If Obama couldn't even stand up for the constitution, if he couldn't even use his famous speaking ability to speak out against this rape of a something he himself taught, if he couldn't even do that for fear of what the Republicans would say - what good is he?

A big point in Obama's favour was that back before Iraq started, he spoke out against the war and he was right. He spoke out when it was politically risky, when it could have cost him his career he spoke out.

Where is that Obama now? Cowering at the thought of being called soft on terror by the bunch that either through incompetence or malice let 9/11 happen.

Obama was supposed to be a push back towards real strength, towards thinking things through, towards making informed decisions, towards brave caution instead of reckless cowardice.

Instead he is becoming just another "Tough" guy - who is more interested in the image of strength than actually demonstrating any.

And the sad truth is, the more I look at Obama on FISA, the more I think that you were right. Maybe not for the right reasons, but then I am always suspicious when that happens that the flaw in that is my reasoning, not the reasoning of the person I am arguing against.

Okay, I suppose I could try to make excuses for it, pretend it all doesn't matter and all of that, but in the end, it does. That Hillary was no better isn't really that important, none of us expected her to be - that is why we voted against her.

But this betrayal by Obama, well okay I can't claim I was surprised but it was a betrayal - he went against not so much what we expected of him, but what we hoped for from him.

I can no longer honestly argue for gambling on him being better than Hillary, now the gamble is on changing the structure under him because there are no real alternatives. He is running for president against a guaranteed disaster, but there is no guarantee that he isn't a disaster in waiting himself.

In fact the evidence since the end of the primary points to him possibly being worse. Anybody who has read my previous letters knows that I was on of the more vicious supporters of Obama, now I am not so sure.

I don't want to risk McCain becoming president, because that would mean someone who will actively oppose the social changes I want. Thus I support Obama for president - not because he is much in the way of great shakes, but because he is less likely to get in the way of real progress.

That said, I want real social change so I don't plan on voting Democratic for Congress and the Senate, but rather independent or Green. After the last two years of pathetic weaseling, I don't see the Democrats doing anything even resembling acting on their mandates.

Hopefully, if enough people vote to get rid of the blue dogs, and replace them with liberal candidates, the Democrats will get the message and stop rolling over on everything they are supposed to represent.

So the roaring 1920s (Which made the 60s look tame in comparison) never happened, the 1900's were called the "Naughties" because people started playing pranks on each other.

And the Old West didn't have whorehouses.

People were fucking around long before the 60s. The baby boomers just skipped the bullshit - which is possibly why they offended the bullshit artists we term "The rightwing."

You know them, they are the ones who feel that pregnancy is a punishment for girls who are "loose." Oh, and who bitch and moan about how single mothers can't raise their kids properly, and then refuse to offer any state-born help to actually help solve the problem.

They are pro life right up until that life requires paying for. You know, how they favour wars to kill the young, and doing away with social security to force the old to die working?

Not too far from how they view those too disabled to work, after all, who wants a "welfare state"?

Or how about how they view "social" healthcare - somehow there belief in the sacredness of life doesn't extend to those too poor to pay for it.

You know, the real values crowd who believe that torture is A-OK so long as they are sufficiently frightened?

And lets not even get into honouring contracts, like foreign treaties and the national debt - no sir, the US' word on any given issue should be worth precisely jack shit and anything more is "Letting fer'ners" tell you how to do things.

The real difference between the right and leftwing is that to the leftwing morality isn't 100% about what you do in the bedroom.

Looking at Wikipedia (Good for a general overview, not for real research) - It depends on the level of scientist.

According to a 1998 poll, National Academy of Sciences scientists are almost all atheists or agnostics (93%) with atheists outnumbering agnostics (72.2%.)

Amongst US scientists in general, 34% are atheist and 30% are agnostic according to a more recent (taken between 2005-2008) study. This makes 64% of the scientific community that isn't religious.

Given that America's population is 79.8% Christian, 5.2% other religion and 15% non-religious, these numbers are fairly startling.

So, uh, Heaven is basically eternal sex with someone who is suffering from morning sickness?