People have seen evolution in action with various viruses and bacterial strains.

We also see the evidence of evolution in the DNA sequences that we have sequenced from various species. Or is it an accident that similarity of DNA sequences correlates exactly with the proposed phylogenetic trees?

Creationism is a religiously driven anti-intellectual PR campaign. It has no scientific merit whatsoever.

Evolution and creationism already had a fair fight - in the 18th and 19th century. It is a historical fact that evolution won. There is simply far too much evidence in favor of evidence. Creationism, on the other hand, fails miserably as a scientific hypothesis. Why would it be true, if "special creation" was the explanation for the origin of species, that DNA similarity scores correlate so neatly with phylogenetic trees proposed from other data sources (such as large-scale morphology)?

At the end of the day, this is a debate between the people who have done the actual research, and a bunch of deluded fools who feel that their religion is threatened by scientific conclusions. And, in a sense, they are right. The more they insist that their dogma must be adhered to, regardless of any new observations, the more their dogma becomes irrelevant to thinking people. The question for you is: which side do you want to be on?

Greenwald is not being pious. Look at the video of Obama addressing the question. He isn't merely dryly dismissing the idea of marijuana legalization as an economic stimulus. He is clearly making fun of the supporters of this idea. "I don't know what this says about the online audience," he said, to the laughter of the assembled audience.

I think it should be clear by now that one of Obama's top priorities is to avoid any controversial positions. He's not going to take on Wall Street, or the anti-drug legalization crowd, or the defense contracting industry, or the pharmaceutical industry, or in any way will he try to solve the fundamental problems of the nation, except if and when any of the positions that would be helpful (like Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research) have already become wildly popular.

I would personally prefer it if Obama were on board with all the reform ideas that I think the nation needs to adopt, but he's the politician and I'm not. I do agree with Glenn that the notion of "incrementalism", or its ally "centrism", to be a goal in itself is kind of pathetic. The good thing about Obama is that if activists manage to convince the wider body politic of the rightness of their position, I think he would go along with it, as opposed to his predecessor who would cling to destructive policies even after they had become wildly unpopular.

You do understand how political parties work, don't you?

People who want to trumpet their independence from their party are free to run as independents. That's what Bernie Sanders did. People who ride Obama's coattails and tap into party money do, indeed, have an obligation to come together and respect the core principles of the party.

For far too long, a branch of the Democratic party has made hay as "reasonable centrists" by simultaneously using the Democratic brand while taking the money of banking and pharmaceutical interests, and then ensuring that the core principles that are held to by 75% of the party rank-and-file are crippled by their consistent efforts to make sure that no real reform ever happens.

The notion that opposing Obama represents "independence" is laughable. It represents loyalty to a different constituency. Nobody is elected to Congress to be "independent". They are elected to vote according to the wishes of the people who empowered them.

Isn't that what we expect out of a representative democracy?

Actually. he's the first half black president...

...Gee I know all the delusional biology dropouts out there need him to be 100% black for warm and fuzzy, feel good purposes; and the media quickly decreed during the campaign that he was, in fact. an African American; but it just ain't so...Still, it was stupid, pointless question, and off topic.

-- Event Horizon

Let's see...if I have one parent with green eyes and one with brown eyes, and I am born with green eyes, am I "half green-eyed"?

From a historical standpoint, as far as rights have been granted in the United States, if you are part black, you are all black. A bastard son of a slave woman and her white master was still considered a slave.