Obama and the World

Bin Ladin called Obama an "Uncle Tom"; thems fightin words and now were going to get more involved in Afghanistan

 

Here's an Obama administration lie that has his dem pals in the congress miffed.

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index. ... truth.html

This is from Cleveland's major newspaper which endorsed Obama, just like I did. Like 'fog said you just have to read the news to find the lies. He says things that are comforting and then does things that are completely different from what he said. It is a change but it leaves me with very little hope.

 

Key phrase:

Of course not. But that some people exclaim surprise on the obvious facts in evidence points to the Rahm Emanuel/David Axelrod playbook.

'How will this play in Dubuque?' And I used that loc and concept on purpose... anythng the admin says DOES seem to play well in Dubuque.

Doesnt MATTER the subject or issue, make the right noises.. apologize or ignore later.

It's amazing to me that Ohio still has a few Dems with their feet on the ground. Marcy Kaptur and her ilk, aside.

Kucinic.. well, it's good to see he hasnt fallen into the Beltway Cynic paradigm. Boy Mayor is still the Boy Congressman.

This brings up the obvious.. when are the Union Rank and File going to realize they are, and have been, played?

When Emanuel/Axelrod say 'unions' do they REALLY think they mean the guys on the lines?

 

Says it all:
Hail to the intellectual president

What more could we ask for?

 

It's a start. While I forsee myself losing patience with Obama on Iraq (What are we still doing there, exactly?), I believe that he understands the importance of research and challenging our greatest minds to push our science and technology to the level it needs to be at. It's a fundamental belief, and you either have it or you don't. Quit inventing smaller iPods folks - invent the next form of conveyance. The country that does will instantly become the most powerful in the world.

lol I had forgetten the Jesus-philosopher quote. Possibly the most (unintentionally) humorous thing that the guy said.

 

You're kidding, right?

Forget your own personal ideals and read it as if you never paid any attention to anything before.. except our history.

I think it's a send up.. onna the prankster rascals at Sarah 2012 couldnt have done better.

"This page is brought to you by Monsanto."

 

As anyone who has read my posts knows, I want a greater emphasis on science and math in this country. I have spent countless hours volunteering in my community and for various organizations toward achieving that end. I plan to spend countless more hours doing so as I join others who are trying to bring an annual international science fair to Cleveland.

During his campaign and in his inagural speech, I liked what Obama said about science. I also preferred most of Obama's Science Debate 2008 answers to McCain's answers. However, I'm extremely skeptical of the article 'fog linked and of Obama's ability to grasp science issues now. I also see a distinction between "intellectualism" and science. They are not the same at all! Intellectualism is thinking, talking, and theorizing. While good science can start there, that is all that it can do. Good science is doing, trying, failing, fixing, and improving and then proving - usually many times. To me intellectuals are people that dont do anything. The good ones are valuable to society, but by and large the majority of them think they are much more valuable than they will ever be.

These are my issues with the article:

Well I didnt read this guy's book, but I have read several articles claiming Bush is anti-science. If Bush really did lead an extensive "attack" on science then I shouldnt have to read a book to know that. MIT's Technology Review magazine had an article about how Bush was trying to silence scientists. I read the whole thing and the worst accusation that I found was that the Bush administration required Jim Hansen (NASA scientist who has theorized for years about global warming) to notify them before he gave a public speech on climatology. Well Hansen is a a federal government employee and I dont think it is unreasonable for his employer to want to know when they are going to have to answer a bunch of questions about the world ending in 30 years. They should be able to listen with the rest of the public about how their money is being spent. Of course many free speech "intellectuals" wont agree with this.

Also, if Bush was anti-science, why did funding for NIH grants, the main source of funding for scientific research in this country, double by 2004 (it started its acceleration in '98 during the Clinton years and Bush continued the same rate for 4 years)? Bush stopped increasing the funding for science through NIH grants, after a report showed that research was not keeping up with the pace of funding. Message/lesson learned = we dont have enough Americans entering the sciences!!!!!!!!

Scientists and Obama criticized Bush's ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The truth is that he didnt ban the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research; he was actually the first president to allow the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. He just limited it to certain lines of embryos and prohibited federal funding for the creation of new lines. As much as the media portrayed this as a religous right victory it was actually a victory for the feminists groups that are against it because it would ultimately exploit women for thier eggs. Obama obviously doesnt get or doesnt care about these distinctions.

We wont go into Bush protecting more of the world's oceans than anyone else or making more money available for wetlands restoration (prior to Katrina BTW). Some violent assualt on science huh?

The assualt on science and math has come from our rich, lazy, arts and entertainment centric society. It started way before W was in office

This is totally wrong. Reagan decided to go into politics after being a paid speaker for companies like GE. He learned how government was getting in the way of science-based companies and he wanted to do something about it.

That's all I have time for now.

 

Well, that's plenty. It doesnt totally fisk that wank-piece but that's a good start.

I would address two additional positions...

1. that the transition from Ike to JfK was 'to intellectual'
In what way... By way of college degrees accepted?

Ike in his various positions was far more exposed to 'Intellectual Diversity' than JFK ever was. But JFK went to Harvard, of course.

2. Science. As mo said these are two different things. There is a certain Philosophy of Science, to be sure. But the philosophical acumen gained by broad study in liberal arts is a different thing.

In summary;
It's true though that there is a difference of night and day between Bush and Obama. I would suggest that the writer equates language and communication skills with intellectualism. Maybe it's allowed in his realm to have A-V aids such as the prompter. Certainly 'intellectual honesty' doesnt seem to matter.
But it was telling, in that difference, that Bush was far more at ease without the prompter than with it. While we've seen the opposite with Obama.

 

Another case where I get to defend the Pres and his administration, {See comment #91}.

The issue in question:

Left Out of D-Day Events, Queen Elizabeth Is Fuming

Obviously, a protocol desk in the White House might have changed this by suggestion to the hosts... but it's not up to an invitee to make sure all the right guests are asked.
Blame it on Sarkozy, or Brown. Rahm's got enough on his plate.