The summary at slashdot describes the work this guy has done to help big corporations stay in charge of music.
Got a little change in my pocket, goin' jing-a-ling-a-ling...
What's the deal with having nothing to say about all the people that are being killed in Gaza? This guy is supposed to be all smart and everything, right? So, silence is the smart thing here?
And don't tell me that you buy the "well, I'm not the president yet" line. That hasn't stopped him from giving his opinion on any number of other issues.
To me it looks like a political game. The pro-Israel lobby is politically strong, since he isn't president yet he doesn't <strong>have</strong> to say anything, and as with anything in the middle east it's thorny and there are claims on both sides. So, clam up, if it goes really bad, you can just say "well, I wasn't president yet".
Al Jazeera's take is probably not what you would call an unbiased source :). I would like to see the American media call him out on this, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Here's a Google news search for "obama silence gaza" -- note that media the world over are asking questions about this, but it doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone in the American press.
On change dot gov, Obama has the following:
"The truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources--it's about protecting free and open inquiry," President-elect Obama said. "It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It's about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it's inconvenient--especially when it's inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. That will be my goal as President of the United States--and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work."
But when the truth is <i>politically</i> inconvenient, such as when the mountain of evidence points away from human-caused global warming, you ignore it?
This guy does not come off as a person committed to science, where you (should) dispassionately look at the question, and when something comes up that seems to contradict it, you follow the evidence. Instead, he's using the rhetoric to make it sound like he's that person, and in reality appointing people who are pursuing dishonest, politically motivated science.
See The Skeptic's Handbook by Joanne Nova. The fact that Al Gore is a political and media darling doesn't change science, and it shouldn't affect scientific policy.
So, according to Reuters, Obama is going to have a pastor who works actively against gay marriage give a prayer at his inauguration. They are calling it
My question is this--are you disappointed yet? Doesn't it seem like he's done an awful lot of politics-as-usual stuff? Is that what you guys were working so hard for when you got this guy nominated then elected?
