My fellow citizens, our long national nightmare is over.

Comment by minroad

2009-01-20 12:36:35

Out with the old fucking ball sucker, in with the new fucking ball sucker. The nightmare has not yet begun.

Comment by excimer

2009-01-20 13:12:11

2000: “Oh, Bush can’t be THAT bad.”

2008: “God, I hope Obama isn’t THAT bad.”

The past eight years have left me way too cynical about the executive branch- I don’t know what, if anything, the Obama administration will fix. That said, I’m not giving up all hope, like many have for whatever reason. But let’s start to see change instead of hear about it.

Comment by Darksyde

2009-01-20 14:17:23

I’m not sure I’ve even heard about any change yet; Obama plans to continue Bush’s bailout packages, expand Bush’s economic stimulus tax refund, continue and expand the failed war on terror into Afghanistan and Pakistan…

Even his approaches to good things, like increased community service, are backwards – the desire to help out the community should come from the grassroots, not come from above. A nationwide website to coordinate service will never be as responsive to real local needs as going to your community center and finding out what needs to be done. And a $4000 college credit for service? Basically, college tuitions will rise to match this subsidy and service will become voluntary for the rich and mandatory for the poor.

Comment by Darksyde

2009-01-20 14:18:13

It’s okay though, he’s going to get the money for this by inflating the currency, which will create many, many more poor people to start filling up these service spots.

Comment by Hap

2009-01-20 15:59:53

I guess the question would be whether Obama and the Dems can create poor people faster than W and the ‘pubs have, because that would seem to be a pretty amazing achievement at this point. That would seem to be the only thing that W and the ‘pubs were cost-efficient at creating.

Now that they’re gone, I’m going to be left wondering if the ‘pubs could have made Brazil into a documentary, if only they’d been given more time.

Comment by Darksyde

2009-01-20 16:23:53

Hey, let’s get things straight here. Bush’s destruction of the economy was at the hands of the Keynesian, liberal notion that devaluing the currency can be used to drive the economy, that spending drives business and job creation. Remember after 9/11: “go back and keep shopping”? That’s a liberal concept.

Sure, Bush mixed in a strong heaping of corporatist “trickle down” concepts. But even this, is not truly conservative. Just elitist. True conservatives want no taxes for everyone, rich and poor, no government-driven inflation for everyone, and actually espouse a pacifist doctrine.

Remember, FDR, liberal de jour, and inspiration to Obama, was responsible for the wholesale, racist lockup of 50k+ citizens without due process, confiscated individual, private gold holdings from safety deposit boxes (no shit), and created the notion of defecit spending.

Comment by Enough already

2009-01-20 16:37:40

Dear Darksyde,

I think I speak for all of us when I say, please shut up.

Sincerely,

The Chemistry Blogosphere

Comment by Darksyde

2009-01-20 16:57:02

Done.

See you folks later.

Comment by Rhenium

2009-01-20 18:25:19

Could it be true? At least Uncle Al is interesting…

(Comments wont nest below this level)

Comment by Hap

2009-01-21 16:19:50

He’s not that interesting. More unhinged, though. Nihilism is so 1880’s anyway.

Comment by Rhenium

2009-01-22 12:09:14

True, but in the long time I’ve seen Uncle Al post, there is always the entertainment factor in trying to figure out what the heck he is saying.
Like solving a puzzle.

Comment by The Rest of Us

2009-01-21 14:31:18

You don’t speak for all of us.

Comment by Kyle Finchsigmate

2009-01-21 09:04:12

I appreciate your cynicism and, though it’s horribly cliche, I can’t really summarize the last 8 years of Bush’s reign any better than the YeTube video below of Olbermann. Simply doing better than this isn’t an option and isn’t hard. Obama has his work cut out for him if he wants to fix shit – but doing “better than Bush” is a comparatively easy task.

Comment by Darksyde

2009-01-20 13:56:38

in 2000, Bush ran on a platform of smaller government and non-interventionism, railing against Clinton’s misadventures in Yugoslavia, his bombing of sudan, etc.

Don’t worry, this is a beginning of a new, profoundly different error.

Comment by uncle sam

2009-01-20 13:59:11

Actually, I’m really impressed with the new marine sanctuary. Bush did a very good thing with that and since I just watched “The Blue Planet” as narrated by David Attenborough, I forgive Bush for everything else that has happened. Humans don’t matter in the exciting world of atolls, mantis shrimp and the blue whale.

Comment by Darksyde

2009-01-20 14:09:02

Actually this was done by Linda Lingle before Bush.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/en.....-30-04.asp

I’m not sure what the effective difference between the 3 mi state waters and the 200 mile EEZ is; most of the reef fish are within 3 miles; although I suppose some monk seals transit between the islands.

Comment by Dave

2009-01-20 14:43:43

How long before one of Bush’s brothers, or, (gah!) one of Bush’s daughters becomes president?

Dave

Comment by milkshake

2009-01-20 15:20:16

Jeb Bush is uncannily good – he used to be the governor here in Florida, and Florida has been a fairly well-run state. I would vote for Jeb Bush without hesitation, he is a smooth operator and he dislikes to bluster. And he has been one of the main advocates of using the state’s surplus money for bringing Scripps and Max Planck institutes to Florida – these were not modest sums, Florida is going to spend something close to 1 billion total in its attempt to jump-start its biotech.

Comment by fng

2009-01-20 23:12:52

well spoken and true. i no longer reside in the sunshine state but would support jebs efforts in a heartbeat…

Comment by Chemjobber

2009-01-20 15:43:33

I sincerely hope we’re done with famous relatives trying to be politicians. I’m looking at you, Caroline Kennedy.

Comment by CK

2009-01-20 19:10:36

But I’m a member of a famous family! Isn’t that enough?

Comment by Chemjobber

2009-01-20 20:47:26

Fuck no. Get the hell out and go back to compiling books of poetry.

Comment by CK

2009-01-21 16:18:23

There once was a woman from Nantucket
Whose granddad brought over liquor in a bucket
She’s really smart
And doesn’t fart (much)
In addition, she hasn’t become a crook yet.

PleasePleasePlease send me to the Senate. Please?

Comment by Chemjobber

2009-01-21 22:02:26

No.

I guess you agreed with me.

Comment by Chemjobber

2009-01-21 22:03:20

Link here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01.....r=1&hp

Comment by Chemjobber

2009-01-23 16:02:17

Looks like Governor Paterson decided to go with someone with no serious political family ties.

Sounds like she’s pretty conservative for a Democrat — interesting to see if people view this as half a loaf.

Comment by andrew cuomo

2009-01-21 10:34:34

My dad was governor of new york for how long? Well, whatever. Vote for me!

Comment by Chemjobber

2009-01-21 11:27:33

Go screw yourself. Our country doesn’t typically have a nobility and our experiments with such, I think, haven’t worked out very well.

I would support getting all famous family members together (Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Reagans), dosing them with alcohol, Viagra and acid and taking pictures of the results. Surely with this blackmail material, we can keep them out of politics forever.

Comment by John Adams

2009-01-21 17:26:23

*cough*

Comment by Chemjobber

2009-01-21 18:00:34

Yes, Mr. President, your son did okay, lost to Andy Jackson. I think our more recent experience will color all of our judgments much more than your family’s history.

For that, I apologize.

Comment by Wavefunction

2009-01-22 11:39:13

I am sure those pictures are already around somewhere

Comment by ChemE

2009-01-23 10:05:27

At least in fan fic form

Comment by Hap

2009-01-20 15:55:42

Almost half of the country voted for W, even when it was clear that he, his administration, and the party that supported him were dishonest and that he and the people he chose were unable to run a picnic without serious injury. Republicans have continued to get elected for their spend-and-spend policies even when it has become clear (after the inflation of the deficit under Reagan and then W) that the only thing their policy may be good for is to destroy the ability of the federal government to exist. (Want state governments running things? Look at your credit cards to see where that will end up – high rates, no protections for customers – because that’s what happens when states compete for businesses. But, hey, the banks are making out. Right?) People want lower taxes but have no idea how to pay for what they do want – we seem to be hoping our debts will magically disappear (without costing us our paychecks, of course). W was elected to implement the policy of aggressively ignoring unpleasant realities in the hope that they will thereby will go away.

None of these factors has changed upon the election and inauguration of Obama. If we can’t face the consequences of what we want and are unwilling to consider anyone but ourselves, then we’re not going to be around for very long. Obama may be competent (at least more so than the W) but he can’t unmake reality, and if that’s what we want we are going to be disappointed.

Comment by Darksyde

2009-01-20 16:26:36

I think ultimately half the country voted for W because the chief contender didn’t look like he would run anything any differently. So might as well stick with the Jackass you know. As bad as W’s 2nd term has been, I honestly can’t think Kerry would have been any better. The housing bubble was already inevitable and predicted by non-Keynesian economists by mid-2004.

Comment by Hap

2009-01-20 19:08:28

Well, don’t know if you’ll see this, but…

I don’t this W’s execution has been all that competent, and I think either Gore’s or Kerry’s would have been better. I don’t think Gore or Kerry would have had as blatant a disrespect for the law or Congress (signing statements?) as W’s admin. Depending on Congress’s composition, I don’t think Gore or Kerry would have thrown as much money away (while the Dems may have invented deficit spending, they raised taxes to pay for it, unlike Reagan, W, et al. who have mostly just spent and pretended that “the magic of the market” would take care of the debt). We also probably would be able to deal better with Russia and the Middle East (though this is iffy – Clinton mostly ignored Russia, I think, and that’s part of the problem, but W has helped create a vacuum that Russia would love to fill). The fact that Democrats have done lots of bad things doesn’t mean that they are not a better alternative. (Two words to strike fear into the hearts of (almost) all: President Palin.)

Ultimately, W was the expression and endorsement of people’s unwillingness to deal with reality. The Dems could not (and probably would not) have made that go away, but they would probably not have given flight to the worst of Bush/Cheney’s fantasies. I don’t lay 9/11 or the economic collapse on W (though his ethos of “the markets will regulate themselves” couldn’t have helped), but his execution and inability to understand his oath of office make the number of alternatives who couldn’t do a better job rather limited.

Comment by Wavefunction

2009-01-20 16:21:45

I agree. As Obama himself said today, people need to take hard decisions and act accordingly. Unfortunately the overriding goal of American capitalism is to keep feeling good about yourself. The people need to take charge of their situation and that includes hunkering down and making some difficult choices. Otherwise no President can do anything.

Comment by milkshake

2009-01-21 00:46:34

I was taken aback by the TV anchors who were explaining that “Obama has two balls tonight” before I figured what they were talking about.

Then in his speech Obama exhorted us that “Our journey has never been… the path for the faint-hearted” which immediately reminded me “The World is not here to be possessed by the faint-hearted races” by another man, famously having one ball only.

Comment by Godwin

2009-01-21 08:58:39

And there’s the Hitler reference. Thank you, Goodnight.

Comment by Kyle Finchsigmate

2009-01-21 23:46:21

Seriously… this being a chemistry blog how has no one really gone off on Bush’s butchering of science policy? Instead of using science to guide policy the fuckhole used policy to guide science!

You people need to snap out of your goddamn cynicism and grasp onto the hate. This isn’t about irrationally hating a guy because an overwhelming number of people do, it’s about hating him for very specific reasons near and dear to our hearts. If you can’t summon the rage against a man that doesn’t even hold power any more, how are you going to focus your anger pointedly when Obama starts fucking up?

Since Uncle Al hasn’t graced us with his presence I’ll channel him:

Be Proactive. Chemists can show their discontent with sternly worded letters or the nebulous powder contained therein with equal ease. Staying alive is staying attentive – everything else is collateral evolution.

Comment by Hap

2009-01-22 14:03:52

W’s butchering of science is a minor expression of the general Republican theory of “if we ignore reality hard enough it will go away”. While his science policies suck rancid ass, I think the consequences of his policies to the federal budget (I am being optimistic in assuming the Republicans weren’t intending to bankrupt the federal government so business can take over, instead), the Constitution, regulatory abilities, and the economy are all significantly worse than those to science. There’s too much to dislike from his policies for me to work all the way down to his science policy.

Most of the problems with science involve the magic of the market – the inability of businesses to generate viable products without actually paying anyone to do research. Outsourcing works at increasing short-term profit but neither increases research productivity here nor solves the problems of not knowing what research to do or how to do it effectively. Eventually it trains your competitors overseas, and provides significant disincentives to be a scientist in the US. Science had a policy article on “Structural Disequilibria in Biomedical Research” in Aug. ‘08(?)- it seemed to say (if I’m correct) that we are already training too many people for academic jobs that don’t exist, and if many of the business jobs leave as well, there isn’t much reason to be a scientist (people should do something that they love, but spending lots of money training people for jobs that don’t exist might not be a good idea).

Comment by uncle sam

2009-01-22 17:22:30

As I said, I don’t really hate him. Now that I think about it, he was mostly a bad president, but making a giant marine national park ameliorates my intense dislike somewhat. Surely there is some scientific research that can be done there in the marine park? I watched all the marine specials that I can rent on Netflix already… I wish I had gone into biology. Today I had a dream that I was piloting a deep sea research sub in the trench that became part of the park. Apparently it’s a really competitive field though.

Also, I was really mad about Iraq from 2004-2008, but now not so much. Even though it was wrong, 20 years from now it’ll be seen as a positive development for the region and that country. In a Machiavellian sort of way. On the other hand, Afghanistan was never a developed country with a well-educated populace, so it could end very badly there.

His science policy also could have been a lot worse. On the whole, it was nothing that was not unexpected from his administration by me. I was actually surprised that it was not worse. Overall, America’s science funding is still really high and I suppose it could be higher in relation to the military budget, but it’s not that bad. We’re better off than the vast majority of the world.

Of course if Global Warming happens and we all die, then I’ll seriously be pissed off at Bush. I’m making future plans with a view that I’ll live for now.

Comment by revathi

2009-01-26 12:08:45

He has lied left right and center to everyone including myths of all of us dying form Saddam’s weapons and now he goes free to enjoy his expensive retirement after 8 years of talking with God. How can this happen?

My fellow citizens, our long national nightmare is over.

42 Comments

Recently, on the blogosphere:

Calendar

The Latest Comments

Pages

Blogroll

Archives

Categories

Last searched terms

Last referers

Top Browsers

Top OS

Visitors Online

Meta

Contact me!

September 2010
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Oct
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30