Ok, this is a new level. I can see this from the crazies who think that Obama is a foreign-born Muslim, but from Republican leadership? Socialist Indoctrination? It's the president's speech to school-age kids about staying in school for frack sake. I had to sit through this boring shit in public school and so should everyone else.
Guardian Article
Wait, are public schools socialist? Oh noes!!!
I saw a GOP talking head last night on some show say that Obama's recent decision to keep military tribunals was an implicit endorsement of the turd's war on terror. This incredibly ill-founded statement caused me great consternation: apparently enough to motivate me to break my blog silence of late. So I'd like to set a few things straight. You know, for the reasonable people out there.
One of Obama's first acts as president after his inauguration, was to announce the closure of Gitmo within one year. For those of us who have thought (and said) since its inception that Guantanamo was this country's most tragically embarrassing rejection of the rule of law in recent history, this came as welcome news.
So what to make then of what has been termed Obama's "back tracking" on this issue?
A few points.
First, even those who feel as I do cannot honestly say that Guantanamo should be shut down immediately. Others have been charged, but have not had any sort of preliminary hearing. There are also detainees (about 60 or so last count) who have been cleared of all charges, but who cannot be returned to their native countries because of likelihood of torture. This is an affirmative obligation that the United States has under international law. So in a slightly ironic way, international law is preventing the immediate closure of Gitmo. You can't just hit the "off" switch on Gitmo and walk away. The previous administration has left quite a legal limbo laden quagmire to sort through.
Many are also concerned about Obama's decision to reinstate military tribunals. This was not a total surprise since he called for a 120 days suspension of prosecution, so it was not unforeseeable that after such time, they might begin again (although they are not actually beginning again, since he announced a new 120 day suspension, pending changes to the tribunals). However, he has changed some of the more egregious rules, such as:
First, statements that have been obtained from detainees using cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation methods will no longer be admitted as evidence at trial. Second, the use of hearsay will be limited, so that the burden will no longer be on the party who objects to hearsay to disprove its reliability. Third, the accused will have greater latitude in selecting their counsel. Fourth, basic protections will be provided for those who refuse to testify. And fifth, military commission judges may establish the jurisdiction of their own courts.So the playing field has been leveled, to some extent (don't ask how #5 will work because I have no idea). Will this be the same as an Article III court? No. Of course not.
From White House Press Statement.
After listening to the talking heads this morning wax poetic about how Obama and Bush had eaten sponge cake together on a replica set of Lincoln's china, I was not sure if I could bear much more of the symbolism and hoopla. But then Obama spoke, and again, I was taken aback at just how articulate he is, and how he is able to inspire. I particularly liked this part.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.I could not think of a more fitting "good bye" to W. Good riddance. And isn't it wonderful that we now have a president who is so well-spoken that he out-did the poet?!?!
As I think I've said on here before, I don't really like politics. Like sausage, it's from watching the stomach turning process that I have turned into the equivalent of a political vegan.
So, for god's sake, will someone please call the hounds off of Bristol Palin. She is not running for office, and surely there are more relevant discussions to be had about whether her mother will be a good vice-president than her fertility. This could be anyone's family, and there is no reason to politicize this.
If anything, she was nominated because she is a mom, with mom values that a lot of people can identify with. If we start attacking her for having a "real world" mom problem that, so far, she is dealing with gracefully, this will only blow up in our faces, because we will then be insulting all those people who identify with her.
I mean, hell I identify with her. I'm from a small town where there wasn't much to do. I know that kids can get pregnant early, regardless of political affiliation, believe it or not.
My ability to empathize with her, however, has no bearing on whether I think she is qualified to be the next Vice President of the United States.
Refreshingly, I think the only person who has had the right attitude about this is Barack Obama. As reported by Fox News, of all places....
“I have heard some of the news on this and so let me be a clear as possible: I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people’s families are off limits, and people’s children are especially off limits. This shouldn’t be part of our politics,” the Democrat said forcefully. “It has no relevance to Governor Palin’s performance as governor, or her potential performance as a VP. And so I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories,” he continued.So even though this might provide some anecdotal evidence as to whether an abstinence only based fight against teenage pregnancy is completely ineffective, you know what? Get some statistics or something.
This is incredibly hypocritical. After accusing Obama of being out of touch with average Americans, McCain can't remember how many houses he owns. With every article about how Americans are unable to pay their mortgages and keep their homes, I think this is especially telling. But it gets better! McCain then directs the interviewer to contact "his staff" about how many homes he owns.
I am not a big fan of politics, and as we get closer to the actual presidential election, my aversion grows ever stronger. The constant empty rhetoric, tit-for-tat ad hominem attacks, and pandering just leave a bitter taste in my mouth. They are onerous in and of themselves, but the fact that all of that crap actually affects the daily polling results, gives my gag reflex (insert democratic caucus joke) an even larger jolt.
This one is just too much though. I have been growing increasingly irritated with the way McCain's campaign has been trying to paint Obama as an "elitist." Let's back up here, for a second ok?
As much as we all like to pretend it doesn't matter, Barrack Obama is African American. After all the discussion about how he's not "black enough" or how the democrats really shot themselves in the foot by nominating an African American, the fact remains that he is a member of a race that has been systematically discriminated against. Now, you can say all you want about Harvard Law and such, but as many of you know, that simply doesn't matter to some people. So for an old white man who married rich, to call Obama an elitist....the audacity just astounds me.
But the fact of it is, America, is that ALL our politicians are out of touch. Most, if not all, of our elected officials come from a lot of money, or now have a lot of money. Bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and so were the Kennedys. I don't mind the fact that they are from a gilded class, but I do get irritated when they pretend they aren't.
So, I have a confession to make. For a few months I was a commenter on a right wing blog. I know, I know, but hear me out. Here in SF I am surrounded by people who more or less agree with my more or less liberal viewpoint. I don't really do any good by *ahem* preaching to the choir.
So instead, I went on a proselytizing mission.
And let me tell you, the natives were having none of it.
Actually many were very nice and were willing to find at least some common ground. But others weren't. I was called a "liar" and an "idiot" and was eventually kicked off for being a general thorn in their sides. But I learned some interesting things while there, and I think we have to be careful that we don't do the same thing.
One is "post hoc ergo propter hoc," which I posted on there in latin just to get their panties in a wad. All this latin phrase means is that just because two things happen in sequence does not mean that the first thing caused the second thing. I guess it's sort of a first cousin of "correlation does not mean causation." I learned this because there were many (MANY) posts about how talking with "America's enemies" was a horrible idea, and for support, many of them used the example of WWII and how it would have been futile (or was futile if you were Stalin) to negotiate with Hitler (I also think they just like to bring up the Nazis for inflammatory effect). Now despite some very good WWII historians (and theorists) on the site, they didn't get that the fact that the lack or failure of negotiations in stopping WWII did not automatically mean equal "all negotiations with our enemies are fruitless."
Another good one I saw was result oriented thinking. In many of their posts talking about the shortcomings of Barrack Obama (who they repeatedly said was supported by Hamas) they listed "lack of knowledge/inexperience of foreign policy." When I asked them why this was now suddenly important to them now, when it didn't seem to matter with Bush in 2000 and 2004....well...I actually can't remember what they said, but something to the extent of well, NOW it's important and that W had really learned a lot. While I will say that W has learned some things on the job, he is still not the guy I want representing this country on the global front. He just called Berlusconi his "amigo," for pete's sake. How in the world can you now say that foreign policy experience is important when you voted for this frickin' guy? It's only important now because now it's the alleged shortcoming of the democratic candidate.
Come on guys. Think about it.
Please America. Do not be fooled by the bread and circuses.
When I first read "gas tax holiday" I thought it meant that we were going to be celebrating the gas tax; an idea that I found rather odd. But now, as I understand it, both Clinton and McCain are suggesting that the gas tax be cut for the summer. While the extra $28 dollars that is likely to result sure sounds nice, this is a really really bad idea.
First, Econ 101. A reduction in taxes will result in lower prices for consumers AND increase the amount of money oil producers will receive. Remember those big bad oil companies that Clinton says she hates? Well, they'll actually benefit from this because they will receive more money for more sales of gasoline.
A related issue is that this will result in more gasoline being consumed, which will result in more pollutants in our air. Hardly what we want these summer months.
Second, the gas tax goes goes into a Highway Trust Fund that (is already in the red) is used for infrastructure construction and repair. This will mean that there will be $9 billion less available for highway repair and maintenance (or actually, $9billion less to pay back the bonds that have already been issued to fund the infrastructure costs). Watch out for those potholes while you're using your barely cheaper gas. Doesn't anyone remember the bridge collapse in Minnesota?
Third, this is exactly the kind of short term thinking that has gotten us into trouble in the first place, and is nothing but political pandering to those most desperate. You want to help low income people with long commutes? Invest in better roads, more public transportation, or at the very least, give these people direct rebates so that the oil companies don't make even more money.
No economist is in favor of this proposal because it sucks is bad policy. When Clinton could not name an economist in favor of this policy, she said that the economists were the "elite opinion."
Does anyone else get the feeling that "elite" has started to mean "smart and well-thought out"?
Hi. I'm from San Francisco. Well, not originally. Originally, I am from a very small rural town in Eastern California. It is a town built for tourists generally; but a lot of the people who live there are of the cowboy/ranching/general shit-kicking type; the kind that brag about what zone they got for their deer tags.
I would stop short of going to the rodeo, but I did often go to local fairs and gander at the contemporary equivalent of Zuckerman's famous pig. It was a fine place to grow up, but at an early age, I knew it wasn't my scene.
Most of the people who live in San Francisco are from somewhere else. I can only think of two people I know who can actually say they are "from" San Francisco. Drawn by the culture, weather (ha ha), politics, or some mixture, most people who live here have generally chosen to live here. Some of them are from big cities. Some of them are from little towns like me. Some of my friends here are from Nebraska, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Ohio.
I live here because of the culture, the city's proximity to some amazing places (Yosemite, Napa/Sonoma Wine Country, Big Sur, Stinson Beach), and I like the city's general mellow, tolerant, and laid-back attitude.
I won't lie. I'm a liberal. I would venture to say very liberal by most people's standards, at least as far as social issues go. Compared to others in SF, I would probably be considered just sort of liberal. But I like living in a city that prides itself on being progressive, even when I don't necessarily agree with all of it.
But to the extent that people call San Francisco a "bubble," I must vehemently disagree.
Gas prices near my house are now $4.17/gallon, compared to a national average of $3.47. I'm not going to even bring up property prices or rent here. Ok maybe I will. My roommate and I pay over $2k a month for a very small 2 bedroom. Owning property here is not really ever in the cards for me. I have been held-up at gunpoint. Our public transportation system is severely lacking. Some of our neighborhoods are downright scary, and some of that is because shipping yards and other businesses have shut down or left town.
In sum, San Francisco, like other cities, has its share of problems and it is in no way immune or impervious to the economic shocks than others. Sure, we're liberal, but other than that, we are just like everyone else.
And just like you, I like where I live. I'm proud of my city, and I don't like people bad-mouthing it.
So to all of you politicians and members of the media who like to throw my city's name around whenever they want to really emphasize that someone is "elitist," maybe you should think about the real out-of-touch bubble that is Capital Hill before you start badgering us. Especially when a certain other democratic candidate also just had a closed-door fund raiser here herself.
Well, I was trying to find a link, but can't. Hillary Clinton was in the building next door to where I work a couple of weeks ago.
