Observations follow below the cut:
9:58–wound up watching on PBS. The guys on CNN wouldn’t shut the hëll up.
I remember exactly where I was when watching the first Obama speech back in 2004: At Bill Mumy’s house. We watched it together and were both blown away by it.
Somehow it always seems to me that Obama’s latest speech is always the biggest speech of his career. Anyone else notice that?
10:01–Great. A video. Ah, the MTV generation, which can’t relate to a major speaker unless it’s introduced by a video.
10:05–the video works on addressing the knocks against him. The notion that he is some elite snob is countered by emphasizing his down home, Kansas roots. Both Obama and his wife comment on his name, which generates much scorn and skepticism from pundits and ignoramuses trying to equate his name with terrorism.
10:12–I wonder if Paul McCartney will come out.
10:13–I love all the signs that say “Change.” If I were there I’d keep throwing quarters to people and say, “Here you go. You don’t have to beg.”
10:14–Anyone counting how many times he said “Thank you?”
10:15–Smart. He’s acknowledging Hillary right up front.
10:16–Hmm. Tepid cheers for Bill Clinton. Ted Kennedy got a larger response. Bigger cheer for Joe Biden.
10:19–“We are better than these last eight years.” Good line.
10:21–“Eight is enough.” They should get Ðìçk Van Patten for a commercial that says that.
10:23–Thus far, rather than going for high flown rhetoric, he’s going for a fairly straightforward assault on Bush and McCain. Not sure if this is a good thing, since what has distinguished him is his ability to rise above standard issue attack. On the other hand, he’s going to have to be willing to go head to head with the sort of attacks the GOP will doubtless mount.
10:26–the question is, is he going to get into specifics of what he wants to do to change things?
10:29–He’s basically presenting himself as an example of what can happen when the government assists people in need. Not a bad way to go.
10:30–still hasn’t reached the soaring rhetoric of 2004’s keynote speech.
10:32–okay, good. Specifics.
10:33–a direct attempt to battle the GOP notion that Democrats=tax.
10:34–Ending oil dependency should be a major issue. Safely harnessing nuclear power, though; that could be problematic.
10:35–Somewhere Al Gore is smiling over the emphasis on alternate fuels.
10:37–that’s pretty sweet health coverage, what Congress gets.
10:38–Oh, I think Obama’s daughters opportunities will be pretty promising no matter what.
10:39–I am dubious over the prospect of his going over the budget line by line.
10:40–What, there’s no such thing as absentee mothers while fathers are doing their best to raise their children?
10:41–“if we have them in our sights.” Well, that’s the problem when it comes to Bin Laden, isn’t it. He’s used the “won’t follow him to the cave he lives” line before.
10:43–That’s true enough, that this isn’t the change America needs. McCain’s bellicosity isn’t what’s needed. And Bush et al didn’t merely squander the legacy that was built. They squandered the opportunity to build a genuine global coalition after the catastrophe of 9/11.
10:46–He’s trying to take the patriotism weapon out of the GOP’s hands. This is the first point in the speech where he’s really starting to reach the rhetoric levels of previous speeches.
10:48–Actually, no, we can’t agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, because many of the “no abortion” advocates don’t want birth control. And no, we can’t agree on the Second Amendment because yes, gun advocates really DO want everyone to be able to have AK-47s if they’re so inclined.
10:50–“If you don’t have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone to run from.” Nice.
10:51–“This election was never about me. It’s about you!” Well…no. It’s about him.
10:53–I like the “I’ve seen change” riff. Sounds like a cross of JFK and MLK in oratorical stylings.
10:54–Why did he suddenly start whistling his “s”s?
10:55–And now he actually invokes MLK. Wonder if he’ll bring up JFK.
10:56–Now he’s rolling.
Ðámņ. Wouldn’t have minded a few more minutes on the level of the end of the speech. Always leave them wanting more, I suppose.
He had to walk a fine line: on the one hand, if he went for the soaring inspirational style that marked his 2004 Keynote speech, he’d be slammed for being vague and unspecific. On the other hand if he remained solely focused on down-to-earth considerations, then he sacrifices the sort of inspiring rhetoric that remains his strength. So he tried to strike a balance. the result was that the speech was a bit unfocused, trying to be all things to all people and accomplish all manner of things. There’s a reason the Gettysburg Address remains so memorable: It was ten sentences long. Talk about focused.
Overall a B+.
PAD
• 
Tim Lynch: Nope — we’re living in West Orange and both teaching in Montclair (me at MKA, Lisa at MSU).
Luigi Novi: Oh wow, so you’re pretty close by. My next-door neighbors’ in-laws live in West Orange, and my sister went to Montclair College (along with Bruce Willis, apropos of nothing). 🙂
Tim Lynch: I think he’s trying to grab the Hillary supporters who are still bitter. It might work, but I’m doubtful.
Luigi Novi: If she’s “pretty far to the right”, why would he think that choosing her would allow him to grab Hillary supporters?
Jason M. Bryant: Palin is an advocate of teaching creationism in the classroom.
Luigi Novi: That’s not very surprising. McCain himself once indicated as much, though he later opined that it “probably” should not.
James Lynch: I mean, I can’t argue with that. Hëll, it came up in my Earth Science class today. I don’t just shut the kid down with “We don’t talk about your silly superstitions in SCIENCE CLASS, mister man!”
Luigi Novi: Well, no, but it shouldn’t be taught as a scientific theory, since presenting unscientific theories as scientific blurs the line between what is science and what is not.
Scott: Obama is getting some votes because some are voting for him based purely on his race. The same will hold true here. There are some who will vote for her purely because she is a woman. Any of the Clinton supporters who were supporting her for that reason will jump over to Palin in a heartbeat.
Luigi Novi: Okay, but how many is “some”? How many are voting for Obama just because he’s black? How many wanted Hilary just because she’s a woman?
Rene: So, it’s 2008 and now we have a non-white with real chances to be President. As a thought experiment, how many years more you guys think we’ll have to wait to have a non-religious person with real chances to be US President?
Luigi Novi: Is 1860 a long time to wait? 🙂
Seriously, in terms of a future President? It would depend on the contingent events in history that would lead to a further expansion of not only the non-religious, but the acceptance of them. Since one observes in history the trend from lesser amounts of tolerance and acceptance of certain groups to greater amounts of tolerance and acceptance, and since the non-religious have become more vocal over the past several years (due to things like the Bush administration, and the ability granted by the Internet for potential communities to form), if these two things continue, then it is reasonable to suggest that it will eventually happen. But how many years? I dunno. But I don’t feel we have to have a non-religious President; I’d settle for one who respects the equality of all groups to which he does not belong, and respects and honors the Separation of Church and State, in not only word but deed.
Unfortunately, true humility is very rare among believers and non-believers both. Far too many religious persons pay lip service to humility while acting as if their faith made them infallible. Slightly displaced egocentrism is still egocentrism.
And with so many religious fanatics willing to bomb people, personally I don’t think I speel easier because the guy with the finger on the button is a religious person.
Oooops. I meant SLEEP easier.
Luigi, perhaps it’s only because I’m the opposite side of the spectrum, but my impression is that tolerance for non-religious persons has decreased in the last decade, not increased.
If only because the 80s and 90s were materialisric, cynical decades, while the 2000s saw the rise of Bush and the religious right as an influential and powerful group, it… feels like we live in the most religious decade in my (short) lifetime.
Interestingly, the US has become a lot more racially tolerant, and a lot more tolerant of gays, while becoming much more concerned about “family values”. Particularly young people.
Sometimes I see a future where gays will be accepted as long as they’re monogamous and commited to a life-long relationship, while promiscuous people of all sexual orientations will be even more frowned upon than they are right now.
1860? Abraham Lincoln?
As a non-American, I am not familiar with Lincoln’s faith or lack of.
A quick check on wikipedia later, I see that there is a lot of controversy on this matter.
It’s fascinating, are we less accepting of non-religious people holding office now than 150 years ago!?!?!?
I’m just curious to see how many West Wing AND Commander in Chief references can be made in the next 67 days.
“It’s fascinating, are we less accepting of non-religious people holding office now than 150 years ago!?!?!?”
It’s a complicated world with a lot of contradictions. It has to do with modernism and secularism and reaction to them in recent decades, and communism too.
David:
His name was James Earl Carter and he was the former commander of a U.S. Nuclear Submarine.
Good point; I’d forgotten about him. Okay, someone with a scientific background who ALSO has solid political skills. 🙂
Bill on George:
With the press of a button he can launch more thermonuclear missiles than any single person on this planet. He need answer to no politburo or party apparatus to do so. Just his own whim and 3/4 of the world’s population dies and the rest probably end up envying them.
I still don’t see that as “most powerful in the universe”. On the planet, sure, but I figure the odds of there being something more advanced elsewhere are pretty good.
Point taken, but at least this atheist doesn’t see that position as being any more likely to go to an atheists’s head as it would to that of a believer. It’s pretty easy to argue that a believer, already predisposed to believe in a Supreme Being, could see oneself as striving for such a position more easily than an atheist might.
All hypothetical so far as we know … I hope.
Luigi Novi: Oh wow, so you’re pretty close by. My next-door neighbors’ in-laws live in West Orange, and my sister went to Montclair College
That’s how I know you already knew about our move. You’ve mentioned your sister going to MSU before.
Tim Lynch: I think he’s trying to grab the Hillary supporters who are still bitter. It might work, but I’m doubtful.
Luigi Novi: If she’s “pretty far to the right”, why would he think that choosing her would allow him to grab Hillary supporters?
Um … because she’s a woman?
I didn’t say I agreed that it’d work.
(Oh, and the statement you attributed to James Lynch was actually Bill Mulligan’s.)
TWL
Rene: Luigi, perhaps it’s only because I’m the opposite side of the spectrum, but my impression is that tolerance for non-religious persons has decreased in the last decade, not increased. If only because the 80s and 90s were materialisric, cynical decades, while the 2000s saw the rise of Bush and the religious right as an influential and powerful group, it… feels like we live in the most religious decade in my (short) lifetime.
Luigi Novi: Oh, I never said that tolerance for the non-religious is higher now. Because of Bush, I think religion has become more polarized, with atheists spurred by the Bush presidency to come out and identify themselves more, as seen by books by Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennet, and Richard Dawkins, and some theists like Dinesh D’Souza spurred to rebuttals. Whether the result of this more visible conflict has galvanized more intolerant people, or caused those inclined to greater tolerance to be more vocal, I don’t know, at least in terms of any statistical info.
But out of curiosity, when you said you were on the opposite side of the spectrum, did you mean from me, or from the very religious? (Sorry for not understanding.)
Rene: It’s fascinating, are we less accepting of non-religious people holding office now than 150 years ago!?!?!?
Luigi Novi: Despite the trend I mentioned above, history sometimes moves in pendulum-like cycles. The U.S. was not as religious in some prior decades or centuries past as it is today. Non-religious people? Hëll, what about non-heterosexual people? President James Buchanan’s homosexuality was practically an open secret, according to historian James W. Loewen’s book, Lies Across America, among other sources.
Tim Lynch: That’s how I know you already knew about our move. You’ve mentioned your sister going to MSU before.
Luigi Novi: Oh.
Ðámņ me and my half flypaper, half Swiss cheese brain….
Tim Lynch: Oh, and the statement you attributed to James Lynch was actually Bill Mulligan’s.
Luigi Novi: That’s it. I’m officialy going to go to the doctor to get checked for Alzheimer’s.
(Sorry Bill and James.)
Are you around a lot of voting-aged women who feel protective of beauty pageant contestants?
The vice president pick demonstrates who the president considers qualified to lead the country. To deny Palin blunts McCain’s option to portray Obama as inexperienced is blindly partisan. I hope McCain does something as stupid as deny an inconsistency only reactionaries are blind to.
I think they’re just setting her up as a scapegoat for when McCain loses. Then it won’t be the recipients of McCain’s soul who made a bad pick, but because America wasn’t ready for a woman vice president. Karl Rove had to resort to denying a strawman to deny he phoned Lieberman to take himself out of consideration. McCain is so clueless, he said farmwork was going to immigrants because Americans were refusing to do it for $50/hour. Someone told McCain to pick Palin.
She’s also against listing Polar Bears on the threatened species.
http://www.adn.com/polarbears/story/413710.html
Colbert must be doing backflips right about now
Luigi –
When I said I’m in the opposite side of the spectrum, I was comparing myself to the very religious, not to you.
We all have a natural tendence to take notice of stuff that is most opposite to us, is it not? As someone who is very distrustful of organized religion, I look at the Bush presidency and see a growing “Christianization” of American society. But I bet that many hardcore Christians look at gay marriages in California and HBO TV shows and see a growing secularization of American society.
So, the US had a gay President? Wow. 19th century US history was REALLY interesting.
It may also be a factor that the personal lives of 19th century politicians were not as scrutinized as they are today? So they could get away with this sort of thing, even though society as a whole was supposedly a lot less tolerant.
I still don’t see that as “most powerful in the universe”. On the planet, sure, but I figure the odds of there being something more advanced elsewhere are pretty good.
I did say “the most powerful entity in the known universe” by which I meant the most powerful entity that we know exists. Hey I believe that there is probably life on other planets but there is really nothing to back that up except a feeling that given the numbers life ought to be common. But who knows? We have no way of knowing if life was freakish one in a trillion trillion chance thing unlikely to be repeated or, conversely, so common that one cannot swing a dead cat without hitting planets full of annoying space vermin.
It kind of bugs me that we have been so unsuccessful in finding any signs of life. SETI has turned up nothing, so far as I know. I’ve read that many scientists now believe that most of the stars in a galaxy are unsuited for life–only those stars off on some arm (like us) have a chance of escaping the constant supernovas and šhìŧ that mess things up just as you’re about to invent warpdrives.
Alternate theory–there is no way around the faster than light limitation and the universe is just too dámņ big. Time and space have conspired to keep us forever separated. Bummer.
My own theory is that each civilization destroys itself at some point when they fire up a Large Hadron Collider, causing a vacuum metastability event that blows up their planet. Luckily we are centuries away from ever trying something like that.
The in-vogueosity of being overtly religious is something I’ve wondered about for a while. Not, of course, to be confused with in-Vogonity. Are the over-religious types we hear about that commonplace in American society, or are they just louder than everyone else?
Bill, as for SETI, that’s ANOTHER thing I’ve been wondering about. While I agree with Seth Shostak, that it’d be a shame if we missed a message because we weren’t listening, if the presumed EBE’s did send a message, would they send it in a way that could be picked up by SETI equipment? Now, being a teacher, I’m sure you heard about the space warping theory that the guys came up with, dámņ shame we, y’know, don’t have the power or the know how to make it work.
Bill Mulligan: “Alternate theory–there is no way around the faster than light limitation and the universe is just too dámņ big. Time and space have conspired to keep us forever separated. Bummer.”
An old High School science teacher gave me the best analogy. We are an ant hill in North America. There is another ant hill in Africa. Although we both co-exist, we will never learn of each other’s existence due to our insurmountable separation. Bummer, indeed.
if the presumed EBE’s did send a message, would they send it in a way that could be picked up by SETI equipment?
The SETI idea is based, as it must, on the premise that extraterrestrial life will be of a nature sufficiently similar to ourselves that we will be able to know it when we find it. It also assumes that, since the laws of physics are constant throughout the universe (barring a major major misunderstanding on our part, that seems a safe bet) they will most likely go through technological advances much the same way we do. Therefore we should be able to pick up their messages just as they should be able to pick up ours.
Lots of assumptions there…but what else can we do?
It would actually be kind of sad if we did find a TV stream from some other world…we’d be watching “news” from a time long past, from a world possibly long dead. I imagine the world would hang on every new development with an obsessiveness we’ve never felt before, watching their triumphs and tragedies, knowing there is nothing we could do…like the angels in Wings of Desire, doomed just to watch.
I wonder if it would hinder our own development…we could just watch the aliens and learn from them, our own evolution as a species now inextricably tied to the past of an alien, dead world. Or maybe we’d just do what we do to the British and shamelessly steal their ideas for new TV shows. I don’t know which fate is worse.
Sean –
Perhaps louder.
One of the more interesting developments of the 2000s is that now it’s fully possible to be “cool” while being a social conservative.
In the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, being a social conservative was automatically uncool. Young people hate to be uncool.
I don’t quite know how this happened.
Let me offer a more specific example.
For a long time McCain hassled Obama for not having been to Iraq recently. Obama had been, just not recently enough.
Has Palin *ever* been to Iraq? Has the governor of Alaska ever been to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, or anywhere else?
There’s been some video of her in Kuwait meeting Alaska troops and she stopped by in Germany to visit wounded soldiers, FWIW. Don’t know if she’s ever enjoyed the warmth and charity of our friends the Saudis.
I can’t wait to see what Hillary Clinton has to say about her.
“We should all be proud of Governor Sarah Palin’s historic nomination, and I congratulate her and Senator McCain,” Clinton, the first woman to win a presidential primary, said in the statement. “While their policies would take America in the wrong direction, Governor Palin will add an important new voice to the debate.”
One of the more interesting developments of the 2000s is that now it’s fully possible to be “cool” while being a social conservative.
In the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, being a social conservative was automatically uncool. Young people hate to be uncool.
I don’t quite know how this happened.
Well, kids usually rebel against what adults think they are supposed to be. On most college campuses the people most likely to be seen as the lockstep killjoys are often far leftist (not true liberals). And since conservatives drive these people nutty it’s no shock that some young folks will go that route. It’s not really very rebellious to be left wing any more.
Or maybe it’s just that once being something becomes entrenched as “cool” you start getting all the uncool people doing it just to also be cool, which makes it automatically uncool.
Me, I think anyone who is honestly passionate about their politics and is willing to rationally advance their positions–which ever side of the political divide they are on–looks cooler than the partisans on either side who just spout talking points and cliche’s they’ve copied from other, smarter people. You don’t have to look too far to find the type I’m talking about.
Yes, Rene, we do have that tendency. No argument there. I just needed to clarify what I initially thought you meant.
It may also be a factor that the personal lives of 19th century politicians were not as scrutinized as they are today? So they could get away with this sort of thing, even though society as a whole was supposedly a lot less tolerant.
Luigi Novi: I dunno about that. Buchanan’s relationship with Alabama Senator William Rufus King was pretty much an “open secret”, so much so that Andrew Jackson referred to King as “Miss Nancy” and “Aunt Fancy,” and Aaron V. Brown spoke of the two as “Buchanan and his wife”, his “better half”. Others referred to them as the “Siamese twins”.
Figures, I have to cut back on my participation just as we get into a SETI discussion. (I considered going into SETI while in grad school, and have friends who work in that field.)
It kind of bugs me that we have been so unsuccessful in finding any signs of life.
It’s a little disappointing, but by no means conclusive. Using the anthill analogy that’s come up, we’ve managed to look for other anthills within the nearest 100 yards or so, and that not entirely thoroughly.
We’re really in the very early stages of SETI at this point — yes, at some point you’d reach a stage of diminishing returns, but I don’t think we’re anywhere near there yet.
I’ve read that many scientists now believe that most of the stars in a galaxy are unsuited for life–only those stars off on some arm (like us) have a chance of escaping the constant supernovas and šhìŧ that mess things up just as you’re about to invent warpdrives.
I actually haven’t read that, but it could be. Even so, the number of stars “off on some arm” is a dizzyingly huge number.
I think your alternate theory is far more likely to be a major limitation.
My own theory is that each civilization destroys itself at some point when they fire up a Large Hadron Collider, causing a vacuum metastability event that blows up their planet. Luckily we are centuries away from ever trying something like that.
Heh. Have you read David Brin’s _Earth_, by any chance?
TWL
Just on the off chance I missed it amongst all the posts before me, whoever wins the election and all presidents forward from this point WILL have the power of the Line Item Veto.
Clinton had enough clout to get the measure passed but the Republicans of the time didn’t want him or Al Gore (if he won) to have it.
The Democrats of the day didn’t want Bush to immediately gain the power if he won the election, so the two sides agreed to grant it to the President starting with whoever became number 44 and onward from there.
Heh. Have you read David Brin’s _Earth_, by any chance?
No but thank you for the heads up. I respect your taste in SF.
Brin is usually a good read, and Earth is the first novel of his I picked up. I think you’d enjoy it quite a bit.
Hey, Bill
I know what you mean. The Rolling Stones are grandparents now, and sexual freedom is more a part of the (contested) status quo than some heroic calling. The 60s are long gone.
I studied History in a university here in Brazil, and while I come accross as liberal here, I very much came accross as a conservative there, because the campus was crawling with leftists.
So, yeah, part of it must be that: being a rebel today isn’t as simple as adopting liberal positions, and isn’t automatically “cool” with the kids.
I’m irritated by drones of any political variety too. While I’m a liberal in many issues, I’ve always been in favor of citizens owning firearms if they want to, and in favor of harsh punishment for violent crimes, and in matters of foreign policy I’m not really angry with Bush for going to war per se, but for going to war with poor planning. And that made me unpopular with some other students in campus.
Tim, don’t take this as me being snarky, but anytime you wanna have a SETI discussion bounce over to my blog. Okay, enough self-promotion.
Now, with all this talk, liberal, conservative, left, right, whatever, a question comes to mind. What do you think a self-proclaimed moderate’s chances would be in politics right now? For this hypothetical, they can be Democrat, Republican, whatever.
What do you call a moderate?
From a European’s perspective? From a young American’s perspective? From an older American’s perspective? Because all three of them are different…
I’m irritated by drones of any political variety too. While I’m a liberal in many issues, I’ve always been in favor of citizens owning firearms if they want to, and in favor of harsh punishment for violent crimes, and in matters of foreign policy I’m not really angry with Bush for going to war per se, but for going to war with poor planning. And that made me unpopular with some other students in campus.
But I’m sure they, in the spirit of open debate and respect for diverse opinions, listened to you and respectfully disagreed, offering reasoned explanations for…
Yeah, yeah, I know, I’m kidding! You’re lucky they didn’t carve swastikas on your door and report you for violations of the speech code. I’ve never seen more group think and insistance on towing the ideological line than I did in college–and I’ve even worked for one of the biggest corporations in America. Those guys didn’t give a rat’s ášš about our politics as long as we showed up on time and did the job they paid us for. Consequently we were a motley collection of Marxists, Rush Limbaugh fans, ex-cons, Nascar groupies, Tesla coil hobbyists, feminists, catfish noodlers, one guy who was apparently the result of placing the mind of an genius into the body of the last living Neanderthal (Ron Jeremey would have looked at the amount of body hair he had and said “Ðámņ!”) and at least one admitted comic book fan (and two others who would only speak of them in whispers), etc etc.
A level of diversity that most colleges would claim to love to attain but that they would probably never be able to tolerate. Pity.