"...if even the great and noble Obama fell prey to the seduction of power that Big Government represents, then wouldn't practically anyone?"
The rest here:
I welcome this debate and I think it's healthy for our democracy. I think it's a sign of maturity because probably five years ago, six years ago we might not have been having this debate. And I think it's interesting that there are some folks on the left but also some folks on the right who are now worried about it, who weren't very worried about it when it was a Republican president.
Fellow Americans. I'm sure you are well aware that when I was a Senator from Illinois, I was one of the most fierce critics of President Bush's intelligence-gathering program under the Patriot Act. I think this stemmed from at least two sources: First, a general distrust of the Bush administration and second, as an outsider to the executive branch, a lack of understanding for the capabilities and responsibilities of that branch. As President, I have come-around to the need for programs such as these since I take seriously my responsibility to protect the American public from attack and see the programs as well within constitutional privacy protections. As for liberal and conservative critics of theses efforts, some of whom did not oppose them when George W. Bush was President: I understand your concerns and share those same concerns. People of good faith can come to different conclusions about the balance between privacy and security.
Thank You and God Bless.
"As for our common defense," Barack Obama declared in his First Inaugural Address, "we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. . . . Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake."
Last Friday the president said this: "I think it's important to recognize that you can't have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society."
It is risky to oversimplify science for the sake of a clear public-health message.
The problem with simple messages and black-and-white statements is that they tend to be absolutes and so the easiest to falsify. The line that the science of global warming is ‘settled’ must have seemed like a good idea at the time, and when taken to refer to the narrowest of scientific questions it is correct, but it was (fairly) interpreted as insistence that no queries remained. Even legitimate debates on outstanding issues — climate sensitivity, say — can now be painted as unsettling not just to the scientific position, but also to the policy response it demands.Scientists or I should say "scientists" who make claims which go beyond what the actual data says, think that they are furthering social good. They are not. They are trading in credibility for short term goals. Ultimately, a technological society depends on belief in the truth of science. The foisting of junk science has the result in all of it being seen as garbage.
Autopsies found that both Littig, 47, and Rosen, 45, died from asphyxiation after inhaling helium, a spokeswoman for medical examiner's office said Thursday.