Our First YouTube Challenge Entries!

I would have preferred the first 50 seconds to have not been the build up to argument to authority. Yes, I want to know the guy is experienced and connected and that lots of smart people agree with him, but it should be at the end. Especially on a 3.5 minute video on the internet.

thanks

Unfortunately, Greg, for a lot of people, the first question is "why the hell should I listen to this guy?" and that must be handled before going into the details.

I like that he stated Obama's policy promises, and saved the philosophy of what he thinks the role of science in America should be for last (although this is important too).

And it's clean. There's no "meanwhile the opponent is roasting science on a stick" type accusations, although he correctly points out the tendency of the Bushies to replace qualified scientists with party hacks over the past eight years.

Let's see...

Barry Insane Obama believes in man-made global warming, something there is utterly no scientific foundation for (I know McCain takes a similar stupid position and is basically forcing Palin to go along but the point is Obama is NOT scientifically literate by any stretch of the imagination.) He is also so scientifically illiterate that he thinks we can be totally energy independent in 10 years.

Obama is not running against W. (something you fools would do well to remember), but on that note, since W. is probably the most Leftist Liberal president we've ever had, what is so good about voting in an amplification of the same?

Democrats are far more guilty of using "party hacks" than Republicans. Exhibit A: CNN. Exhibit B: Reuters. Exhibit C: Associate Press. Do I need to go on? (FYI, no I am not a Republican either, but I am in touch with Reality.)

These scientists are only proving something I figured out years ago: most scientists are nothing more than button sorters and bottle washers, and as soon as you take most of them outside of their narrow specialty they're just idiots and jackasses and when they go to vote they are nothing but pathetically mediocre humans who suddenly transport themselves to their Personal Fantasy Island when they draw the booth's curtain. If they had any brains they would understand the science of economics, and ANYBODY who understands economics would NEVER vote for this racist Black Guy who knows damned well that he is just using Americans' fears, ignorance, and prejudice against them to get himself into power so he can establish himself as Emperor Dumbo in the Socialist States of America.

And no, you useful idiots, you aren't going to like it. And no, you useful idiots, you aren't going to see your tax bills lowered or prices reduced.

And by the way, since Emperor Dumbo says he's going to put an end to special interests (which he isn't; he's lying, but that's not the point here), that means he cannot be supportive of Washington state's science and technology industry, because by definition within this context that makes them a special interest group. DUH. But of course, we know that all of Abomanation's special interest lobbyists are gold, and only those special interests who don't favor him and the Dimwitcrats are garbage.

GROW UP, AMERICA

Anyone care to respond to "Someone NOT Brain-Dead" or shall we leave his narrow-minded. angry, poorly rationalized and rather ugly comments to the ether? or did I just sum them up perfectly.

His rhetoric and choice of terms are over the top, but the substance underneath is essentially correct. It never ceases to amaze me how few scientists are able to translate their long-taught, long-honed skills for logical thinking into the political/economic realm. History indicates clearly that the liberal agenda is doomed to failure, because it has been tried before and failed, usually catastrophically. Evolutionary theory tells us why: the basic premises of the Left are simply contrary to human nature and human culture as it's evolved over the past five-to-ten million years.

I know liberals want to surpass our limits and make the human race into something better. So do I. Idealism is a fine thing ... except when it interferes with your ability to see reality as it is. Liberals have allowed their idealism to blind them, and I can't understand why scientists go along with that so willingly. Scientists see reality just fine inside the lab -- why do you lose that ability the minute you step out the lab door?

On second thought, I need to add something: some of the substance underneath "Someone's" post is correct. Some is not. It's true that no realistic program will make the USA energy-independent in ten years. It's true that the liberal economic agenda is guaranteed to fail, doubly so if it's passed in a time of economic turmoil. And it's true that Obama is running a gigantic con game by claiming he can do those things.

The rest ... not so much.

Let's see, Brain Dead starts off with name calling, followed by an outright, knowing lie ("man-made global warming, something there is utterly no scientific foundation for") then in yet another classic propaganda ploy accuses his opponent of a fault that his candidate actually suffers from (scientific illiteracy), and then... well, it's downhill from there.

Anyone actually believe that W is the most leftist liberal president we've ever had?

FYI, Reuters and CNN are not Democratic party organizations.

In another classic projection, he calls all scientists "idiots".

Finally, does anybody really believe this guy is "in touch with Reality"?

That would be reality with a capital "R", for all us idiots here.

Maybe it's even a scibling just having some fun by wearing ignoramus hat.

Whatever...next!

Well said yogi-one. Brain-dead's (and consequently wolfwalker's) arguments are flawed.

Regardless of whether you think that climate change is cyclical, or man-made, everyone agrees that the effects are adverse, not only to the environment but to civilization as well (exhibit a) mass extinctions, exhibit b) global conflicts over scarcer natural resources). And the fact is that this fundamental discrepancy in approach makes all the difference when we're trying to counter and revert the impact of global warming. If you're still willing to play the skeptical-conspiranoid card you're only getting in the way.

Evolutionary "theory" does NOT teach us that the premises of the Left are inherently at odds with Human Nature.
A) The discussion of Agency vs. self sacrifice and cooperation in evolution is much more complex than what you're describing (Ed's got plenty of examples posted in this blog).
B) Unlike any other species in the planet, us humans are aware of the rules and structures that produce society (economy and policy), and unlike all other species, we are able to rig them.

This is wack-talk! and you know what else you get when you mix politics with a distorted version of science? genocide and all other sorts of catastrophe.

I'm not ready to defend the media, because the notion of impartial journalism is a bit of a chimera, and I think this has been especially evident in the US over the last few months.

"this racist Black Guy who knows damned well that he is just using Americans' fears, ignorance, and prejudice against them to get himself into power". Funny you say that, McCain has been the only candidate to attempt to fabricate DIRECT connections between his opponent and America's two most feared evils: Terrorism and Socialism.

It seems Brain-dead's got '(R)eality' upside-down.

fe wrote: B) Unlike any other species in the planet, us humans are aware of the rules and structures that produce society (economy and policy), and unlike all other species, we are able to rig them.

Able, yes. Willing, not so much. Your own post demonstrates this: given a chance at intelligent dialogue, you ignore it and instead attempt to whip up hatred for a person whose opinion you don't like. Classic instinctive tribal behavior: defending your Tribe against an Invader, regardless of the facts of the matter. You are an animal ruled by instinct, fe -- unless and until you choose not to be by recognizing the instinct and refusing to obey it.

Even if you can do that, however, you overlook the fact that most humans can't. For whatever reason, the vast majority of humans act according to their instincts, and behave as our ancestors did fifty or a hundred thousand years ago. You need to understand that, or you'll never be able to understand them. Nor will you be able to coexist peacefully with them.

Note, incidentally, that none of the above has anything to do with race, color, creed, gender, or any of the other ways that humans use to tell "us" from "them." It applies to ALL members of species Homo sapiens. We're all human, and we're all run by the same four basic, instinctive needs: food, shelter, reproduction, and group status. Try to deny that as much as you like, it will still remain true. There are countless ways to measure status -- number of kids, size of house, size of bank account, number of gadgets owned, number of papers published, or number of enemies killed to name just a few -- but whatever way you choose, the result is the same: you spend much of your waking time trying to increase or at least maintain your status within the group. It's as natural as eating or breathing. But liberalism attempts to make us all equal -- not equal in potential, but equal in result. In other words, liberalism attempts to give us all the exact same status and prevent us from trying to change our status. Therefore, liberalism is contrary to human nature. QED.

But liberalism attempts to make us all equal -- not equal in potential, but equal in result.

This is far-right propaganda. Such criticism was properly applied to Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism. Only Birchers confuse Leninism with liberalism.

Liberalism does not even try to create a level playing field. For liberalism, it is sufficient merely that the playing field not be so steep as to prevent climbing. (Full disclosure: as a market socialist, liberalism is rather too far right-wing for me. But I know Bircher bullcarp when I see it.)

I fully understand that there is still a great deal of legitimate scientific argument over whether the current global warming trend is anthropogenic or just something natural and inevitable. Still, there is tremendous evidence of a global warming trend, and if we humans want to continue to lead relatively comfortable lives, we need to deal with it. It might not be essential to reduce our greenhouse gas production, but it would be fiscally prudent to do so. It might not be essential to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, at least not yet, but again, it would be in our financial best interests. As long as Republican policy supports continued extravagant consumption, I'll continue to vote for the Democratic candidates, regardless of who they might be. I'll continue to live as my parents and grandparents did, consuming less and conserving more not out of any great altruistic impulse, but because I'm comfortable living that way.

v wrote: For liberalism, it is sufficient merely that the playing field not be so steep as to prevent climbing.

Then liberalism has already achieved its aim on this subject, and should sit down and shut up.

Another example: The basic rule of natural selection is: "traits which are rewarded are encouraged; traits which are punished are discouraged." Anyone who has ever raised a kid or trained a puppy understands this; so does anyone who has ever studied evolutionary theory.

Over and over, we see liberal policies rewarding bad behavior and punishing good behavior -- and then liberals wonder why they get more of the one and less of the other.
Liberal economic policy rewards indigence (with government support payments) and punishes achievement (with higher taxes) ... and then liberals wonder why productivity goes down and the economy suffers. Liberal social policy rewards those who complain about racism, whether there's any actual racism there or not (often there is, don't get me wrong, but often there isn't) ... and liberals wring their hands as complaints about racism skyrocket. On crime, liberals attempt to disarm citizens and reduce sentences for convicted criminals, so criminals have an easier time committing crimes and receive less punishment when they do ... and then liberals wonder why criminals congregate where the citizens are known to be defenseless, and commit more crimes, and more violent crimes. Liberal foreign-relations policy rewards violent attack by giving in to an attacker's demands ... then liberals wonder why their attempts to stop attackers never work.

Liberals themselves even understand this principle, for they argue (properly) against rewarding the crooked or incompetent bankers who partly caused the current economic crisis, and in favor of punishing the responsible parties by letting them fail or even jailing them. Yet they refuse to even consider that some of their own may be partly (I said partly) at fault and deserving of punishment -- and so, they undo any good they might have achieved by ensuring more bad behavior in future.

So again the conclusion seems plain: liberal policy runs contrary to human nature as established by our evolutionary history. Bad behavior must be punished, and good behavior must be rewarded, as appropriate to the behavior involved. That's the way we evolved; that's the way we learn; that's the way we all become better people. Liberalism doesn't do this.

"we're all run by the same four basic, instinctive needs: food, shelter, reproduction, and group status. Try to deny that as much as you like, it will still remain true"-wolfwalker
I strongly disagree with this. Groups status is definitely not a universal human need-- it is a desire fostered by our cultural values.

You are suggesting that the need for group status is a behaviour that is genetically inherited and has been favoured as an adaptation by natural selection. It is generally accepted that much of human behaviour is culturally-induced and independent of genes. And even if a behaviour is genetically induced, it is a phenotype which is altered depending on the environment in which the gene is expressed. Of course, basic necessities are an exception- they must have a firm genetic basis.
But group status is something that varies with the cultural gradient. Take an egalitarian society such as south-west african bushman(Ju'hoansi) or australian hunter-gatherers whose archaeological records (which date back millennia) found no signs of war-- no mass burials or signs of weapons besides those used for hunting animals. Nor were there graves or other evidence indicating higher wealth or social importance.

The point is that social differentiation is not a universal human behaviour. The only universal human trait is the adaptability of the mind, and the ability to think and exist in a variety of ways.

Wolfwalker,
It is absurd of you to suggest that complaints about racism and crime rates should be punished and successful achievement of wealth should be rewarded.
Several studies have shown that the "tough on crime" approach of raising minumum sentences does not decrease crime rates. What has been shown to decrease crime rates is investment in social support systems and community centers.
High crime rates and racial segregation are the consequence of impoverishment.

Our economy is designed to make the rich richer. For example, corporate executives have the power to impoverish a whole urban region by closing a plant and outsourcing (as seen in Flint Michigan). So why should the absurdly wealthy need to have the freedom to be even more absurdly wealthy and powerful? Especially considering the plight of impoverished americans with lack of socialised health care etc..

Why are so many americans so afriad of redistribution of wealth? What is wrong with enforcing altruism?
It's working in europe and its worked in canada, so its time for America to get with the times.

Wolfwalker, your above economic philosophy is a simplistic application of social darwinism. History should be an obvious indication that social darwinism is irrelevant, not to mention dangerous.

Wolfwalker says:

"It's true that no realistic program will make the USA energy-independent in ten years."

That's not true, per se, but merely your opinion. It seems like a reasonable guess, and probably should be odds-on as opposed to its alternative, but there is no physical law that prevents the US from achieving "energy
independence" in 10 years. It could be achieved, for example, simply by finding a way to build nuclear reactors in a much cheaper fashion.

As for this comment:

"It's true that the liberal economic agenda is guaranteed to fail, doubly so if it's passed in a time of economic turmoil."

Just like the New Deal failed?

And we see the ideologue unveiled.

It continually amazes me how definite people can be about the political spectrum in the US, without paying any attention at all to what that spectrum looks like outside the US. What passes for liberalism in the US is what passes for conservatism here in Canada, and is barely on the map in much of Europe. The claim that "History indicates clearly that the liberal agenda is doomed to failure, because it has been tried before and failed, usually catastrophically" is completely ignorant of politics outside the US. For instance, socialised medicine may not be perfect here, but it works, and far better than most Americans are aware. I have never had to wait to get an appointment or had to settle for an inferior substitute for a prescription, and I am very relieved to know that my family will not go into debt for generations should I get some massively debilitating disease or injury with expensive treatment requirements.

Even still, does it not occur to these people that the very notion of public education is itself a liberal one? This was regarded by its proponents as essential to having a well-educated electorate (something that has clearly failed spectacularly in the case of "Someone NOT Quite Brain-Dead"). The principle is that, by having a societally-supported agency helping the people, the people will be better able to help the society. This, really, is the core of liberalism, and I see absolutely nothing at odds between that and human nature.

As for the stuff about liberals being "soft on crime" or "rewarding complaints about hate speech", this is right-wing extrapolation of particular policies implemented by some liberals in the US. Nobody wants dangerous criminals roaming freely, and anyone who claims otherwise is setting up straw-men. Particular policies may or may not have that effect, and are often debated intensely amongst individuals: do not make the mistake of confusing policy with ideals. Everybody wants a safer society, and some of us (even some of us liberals!) are willing to admit that we are mistaken in how to achieve that when our policies have unintended results. In contrast, conservatives still claim that (for instance) abstinence-only sex education works, in spite of reams of evidence to the contrary, and push for its implementation not only in the US but everywhere else in the world that they can influence as well (look at Africa, in particular).

Finally, where does all this hostility against scientists come from? Most scientists that I know (and, being in academia, I know quite a few) are surprisingly knowledgeable outside their fields of interest (knowledge itself tends to be a hobby for scientists) and their opinions tend to be at least worth consideration. Having been through the peer review process means that they tend to be very circumspect when venturing outside their field of expertise: scientists have very strong bullshit detectors (at least for their own fields) and expect to be shot down viciously if they misrepresent things. But even supposing that scientists are only good for what their Ph.D.s are in, they are still a valuable resource, being experts in how the world works. Just as you should not go to a car mechanic to get your toothache looked at, you should not go to right-wing idealogues who give the impression that economics is the only study worth pursuing for information on how the climate is changing.

To the people who have posted in this blog, congratulations on completing our survey. You have successfully proven that when someone with exceptional intelligence supports someone with no intelligence, people tend to get a little angry. Thank you for participating in this test, and please do not post in this blog anymore. Any further posts will be discredited, and later will be removed by our webmaster.

Thank you
ScienceBlogs LLC

Another example: The basic rule of natural selection is: "traits which are rewarded are encouraged; traits which are punished are discouraged." Anyone who has ever raised a kid or trained a puppy understands this; so does anyone who has ever studied evolutionary theory.

Complete nonsense.

Here's how it works: Heritable traits which, in whatever complicated ways, lead to higher numbers of surviving fertile offspring will be disproportionately common in the next generation; heritable traits which, in whatever complicated ways, lead to smaller numbers of surviving fertile offspring will be disproportionately rare in the next generation. Which traits those are depends on the environment.

Your anthropomorphization is rather silly, but it turns out to be necessary for your comparison to raising a child or training a puppy...

Over and over, we see liberal policies rewarding bad behavior and punishing good behavior -- and then liberals wonder why they get more of the one and less of the other.

Is that so? Would you care to have a look outside the US borders, for example?

Liberal economic policy rewards indigence (with government support payments) and punishes achievement (with higher taxes) ... and then liberals wonder why productivity goes down and the economy suffers.

Which proves why Clinton triggered the biggest recession since Carter, and why Fearless Flightsuit turned it into a boom. Alright.

On crime, liberals attempt to disarm citizens and reduce sentences for convicted criminals, so criminals have an easier time committing crimes and receive less punishment when they do ... and then liberals wonder why criminals congregate where the citizens are known to be defenseless, and commit more crimes, and more violent crimes.

Looks like you've never been in a country with mostly disarmed citizens, and you don't read much either. The crime rates of the US are disproportionately high (and the incarceration rate is the highest in the world... in absolute numbers, more Americans than Chinese are in jail, and, no, the higher execution rate of China is by far not sufficient to explain this).

That said, I agree that introducing the UK or even just the Austrian gun laws in the USA right now wouldn't work. There are two reasons for that -- two problems that would need to be tackled first or at the very least at the same time:
- Over here, when you call the police, they come within five minutes. In the USA, I'm told they come after 30 minutes, except if you're in a bad neighborhood, in which case they may never come at all. Probably you just need more police.
- The USA has a humongous black market for guns that is almost entirely missing over here, so the argument that "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" is not as silly as it looks to the average non-American. You see, over here most bank robberies are committed with toy weapons or other fakes, because the real thing is just too hard to get even for outlaws.

Liberal foreign-relations policy rewards violent attack by giving in to an attacker's demands ... then liberals wonder why their attempts to stop attackers never work.

And Clinton never got Saddam to destroy his WMD by making him allow the UN inspectors into the country. The proof for this is that Fearless Flightsuit found all the WMD intact upon his invasion.

What have you smoked, and can I get it legally in the Netherlands?

I am not a scientist, and won't pretend to be one here. But what does strike me as funny is how often Republicans and professed conservatives (and I'd suggest evangelical conservatives vs. traditional conservatives here) seem to believe in economic selection while denying genetic selection.

But I'm a liberal, and figure we've got to start talking about the three P's. We used to discuss when I was a kid in the 1970's but they fell out of vogue -- Population, Pollution, and Poverty. Now, we use buzzwords like global warming, income disparity, and we don't touch population because it offends evangelicals. Shame one us for obfuscating.

Great blog, bookmarked.

History indicates clearly that the liberal agenda is doomed to failure, because it has been tried before and failed, usually catastrophically.

Interesting. Sounds like a claim you could shore up with some evidence.

Evolutionary theory tells us why: the basic premises of the Left are simply contrary to human nature and human culture as it's evolved over the past five-to-ten million years.

Oops! Such an opportunity lost...

To all libertarians and right-wingers who appeal to our "basic nature" as a problem for liberal ideas, I suggest one scenario: Everyone should only be able to own as much as they can physically defend. That's Nature. Anything else is our long cultural history overcoming these very basic constraints of our human nature and physiology.

Others here have put it much better (Opisthokont, Jobe et al.), but what it boils down to is the basic hypocrisy that has become so very explicit these past months: The wealthy support Socialism for the wealthy, but not the poor. This instance is just a sample from a litany of intellectual dishonesties required to support modern day right wing ideology. And the very first of these is the ignorant claim that "liberal ideas have been tried and failed".

Words like liberal and conservative are thrown around here like they are exclusive. If you are a viable, thinking human being it would be extremely difficult to categorized you like that. And, incidentally, without research scientists you would not know that. But then, without researchers and other scientists you would not know much about anything at all. Certainly not global warming, human behavior, evolutionary theory, heritable traits, genetic selection, and all of the other words and phrases that have also been thrown carelessly about here. Without scientists and their dedication and knowledge, I dare say we would still be discussing barbaric life - oh, but wait, maybe we are.

Well, gee, I have a PhD in theoretical physics, does that count? I will be voting for Sarah Palin. I understand that McCain guy comes as part of the deal.

BBB

It most certainly does. Thanks for chiming in. Would you be willing to explain your choice in a YouTube video? If so, don't forget to tag it AVoteForScience.

Just a few thoughts,

In recent history western scientists and intellectuals have shown in a very consistent way their preferences for left winded parties and often their support or justification for totalitarian regimes and ideologies all over the world. So it is no surprising that after these 8 years of republican presidency, the support for Obama get to even a higher percentage. What it is surprising is that public opinion seems to be more in line with the university elite than ever before.

From the point of view of scientific interest is paradoxical to remind that in the last century most of the presidents were republicans, USA has become the promise land of capitalism and declared enemy of Communist ideals, Socialism, Marxism, etc, American university, a place that has always hosted more liberals that conservatives and even risky �communist� intellectuals, has become the leading university system in the world, with a large and increasing distance from the second. This leadership in science and technology has pursued mainly with the money founded from the biggest companies over the world, the very essence of the so called capitalism. So all the evidence points that American scientific leadership will not change dramatically despite the candidate being elected.

Coming back to evidence, there is no evidence that there is a better solution for most of social problems. We can find evidence of successes and failures applying more liberal approaches and of the same with more conservative approaches (I don�t include totalitarian regimes). What it is true, for example, is that American health care system is inefficient and more and more expensive. This can be easily observed. And it is true that the solution is no easy to find, because at the same time American medicine has the world leadership in new treatments and health research, has the best hospitals and the best care that you can find. But it is increasingly expensive and difficult to manage for the benefit of most Americans. For example, aside ideologies, it is possible that some liberal/conservative solutions can do a better job depending on the population size or age distribution?

@carlos,

The overwhelming majority (90+%) of US funding for basic research, which you tout, and for which the US rightly claims the crown, is from the government. How does that square with the idea that America is the "land of capitalism and declared enemy of [anything left-leaning]"?

People talk about evidence... but the only clear evidence is from the past two and a half decades, and that is that excessive deregulation, Reaganomics, and the church of the free market have utterly failed.

You make a good point at the end, which I interpret thus: rarely are good solutions ones of extrema. Optimal behavior in reality requires careful balancing of evidence and, often, what appears to be a compromise.

Thanks for recognizing the good point and to remind me that 90% of funding for basic research is public. So it means that, even with republican administrations the public funds for basic research have not disappeared. In fact in the last years (25 years), the gap between American leadership in research and other countries has become greater. So from the point of view of efficiency, the money from taxes has done a very good job. And it is very important to remind too, that you have mentioned basic research, but not tech and applied research. And it is important, because part of this success is due to a mix of liberal and conservative views, the Bayh-Dole Act on patent transfer. But again, a political decision that has worked pretty well during the last 25 years, could be a source of problems for researchers, companies and even for universities at these times.

Regarding evidence I did not know at which point in time started the relevant or more important evidence (reganomics and so on..) so sorry for my ignorance.
If America is a landmark when you talk about capitalism, you only have to make that question to people all over the world and count the results. For historic irrelevant evidence you only need to take a look to political discourses, decisions and legislation made under different administrations (I guess that during the last 25 relevant years one can find evidence of what I'm saying too). But who cares, it's irrelevant.
Looking back to the last 25 years (the relevant ones) one can find very similar decisions by Regan, Bush or Clinton in the international arena, the economy or the health care system. For example, one could think of Clinton presidency, as a period in which American health care system became one of the best in the world. But More or less it showed the same problems than it shows today.
A different case is G.W. Bush presidency; all about him have resulted in a disaster for Americans. And the only thing that could be said in his defense is that no other president has had to deal with two very unpredictable events with such an enormous impact (11-S and financial crisis). The exceptionality of Bush presidency and his remarkable incompetence and immorality, make and important case in defense of John McCain, because even if you don't know nothing about him, it is really unlikely to repeat or even being close of Bush record. Bush is the main reason by which McCain needs a miracle to win this election, not his capacity, his proposals, no even Palin.

@Carlos

And it is very important to remind too, that you have mentioned basic research, but not tech and applied research.

Yes, because the distinction between Science and Technology is all too frequently blurred in the eyes of the public and politicians.

In some areas of technology (for instance pharmaceuticals or integrated circuits) the investment from the private sector has been so overwhelming (and successful) that it is rarely worth competing at the public level. As you say, patent transfer is at the boundary.

RE: Evidence. I'm not saying there is no evidence from further in the past. We would be fools not to learn from history. What I meant was that the evidence that is staring us in the face, the vivid consequences of the past 25 years, does not point in the direction that 'conservatives' would like it to. Earlier in the thread, wolfwalker said this:

History indicates clearly that the liberal agenda is doomed to failure

which is not only nearly meaningless in its generality, but breathtakingly blind given the evidence staring us in the face this very moment.

BTW, I don't think Clinton is in any way exempt from playing along during the past 25 years, or in fact from contributing to the present crisis. The fact that he was better on certain issues (e.g. budget surplus, without freezing the economy) is some small evidence in his favor.

Still behind Obama at this point?

We are not a scientist, and won't pretend to remain one here. But what does strike me simply because funny is how usually Republicans and professed conservatives (and I'd recommend evangelical conservatives vs. traditional conservatives here) appear to believe in economic collection while denying genetic variety.

Nice blog btw