Obama. His words, or lack thereof, and more importantly his actions since he entered office vindicate every doubt. Beneath his charisma and oratory, and these things stand to be mentioned only because of his predecessor's complete lack thereof, he stands a staunch servant to his constituency, whom he approaches always on bended knee, more than willing to entertain their every whim: The wealthy financiers, corporate leaders and the captains of industry, the first citizens of our republic. At the drop of a hat, he funnels trillions of dollars into the coffers of Wall Street, he mobilizes the full might of the public coffers to rescue an esentually parasitic economic practice and imposes no limits on their behavior, not only that none of those responsible for the crises have faced anything more severe than... well nothing really, they have faced no consequences. Their essentially criminal behavior has gone unpunished and in fact rewarded by the mightiest patron, the public trust. And yet when millions of Americans face hunger, foreclosure, bankruptcy, sickness and joblessness the call to arms is not only far less urgent, but almost altogether muted. Somehow the vast majority of people brought upon themselves the collapse of finance, the recession and the liquidation of millions of jobs! The mass of people who have no control of industry or policy are the ones who have tirelessly worked for decades to cheat themselves out of house and hold! Those most worthy of receiving the public wealth now funneled into wall street are the ones from whom austerity is demanded!

But such policies come as no surprise, though they come with no less outrage, to those with an understanding of the situation. The World Socialist Web Site (WSWS.org), the publication of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI), had continuously exposed the nature of Obama even before his election, in the prelude to the vote in every staged show, they explained the nature of his promises and the eventual cracks which developed in the facade as Obama revealed his true colours.

http://wsws.org/articles/2008/feb2008/obam-f14.shtml

http://wsws.org/articles/2008/aug2008/obam-a05.shtml

http://wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/obam-j19.shtml

http://wsws.org/articles/2008/aug2008/obam-a22.shtml

Posted by: Pablo | December 2, 2009 11:33 PM

We're just going to have to be "marking time" until 2012?! This is precisely the WRONG logic, but it IS the direction in which you will go if you accept the limits of the possible.

We have much urgent work to do. Many progressives failed to mobilize independently because they thought Mr. Change would take care of everything. Kind of comforting faith-based logic: like religion!! So they sat back and heaved a sigh of relief while he got into office, and did much of what he promised you he would d: fight the war on terror "better", etc.

It's been a year. Guantanamo? Sorry, he can't close it. Military Commissions Act? Intact with some eclectic adjustments. War in Afghanistan and drones over Pakistan? He's escalated both. Womens' rights and secular values? Still besieged in the US, as Obama calls for "common ground" while abortion providers get shot to death.

It's time to wake up from the Obama kool-aid enduced hangovers immediately. We don't have to bide our time until the next election---we can do what the New Atheists have done---mobilize as a movement that reclaims the debate.

The organization World Can't Wait is a great place to start. It needs supporters and donations as well.

www.worldcantwait.net

Love your blog, PZ!

Posted by: The Arbourist | December 3, 2009 12:16 AM

It is a sad day for the US, going higher and deeper into war. Here in Canada we are taking our own mini-spiral into the ignoble belly of lawlessness. The Canadian Armed Forces are sending people they capture in Afghanistan to facilities where they are being tortured.

The idea that 30,000 or x thousand is going to bring peace to Afghanistan is so wrongheaded. Every imperial army that has gone to Afghanistan has categorically lost. The British, the Russians and now the US and NATO. Has imperial hubris blinded us from the history surrounding the nature of Afghanistan? Is the truth so willowy and diaphanous that we cannot learn the mistakes of others?

As far as the stupid is as stupak does amendment is concerned: What an affront to the rights of women. Thank goodness in Canada we respect the idea that women are autonomous beings capable of making the reproductive decisions that is best for them.

Posted by: Eric Paulsen | December 3, 2009 12:59 AM

I voted for Kucinich in the 2008 primaries and I will vote for him again if he runs in the 2012 primaries - it's too damn bad people don't seem to want a progressive president ENOUGH to do the same.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 3, 2009 3:26 AM

steve, is there any chance you could try to squeeze more fallacies, falsehoods and undeserved arrogance into two paragraphs?

Posted by: wiley | December 3, 2009 4:56 AM

Dems overlooked their (obvious) female candidate, and voters voted for Obama bin Biden to prove they were not racist, and now suffer the consequences. My tip for next POTUSA: Sarah Palin.

Posted by: Knockgoats | December 3, 2009 5:14 AM

"give the farmers something else to farm then poppys" - Rorschach

I recall reading somewhere in the past a proposal, perhaps not fully serious, to buy up all those poppies and then sell them to some Big Pharma to manufacture into morphine and other opiate painkillers. - amphiox

Problem with Rorschach's idea: poppies provide a far greater income per hectare than anything else - and last I heard, accounted for about 1/3 of Afghanistan's GDP. As there is a global shortage of medical opiates, the proposal amphiox recalls would do some good, but since the shortage and the ridiculously high return from poppies are both outcomes of the evil "war on drugs", it would make much more sense simply to legalise (and tax and regulate) non-medical opiate consumption. Heroin isn't even a particularly dangerous drug if you have a source of reliable strength (most overdoses are down to an unusually pure batch) and clean needles, and are not having to choose between heroin, and food and shelter - the addict always chooses heroin, of course.

Posted by: Knockgoats | December 3, 2009 5:25 AM

Steve@186,
You're a moron. Just a few points:

1) Most EU countries currently have centre-right governments. Not one, much to my regret, is anywhere near socialism.

2) The denialist hacking of the CRU computer and subsequent distribution of private emails is the only crime "emailgate" has uncovered; no data has been lost or distorted. The fact that a few scientists have said and possibly done things they shouldn't makes no difference whatever to the science.

3) No, we were not being warned of a new ice age in the 1970s. There were one or two speculative magazine pieces, nothing claiming anything of the kind in peer-reviewed journals. You denialists really ought to drop this particular lie, as it is so easily shown to be such. If you dispute this, show the peer-reviewed articles from the '70s warning of an ice age.

Posted by: Daniel | December 3, 2009 5:49 AM

Haunted:

The Afghanistan mission was doomed from the beginning; just look at history. The Soviet-Afghan war lasted for over nine years before the Soviets finally decided to cut their losses and leave. What makes you think that the US/UK can do any better than a ruthless and despotic regime? Especially when there are not nearly enough troops there (even with Obama's new surge, which was below the minimum what the US army wanted) to do anything but maintain the bloody status quo.

It is clear that once we leave (whether it is now or in 2012) the country will descend into civil war with the Taliban eventually triumphing. The Afghan army and police have been infiltrated (e.g., five British soliders killed recently by an Afghan policeman whom they were training) and do not have the capacity or will to put up a fight against the jihadists.

And as for the supposed progress that has been with human rights in Afghanistan, please look up Karzai's disgraceful legislation that proposed to legalise marital rape.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | December 3, 2009 6:26 AM

From Reuters - Asked if he would support gay marriage, Biden said: "No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage."
Palin was likewise succinct. "My answer is the same as his and it is that I do not," she said.

I love how people see LGBT civil rights and the only thing that comes to mind is marriage. See the link I posted above. Almost none of the issues in it are about marriage, pretty much all of them are solely under the purview of the executive branch, and pretty much none of them have seen any activity.

On LGBT rights--even beyond marriage--the administration has been a no-show.

Posted by: Carlie | December 3, 2009 6:58 AM

Poor women will get the abortion the same way they get their health-care now. Emergency rooms, free clinics, and urgent care facilities that can't refuse them care even if they can't pay.

..where I'm sure they'll all find doctors who actually know how to do them, what with so much training being devoted to a procedure that is not covered by any insurance plan in the country and is likely to get the doctor death threats by people emboldened in their hatred by the support they have from the national legislature decreeing abortion too icky to be allowed coverage. Yeah, I'm sure that will work out really well. It's not like a quarter of OB-GYN training programs already avoid teaching how to do abortions, and half of them don't offer clinical practice in it to med students. Disallowing abortion coverage in insurance plans is bound to make those trends move to the positive side.
But hell, who cares if the attending on duty at the ER actually knows how to do an abortion for the poor woman who comes in with a septic dead fetus? It's not like poor people or women matter or anything.

Posted by: Patrick Tomlinson | December 3, 2009 7:50 AM

"where I'm sure they'll all find doctors who actually know how to do them, what with so much training being devoted to a procedure that is not covered by any insurance plan in the country..."

Still wrong. As I already said for anyone who bothered to read, the Stupak amendment only takes away abortion coverage on those plans that receive federal funding, not all private plans. This is not nearly the same thing as what you are claiming.

In reality, the way the poor will find abortions under the new legislation isn't going to be much different than how they get them now as uninsured.

Yes, that sucks and I'd prefer it be different, but since it's going to be a choice between that or not providing them with ANY health care coverage, it's significantly better than nothing.

Posted by: Steve in Dublin | December 3, 2009 8:54 AM

@Moya #101

Go Green. They're the closest thing we have to a truly progressive party. We simply need to get on board with them and start voting for Green Party candidates. It's what I've been doing for years and, IMO, it's the *only* way we're going to get a legitimate third party into the mix.

Alas, truth machine is right about this. It doesn't work the way you want it to with our crappy first-past-the-post system. If you vote for the Greens, that just draws votes away from the Dems and the Republicans win by default.

Posted by: Daniel | December 3, 2009 9:41 AM

Haunted:

I should really stop calling you, Hunter.

I need to visit an optician it seems!

Posted by: Carlie | December 3, 2009 9:54 AM

As I already said for anyone who bothered to read, the Stupak amendment only takes away abortion coverage on those plans that receive federal funding, not all private plans. This is not nearly the same thing as what you are claiming.

Yeah, it pretty much will.

Yes, that sucks and I'd prefer it be different, but since it's going to be a choice between that or not providing them with ANY health care coverage, it's significantly better than nothing.

Now is the perfect time to yell and scream about it, because that has the possibility of convincing waffling Democrats that their constituents want comprehensive health coverage for women, not their constituents agree that health care for women shouldn't be a part of the overall bill. The choice is NOT bill/no bill, it's about wrenching the arms of the idiot Republican Lite Democrats and making them realize what their constituents and their party stands for. No Republican is going to vote for the bill regardless of anything that is put into it. The point is to make the Democrats act like fucking Democrats.

An awful lot of people are getting sick and tired of taking one for the team, when it's the team who sets those rules in the first place, and it's always the same groups who are told by the team to accept getting thrown under the bus as being a better alternative than being tossed out an airplane.

Posted by: Carlie | December 3, 2009 10:02 AM

I swear, my blockquotes looked ok in preview.

Posted by: mwsletten | December 3, 2009 10:05 AM

If one considers the range of political positions between anarchy and totalitarianism, how much difference is there really between republican and democrat? It's time to stop thinking 'conservative' and 'liberal' and start thinking 'candidate.'

Despite is voting record (which is really only a reflection of party politics), President Obama has far more in common with his predecessor than many of his supporters would like to admit. Witness how easily PZ and the many posters here who have so staunchly defended President Obama from his critics can turn so viciously on him because of his position on a few issues. Two-party politics does this country a tremendous disservice.

Speaking of which, PZ's discontent over the Stupak amendment is but a sign of things to come should we move closer to government control over health care. Every major question from the level of care, appropriate procedures, spending, etc, etc, becomes a political question -- and one, therefore, in which some voters' religious beliefs become pertinent.

As long as government money is involved, politicians will feel obligated to 'represent' their constituents on how that money is spent. It seems to me the less government money (hence politics) involved in health care, the easier is will be for individuals to choose procedures which reflect their personal beliefs.

Just sayin'...

Posted by: Patrick Tomlinson | December 3, 2009 10:08 AM

Carlie,

What you fail to understand is that they ARE acting like Democrats. The Dems have never been a monolithic block marching in lockstep with the party line as the Republicans have been for at least a generation. Nor are you going to get them to.

One thing that always appealed to me about the Democrats is their diversity of opinion and membership. They are a true big tent.

But that has it's downsides too. You're going to find anti-abortion members of the party, anti- same sex marriage, anti-cap and trade. That's the trade-off for building a governing coalition.

And it's not just the lawmakers themselves, but their supporters as well. Not every single Democrat is pro-choice.

You're trying to apply the same sort of issue driven, party-shrinking litmus test to the Dems that has been so effective at eviscerating the Republicans over the last few years.

So yes Carlie, it very likely is a choice between a bill or no bill. That's reality, welcome to it.

Posted by: Daniel | December 3, 2009 10:34 AM

Haunted:

‘We didn't exactly enter Afghanistan with a solid plan and as a result it's been a constant struggle. The soviets cut and ran after 9 years of heavy equipment and troop losses , we have had nowhere near as much casualties as they had nor heavy equipment losses…’

We still do not have a solid plan. The Soviets loss more men, yes, but why stay until we reach the same level of casualties? I would be interested to know what your criteria are for ‘victory’ and the time span that it will take for them to be achieved.

‘"before the inevitable collapse of the puppet regime we leave in our wake and the reinstatement of whatever hideous tribal/Islamic regime takes its place."

Precisely why we need to make sure this doesn't happen. Your fatalist attitude does not add to your criticism.’

How are we going to ensure that it doesn’t happen? If our armies, among the best-equipped and trained in the world, cannot defeat the Taliban do you think the Afghan Army (which has been infiltrated) can?

‘People die in wars, I will not disagree with you. But do not even pretend that the killing would stop if we pulled out now. The mass death that such a power vacuum would create would dwarf the current rate of human loss. Also, the people of Afghanistan have just come out of a monstrous theocracy, and anything we can do to ensure they don't fall back into that is worthwhile. Progress will be slow and difficult but do not be any in doubt what it's destination is.’

Of course it wouldn’t, but the civil war will happen as soon as we leave whether that is this year or in ten years. And they haven’t come out of a monstrous theocracy. The Taliban are still in de facto control of most of the country and the government we are backing is heavily influenced by Islam (see treatment of women, homosexuals and blasphemers in this idyllic state that we have set up).

‘I am not arguing for moral relativism. The laws they pass are still immoral, just as the laws we used to have were immoral. We had to shake them off against strong protesting from backward conservatives just as Afghanistan will have to as well…My point was we can hardly refer to ourselves as the ultimate judges of morality when it wasn't until recently that we managed to break some of our own shackles.
I have not disputed that there are still horrible laws in place and being passed in Afghanistan and there is no point in continually citing examples.’

And my point was that however unfairly we have treated women in the past it was in a different degree to that of the barbaric laws that they are passing with our protection right now. As for continually citing examples it is important to know what kind of regime we are sending troops to their deaths for.

‘Savages indeed! With that, my interest in conversing with you is depleted. Good day.’

You didn’t answer my point. Are we to occupy their country until they reach a level of civilization comparable to our own? If so, how long do you realistically think that will take given the barbaric laws they are now passing even with our military support.

What laws do you think they will pass even if they manage to hold out against the Taliban once we leave and our influence over them wanes?

P.S. The savages comment was directed to those who are supporting such laws as I have described in Afghanistan and in that respect was quite accurate. Say what you see just as you did when describing those ‘backwards conservatives’.

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

You have parties to collect enough money to put people in office, that is their main contribution to the process. Platforms are secondary and negotiable.

So when people say they are a Democrat or a Republican, they're really only referring to who collects the money for the campaigns?

Welcome to politics in a representative republic. If that's not your cup of tea, I'm sure you can find a nice totalitarian regime somewhere to take you in.

I'd say totalitarian is more along the lines of accepting whatever the officials come up with because they claim that's what's required to get anything done. Nothing happens in a representative democracy without agitation. Anti-health care for women people agitated to get abortions denied, and now pro-health care for women people are agitating to get them covered. I don't see how it's representative to allow one side to complain and try and change the situation but not the other.

Posted by: windy | December 3, 2009 2:54 PM

For the last fucking time, Ralph Nader did not cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000.

Apparently way more Democrats voted for Bush than for Nader.

Posted by: Carlie | December 3, 2009 6:52 PM

...although it doesn't specify abortion, it does cover a lot of other areas that had been missed in the original bill. A pretty telling comment from Russ Feingold:Mr. Feingold, in a statement, said he voted against Ms. Mikulski’s proposal because of the projected cost of $940 million over 10 years. “I am disappointed that the Senate health care debate has gotten off on the wrong foot,” he said. “The first amendment voted on would add almost a billion dollars to our budget deficits over the next 10 years. We should make sure health plans cover women’s preventive care and screenings, but we should also find a way to pay for it, rather than adding that cost to the already mountainous public debt.”

So health care for men is just part of the health care bill, but health care for women adds to the mountainous public debt and therefore is a special case that shouldn't be part of it. Nice.

Posted by: Chris H | December 3, 2009 7:21 PM

PZ, you forgot to mention that president Obama is not cleaning up the FDA and the EPA so the corporate crooks from Monsanto and it's ilk are still wielding their power in these institutions which are SUPPOSED to act in the interest of the PEOPLE.

Posted by: Phoenix Woman | December 3, 2009 10:49 PM

"Most important thing: He has made it clear that climate change is none of his problem."

Remember that trip to Asia? The one where the right-wing media was all in his grill about being polite to foreign leaders?

That's where he got China to commit to setting official emissions-cutting targets, for the first time ever.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/18/obama-and-hu-jintao-talk-_n_361847.html

Posted by: elder | December 4, 2009 2:59 PM

I am sick of wars and all killing, including abortion. I am sick of the fact that every president since Carter has been a tool of the rich and the elite who run the world for their satisfaction and profit. I am praying for a decent, Godly resolution to all of this. I am aware that many here, including the author, don't believe in God, but at some point, perhaps now, we should behave at some point by using principles outside ourselves to guide us, and I suggest true Godly ones. There are too many hypocrites on all sides of the political spectrum to avoid more war and depression in the future. We as a people, on all levels, need to commit ourselves to work, honesty, morality, and respect for each other and God as some of our personal commandments. Only then will we demand the leadership we need.

Posted by: Oran Kelley | December 4, 2009 7:50 PM

What's the phrase? "Oh, the stupid, it burns!" Is that it?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | December 5, 2009 3:11 PM

The last time a third party was viable in the US was during the 1850s.

From the 1820s until the early 1850s the two major political parties were the Democrats and the Whigs. Sectional antagonisms fomented by the Compromise of 1850, particularly the Fugitive Slave Act, and later the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 split the Whig apart. The Democrats were the pro-slavery party of the US but the Whigs didn't become the anti-slavery party. By 1854 mass anti-slavery meetings were being held in Wisconsin, Michigan and other Midwestern states and the Republican Party was born. The party was not so much abolitionist as against the spread of slavery to new territories.

A coalition of of ex-Whigs (Lincoln had been a Whig) and anti-slavery Democrats, the party spread to other Northern states. In 1856 the Republicans nominated John C. Fremont for the presidency and did quite respectably in their first campaign. Because the party was purely sectional, Southerners viewed its growth with alarm. A Republican victory, many warned, would so endanger Southern interests as to warrant secession from the Union. When Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860, the threat became reality.