I think one of the problems with the US political system is that the rare great guys that come to hold the presidency can only hold the office for 8 years.
All the stuff he says in that video,he might have a chane to do in 20 years…but in 8? Hardly….
I reckon Obama does a great job so far in wriggling and navigating through all those minefields that are in his way in the American political scene.
Marc Abiansays
Something’s wrong with the video. Halfway through the screen got all blurry.
hjesays
The audacity of competence.
Peter UKsays
Well, it is simply heartening to hear a US president even say these things.
To experience a supreme moment of cognitive dissonance, use your imagination to project (channel? oops, sorry) Dubya’s face and voice onto this speech!
If there are any video editing whizzes out there who want to have a go, I would (almost) pay money for the result.
Knockgoatssays
I’m trying to remember when I last heard any political leader make such a clear pro-science statement. Nothing comes to mind. Obama has already disappointed me in some ways (which I won’t detail here), but as far as science goes, he evidently gets it in a way that is very rare for politicians, whose profession usually demands that they blur the truth in order to reconcile incompatible opinions and retain the broadest possible support.
Robert J. Grievesays
This is a president that gives me hope. He is the first to do that since Kennedy. I’m wary of Obama simply because his oratory skills are so remarkable that he inspires people . . . and then pulls off crap like voting for FISA, kowtowing to that imbecile from Saddleback, and bestowing the blessing of the invisible pink unicorn on everything. His political squirming and worming leaves me pissed off. Still, he will be better for education and science then any president in over 40 years. After the last eight, under that twit-brained inept coward, he almost can’t help it.
AdrianTsays
What a beautiful speech – I have never heard a US president sound so knowlegeable, and committed to reason. It’s times like this that I actually want to believe in an afterlife, because, I can really imagine Carl Sagan smiling down at this. A real ‘Cosmos’ moment, and I hope he lives up to his promise.
tootiredoftherightsays
“Obama has already disappointed me in some ways (which I won’t detail here), ”
He is already on his way to fullfilling a few dozen campaign promises on his first three months. Said campaign promises are what got him elected and were really needed to help this country. He is going to accomplish far more in four years then the last few Republican presidencies did.
Iansays
“Something’s wrong with the video. Halfway through the screen got all blurry.”
You were just getting tears in your eyes at the wonderful news for science. Go on. You can admit it. We understand. We did it too!
mirroreyessays
Oh wow, I indeed got teary eyed. Words like these have been a long time coming. It would be heartbreaking if he doesn’t follow through, but for now …. hope!
Onotheosays
I’m starting to kind of like him.
Terskacsays
When Obama invites political foes to meet with him and participate in discussions it might make it harder for them to demonize him they way they have and the way they did Clinton.
I’m sure they will still demonize him but it will be harder for the media to give the lunatics as much credibility as they had during the Clinton years.
Goosebumps. In my lifetime, I have never heard an american politician speak with such uncompromising support or science and education.
Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush. None of them come even close.
If this guy can’t pull the US’s balls out of the economic meat grinder they’re in, you are truly screwed, because you’ve actually managed to elect the best candidate from the entire process, primaries to election. If he can’t do it, what an unmitigated tragedy that will be … Well, Kudos on making the best choice anyway, and good luck!
*joins the goosebump crowd*
That’s such a heartwarming, inspring, encouraging speech… makes me sad living in Europe so I can’t call him “my president”. If he keeps half of his promises regarding science, it already will make a hell of a difference!
Kendosays
“Respect[ing] the integrity of the scientific process.”
“Ensuring that facts are never twisted by politics or ideology”
“Listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient; especially when it’s inconvenient.”
Awesome shit! I’m inspired. No really, I’m holding this guy to his words. We’re counting oon you Obama!
Gary Fsays
Regarding American politicians making strong statements about science, I recall Hillary Clinton’s speech on the 50th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik. She was campaigning against Obama and Edwards at the time. I didn’t vote for her but I liked her view of science. I’m glad we now have several politicians in high office who care about science.
I think I printed out that speech, which is a good thing because it seems to have vanished from the Internet. However I did find this archived page from her campaign website, which includes quotes from her speech:
That’s such a heartwarming, inspring, encouraging speech… makes me sad living in Europe
The reality Linnorah, if I may bang on a little about my personal obsession, is that he is your president. The impact of the US on the global economic, military and political spheres is so extensive, that any decisions he takes will affect you. Depend on it.
The silver lining this time, is that the american electorate voted for someone most of the other 6.4 billion of us can accept.
don’t get complacent. keep him on his toes, America.
rickflicksays
I recently read “The Republican War on Science” by Chris Mooney. I had trouble getting through it because it actually made me nauseous to learn the details of how the republicans and especially W corrupted science and politics for ideological reasons.
What a breath of fresh air.
Mikesays
Holy crap! An American politician said those things?
…
…
*faints*
Porky Pinesays
#13
“Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush. None of them come even close. ”
Let’s not lump Carter in there with the rest of them. Out of all the one’s you listed, he did the most of trying to advance science. He set a example of installing solar panels on the roof of the White house. Unfortunately, Reagan tore them down as soon as he got into office.
mayhempixsays
Do I detect a faint note of reluctant hope in PZ’s post?
The educated adults are in power.
Liberal Atheistsays
You have no idea how good it feels to hear your president say all that. And I’m not even American.
MSsays
To rickflick (#22): I know what you mean. Another book I couldn’t finished was Alan Brandt’s The Cigarette Century. There was a fresh outrage on every page; my wife said she could feel my blood pressure spiking from across the room at times.
It didn’t help that I masochistically started it not long after my dad died of lung cancer, but still…
Katkinkatesays
Hope he can do something about the ‘science by press release’ phenomenon. Or at least not make govt. policy according to press release science, instead of what the research actually says. Some move for ‘truth in press release’, like truth in advertising would be a good move forward. Or just recognising press releases as advertising/marketing and treating it as such.
Joesays
Wow. This is what really counts.
As far as I am concerned, he can say “God bless America”, go to prayer breakfasts, and wear a flag lapel pin the size of a car-dealer’s flag every day, even on the basketball court.
I am so happy–and proud!– that he is my president. And yes, we need to retain our skepticism, and keep the pressure on him. He is our president, not some deity.
Max Faginsays
I’m with you PZ, but in all honesty, can you recall the last time a politician DIDN’T end up disappointing you?
I work in space research and it is so comforting to hear this.
Obama has taught me that it is OK to actually like your president.
First time in my life.
Nerd of Redhead, OMsays
Loved the oratory. Like PZ was hinting at, the deeds backing up the oratory must follow. But it is a start. And the air has smelled a lot better these last few weeks.
Pauline in UKsays
It choked me up as well, and I’m not American, either. I fell in love with the idea of America as a teenager, when I saw the television close-ups of those three letters ‘USA’ on the side of the Saturn V rockets, going up and beyond. Time to soar again, if not to the moon, in spirit and endeavour. Love you, America.
bobxxxxsays
Obama, best president ever in my opinion. I’m ashamed I didn’t bother to listen to him until his first debate with McCain. I will regret for the rest of my life not bothering to see him give a speech in a small Illinois town I used to live in when he first started running for president.
What a change to go from the most anti-science president in history to the most pro-science president in history. I hope Obama does something about the bad science teachers infesting our public schools. It’s not fair to students to have a creationist teaching biology.
Lord Zerosays
I love Obama. But sadly republicans hate science and reason. They value more securing his votes than making this nation
step forward.
charleysays
His commitment to give science top priority will conflict with the high priority he places on bipartisanship and building bridges with anti-science Republicans and Christians. I will not be surprised if he compromises a little on science while trying to work on national unity.
That said, I expect this effort will largely fail.
60613says
We can only hope that he delivers – but even if he doesn’t, isn’t it wonderful to hear a president speak with intelligence?
Dinosaur Teachersays
“Especially when it’s inconvenient.” Awesome.
So, how did that funding bill turn out for science? I hadn’t heard.
John Phillips, FCDsays
Boo-yah
FSMdamm, that felt so good after the oh so obvious anti-intellectualism of the last eight years. You actually have a President who appears to get it. There might be hope for the US and the rest of us after all.
But just in case, write a hundred times;
Mustn’t get carried away
Mustn’t get carried away
Mustn’t get ca…
PZ, that is a pretty miserable reaction to a rather invigorating speech. Consider doing something to make sure that this fellow won’t be disappointed in you!
Patsymonsays
Obama will have to do daily battle with anti-science Republicans who, even in their minority status, have the stomach for street fighting that the Democratic majority, with all its advantages, can’t seem to muster. I wish him luck.
Nor am I less persuaded that you will agree with me in opinion that there is nothing which can better deserve your patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness.
The assembly to which I address myself is too enlightened not to be fully sensible how much a flourishing state of the arts and sciences contributes to national prosperity and reputation.
It’s certainly encouraging. I think Obama is a person who listens and thinks. It is up to us, as a community of scientists, to make our voice heard.
tootiredoftherightsays
“So, how did that funding bill turn out for science? I hadn’t heard.”
Stimulus Bill up for signing by the Pres has several of the things that the inital versions had stripped out to appease republicans.
Once the republicans showed they had no intention of voting for it the Democrats put back in several things that were taken out and stuff put in to appease the Republicans such as upper class tax cuts were taken out. There are still tax cuts but it’s more for small businesses and the middle class plus every American gets 400 dollars.
Regarding the Republican animosity towards science, it’s important to keep Stephen Colbert’s observations.
Science is grounded in reality.
And Stephen Colbert said “reality has a well-known liberal bias” at the White House Correspondents Dinner a few years.
DuckPhupsays
Oh, crap…
Obama: “… invest in things unseen…”
Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
Unfortunate choice of words, that. I can see it now… creotards latching on to that as a call and Presidential endorsement for bringing the imaginary, invisible, magical, all-powerful, supernatural sky-fairy into the science classroom.
Medusasays
For the first time in msny, many years, I have hope. I don’t think Obama will disappoint us, but it will be those who are trying to make him fail. I don’t understand those who wish he will not accomplish his goals; if he fails, the United States will be in even more trouble than it is now.
Timebender13says
That speech was so good I almost cried!
JasonTDsays
I’m as happy as anyone that we have a president with the right attitude about science and science education. I’ve tried pointing out some of my concerns with his start in other threads, but my posts apparently weren’t as interesting as the back and forth with libertarians.
Scott from Oregonsays
What I find amazingly sad is just how low our expectations are.
So the guy tells crowds he loves God and his pal Jesus and then feeds scientists the “logic and reason” spiel…
He’s a likable shoe salesman, to be sure, and I might buy some Hush Puppies off of him…
But come on. Just because GWBush lowered the bar to around your ankles doesn’t mean you need to bend over to see over it, does it?
@JasonTD but my posts apparently weren’t as interesting as the back and forth with libertarians.
Your objections probably just aren’t batshit insane enough. Heck, people here barely even stop to look when I suggest a direcly elected global parliament, and that’s pretty borderline.
Try suggesting Obama disband the department of education, energy or the IRS (actual things Ron Paul recommended), that should get some attention. You need to crank up the lunacy amps.
Mosasaurus rexsays
Great speech!
And this is the President that Rush and his dittoheads want to see fail. What a bunch of dingleberries.
Vinniesays
What is this small orgasm in my brain? Could it be… a glimmer of hope?
Whatevermachinesays
Did he say they invented the internet, or did I hear wrong? I thought the Swiss were mainly responsible for the internet..? Maybe not.
Excellent video. Go Obama! Wow, it’s refreshing to say the least.
(No) Free Lunchsays
The internet was developed by the US defense department. Tim invented http a protocol which was an extension of ftp and allowed the World Wide Web to infest the world.
eddiesays
The battie for the next congressional elections has begun and it’s vital to document (loudly and widely) where thugs in congress and elsewhere are standing against our recovery.
But come on. Just because GWBush lowered the bar to around your ankles doesn’t mean you need to bend over to see over it, does it?
Yeah Scott, you’re right. The republicans have so acclimatised us to the incompetence, cronyism and corruption of the inarticulate morons inexplicably in control of US institutions, that when someone comes along who can actually … you know … articulate, we’re bowled over.
Still, pending Obama actually doing something he promised he wouldn’t, or failing to do something he said he would, I’m hopeful. It’s early days yet Scott, and given the scale of the cockup he’s inherited, it’ll be early days for about 2 years.
Carter was actually rather pro-science & engineering, but given his background, that’s hardly a surprise. At times, he was too much the engineer to be a good president. They’re not that good at lying, the American people love the pretty little lies.
CalGeorgesays
Obama is easily duped.
He fell for the “clean” coal bullshit.
He is falling for the “reform” Social Security bullshit.
We won’t make much progress under Obama, that’s becoming clear.
He has surrounded himself with a crowd that does not inspire confidence. His economic advisers opposed limits on executive compensation in the TARP program.
Vilsack at agriculture. Salazar at the Interior.
Bad news for the environment. Good news for agribusiness and the mining interests.
ItsALaughsays
I thought the Swiss were mainly responsible for the internet..?
OK, altogether now:
THE WORLD WIDE WEB IS NOT “THE INTERNET”.
Trust me. I was using the network when some folks still called it ARPANet out of habit.
As for the WWW, Berners-Lee created HTML as an application of SGML which in turn derived from GML created over at IBM in the 1960s. Oh, and he’s from England. He just happened to be on contract to CERN at the time.
Quiet_Desperationsays
It’s time to face reality once more.
I’d feel better if they’d just *read* the gigaomni spending bills they create. Just sayin’.
Levi in NYsays
@Whatevermachine, #54:
Actually, the predecessor of the global Internet was an invention of the U.S. military.
I think one of the problems with the US political system is that the rare great guys that come to hold the presidency can only hold the office for 8 years.
Our first president ever was heavily pressured to run for a 3rd term. But he set the precedent by quitting after 2. To want a president to serve more than 2 terms is a complete misunderstanding, in my opinion, of the purpose of democracy.
erasmus31says
Is it any wonder that this man ignited a spark in the world? I can only imagine how difficult it must be for him to walk the fine line between enlightenment and idiocy, and to try to appease the former just to get the job done. It must be like strolling along with a dragon you have to defeat every couple of steps. I wish him, the United States and, by extension, the rest of us the very best. If he could just manage to wake us up to the possibilities…
I once heard that four percent of the world population is intelligent. Not educated or literate – just intelligent. I have no idea where that figure came from but in the last 8 years I thought the estimate was way too high.
#22 rickflick
I know exactly what you mean. Several books about the former administration made me sick with anxiety. None of it was bedtime reading. The systematic destruction of the system was incredible. Many times I thought I was reading fiction but everything I read checked out with very easy research.
#30 Max Fagin
Can you recall any human being not disappointing you? You can’t please all of the people, etc. But at least this one is on the right path.
#36 charley
I think his high priority on bipartisanship may be slipping a tad.
to walk the fine line between enlightenment and idiocy, and to try to appease the former just to get the job done.
Do you mean the latter? Sometimes it’s hard to tell.
dogmeatibsays
Given our current predicament, economy, debt, war, etc., we can only hope that Obama is able to accomplish half of what he sets out to accomplish. If that happens, if he is successful, he will almost certainly be reelected and the Republicans will be in very serious trouble. That could mean a situation like FDR –> Truman where the Democrats control the government for 20 years or more and when the Republicans (or whomever potentially replaces them) do gain office they do so in a reasonable way like Eisenhower.
But again, given our current predicament, that is one hell of a lot of hope. If I prayed, I would do so for Obama.
michaelsays
He basically admitted that people let religion obscure scientific facts. That’s a bolder statement than any other politician is making at the moment.
Tabby Lavalampsays
Ah. Now if only he could see why it’s wrong for him to call adult women “sweetie” or how accompanying his adult, educated wife to a job interview isn’t a cute story, he’d be almost decent.
Mattsays
He also plays lip service to Jesus and religion in general. Maybe he’s from the S.J. Gould camp.
As long as any religion is given an ear in US politics, science will be stifled.
dahduhsays
Natural selection works just as well on nations as it does on organisms, even if you don’t believe in it; and fortunately for Americans, they elected a president smart enough to recognize this.
#1 Clinteas: _everyone_ becomes corrupted by the system, and in 20 years even an Obama will disappoint. He’s easily good for 8 years but if he’s really smart he won’t even run a second term. As he said, great leaders inspire, the unstated corollary being that they must then stand aside. If he serves only one term he’s almost certain to go down in history as one of the greats. Go ask Mandela.
erasmus31says
#66 mothwentbad
Yes, I do mean the latter! Sorry. Sometimes it IS hard to tell. :)
Dveduusays
Wow… he’s way better than our prime minister.
Rey Foxsays
“He is already on his way to fullfilling a few dozen campaign promises on his first three months.”
What might those be?
Crudely Wrottsays
Heartening words indeed. I want to keep hearing this sort of talk.
Even so, maybe it would be wise to withhold judgment of this administration for a year. There is damage to repair as well as installing new policies with respect to the science/government interface.
These things take time. They are processes, not phenomena. Think in terms of man hours. Lots of them.
Paguroideasays
I wonder if we would hear more pro-science comments and actions from Obama if we gave him positive feedback when he does something pro-science. I’m going to e-mail him at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ to commend him for these comments. Is anyone else interested in doing that? Maybe collectively we could make a difference.
Yeah it sounds good…Obama said about science “even when it’s inconvenient, ESPECIALLY when its inconvenient”
That sounds pretty damn good. The tech slant is needed because most people equate science with technology: its the same thing to most folks. Of course its not, but thats the way to start making inroads…
Tullysays
That was an absolutely beautiful speech. I hope he lives up to his word.
Bush’s government may not have been as anti-science as is commonly perceived: http://tinyurl.com/dyuv4t
Maussays
“When Obama invites political foes to meet with him and participate in discussions it might make it harder for them to demonize him they way they have and the way they did Clinton.”
I wish you were right, but they have gone out of their way to immediately claim their respect, then slimily assault him moments later.
“I’m sure they will still demonize him but it will be harder for the media to give the lunatics as much credibility as they had during the Clinton years.”
The national/cable media gives credibility to lunatics on a regular basis to support their false “the truth lies in the middle” narrative. Our political system would be INCREDIBLY better if this was not the case. It’s not going to change just because Obama is in office.
zhaphodsays
This is a remarkable comment thread. I havent read so many people who sounded so happy in the comment thread.
'Tis Himselfsays
Rob Davidson,
The perception that the Bush administration was anti-science was not due to congressional funding of science. The perception was due to Bush and the Boys politicizing science. The AGW denial prevalent in the Bush administration was probably the most notorious instance, but hardly the only one. Stem cell research was played around with in such a way as to make nobody happy (but that was a Bushite attribute, arranging things to piss off all sides in a controversy). Environmental research was heavily politicized, the EPA hierarchy rewrote papers to make them “politically acceptable” to neocons.
Neil deGrasse Tyson’s point that funding wasn’t cut was a sign that the Bushites weren’t necessarily anti-science. The AGW denial and politicization show that they weren’t as pro-science as some people might think.
To want a president to serve more than 2 terms is a complete misunderstanding, in my opinion, of the purpose of democracy.
I never understood that. how is telling people that they aren’t allowed to vote for someone they might have wanted to vote for democratic at all?
Helmut Kohl was Chancellor of Germany for 16 years, and when people got finally fed up with him, they voted him out. That’s far more democratic IMHO than artificially limiting choices.
And on a related note: Germans have absolutely no qualms about kicking inept leaders out of office before their term is over, something that I also find lacking in the U.S., and also kind of ironic: in a country where most people have at-will employment, politicians are ridiculously difficult to “fire” and for some reason are allowed to fulfill their contract even when they suck monkey ass at the job (I suppose the other side of the coin is the notorious instability in Italy, of course…hmm….)
anyway, back on topic: it was an inspiring speech, but it’ll be damn hard to achieve even a fraction of that. letters and e-mails of encouragement sound like a great idea
I think Obama is sincere. I hope he has the balls to stand up to the Congress on the issue of science, Religious Right and social conservatives be damned.
ArchangelChucksays
@Jadehawk (#87): That amendment was passed at a time when political machines ran the country. It might be okay to repeal it today, but when I imagine 20 years with an anti-science creotard like G. W. Bush, I emphatically say, “Keep the amendment!”
JasonTDsays
Brain Coughlin @57,
Hmm, you bring up some good points. Maybe I can formulate some kind of moderate/centrist ideology that presumes that anyone to either side of me is either delusional or seeks to strip me of my basic freedoms. I’ll need standard-bearer though. Someone who’s writings are held in high esteem by those that agree with me, but held in contempt by others. ;) I’ll also need a better label for my ideology. “Militant Moderate” just don’t have much of a ring to it.
“Still, pending Obama actually doing something he promised he wouldn’t, or failing to do something he said he would, I’m hopeful. It’s early days yet Scott, and given the scale of the cockup he’s inherited, it’ll be early days for about 2 years.”
Here’s one thing Obama has promised that hasn’t happened yet:
End the Practice of Writing Legislation Behind Closed Doors: As president, Barack Obama will restore the American people’s trust in their government by making government more open and transparent. Obama will work to reform congressional rules to require all legislative sessions, including committee mark-ups and conference committees, to be conducted in public. By making these practices public, the American people will be able to hold their leaders accountable for wasteful spending and lawmakers won’t be able to slip favors for lobbyists into bills at the last minute.
The stimulus bill was largely created by congress in the way congress normally does business. They dumped the 1000+ page bill on members after it came out of committee and asked them to vote on it one day later. Like you said, it’s still way early yet. But if you don’t hold him to his promises early, he won’t have the incentive to hold to them later.
SteveLsays
Wonder who the babe is at around 2:12.
Paul G. Brownsays
Obama’s said that his goal isn’t to make everyone happy. Indeed, he’s made the claim that he expects everyone will be mildly annoyed at some of the stuff he does.
But he has said he wants people to think that their government is at least working for them. If science is a small part of this, sign me up!
I anticipate/expect he’s gonna annoy me giving money to faith based social programs.
Anonymous Cowardsays
That’s more like it. I almost thought we had elected a republican, but I’m seeing a spark of hope now. By the way, in the first part of the speech there were moments I almost thought I was hearing Christopher Hitchens.
And oh, about the flames regarding who invented the Internet: it wasn’t invented in one country, it is a monumental edifice of lots of technologies invented by lots of people all over the world, each of which is an integral part of the Internet like we know it today. You can’t argue about which are more necessary, because they all are, and you can’t argue about on which there are more dependent, without arguing all the way back to Ancient Greece. So stop it please, it’s getting tiresome.
John Moralessays
Anonymous Coward,
And oh, about the flames regarding who invented the Internet
Its history is clear: History of the Internet. Personally, I give credit to the USA, and in particular to its Government via ARPA.
Boletussays
So, now that you’re posting lots of vids, do you take requests? I request The Vaselines’ Jesus don’t want me for a sunbeam. :-)
I never understood that. how is telling people that they aren’t allowed to vote for someone they might have wanted to vote for democratic at all?
I remember a stimulating 20/20 episode where they were talking to one of Husein’s interrogators. He said that one thing Husein never understood about America was why we elect a president for only 4 years.
Basically it serves as a check against unlimited power. As politicians stay in power for longer, they’re able to pull more strings and get more done. How is an ever sifting congress supposed to act as a check against a president who has been in the White House for over 8 years? It’s part of the checks-and-balances system. How would you feel about a Republican serving 3 terms? We were ready to elect Reagen for a 3rd term, judging from his 2 strong victories, and then Bush’s following victory. But regardless of your political beliefs, the point is that the president isn’t supposed to force too much power onto the rest of the gov’t. We weren’t meant to succeed or fail by the hand of a single person for too long.
I’m less familiar with the situation in Germany, but coming off the Cold War and the fall of the wall, a smooth transition of power from on president to the next was the last thing on their mind.
Richard Hartsays
An inspiring speech, to be sure. But remember all, Obama will not be able to do this alone. It will take each and every one of us to make the change happen.
So tomorrow, take a cephalopod to lunch!
procyonsays
The first president of the new millenium…..finally.
tomhsays
kerrjac wrote: But regardless of your political beliefs, the point is that the president isn’t supposed to force too much power onto the rest of the gov’t. We weren’t meant to succeed or fail by the hand of a single person for too long.
Says who? FDR was elected to four terms for a good reason. The people wanted him in office. Term limits are undemocratic by definition. They should all be abolished since term limits are already built into the system. It’s called the ballot box.
nothing's sacredsays
How is an ever sifting congress supposed to act as a check against a president who has been in the White House for over 8 years?
Senate terms are for 6 years and the great majority are reelected. And even if Congress sifts, why would that act against checking? If we had sifted a few more Republicans out of the Senate in 2006, we might have seen a lot more oversight.
But regardless of your political beliefs, the point is that the president isn’t supposed to force too much power onto the rest of the gov’t. We weren’t meant to succeed or fail by the hand of a single person for too long.
Isn’t supposed by whom? Weren’t meant by whom? This is religious terminology. If the single person is doing a good job, why not keep him? You seem to have some sort of principled objection to Presidential continuity, but it seems quite irrational; what little reason you give for it doesn’t make sense.
nothing's sacredsays
I loved the reference to “inventing the internet” which I took to be a slyly joking nod to Al Gore’s tongue-in-cheek quip.
It wasn’t tongue-in-cheek, nor a quip. Gore was entirely serious when he told Wolf Blitzer that one thing that distinguished him from his opponent Bill Bradley was that, while serving in Congress, he took the initiative in creating the internet. What he said is true, just as Eisenhower, when President, took the initiative in creating the highway system.
And oh, about the flames regarding who invented the Internet: it wasn’t invented in one country, it is a monumental edifice of lots of technologies invented by lots of people all over the world, each of which is an integral part of the Internet like we know it today.
That the internet was invented the U.S. is a historical fact. Your statement is as silly as saying that the telephone was invented all over the world because telephones as we know them today use technologies invented by lots of people all over the world. Actually, it’s sillier, because most of these technologies you refer to aren’t integral to the internet, any more than technologies in your cell phone like touch screens or address books are an integral part of cell networks.
Jadehawksays
I’m less familiar with the situation in Germany, but coming off the Cold War and the fall of the wall, a smooth transition of power from on president to the next was the last thing on their mind.
erm… actually, smooth transition was ESSENTIAL, on account of that one president we had who got fed up with the democratic process and just installed a certain chancellor of his liking… and all transitions have been relatively smooth, they just happened according to the chancellor’s merit, not predetermined minimum and maximum times. (the term lengths of german chancellors since 49, in years: 14, 3, 3, 5, 8, 16, 7). note that the one doing a great job at fixing germany after WWII, and the one who got Germany through reunification had the longest terms. not coincidentally, either
nothing's sacredsays
Natural selection works just as well on nations as it does on organisms
Which I suppose means not at all, since natural selection works on populations of organisms.
fortunately for Americans, they elected a president smart enough to recognize this.
It doesn’t take much smarts to know that walking off a cliff is bad (and slightly more to know that that’s not natural selection).
Jadehawksays
anyway, as i understand it, term limits are a quick-fix to the dilemma of a 2-party democracy (only way to guarantee some occasional change), but that’s fixing a problem of limited choice with limiting the choice further. it’s a rather awkward patch.
Flip van Tielsays
kerrjac in #98 is worried about the situation in Germany: I’m less familiar with the situation in Germany, but coming off the Cold War and the fall of the wall, a smooth transition of power from on president to the next was the last thing on their mind.
Nothing of the kind!
For your information: the German presidency is overwhelmingly ceremonial. They elect one of their really great people who may indeed have considerable moral influence (former president Von Weiszäcker being a truly impressive example). The political power rests in the hands of the Bundeskanzler (prime minister) usually, but not necessarily, the leader of the party that wins the elections for the national parliament (Bundestag). It is he, or she (presently it is Angela Merkel) who creates and leads the cabinet and who is constantly under parliamentary scrutiny and liable to be voted down and out of office if a sufficient number of Bundestag representatives seriously feel they’ve had enough. As long as his/her party keeps on winning the general elections (held at least once every four years) he or she may be reappointed to the office of Bundeskanzler… but only if and as long he/she succeeds in remaining the leader of that party during the within-party primaries.
Similar things happen elswhere in Europe. Heads of State (monarchs as in Great Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and the Scandinavian countries; or presidents as in Germany, Austria, Italy, Portugal, Ireland) are figureheads or icons… some of them quite weighty though. In France, however, the presidency politically resembles that of the US.
nothing's sacredsays
To want a president to serve more than 2 terms is a complete misunderstanding, in my opinion, of the purpose of democracy.
That’s a complete misunderstanding of wanting, presidencies, terms, misunderstanding, having purposes … and democracy. The one thing you got right is that it’s your opinion.
It would be slightly less nonsensical as “To want a president to become a monarch is a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of democracy”, but it would still be word salad — quite obviously someone can understand the purpose of democracy and still want to eliminate it. Of course — to those not suffering from such a derangement of understanding — wanting a president to serve more than 2 terms does not indicate any hostility to democracy at all (unless one wants to obtain that through non-democratic means).
nothing's sacredsays
anyway, as i understand it, term limits are a quick-fix to the dilemma of a 2-party democracy (only way to guarantee some occasional change), but that’s fixing a problem of limited choice with limiting the choice further. it’s a rather awkward patch.
I think term limits reflect regret about previous choices. Sadly, not only doesn’t it fix that — the only way to prevent bad choices is to not make them — but it prevents some good choices.
nothing's sacredsays
Now if only he could see why it’s wrong for him to call adult women “sweetie”
Now if only people could give him credit for having said that it was “a bad habit” and that he was “duly chastened”.
KrrCansays
This is splendid news indeed. Installs new hope for the future!
Pauline in UKsays
After the UK’s experience of having Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair hang around for far too long, I’d be in favour of two-term limits for our prime minister. Possibly you’d exclude the good occasionally, but on balance, I’d say two terms and out, was the better option.
Cokeheadsays
As a comment about presidential term limits: In my high school government class, all students were required to make their own governments. Mine was crazy all over, but one idea I had relates to the problem you all (points to you all) seem to be discussing.
Why not set the term limit at 2, and then after that, if a president wants to go for a 3rd term or more, he/she has to get 70% of the popular vote (or the equivalent in electoral college vote)? The really good presidents would remain in power, the really bad ones simply wouldn’t be able to garner enough votes. Could you see Bush (or Reagan even) only inspiring the dislike of 30% of the citizenry?
MarkAsays
Hey, Bush Administration! JAB JAB Stem cells! JAB JAB Climate Change! JAB JAB. It’s like a breath of fresh air.
Interesting crazy government, Cokehead. Once again though, it’s not about popularity, it’s a check of power. While your novel %70 rule certainly provides some sort of check of power, the president would still gain too much power relative to the other branches.
JMsays
“This fellow better not disappoint me.”
Three answers:
1. He will. Politics is the art of the possible, not the absolute.
2. Compared to who? GWB?
3. He won’t. This is one tough guy you’ve got there, I recognize the type.
Good luck with it guys, I think you got a keeper there.
Dave The Drummersays
I wonder how this speech was received in the halls of the asshats ? Such as the risibly named Discovery Institute et al.
voiceofreasonsays
It’s so wonderful and refreshing to see a president who’s actually willing to mention science, technology, and even Darwin! I also mentioned the bicentennial of Charles Darwin’s birth to both the CFO and the president of the company I work for. They recently purchased a creation science museum from the Institute for Creation Research, which relocated to Dallas, TX. I don’t expect to be working there much longer, especially if anyone reads this or my other posts all over the web, but I have to put my foot down at some point.
-a voice of reason
I enjoyed the message that he sent to the nation, but it looked like he wasn’t talking to the people, he was talking to some piece of paper he was reading off. Do a radio address if you’re going to read, or buy a prompter ffs.
“That the internet was invented the U.S. is a historical fact. Your statement is as silly as saying that the telephone was invented all over the world because telephones as we know them today use technologies invented by lots of people all over the world. ”
Hmm, well, it really depends on what you mean by ‘the Internet’. IP was, granted. The OSI, from which the Internet took a lot of influence, is an ISO standard, developed all over the world. HTTP, the thing which transports web pages, was developed by Europeans at CERN. BT did a lot of early work on some of the low-level stuff. It goes on and on. I’d be careful of giving credit to any one country.
Knockgoatssays
After the UK’s experience of having Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair hang around for far too long, I’d be in favour of two-term limits for our prime minister. – Pauline, UK
In both those cases, 5 minutes would have been far too long!
Knockgoatssays
Brian Coughlan@20,
Thanks for the link to the Democratic World Government Referendum site – I voted yes, even though I favour direct over the representative democracy they specify: the latter, while much better than no democracy, is too liable to elite capture.
Aaronsays
Term limits are necessary and good.
If you want to see how a democratically elected leader becomes a dictator, and in the process breaks apart the democracy that gave him his power, then you need to look no further than Venezuela.
Chavez is in the process of become a dictator by following steps that have almost become standard.
1. Achieve populist support
2. Once elected, use corruption and military force to oust your opponents
3. Do away with term limits to maintain facade of legitimacy
The facade of legitimacy is critical to long term success. It placates a substantial enough portion of the population to make control easier. It keeps the international community at bay, preventing intervention even in the most egregious circumstances. Yes, he could maintain power by doing away with the charade of voting and democracy, but it would make it much more difficult to remain in power.
Kseniyasays
[Carter] set a example of installing solar panels on the roof of the White house. Unfortunately, Reagan tore them down as soon as he got into office.
Is this true? What a “fuck you” symbolic gesture that was. No wonder the GOP reveres Reagan: he epitomized and legitimized the philosophy that responsibility to future generations was for the birds, as long as “I got mine”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t that what the Reagan years were all about?
aratinasays
Eight years is actually a very long time in terms of human life and if a president can’t get her or his programs in place by then, IMHO, too bad.
FDR created an intense resentment among many of the people we would call Republicans today by not following the tradition of stepping down after two terms. They looked at the world and saw dictator after dictator; grouping FDR into that bunch was all too easy. The wariness of a Left Dictatorship is now a standard Republican talking point thrust needlessly into political discussions. Such fear talk reached new heights when Obama beat Clinton and it continues today. Reaching past two terms was a serious political misstep by FDR although it probably helped save our economy.
Cokehead, your idea sounds good for a direct democracy, but how would it work with our electoral college? I can’t remember where I read it, but there was a suggested reform for the electoral college that I thought sounded smart, a kind of blended system where we would keep the electoral system but make the popular vote count as an additional state. That would allow the popular vote to actually count for something (so voting in Georgia for a Democrat, for instance, would not be so utterly pointless).
Dr.FabulousShoessays
Oh, Tabby @69:
Do remove the stick from your nether regions! The man said some good stuff. He’s sure to disappoint me at some point, but those two items were not disappointments. Wasn’t the whole point of the adults being in charge to focus on things that are substantive?
And, for the record, I accompanied my adult, educated husband to his last job interview. The man needed the moral support, and also maybe the gin I bought him when he got the job. No man (or woman) is an island.
As has been noted, the web is not the internet. HTTP no more has anything to do with the invention of the internet than Windows has to do with the invention of the PC.
Ichthyicsays
@whoa:
whoa.
*sigh*
so glad I bailed to this little Island Nation instead.
here i just have to battle massive blood-sucking insects, head-raping parrots, cannibals, volcanoes, earthquakes, and the occasional zombie sheep infestation.
much preferable.
Vrovronsays
Dveduu @#73
“Wow… he’s way better than our prime minister.”
Who is your prime minister?
Anonymoussays
@Whoa: The mind… it boggles! Yet, I feel we could have predicted it. And we did in a sense, but perhaps we lacked the required imagination to make it register.
@nothing’s sacred: the American component to the invention of the Internet as we know it is sufficiently small, and the other components sufficiently integral to what the Internet is, that denying its invention was an international effort is denying reality. And the way some people here do so suggests something dark about their motives.
nothing's sacredsays
the American component to the invention of the Internet as we know it is sufficiently small, and the other components sufficiently integral to what the Internet is, that denying its invention was an international effort is denying reality.
Wrong.
And the way some people here do so suggests something dark about their motives.
I think one of the problems with the US political system is that the rare great guys that come to hold the presidency can only hold the office for 8 years.
All the stuff he says in that video,he might have a chane to do in 20 years…but in 8? Hardly….
I reckon Obama does a great job so far in wriggling and navigating through all those minefields that are in his way in the American political scene.
Something’s wrong with the video. Halfway through the screen got all blurry.
The audacity of competence.
Well, it is simply heartening to hear a US president even say these things.
To experience a supreme moment of cognitive dissonance, use your imagination to project (channel? oops, sorry) Dubya’s face and voice onto this speech!
If there are any video editing whizzes out there who want to have a go, I would (almost) pay money for the result.
I’m trying to remember when I last heard any political leader make such a clear pro-science statement. Nothing comes to mind. Obama has already disappointed me in some ways (which I won’t detail here), but as far as science goes, he evidently gets it in a way that is very rare for politicians, whose profession usually demands that they blur the truth in order to reconcile incompatible opinions and retain the broadest possible support.
This is a president that gives me hope. He is the first to do that since Kennedy. I’m wary of Obama simply because his oratory skills are so remarkable that he inspires people . . . and then pulls off crap like voting for FISA, kowtowing to that imbecile from Saddleback, and bestowing the blessing of the invisible pink unicorn on everything. His political squirming and worming leaves me pissed off. Still, he will be better for education and science then any president in over 40 years. After the last eight, under that twit-brained inept coward, he almost can’t help it.
What a beautiful speech – I have never heard a US president sound so knowlegeable, and committed to reason. It’s times like this that I actually want to believe in an afterlife, because, I can really imagine Carl Sagan smiling down at this. A real ‘Cosmos’ moment, and I hope he lives up to his promise.
“Obama has already disappointed me in some ways (which I won’t detail here), ”
He is already on his way to fullfilling a few dozen campaign promises on his first three months. Said campaign promises are what got him elected and were really needed to help this country. He is going to accomplish far more in four years then the last few Republican presidencies did.
“Something’s wrong with the video. Halfway through the screen got all blurry.”
You were just getting tears in your eyes at the wonderful news for science. Go on. You can admit it. We understand. We did it too!
Oh wow, I indeed got teary eyed. Words like these have been a long time coming. It would be heartbreaking if he doesn’t follow through, but for now …. hope!
I’m starting to kind of like him.
When Obama invites political foes to meet with him and participate in discussions it might make it harder for them to demonize him they way they have and the way they did Clinton.
I’m sure they will still demonize him but it will be harder for the media to give the lunatics as much credibility as they had during the Clinton years.
Goosebumps. In my lifetime, I have never heard an american politician speak with such uncompromising support or science and education.
Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush. None of them come even close.
If this guy can’t pull the US’s balls out of the economic meat grinder they’re in, you are truly screwed, because you’ve actually managed to elect the best candidate from the entire process, primaries to election. If he can’t do it, what an unmitigated tragedy that will be … Well, Kudos on making the best choice anyway, and good luck!
@#13 ME. Gah! Support OF science and education
*joins the goosebump crowd*
That’s such a heartwarming, inspring, encouraging speech… makes me sad living in Europe so I can’t call him “my president”. If he keeps half of his promises regarding science, it already will make a hell of a difference!
“Respect[ing] the integrity of the scientific process.”
“Ensuring that facts are never twisted by politics or ideology”
“Listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient; especially when it’s inconvenient.”
Awesome shit! I’m inspired. No really, I’m holding this guy to his words. We’re counting oon you Obama!
Regarding American politicians making strong statements about science, I recall Hillary Clinton’s speech on the 50th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik. She was campaigning against Obama and Edwards at the time. I didn’t vote for her but I liked her view of science. I’m glad we now have several politicians in high office who care about science.
I think I printed out that speech, which is a good thing because it seems to have vanished from the Internet. However I did find this archived page from her campaign website, which includes quotes from her speech:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080222015303/http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3566
He said it perfectly. Even if he doesn’t live up to the speech, at least we know that he gets it, something which George Bush failed miserably to do.
Good grief, what a breath of fresh air. I hope the rest of the country is listening.
Science deniers: you’ve had your day in the sun. But now it’s time to stop playing make-believe. It’s time to face reality once more.
@#15 Linnorah
That’s such a heartwarming, inspring, encouraging speech… makes me sad living in Europe
The reality Linnorah, if I may bang on a little about my personal obsession, is that he is your president. The impact of the US on the global economic, military and political spheres is so extensive, that any decisions he takes will affect you. Depend on it.
The silver lining this time, is that the american electorate voted for someone most of the other 6.4 billion of us can accept.
Hence : http://www.voteworldgovernment.org/vote.shtml before they blow it again:-P
*is still sceptical*
don’t get complacent. keep him on his toes, America.
I recently read “The Republican War on Science” by Chris Mooney. I had trouble getting through it because it actually made me nauseous to learn the details of how the republicans and especially W corrupted science and politics for ideological reasons.
What a breath of fresh air.
Holy crap! An American politician said those things?
…
…
*faints*
#13
“Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush. None of them come even close. ”
Let’s not lump Carter in there with the rest of them. Out of all the one’s you listed, he did the most of trying to advance science. He set a example of installing solar panels on the roof of the White house. Unfortunately, Reagan tore them down as soon as he got into office.
Do I detect a faint note of reluctant hope in PZ’s post?
The educated adults are in power.
You have no idea how good it feels to hear your president say all that. And I’m not even American.
To rickflick (#22): I know what you mean. Another book I couldn’t finished was Alan Brandt’s The Cigarette Century. There was a fresh outrage on every page; my wife said she could feel my blood pressure spiking from across the room at times.
It didn’t help that I masochistically started it not long after my dad died of lung cancer, but still…
Hope he can do something about the ‘science by press release’ phenomenon. Or at least not make govt. policy according to press release science, instead of what the research actually says. Some move for ‘truth in press release’, like truth in advertising would be a good move forward. Or just recognising press releases as advertising/marketing and treating it as such.
Wow. This is what really counts.
As far as I am concerned, he can say “God bless America”, go to prayer breakfasts, and wear a flag lapel pin the size of a car-dealer’s flag every day, even on the basketball court.
I am so happy–and proud!– that he is my president. And yes, we need to retain our skepticism, and keep the pressure on him. He is our president, not some deity.
I’m with you PZ, but in all honesty, can you recall the last time a politician DIDN’T end up disappointing you?
I work in space research and it is so comforting to hear this.
Obama has taught me that it is OK to actually like your president.
First time in my life.
Loved the oratory. Like PZ was hinting at, the deeds backing up the oratory must follow. But it is a start. And the air has smelled a lot better these last few weeks.
It choked me up as well, and I’m not American, either. I fell in love with the idea of America as a teenager, when I saw the television close-ups of those three letters ‘USA’ on the side of the Saturn V rockets, going up and beyond. Time to soar again, if not to the moon, in spirit and endeavour. Love you, America.
Obama, best president ever in my opinion. I’m ashamed I didn’t bother to listen to him until his first debate with McCain. I will regret for the rest of my life not bothering to see him give a speech in a small Illinois town I used to live in when he first started running for president.
What a change to go from the most anti-science president in history to the most pro-science president in history. I hope Obama does something about the bad science teachers infesting our public schools. It’s not fair to students to have a creationist teaching biology.
I love Obama. But sadly republicans hate science and reason. They value more securing his votes than making this nation
step forward.
His commitment to give science top priority will conflict with the high priority he places on bipartisanship and building bridges with anti-science Republicans and Christians. I will not be surprised if he compromises a little on science while trying to work on national unity.
That said, I expect this effort will largely fail.
We can only hope that he delivers – but even if he doesn’t, isn’t it wonderful to hear a president speak with intelligence?
“Especially when it’s inconvenient.” Awesome.
So, how did that funding bill turn out for science? I hadn’t heard.
Boo-yah
FSMdamm, that felt so good after the oh so obvious anti-intellectualism of the last eight years. You actually have a President who appears to get it. There might be hope for the US and the rest of us after all.
But just in case, write a hundred times;
Mustn’t get carried away
Mustn’t get carried away
Mustn’t get ca…
PZ, that is a pretty miserable reaction to a rather invigorating speech. Consider doing something to make sure that this fellow won’t be disappointed in you!
Obama will have to do daily battle with anti-science Republicans who, even in their minority status, have the stomach for street fighting that the Democratic majority, with all its advantages, can’t seem to muster. I wish him luck.
Finally, we’re getting back on track.
George Washington on Science (1st State of the Union 1790):
George Washington on Science (His last State of the Union 1796):
It’s certainly encouraging. I think Obama is a person who listens and thinks. It is up to us, as a community of scientists, to make our voice heard.
“So, how did that funding bill turn out for science? I hadn’t heard.”
Stimulus Bill up for signing by the Pres has several of the things that the inital versions had stripped out to appease republicans.
Once the republicans showed they had no intention of voting for it the Democrats put back in several things that were taken out and stuff put in to appease the Republicans such as upper class tax cuts were taken out. There are still tax cuts but it’s more for small businesses and the middle class plus every American gets 400 dollars.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20090214/stimulus-stakes-who-gets-what/ lists about 15 billion for scientific research with most going to universities.
Regarding the Republican animosity towards science, it’s important to keep Stephen Colbert’s observations.
Science is grounded in reality.
And Stephen Colbert said “reality has a well-known liberal bias” at the White House Correspondents Dinner a few years.
Oh, crap…
Obama: “… invest in things unseen…”
Unfortunate choice of words, that. I can see it now… creotards latching on to that as a call and Presidential endorsement for bringing the imaginary, invisible, magical, all-powerful, supernatural sky-fairy into the science classroom.
For the first time in msny, many years, I have hope. I don’t think Obama will disappoint us, but it will be those who are trying to make him fail. I don’t understand those who wish he will not accomplish his goals; if he fails, the United States will be in even more trouble than it is now.
That speech was so good I almost cried!
I’m as happy as anyone that we have a president with the right attitude about science and science education. I’ve tried pointing out some of my concerns with his start in other threads, but my posts apparently weren’t as interesting as the back and forth with libertarians.
What I find amazingly sad is just how low our expectations are.
So the guy tells crowds he loves God and his pal Jesus and then feeds scientists the “logic and reason” spiel…
He’s a likable shoe salesman, to be sure, and I might buy some Hush Puppies off of him…
But come on. Just because GWBush lowered the bar to around your ankles doesn’t mean you need to bend over to see over it, does it?
@JasonTD
but my posts apparently weren’t as interesting as the back and forth with libertarians.
Your objections probably just aren’t batshit insane enough. Heck, people here barely even stop to look when I suggest a direcly elected global parliament, and that’s pretty borderline.
Try suggesting Obama disband the department of education, energy or the IRS (actual things Ron Paul recommended), that should get some attention. You need to crank up the lunacy amps.
Great speech!
And this is the President that Rush and his dittoheads want to see fail. What a bunch of dingleberries.
What is this small orgasm in my brain? Could it be… a glimmer of hope?
Did he say they invented the internet, or did I hear wrong? I thought the Swiss were mainly responsible for the internet..? Maybe not.
Excellent video. Go Obama! Wow, it’s refreshing to say the least.
The internet was developed by the US defense department. Tim invented http a protocol which was an extension of ftp and allowed the World Wide Web to infest the world.
The battie for the next congressional elections has begun and it’s vital to document (loudly and widely) where thugs in congress and elsewhere are standing against our recovery.
But come on. Just because GWBush lowered the bar to around your ankles doesn’t mean you need to bend over to see over it, does it?
Yeah Scott, you’re right. The republicans have so acclimatised us to the incompetence, cronyism and corruption of the inarticulate morons inexplicably in control of US institutions, that when someone comes along who can actually … you know … articulate, we’re bowled over.
Still, pending Obama actually doing something he promised he wouldn’t, or failing to do something he said he would, I’m hopeful. It’s early days yet Scott, and given the scale of the cockup he’s inherited, it’ll be early days for about 2 years.
Thanks George.
Carter was actually rather pro-science & engineering, but given his background, that’s hardly a surprise. At times, he was too much the engineer to be a good president. They’re not that good at lying, the American people love the pretty little lies.
Obama is easily duped.
He fell for the “clean” coal bullshit.
He is falling for the “reform” Social Security bullshit.
We won’t make much progress under Obama, that’s becoming clear.
He has surrounded himself with a crowd that does not inspire confidence. His economic advisers opposed limits on executive compensation in the TARP program.
Vilsack at agriculture. Salazar at the Interior.
Bad news for the environment. Good news for agribusiness and the mining interests.
I thought the Swiss were mainly responsible for the internet..?
OK, altogether now:
THE WORLD WIDE WEB IS NOT “THE INTERNET”.
Trust me. I was using the network when some folks still called it ARPANet out of habit.
As for the WWW, Berners-Lee created HTML as an application of SGML which in turn derived from GML created over at IBM in the 1960s. Oh, and he’s from England. He just happened to be on contract to CERN at the time.
It’s time to face reality once more.
I’d feel better if they’d just *read* the gigaomni spending bills they create. Just sayin’.
@Whatevermachine, #54:
Actually, the predecessor of the global Internet was an invention of the U.S. military.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET
Oh, and he’s from England. He just happened to be on contract to CERN at the time.
And now Sir Tim Berners-Lee is at MIT.
I think one of the problems with the US political system is that the rare great guys that come to hold the presidency can only hold the office for 8 years.
Our first president ever was heavily pressured to run for a 3rd term. But he set the precedent by quitting after 2. To want a president to serve more than 2 terms is a complete misunderstanding, in my opinion, of the purpose of democracy.
Is it any wonder that this man ignited a spark in the world? I can only imagine how difficult it must be for him to walk the fine line between enlightenment and idiocy, and to try to appease the former just to get the job done. It must be like strolling along with a dragon you have to defeat every couple of steps. I wish him, the United States and, by extension, the rest of us the very best. If he could just manage to wake us up to the possibilities…
I once heard that four percent of the world population is intelligent. Not educated or literate – just intelligent. I have no idea where that figure came from but in the last 8 years I thought the estimate was way too high.
#22 rickflick
I know exactly what you mean. Several books about the former administration made me sick with anxiety. None of it was bedtime reading. The systematic destruction of the system was incredible. Many times I thought I was reading fiction but everything I read checked out with very easy research.
#30 Max Fagin
Can you recall any human being not disappointing you? You can’t please all of the people, etc. But at least this one is on the right path.
#36 charley
I think his high priority on bipartisanship may be slipping a tad.
to walk the fine line between enlightenment and idiocy, and to try to appease the former just to get the job done.
Do you mean the latter? Sometimes it’s hard to tell.
Given our current predicament, economy, debt, war, etc., we can only hope that Obama is able to accomplish half of what he sets out to accomplish. If that happens, if he is successful, he will almost certainly be reelected and the Republicans will be in very serious trouble. That could mean a situation like FDR –> Truman where the Democrats control the government for 20 years or more and when the Republicans (or whomever potentially replaces them) do gain office they do so in a reasonable way like Eisenhower.
But again, given our current predicament, that is one hell of a lot of hope. If I prayed, I would do so for Obama.
He basically admitted that people let religion obscure scientific facts. That’s a bolder statement than any other politician is making at the moment.
Ah. Now if only he could see why it’s wrong for him to call adult women “sweetie” or how accompanying his adult, educated wife to a job interview isn’t a cute story, he’d be almost decent.
He also plays lip service to Jesus and religion in general. Maybe he’s from the S.J. Gould camp.
As long as any religion is given an ear in US politics, science will be stifled.
Natural selection works just as well on nations as it does on organisms, even if you don’t believe in it; and fortunately for Americans, they elected a president smart enough to recognize this.
#1 Clinteas: _everyone_ becomes corrupted by the system, and in 20 years even an Obama will disappoint. He’s easily good for 8 years but if he’s really smart he won’t even run a second term. As he said, great leaders inspire, the unstated corollary being that they must then stand aside. If he serves only one term he’s almost certain to go down in history as one of the greats. Go ask Mandela.
#66 mothwentbad
Yes, I do mean the latter! Sorry. Sometimes it IS hard to tell. :)
Wow… he’s way better than our prime minister.
“He is already on his way to fullfilling a few dozen campaign promises on his first three months.”
What might those be?
Heartening words indeed. I want to keep hearing this sort of talk.
Even so, maybe it would be wise to withhold judgment of this administration for a year. There is damage to repair as well as installing new policies with respect to the science/government interface.
These things take time. They are processes, not phenomena. Think in terms of man hours. Lots of them.
I wonder if we would hear more pro-science comments and actions from Obama if we gave him positive feedback when he does something pro-science. I’m going to e-mail him at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ to commend him for these comments. Is anyone else interested in doing that? Maybe collectively we could make a difference.
Yeah it sounds good…Obama said about science “even when it’s inconvenient, ESPECIALLY when its inconvenient”
That sounds pretty damn good. The tech slant is needed because most people equate science with technology: its the same thing to most folks. Of course its not, but thats the way to start making inroads…
That was an absolutely beautiful speech. I hope he lives up to his word.
I loved the reference to “inventing the internet” which I took to be a slyly joking nod to Al Gore’s tongue-in-cheek quip.
“Listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient; especially when it’s inconvenient.”
In your face, climate change denialists.
Suddenly my “we’re all fucked’o meter” has a more pleasant reading. This is going to be exciting, even for non US citizens, to watch.
Me like!
Bush’s government may not have been as anti-science as is commonly perceived:
http://tinyurl.com/dyuv4t
“When Obama invites political foes to meet with him and participate in discussions it might make it harder for them to demonize him they way they have and the way they did Clinton.”
I wish you were right, but they have gone out of their way to immediately claim their respect, then slimily assault him moments later.
“I’m sure they will still demonize him but it will be harder for the media to give the lunatics as much credibility as they had during the Clinton years.”
The national/cable media gives credibility to lunatics on a regular basis to support their false “the truth lies in the middle” narrative. Our political system would be INCREDIBLY better if this was not the case. It’s not going to change just because Obama is in office.
This is a remarkable comment thread. I havent read so many people who sounded so happy in the comment thread.
Rob Davidson,
The perception that the Bush administration was anti-science was not due to congressional funding of science. The perception was due to Bush and the Boys politicizing science. The AGW denial prevalent in the Bush administration was probably the most notorious instance, but hardly the only one. Stem cell research was played around with in such a way as to make nobody happy (but that was a Bushite attribute, arranging things to piss off all sides in a controversy). Environmental research was heavily politicized, the EPA hierarchy rewrote papers to make them “politically acceptable” to neocons.
Neil deGrasse Tyson’s point that funding wasn’t cut was a sign that the Bushites weren’t necessarily anti-science. The AGW denial and politicization show that they weren’t as pro-science as some people might think.
thanks
I never understood that. how is telling people that they aren’t allowed to vote for someone they might have wanted to vote for democratic at all?
Helmut Kohl was Chancellor of Germany for 16 years, and when people got finally fed up with him, they voted him out. That’s far more democratic IMHO than artificially limiting choices.
And on a related note: Germans have absolutely no qualms about kicking inept leaders out of office before their term is over, something that I also find lacking in the U.S., and also kind of ironic: in a country where most people have at-will employment, politicians are ridiculously difficult to “fire” and for some reason are allowed to fulfill their contract even when they suck monkey ass at the job (I suppose the other side of the coin is the notorious instability in Italy, of course…hmm….)
anyway, back on topic: it was an inspiring speech, but it’ll be damn hard to achieve even a fraction of that. letters and e-mails of encouragement sound like a great idea
I love Obama. But sadly republicans hate science and reason. They value more securing his votes than making this nation
step forward….
Happy Wossname
I think Obama is sincere. I hope he has the balls to stand up to the Congress on the issue of science, Religious Right and social conservatives be damned.
@Jadehawk (#87): That amendment was passed at a time when political machines ran the country. It might be okay to repeal it today, but when I imagine 20 years with an anti-science creotard like G. W. Bush, I emphatically say, “Keep the amendment!”
Brain Coughlin @57,
Hmm, you bring up some good points. Maybe I can formulate some kind of moderate/centrist ideology that presumes that anyone to either side of me is either delusional or seeks to strip me of my basic freedoms. I’ll need standard-bearer though. Someone who’s writings are held in high esteem by those that agree with me, but held in contempt by others. ;) I’ll also need a better label for my ideology. “Militant Moderate” just don’t have much of a ring to it.
“Still, pending Obama actually doing something he promised he wouldn’t, or failing to do something he said he would, I’m hopeful. It’s early days yet Scott, and given the scale of the cockup he’s inherited, it’ll be early days for about 2 years.”
Here’s one thing Obama has promised that hasn’t happened yet:
The stimulus bill was largely created by congress in the way congress normally does business. They dumped the 1000+ page bill on members after it came out of committee and asked them to vote on it one day later. Like you said, it’s still way early yet. But if you don’t hold him to his promises early, he won’t have the incentive to hold to them later.
Wonder who the babe is at around 2:12.
Obama’s said that his goal isn’t to make everyone happy. Indeed, he’s made the claim that he expects everyone will be mildly annoyed at some of the stuff he does.
But he has said he wants people to think that their government is at least working for them. If science is a small part of this, sign me up!
I anticipate/expect he’s gonna annoy me giving money to faith based social programs.
That’s more like it. I almost thought we had elected a republican, but I’m seeing a spark of hope now. By the way, in the first part of the speech there were moments I almost thought I was hearing Christopher Hitchens.
And oh, about the flames regarding who invented the Internet: it wasn’t invented in one country, it is a monumental edifice of lots of technologies invented by lots of people all over the world, each of which is an integral part of the Internet like we know it today. You can’t argue about which are more necessary, because they all are, and you can’t argue about on which there are more dependent, without arguing all the way back to Ancient Greece. So stop it please, it’s getting tiresome.
Anonymous Coward,
Its history is clear: History of the Internet. Personally, I give credit to the USA, and in particular to its Government via ARPA.
So, now that you’re posting lots of vids, do you take requests? I request The Vaselines’ Jesus don’t want me for a sunbeam. :-)
I never understood that. how is telling people that they aren’t allowed to vote for someone they might have wanted to vote for democratic at all?
I remember a stimulating 20/20 episode where they were talking to one of Husein’s interrogators. He said that one thing Husein never understood about America was why we elect a president for only 4 years.
Basically it serves as a check against unlimited power. As politicians stay in power for longer, they’re able to pull more strings and get more done. How is an ever sifting congress supposed to act as a check against a president who has been in the White House for over 8 years? It’s part of the checks-and-balances system. How would you feel about a Republican serving 3 terms? We were ready to elect Reagen for a 3rd term, judging from his 2 strong victories, and then Bush’s following victory. But regardless of your political beliefs, the point is that the president isn’t supposed to force too much power onto the rest of the gov’t. We weren’t meant to succeed or fail by the hand of a single person for too long.
I’m less familiar with the situation in Germany, but coming off the Cold War and the fall of the wall, a smooth transition of power from on president to the next was the last thing on their mind.
An inspiring speech, to be sure. But remember all, Obama will not be able to do this alone. It will take each and every one of us to make the change happen.
So tomorrow, take a cephalopod to lunch!
The first president of the new millenium…..finally.
kerrjac wrote: But regardless of your political beliefs, the point is that the president isn’t supposed to force too much power onto the rest of the gov’t. We weren’t meant to succeed or fail by the hand of a single person for too long.
Says who? FDR was elected to four terms for a good reason. The people wanted him in office. Term limits are undemocratic by definition. They should all be abolished since term limits are already built into the system. It’s called the ballot box.
How is an ever sifting congress supposed to act as a check against a president who has been in the White House for over 8 years?
Senate terms are for 6 years and the great majority are reelected. And even if Congress sifts, why would that act against checking? If we had sifted a few more Republicans out of the Senate in 2006, we might have seen a lot more oversight.
But regardless of your political beliefs, the point is that the president isn’t supposed to force too much power onto the rest of the gov’t. We weren’t meant to succeed or fail by the hand of a single person for too long.
Isn’t supposed by whom? Weren’t meant by whom? This is religious terminology. If the single person is doing a good job, why not keep him? You seem to have some sort of principled objection to Presidential continuity, but it seems quite irrational; what little reason you give for it doesn’t make sense.
I loved the reference to “inventing the internet” which I took to be a slyly joking nod to Al Gore’s tongue-in-cheek quip.
It wasn’t tongue-in-cheek, nor a quip. Gore was entirely serious when he told Wolf Blitzer that one thing that distinguished him from his opponent Bill Bradley was that, while serving in Congress, he took the initiative in creating the internet. What he said is true, just as Eisenhower, when President, took the initiative in creating the highway system.
And oh, about the flames regarding who invented the Internet: it wasn’t invented in one country, it is a monumental edifice of lots of technologies invented by lots of people all over the world, each of which is an integral part of the Internet like we know it today.
That the internet was invented the U.S. is a historical fact. Your statement is as silly as saying that the telephone was invented all over the world because telephones as we know them today use technologies invented by lots of people all over the world. Actually, it’s sillier, because most of these technologies you refer to aren’t integral to the internet, any more than technologies in your cell phone like touch screens or address books are an integral part of cell networks.
erm… actually, smooth transition was ESSENTIAL, on account of that one president we had who got fed up with the democratic process and just installed a certain chancellor of his liking… and all transitions have been relatively smooth, they just happened according to the chancellor’s merit, not predetermined minimum and maximum times. (the term lengths of german chancellors since 49, in years: 14, 3, 3, 5, 8, 16, 7). note that the one doing a great job at fixing germany after WWII, and the one who got Germany through reunification had the longest terms. not coincidentally, either
Natural selection works just as well on nations as it does on organisms
Which I suppose means not at all, since natural selection works on populations of organisms.
fortunately for Americans, they elected a president smart enough to recognize this.
It doesn’t take much smarts to know that walking off a cliff is bad (and slightly more to know that that’s not natural selection).
anyway, as i understand it, term limits are a quick-fix to the dilemma of a 2-party democracy (only way to guarantee some occasional change), but that’s fixing a problem of limited choice with limiting the choice further. it’s a rather awkward patch.
kerrjac in #98 is worried about the situation in Germany:
I’m less familiar with the situation in Germany, but coming off the Cold War and the fall of the wall, a smooth transition of power from on president to the next was the last thing on their mind.
Nothing of the kind!
For your information: the German presidency is overwhelmingly ceremonial. They elect one of their really great people who may indeed have considerable moral influence (former president Von Weiszäcker being a truly impressive example). The political power rests in the hands of the Bundeskanzler (prime minister) usually, but not necessarily, the leader of the party that wins the elections for the national parliament (Bundestag). It is he, or she (presently it is Angela Merkel) who creates and leads the cabinet and who is constantly under parliamentary scrutiny and liable to be voted down and out of office if a sufficient number of Bundestag representatives seriously feel they’ve had enough. As long as his/her party keeps on winning the general elections (held at least once every four years) he or she may be reappointed to the office of Bundeskanzler… but only if and as long he/she succeeds in remaining the leader of that party during the within-party primaries.
Similar things happen elswhere in Europe. Heads of State (monarchs as in Great Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and the Scandinavian countries; or presidents as in Germany, Austria, Italy, Portugal, Ireland) are figureheads or icons… some of them quite weighty though. In France, however, the presidency politically resembles that of the US.
To want a president to serve more than 2 terms is a complete misunderstanding, in my opinion, of the purpose of democracy.
That’s a complete misunderstanding of wanting, presidencies, terms, misunderstanding, having purposes … and democracy. The one thing you got right is that it’s your opinion.
It would be slightly less nonsensical as “To want a president to become a monarch is a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of democracy”, but it would still be word salad — quite obviously someone can understand the purpose of democracy and still want to eliminate it. Of course — to those not suffering from such a derangement of understanding — wanting a president to serve more than 2 terms does not indicate any hostility to democracy at all (unless one wants to obtain that through non-democratic means).
anyway, as i understand it, term limits are a quick-fix to the dilemma of a 2-party democracy (only way to guarantee some occasional change), but that’s fixing a problem of limited choice with limiting the choice further. it’s a rather awkward patch.
I think term limits reflect regret about previous choices. Sadly, not only doesn’t it fix that — the only way to prevent bad choices is to not make them — but it prevents some good choices.
Now if only he could see why it’s wrong for him to call adult women “sweetie”
Now if only people could give him credit for having said that it was “a bad habit” and that he was “duly chastened”.
This is splendid news indeed. Installs new hope for the future!
After the UK’s experience of having Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair hang around for far too long, I’d be in favour of two-term limits for our prime minister. Possibly you’d exclude the good occasionally, but on balance, I’d say two terms and out, was the better option.
As a comment about presidential term limits: In my high school government class, all students were required to make their own governments. Mine was crazy all over, but one idea I had relates to the problem you all (points to you all) seem to be discussing.
Why not set the term limit at 2, and then after that, if a president wants to go for a 3rd term or more, he/she has to get 70% of the popular vote (or the equivalent in electoral college vote)? The really good presidents would remain in power, the really bad ones simply wouldn’t be able to garner enough votes. Could you see Bush (or Reagan even) only inspiring the dislike of 30% of the citizenry?
Hey, Bush Administration! JAB JAB Stem cells! JAB JAB Climate Change! JAB JAB. It’s like a breath of fresh air.
Interesting crazy government, Cokehead. Once again though, it’s not about popularity, it’s a check of power. While your novel %70 rule certainly provides some sort of check of power, the president would still gain too much power relative to the other branches.
“This fellow better not disappoint me.”
Three answers:
1. He will. Politics is the art of the possible, not the absolute.
2. Compared to who? GWB?
3. He won’t. This is one tough guy you’ve got there, I recognize the type.
Good luck with it guys, I think you got a keeper there.
I wonder how this speech was received in the halls of the asshats ? Such as the risibly named Discovery Institute et al.
It’s so wonderful and refreshing to see a president who’s actually willing to mention science, technology, and even Darwin! I also mentioned the bicentennial of Charles Darwin’s birth to both the CFO and the president of the company I work for. They recently purchased a creation science museum from the Institute for Creation Research, which relocated to Dallas, TX. I don’t expect to be working there much longer, especially if anyone reads this or my other posts all over the web, but I have to put my foot down at some point.
-a voice of reason
I enjoyed the message that he sent to the nation, but it looked like he wasn’t talking to the people, he was talking to some piece of paper he was reading off. Do a radio address if you’re going to read, or buy a prompter ffs.
“That the internet was invented the U.S. is a historical fact. Your statement is as silly as saying that the telephone was invented all over the world because telephones as we know them today use technologies invented by lots of people all over the world. ”
Hmm, well, it really depends on what you mean by ‘the Internet’. IP was, granted. The OSI, from which the Internet took a lot of influence, is an ISO standard, developed all over the world. HTTP, the thing which transports web pages, was developed by Europeans at CERN. BT did a lot of early work on some of the low-level stuff. It goes on and on. I’d be careful of giving credit to any one country.
After the UK’s experience of having Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair hang around for far too long, I’d be in favour of two-term limits for our prime minister. – Pauline, UK
In both those cases, 5 minutes would have been far too long!
Brian Coughlan@20,
Thanks for the link to the Democratic World Government Referendum site – I voted yes, even though I favour direct over the representative democracy they specify: the latter, while much better than no democracy, is too liable to elite capture.
Term limits are necessary and good.
If you want to see how a democratically elected leader becomes a dictator, and in the process breaks apart the democracy that gave him his power, then you need to look no further than Venezuela.
Chavez is in the process of become a dictator by following steps that have almost become standard.
1. Achieve populist support
2. Once elected, use corruption and military force to oust your opponents
3. Do away with term limits to maintain facade of legitimacy
The facade of legitimacy is critical to long term success. It placates a substantial enough portion of the population to make control easier. It keeps the international community at bay, preventing intervention even in the most egregious circumstances. Yes, he could maintain power by doing away with the charade of voting and democracy, but it would make it much more difficult to remain in power.
Is this true? What a “fuck you” symbolic gesture that was. No wonder the GOP reveres Reagan: he epitomized and legitimized the philosophy that responsibility to future generations was for the birds, as long as “I got mine”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t that what the Reagan years were all about?
Eight years is actually a very long time in terms of human life and if a president can’t get her or his programs in place by then, IMHO, too bad.
FDR created an intense resentment among many of the people we would call Republicans today by not following the tradition of stepping down after two terms. They looked at the world and saw dictator after dictator; grouping FDR into that bunch was all too easy. The wariness of a Left Dictatorship is now a standard Republican talking point thrust needlessly into political discussions. Such fear talk reached new heights when Obama beat Clinton and it continues today. Reaching past two terms was a serious political misstep by FDR although it probably helped save our economy.
Cokehead, your idea sounds good for a direct democracy, but how would it work with our electoral college? I can’t remember where I read it, but there was a suggested reform for the electoral college that I thought sounded smart, a kind of blended system where we would keep the electoral system but make the popular vote count as an additional state. That would allow the popular vote to actually count for something (so voting in Georgia for a Democrat, for instance, would not be so utterly pointless).
Oh, Tabby @69:
Do remove the stick from your nether regions! The man said some good stuff. He’s sure to disappoint me at some point, but those two items were not disappointments. Wasn’t the whole point of the adults being in charge to focus on things that are substantive?
And, for the record, I accompanied my adult, educated husband to his last job interview. The man needed the moral support, and also maybe the gin I bought him when he got the job. No man (or woman) is an island.
Uh…. Guys?
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/38667prs20090205.html
The OSI, from which the Internet took a lot of influence, is an ISO standard, developed all over the world.
Influencing the inventors of something is not the same as inventing something. And read http://www.freesoft.org/CIE/Topics/15.htm
HTTP, the thing which transports web pages
As has been noted, the web is not the internet. HTTP no more has anything to do with the invention of the internet than Windows has to do with the invention of the PC.
@whoa:
whoa.
*sigh*
so glad I bailed to this little Island Nation instead.
here i just have to battle massive blood-sucking insects, head-raping parrots, cannibals, volcanoes, earthquakes, and the occasional zombie sheep infestation.
much preferable.
Dveduu @#73
“Wow… he’s way better than our prime minister.”
Who is your prime minister?
@Whoa: The mind… it boggles! Yet, I feel we could have predicted it. And we did in a sense, but perhaps we lacked the required imagination to make it register.
@nothing’s sacred: the American component to the invention of the Internet as we know it is sufficiently small, and the other components sufficiently integral to what the Internet is, that denying its invention was an international effort is denying reality. And the way some people here do so suggests something dark about their motives.
the American component to the invention of the Internet as we know it is sufficiently small, and the other components sufficiently integral to what the Internet is, that denying its invention was an international effort is denying reality.
Wrong.
And the way some people here do so suggests something dark about their motives.
Wrong.