Obama's Decisions So Far...

I have never made it a secret that I supported Obama and I'm thrilled that he was elected. It was strong statement from the majority of the country that we had gone too far down Bush and Cheney's rabbit hole of cronyism, abuses of power, warrentless wiretaps, torture, mismanagement of this war, etc.

So now that he's in office how do I feel about it and his decisions so far?

1. The Inauguration - I was not a fan of Obama picking Rick Warren to give the prayer. Warren is a bigoted evangelical nut who stands contrary to everything Obama was running against. But I think Obama understands this and is a smart guy who's not going to burn bridges. As Andrew Sullivan put it, "He realized that Rick Warren was an egomaniac and wanted some kind of platform, so he gave him a largely symbolic role at the inauguration and allowed Warren to preen" When the LGBT cried out (and rightfully so) he brought in other less divisive ministers rather than oust Warren and cause a row within the christian right. I still would have preferred no prayers at all since this is a secular government but that will remain my wish for now. At the VERY LEAST he mentioned non-believers in this speech which was a baby step in the right direction. But don't be surprised that Huckabee and Fox News managed to make an issue of it and try to stir controversy where there was none.

2. Appointment of Timothy Geithner for Secretary of Treasury - Over all I'd say it was a smart pick. The guy is extremely talented and has unique skills for the job. Do I believe for a second that he didn't know he should pay taxes? Absolutely not. But he has at least paid it back with interest and if we weren't in the economic crapper I'd probably not support the appointment. But it sounds like we need this guy. Besides, I would much prefer Obama's picks based on experience and skill to Bush's picks based on who had been his buddy the longest.

3. Dennis Blair for Director of National Intelligence - His hearings before Congress only threw up one red flag with me and that was his refusal to classify water boarding as torture. He did say that under his watch there would be no torture and no water boarding but wouldn't say that one was the other. The suspicion is that he doesn't word it this way because it would be giving more weight to the argument that CIA operatives who water boarded prisoners are guilty of war crimes and should be prosecuted. I have a feeling this kind of thing will come out in the wash anyway and if they are guilty then they are guilty and Eric Holder will prosecute. Oh and if you're really naive enough to not think it's torture try reading these accounts by two guys who, for whatever reason, put themselves through it.

4. Revoking global gag order on all funding to international groups that support, promote, or even mention abortion. This was a smart move. This is a very short sighted and narrow minded policy to begin with. In many cases it would remove budget support to a group even if the money was directed only to health care practices. It didn't matter. But that's the problem with many issues around abortion and reproductive rights. People have trouble seeing it in shades of gray. Their church tells them that a fertilized cell is a person and suddenly they're comparing it to the Holocaust (something I find endlessly insulting to the people who lost their lives in Nazi Germany). Never mind the violence of killing doctors or blowing up clinics. In this video you see the kind of disconnect in their logic. They haven't even considered the logical conclusions of their own convictions. If it were as clear cut as they say they believe then why do they have difficulty answering the question?

5. Closing Gitmo - This was a LONG time coming. Bush should have done the right thing and closed it but he couldn't because then where would he put his 'enemy combatants' and still torture them and hold them indefinitely without trial. These military tribunals were the biggest cluster f*ck I've ever seen. And the fact that Gitmo was rife with accusations of torture and other human rights violations is more than enough reasons to close it. If I hear another conservative mouth piece compare closing Gitmo to giving the prisoners more comfort or sinking into hyperbole like O'Reilly (something about giving them all a Laz-E-Boys and wind chimes) I think my ears will start bleeding.

This has never been about making them more comfortable. It's about basic human rights and holding true to the values and the Constitution of the United States. Guantanamo Bay is a black eye on the country. The rest of the civilized world has less respect for the US for allowing the abuses that happen there. Maybe if supporters of torture and Gitmo would stop watching episodes of '24' and read some research in interrogation or talk to actual intelligence experts they would learn two things. Torture isn't an reliable way to get accurate information. And holding terrorists in a 'special prison' with no rights turns them into martyrs for their ilk and energizes them. It won't be easy because it's tough to prosecute someone when the evidence you got on them was through torture. In fact you can't do it at all. But the ones we know are guilty should be put in a regular maximum security prison and prosecuted with all speed. Those that are innocent should be set free. There are other cases that would have to be considered by military justices. This fixes both problems. It starts repairing the damage to our reputation as a civilized nation that respects human rights and it turns these terrorists into common criminals in the eyes of their sycophants. Of course they won't be common criminals but they'll be locked up just like everyone else who breaks the law and will meet justice.

So 'all in all' I'm happy with where Obama is headed. If he keeps his promises to increase funding for basic science (and give it some proper respect) and restore funding for stem cell research I'll dance a jig. The country has finally elected someone intelligent enough to lead the country back to the middle and restore some integrity to the office and on top of it he's a unifying persona who actually energizes and inspires people. Last time I checked this was a quality to be admired, not bemoaned.

Sarah Palin

Well I haven't written a blog entry in quite some time. Since I have no regular readers and I've had other things keeping me busy this isn't much of a problem. But with election season getting a boost from the conventions and the VP selections I have to weigh in on what I've found out so far about Gov. Palin from Alaska who is now on McCain's ticket.

Adding her to the ticket certainly doesn't change my vote. Looks like I'll still be flipping the switch for Obama. Don't get me wrong. The way the Democrats have been pandering to the religious and purposely excluding secularists pisses me off. However, when I look across all the issues that concern me and this country Obama comes out over McCain and certainly over Palin. Before I list several reasons that she's a terrible choice for a VP I'll say this. 

"If she was running on her own for the office of president with her current level of experience would you even 'consider' casting a vote for her?"

I've asked myself this question of Joe Biden and I can say I would. He has many years of experience in Congress. While I don't agree with all of his votes, I can look at his record and for the most part I agree with many of his decisions. There is no way in hell I would ever consider electing this woman president on her own merits.

So what are all these problems I have with her?

• Apparently she considers drilling for oil a much higher priority than protecting the polar bear. This is despite the fact that experts in the energy industry agree that drilling for oil in Alaska isn't going to help us a damn bit and wildlife experts and climatoligists agree that climate change is seriously threatening this animal. This story also demonstrates that she is scientifically illiterate considering she's among those who still think climate change is just some kooky theory.
• I don't know the whole story here but I would really like her to explain some of this. Joel's Army are some scaring fucking idiots who have no place in civilized society and it looks like her church has links to these dominionist groups. Maybe it's overblown but I'd like to hear the explanation or her completely denounce them.
• This is a huge fucking deal breaker for me. She thinks creationism should be allowed to be taught along side evolution in school science classes. I'm sorry but I have zero tolerance for this kind of outright ignorance. As important as the education of children and science is to the future success of our country I do not understand how 'patriotic' Americans can abide this. Well I know why...it's because they're ignorant (willfully or otherwise) of the facts.
• She thinks religious leaders (who don't pay taxes) should be allowed to endorse political candidates. If they want to start paying taxes and not receive special assistance from the government then I agree that they can endorse a candidate. But that isn't the case. This is a clear violation of the establishment clause and while I hold free speech to be one of our most sacred (no I don't have a problem using that word in this case) rights, it does not extend to violating someone else's right or violating the Constitution.
• She opposes reproductive freedom for women and wants to ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest. I think we can all agree that it would be a good thing to reduce the number of abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies but this idea of a blastocyst or fetus having the same or greater rights than a living contributing member of society is foolish. There is clearly a line where a developing fetus should be granted human rights but it isn't at conception. I'm sorry but it just runs contrary to the medical facts regarding human development. Daylight Atheism does a fairly good job of parsing out some of these problems.
• She supported the "bridge to nowhere." Supporters love to pull out this gem and claim that she actually opposed the bridge to nowhere and thereby demonstrated that she wouldn't put up with wasteful spending. The truth is that while she eventually did redirect funds she originally had no problem with these bridge and passively supported them until it was clear that the rest of the country and Congress wasn't having of this shit.

If these reasons weren't enough not to support her then consider McCain's age and health. While Senator McCain may be okay now he is in his 70's and his health record is not the greatest. As some point the body just can't handle certain stresses. And make no mistake this is one of the most demanding jobs a person could get. The risk that a VP may have to take over the presidency with McCain in office is certainly higher than it would be with a younger healthier man or woman.

I know that she isn't McCain but selecting her reflects on him. And the fact that he or his staff or the GOP would consider her a good choice blows my mind.

Sean Hannity doing what Sean Hannity does...

Over at NewsHounds they've got video from an episode of Hannity & Colmes of Sean Hannity and Frank Luntz discussing Obama's recent speech on race. Most people found the speech inspiring, moving, and overdue. In true Hannity form he manages to be a complete jackass, spouting ignorance, and being divisive. This is the same guy who loves to refer to Obama by his middle name in order to conjure negative feelings about the candidate.

“What if (Obama) deep down in his heart thinks like (his controversial pastor) Wright?” Hannity asked. Luntz had his neutral pretense back in place. “It’s not for anyone to answer that question.” Hannity persisted. “Is that dangerous for this country? I think that would be dan… That would mean we would have, if he agreed with Wright and I don’t know that does, but if he did, that would mean a racist and an anti-Semite would be president of the United States.”

This isn't really surprising behavior from a hack like Hannity. The guy has made his career off of being a bigoted asshole, using fear and spin to influence conservative Americans. He tries to give this impression that he doesn't really believe what he's saying is true and that he's just asking a question. That's right, at Fox News you can say whatever the hell you want as long as you pose it as a question or hypothetical situation. I mean come on Sean...who could possibly imagine having a racist, anti-semite for a president. Guess there's a first time for everything...dumbass.

Clinton takes Texas and Ohio; Huckabee doesn't affect school board elections

Well I'm a little more than perturbed that Hillary won both Ohio and Texas. I was kind of hoping this battle would come to a close with these two primaries. I appreciate the fact that they have both lasted so long and that Democrats are so passionate about both candidates. However, now that McCain is officially the Rep. nominee he can start campaigning for the national election. Obama and Clinton, however, will continue to spar for the Dem. nomination.

I've heard several bloggers and news sites say that Hillary can't mathematically win the nomination now and that it would require something underhanded involving the superdelegates to get the nomination. I've also seen plenty of people in support of Hillary staying in and fighting it out. And of course now she has said that she would support a joint ticket. In principle that would be amazing but I think unlikely and not a good solution for either of them.

And as a follow up to my post from yesterday Huckabee being on the ballot in Texas did not impact the school board elections. The two seats that were highest risk of being taken by creationist nutters were held onto by more science friendly candidates.

Teaching Darwin: The Huckabee Factor

This could be bad. Huckabee had hoped to gain ground in Texas by marshalling evangelical voters. However, it looks like McCain will pull out the win and clench the Republican nomination. Honestly, I thought he already had it.

Evangelicals don't like McCain. That's something we can at least agree on although I'm sure we have different reasons. Their boy is Huckabee but he isn't going to be president. That doesn't mean he can't still rally his whackjob supporters. And that could have a serious impact on a crucial issue in Texas.

Next year the Texas State Board of Education will be writing the science curriculum standards for Texas public schoolchildren, and Huckabee may bring enough conservative fundamentalist voters to the polls on March 4 to swing the balance of power on the board to the supporters of creationism. "If Huckabee marshals the religious right in Texas, particularly in North Texas, it has profound implications for the state board," says Kathy Miller, executive director of the Texas Freedom Network (TFN), an Austin-based advocacy group whose stated goal is to "counter the religious right" in public policy issues, particularly education.

We shouldn't have to go over this again but don't forget what happens when religious conservatives get elected to school boards and start tinkering with science standards. But Texas is different.

Given the Lone Star state's influence as the second largest purchaser of textbooks nationally, any changes likely would have had a ripple effect across the country. Miller says she is concerned that if the social conservatives gain the upper hand they may try to reassert that influence by drawing up a conservative curriculum that would necessarily have to be addressed in textbooks. "One vote, one member, could be the difference between kids getting a 21st century science education or a 19th century education," Miller said.

Jump

How to Fix the Primary System

This piece is a few weeks old but relevant especially to people who live in states like Kentucky where the primaries for the presidential election do not occur until May. By this time primary candidates are already chosen and many states have virtually no say in the selection. It also leads to messes like we had this year when a couple of states moved their primaries up in the schedule to have more of a say but ultimately hurt themselves by breaking party rules and causing them to be shunned by candidates.

A new system is being proposed by the nation's secretaries of state. Kentucky's Secretary of State, Trey Grayson had this to say about the bill.

To remedy the problems, the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) proposes a revolving regional primary system.

"We start with Iowa and New Hampshire, leave them in their traditional front status, because we think it's valuable for a couple of small states to start off, so that under-funded and lesser-known candidates have a shot to compete and we can have some true, retail politicking," Grayson said.

But once voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have their say, the plan divides the country into four geographic regions, with primaries to start in March.

"Each of those regions has a primary - a Super Tuesday, if you will - but it will be a regional Super Tuesday, and we stretch it out over the next four months," he said.

Lots will be drawn, and whatever region goes first - East, West, North or South - would go last the next presidential year and work its way up towards the top, so that over a 16-year cycle, each region will get a chance to go first, last, and be in the middle, Grayson said.

Something like this sounds great in theory. Like I said, as a voter in Kentucky where the primary isn't held until May 20th the current system is extremely frustrating. And the article goes on to explain why the current system works against us. It's a chaotic mess with states and campaigns jockeying for position to win the most delegates early on so that the remaining ones will not matter.

Nader Runs Again

Ralph Nader announced on 'Meet the Press' with Tim Russert that he is running for president in 2008. He has been blamed by many Democrats for costing Al Gore a very close election in 2000. At that time his support was approximately 2.7%. In 2004 when he ran again it was a mere 0.3%. Current numbers are showing that he may have even less support this time around.

We all know he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning anything. But would he threaten the Democratic hopefuls?

“Not a chance,” he said. “If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, and emerge in a different form.”

I tend to agree with him on the second part of his answer. It's easy to despise Republican tactics and stances on the issues. But it's also easy to be completely disenchanted with the Democrats who seem to be perpetually spineless. Just look at the Congress and its abysmal approval ratings. We have a choice in this country to vote between extreme conservatives and moderate conservatives. There are no true diversity except within that narrow political range. Yes, they differ on various issues but nothing like you see in Europe with candidates running the full width of the ideological spectrum.

So far Democrats have been far more energized and showing up to the polls so if that momentum continues they should win handedly over McCain who continues to have trouble winning the far right wing of the party.