Listen to this speech by Barack Obama. The whole thing.
I used to think we’d have to go back to JFK to find Obama’s equal in politics. Now I know better. We’d have to go back a lot further than that.
Categories: obama
 | EliRabett on Phase |
 | Lost and Confused on Open Thread |
 | Tim Curtin on Central England Temperatu… |
 | TCO on Open Thread |
| TCO on Open Thread |
| TCO on Open Thread |
 | Hank Roberts on Open Thread |
 | dhogaza on Open Thread |
| Hank Roberts on Open Thread |
 | Dave Andrews on Open Thread |
 | Robert McLachlan on Central England Temperatu… |
| TCO on Open Thread |
| TCO on Open Thread |
 | L Miller on Open Thread |
 | David B. Benson on Central England Temperatu… |
23 responses so far ↓
fullbodytransplant // March 20, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Agreed, 100%
We did this in response:
http://www.cheeseandcrackersforobama.com
Enjoy.
Simon D // March 20, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Those of us in the climate fight can learn a lot from Obama’s efforts at empathy and understanding. Rather than just bash people who disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence and accept the nonsense compile by Singer and friends, it’s worth asking why they do. Obama denounces his pastor’s most extreme views, as any rational person would, but says it is worth understanding what got his pastor and many others into that mindset.
Zeke // March 21, 2008 at 12:37 am
Clearly the Wright sermon was cherry-picked. You would need a long-term patriotism analysis to pidgeonhole Obama’s preacher with any significance.
All kidding aside, it was a damn good speech. Now I just hope the American people can stomach nuance in politics…
[Response: I think the vast majority of people who listen will understand, and be impressed by Obama's intelligence and wisdom. What I worry about is, will people hear him? Or will they just hear the 10-second sound byte damning the Wright sermon?]
Brian D // March 21, 2008 at 4:25 am
I’m no American, and as such haven’t followed the primaries as much as an (honest) American should, but from what I recall, Kennedy’s speeches borrowed from Cicero. How far back are we talking, HB?
(Mind you, I’m not disagreeing — if this speech is a decent representation, I can see why you’d say this of Obama.)
George // March 21, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I agree that Obama is quite eloquent and quite visionary.
Unfortunately, if the recent past is any indication, I fear that most people are not looking for these qualities in their President.
On an unrelated note:
Is it possible that some time you might give a brief explanation of the effect of serial correlation on the temperature trend?
It has been suggested (and is now making the rounds on various blogs) that a consideration of such serial correlation leads to the conclusion that the “actual” temperature trend since 2001 (inclusive) [ie, sans the effect of correlation] amounts to -1.1C — ie, a fairly large negative trend.
There is something that does not sit right with me about that, however.
If one does the straight trend analysis — ie, without taking into account possible correlation of noise — the average trend for the different data sets is nowhere close to -1.1C. It’s close to zero, in fact.
Given that the temperature trend since 2001 has been influenced by the change from a fairly significant El Nino condition to El Nina condition (ie, a downward temperature slope), I would think that the serial correlation effect should itself be in the negative direction.
In other words, that the correlated “noise” has “pulled” the temperature trend in the negative direction.
Perhaps I have this exactly backwards, but given that the average trend (not considering the effect of serial correlation) starts out roughly zero, it would seem to me that subtracting out this effect of correlation should make the trend sans the effect of correlation more positive than it would be if one does not take the correlation into account.
But my hunch would be precisely opposite what some have been recently claiming.
What am I missing?
Perhaps you could illuminate this issue?
Thanks for all your efforts to shed light in the dark room!
[Response: I wasn't aware that bloggers were touting a different rate of warming based on serial correlation. There's more than one way to skin the autocorrelation cat, including methods to remove the autocorrelation impact from the data itself then to analyze the "adjusted" data, but probably the best way is to go from "ordinary least squares" to "generalized least squares."
Ordinary least squares still gives an unbiased estimate of the trend rate, even in the presence of autocorrelation, so I expect that ordinary and generalized least squares will agree within their error limits (although, when using ordinary least squares one must still compensate for autocorrelation when computing the probable error). I haven't run the numbers, but I probably will some time this week.
Just a note to readers: this thread is *not* about global warming. In fact I almost removed this comment, finally allowing it because it struck me as a particularly interesting point. Please no more on global warming or climate science in this thread; this blog has no shortage of places for that.]
Hansen's Hamster // March 21, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I’m afraid todays politics needs more than a good speech written on (very patient) paper and Barrack has a long way to go before he deserves be billed as the next JFK, or further than that.
TCO // March 21, 2008 at 5:28 pm
I like Ron Paul.
George // March 21, 2008 at 5:30 pm
I should clarify that the “trend of -1.1C” referred to above, means -1.1C per 100 years (-0.11C/decade)
JCH // March 21, 2008 at 7:46 pm
In the Solomons they used to fly SOC Seagulls over the slot to help the PT boats find targets. My father was in that scouting squadron. They started out based on a tiny set of twin islands called Gavutu -Tanambogo. When they had a malaria case, a PT boat would come and take that sailor to the hospital in Tulagi, which is where JFK was based. During the primary in 1959 dad met JFK and they had a brief conversation about their days at war in the tropics.
Dad is an Obama supporter.
dhogaza // March 21, 2008 at 8:14 pm
TCO, do you support Ron Paul’s position on home schooling?
Some context to help you decide - there’s a suit now, against the UC system (unless it’s been tossed already), trying to force the UC schools to accept fundy xtian creationist biology courses taught to home schoolers as being acceptable for science entrance requirements.
That’s the “parity for home school diplomas” bit that he supports…
[Response: It's my right to put an "Obama '08" sign on my front yard. That doesn't mean I have to host a discussion of politics, or let others put their "Ron Paul '08" sign in the yard. I shouldn't have allowed that comment in the first place (simply because it invites political discussion, not because it's offensive).
This post is to urge people to watch the video of Obama's speech. That's all.]
TCO // March 21, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Only Obama supporters should reply? I assume that debate is still allowed in the science sections.
[Response: No derogatory remarks about Obama will be allowed. Discussion of Ron Paul's private-school policy is unwelcome.]
aphriza // March 22, 2008 at 5:28 am
Along with the comment about eloquence not being in high demand in American politics recently: I can say that Bill Clinton’s eloquence is the thing I’ve missed most sorely over the last 7 years: a president who could speak intelligently and movingly at a moment’s notice. I can’t understand how more people aren’t sick of having a tape recorder playing through a bullhorn for a president.
Obama is yet more eloquent, more moving, more idealistic, and more immersed in the issue of equality, national and global, than Clinton.
The only problem is his idealism isn’t matched by experience - this at a time when our country is reeling from the effects of electing an inexperienced ideologue of a president who proved to make bad decisions at every turn. In that respect, Bush’s bungling, which hasn’t been quite enough to torpedo the Republican party, is casting a shadow on Obama’s candidacy by analogy. Just when you thought the man had done all the damage he could.
Obama’s is the right kind of idealism. In a game where somebody promises to “change Washington” every four years (it’s what Bush campaigned on), maybe this time it’ll happen. Maybe this is a new voice that will resonate in new corners of this country, setting new people into action. I want to believe.
steven mosher // March 22, 2008 at 1:16 pm
ha. TCO i knew you were a fellow libertarian.
steven mosher // March 22, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Tammy, I watched Obama’s speech when he gave it.
Here is what I think. It was a good speach, technically speaking. I won’t comment on the
content.
I like that Obama is able to listen to views he finds offensive. The truth will out.
Petro // March 22, 2008 at 2:34 pm
I bacame curious what Ron Paul has said on global warming. Here you go!
“You shouldn’t do what we can to slow up the emissions and stop subsidizing big oil companies. I don’t like subsidizing oil companies. They’ve been doing that for years. We go to war to protect oil, so that we can buy more oil, and burn more oil. So I say our foreign policy contributes to global warming — by subsidizing a policy that is deeply flawed. And that’s why we’re in the Middle East, to protect oil interests.”
[Response: No more of this here! Take it to the open thread.]
George // March 22, 2008 at 7:31 pm
“Experience” working the system(which is what people usually mean in this context) is vastly overrated — and the benefits are often (usually?) skewed toward those “in the loop”.
Bush had lots of experience of the latter (”You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”) type and look what a mess he has made — some might say quite purposefully.
It is far more important that our leader possesses a vision for America that lives up to the goals set forth in our Constitution — something that has been seriously lacking in our “leaders” of late.
Finally, “experience working the system” often narrows a person’s vision of what is possible when no real constraints actually exist.
If Kennedy had been a technocrat, he might well have concluded that landing a man on the moon before 1970 was simply out of the realm of what was technically possible.
Where some people see only hard limits, others like Obama see possibilities.
This has obvious parallels when it comes to addressing climate change.
Many naysayers who say that “there is nothing that can be done to keep global warming in check so why bother?” say that for no other reason than that they simply are incapable of thinking out of the box in order to come up with solutions that are well within the realm of possibility.
JimV // March 22, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Andrew Sullivan has posted the complete text of the sermon by pastor Wright which led to Obama’s speech. It appears to me that, taken in context, Wright’s position was not as monstrous as the sound bites suggest.
(see http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/the-wright-post.html )
TCO // March 23, 2008 at 12:49 am
My sister and brother in law like Obama. And they are cool. I also commend Obama for actually having written a book (most politicians get everything ghosted…Churchill being an exception). Don’t take this as an endorsement. Just limiting myself to positive things.
steven mosher // March 23, 2008 at 1:22 am
TCO, I wish I were Obama’s pastor. Then I would get a pass for throwing verbal spears.
ha.
How’s life? I like this Atmoz kid, seems sharp and curious. JEG too, very spicy and sharp.
dhogaza // March 23, 2008 at 2:00 am
Who’s giving him a pass? Certainly not Obama.
Dodo // March 23, 2008 at 8:55 am
What is relevant in this context is that, Obama mentions climate change as “potentially” dangerous. Looks like he has not got Al Gore’s message that the climate crisis is already upon us.
I am sure Obama will be a good president for all Americans, Fred Singer and the coal miners of Illinois included.
Deech56 // March 23, 2008 at 11:48 am
Excellent speech. I like the way that Sen. Obama tries to span barriers and to provide a message of hope. Yeah, cynics may find it naive, but maybe we need some inspiration. Some may deride his lack of political experience, but he has life experiences that few can claim. I like the fact that he could criticize Rev. Wright’s words without condemning the man, and to look at the larger context.
A good leader inspires us to act for the greater good and to look towards a better future. Much of the reason for this site (as I see it) is to tell us that we need to act together to avoid a difficult future.
[Response: I admire Obama's ability to see things as they really are, and to separate criticism of the words and actions from demonizing the individual. He's a better man than I am.]
steven mosher // March 23, 2008 at 1:31 pm
dhog, he condemned the words, nt the man. that’s a good thing. like tamino said
Leave a Comment