elfs | Brains, Where It's Curtain Time (Reply)

Barack Obama's latest endorsement: Nature: File under World-changing events:
Science is bound by, and committed to, a set of normative values — values that have application to political questions. Placing a disinterested view of the world as it is ahead of our views of how it should be; recognizing that ideas should be tested in as systematic a way as possible; appreciating that there are experts whose views and criticisms need to be taken seriously: these are all attributes of good science that can be usefully applied when making decisions about the world of which science is but a part. Writ larger, the core values of science are those of open debate within a free society that have come down to us from the Enlightenment in many forms, not the least of which is the constitution of the United States.

On a range of topics, science included, Obama has surrounded himself with a wider and more able cadre of advisers than McCain. This is not a panacea. Some of the policies Obama supports — continued subsidies for corn ethanol, for example — seem misguided. The advice of experts is all the more valuable when it is diverse: 'groupthink' is a problem in any job. Obama seems to understands this. He tends to seek a range of opinions and analyses to ensure that his own opinion, when reached, has been well considered and exposed to alternatives. He also exhibits pragmatism — for example in his proposals for health-care reform — that suggests a keen sense for the tests reality can bring to bear on policy.

This journal does not have a vote, and does not claim any particular standing from which to instruct those who do. But if it did, it would cast its vote for Barack Obama.
Howard Fineman worries that Americans who vote for Obama might "demand a voice": In an article entitled "What have we created!?" (Yo, Newsweek, there's this thing called an interrobang (‽). Learn it, use it, love it) Howard Fineman worries that Americans who vote for Obama might want to be heard, might continue to operate grass-roots institutions on the Internet, and worries that if the administration acts more responsibly than, say, the Kossacks would like, "[At some] point, the names on those voter and e-mail lists may start talking to each other, and may start saying things that Barack Obama — and White House aides hunched over their computers — don't want to hear. That's when we'll know how 'trusting' an organization it really is."

Yes, yes we will. That's called democracy, my friend. What's your problem with it?
Fouad Ajami: Obama's crowds are just like jihadi crowds!: The tragedy of Arab political culture has been the unending expectation of the crowd -- the street, we call it -- in the redeemer who will put an end to the decline, who will restore faded splendor and greatness. When I came into my own, in the late 1950s and '60s, those hopes were invested in the Egyptian Gamal Abdul Nasser. He faltered, and broke the hearts of generations of Arabs. But the faith in the Awaited One lives on, and it would forever circle the Arab world looking for the next redeemer.

America is a different land, for me exceptional in all the ways that matter. In recent days, those vast Obama crowds, though, have recalled for me the politics of charisma that wrecked Arab and Muslim societies. A leader does not have to say much, or be much. The crowd is left to its most powerful possession -- its imagination.
Here's the thing, though: America is different, but not "exceptional." We just have different cultural expectations-- many of which are shored up by a working economy. It's been my impression, the past four days, that everyone is talking about "burnout."

I think burnout is a good thing. We're all too exhausted, too ready to drag ourselves over the finish line, to actually riot on November 5th if "our guy," whoever that might be, loses. Ajami does no one a favor here by, again, suggesting that America will someday embrace political violence. The longer we hold that suggestion at bay, the healthier we are as a nation.
Bill Kristol offers liberals a hug for when McCain wins: Kristol says a McCain win would affirm the following liberal values: "A win for the underdog," "a defeat for the establishment," "an affirmation of a positive future, rather than a triumph of resentment," "a victory for freedom."

I find his suggestion that "liberals should be opposed to genocide and tyranny," as if they weren't already, to be offensive. It's the current administration, and the one McCain would operate, that would alternate between trying to police the world and claiming the US to be a power unto itself. I guess Kristol's job is to dole out the kool-aid. Omaha watched him on Jon Stewart and said, "Kristol doesn't believe a word he's saying. He just has to say it to stay where he is."
Libertarian Ron Hart: I look forward to being less productive.: I want to appease the new administration and not be too productive. So, upon Obama's passing his new redistribution plan, I will slow my work schedule, lay off a few people (Obama's got their back) and let someone else bust his tail since I will now be able to get "redistributed wealth" from those poor fools who are ambitious, energetic, work hard and have made good decisions.

I cannot wait, as I need a break. And it will be nice to not be vilified by politicians. It will feel good to be liked again.

Wish me luck for the next few years. I am looking forward to a respite from hard work, taxes and creating jobs. It is a lot of responsibility that I will be able to "shrug." It is just as well, as I am tired of following my dreams anyway. It involves so much effort. I will see where those dreams are in four or eight years and catch back up with them then.
Why does this remind me of the way some Christians claim that if it weren't for their belief in God they'd be lying, cheating, bastards? Hart's tongue is firmly in cheek, I supect; I'm just not sure whose, or where.