All e-mail received by The Seventh Sense is considered intended for publication. Please don't send attachments.
Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments.
URL's within the body of the comment must be in html format or they will be deleted as they skew the site.
It is a little awkward that Obama is receiving the Nobel Peace Prize just weeks after announcing that he is sending more troops into Afghanistan. To his credit, he didn't shy away from addressing this elephant in the room when he received the Prize in Norway today:
And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.
But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.
Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.
Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.
And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.
***
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
Basically, he's saying that it's the Nobel Peace Prize, folks, not the Nobel Pacifist Prize... and that war is sometimes necessary to preserve the peace.
Well, I guess he has to say that, and there certainly is an unfortunate truth to what he says. However, it only highlights the position held by many that Obama may not have been the best choice for the Peace Prize.
I think, however, he shows himself more worthy of the award toward the end of his speech, when he embraces the so-called "Superman theory" of American warfare -- i.e., as the world's remaining superpower, we should behave more like Clark Kent rather than Jack Bauer:
Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.
Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.
And moments later:
We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.
For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.
Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."
Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.)
All in all, I believe it was a good speech that threaded the fine line between acknowledging the world as it is, while aspiring to a world that could be.
Here's how you know the way things have changed. In his September 14, 2001 speech at a prayer service for 9/11 victims, George W. Bush said that America's "responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil." And today, Barack Obama, in contrast, offered a less utopian view of the future: "We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes."
That goes back to the leader-as-tough-talking-movie-hero vs. leader-as-realist issue. Republicans love the former; hate the latter.
If you're into that sort of thing, the White House is pardoning a turkey at 11.28 a.m. today, and you can view it live on the White House website here. The turkey's name is "Courage", and he's from North Carolina.
In the meantime, here's a classic scene from The West Wing where CJ asks President Bartlet to pardon a second turkey.
Many conservatives and many liberals have taken up the meme that Obama really hasn't done that much in his first year. Esquire's John Richardson shoots this down. A healthy excerpt:
These days, the argument that Obama hasn't accomplished anything may be the only example of real bipartisanship in America.
Here's the conventional wisdom in a single paragraph: Three hundred and sixty-four days after he was elected president, Obama is still stuck in Iraq, hasn't closed Guantánamo, is getting deeper into Afghanistan, hasn't accomplished health-care reform or slowed the rise in unemployment. His promises of bipartisanship are a punch line... And there's still no peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. What a failure! What a splash of cold water in the face of all our bold hopes!
But the conventional wisdom is insane. Consider the record:
A week before he was sworn in, Obama jammed part two of the bank bailout down the throat of his own party — a $350 billion accomplishment.
Two days after he was sworn in, Obama banned the use of "harsh interrogation" and ordered the closing of Guantánamo.
A day later, Obama reversed George W. Bush's funding cutoff to overseas family planning organizations — saving millions of lives with the stroke of a pen.
Three days after that, Obama gave a green light to the California car-emissions standards that Bush had been blocking for six years — an important step on the road to cleaner air and a cooler planet.
Two weeks after that, Obama signed the stimulus bill — a $787 billion accomplishment.
Ten days after that, Obama formally announced America's withdrawal from Iraq.
A week later — we're in early March now — Obama erased Bush's decision to restrict federal funding for stem-cell research.
In April and June, Obama forced Chrysler and GM into bankruptcy.
In June, Obama reset the tone of our relations with the entire Arab world with a single speech — an accomplishment that the Bush administration failed to achieve despite a series of desperate PR moves (anyone remember Charlotte Beers?) and a "public diplomacy" budget of $1 billion a year.
Also in June, Obama unveiled the "Cash for Clunkers" program, a "socialist" giveaway that reanimated the corpse of our car industry — leading, for example, to the billion-dollar profit that Ford announced on Monday.
I haven't even mentioned Sonia Sotomayor, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the order to release the torture memos, Obama's push for charter schools, his $288 billion tax cut, or the end of Bush's war on medical marijuana. Or the minor fact that he seems to have — with Bush's help, it must be said — stopped the financial collapse, revived the credit markets, and nudged the economy toward 3.5 percent growth in the last quarter.
Oh, and one more thing: President Obama is now a month or two from accomplishing the awesome and seemingly impossible task that eluded mighty presidents like FDR, LBJ, and WJC — health-care reform.
Obama's early returns also include a host of remarkably cautious and prudent national-security decisions that seem, these days, to have been completely forgotten:
Appointing a conservative Bush holdover like Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense.
Appointing an establishment centrist like Leon Panetta at CIA.
Reinstating, with tweaks, Bush's military tribunal system for Guantánamo prisoners.
Fighting, in another unexpected defense of a controversial Bush policy, lawsuits against the "warrantless wiretapping" program — as recently as this weekend with a decision that a leading civil liberties group called "extremely disappointing."
Sending, way back in February, seventeen thousand more soldiers to Afghanistan. As Fareed Zakaira recently pointed out, this was just three thousand fewer soldiers than Bush sent to Iraq for his famous "surge."
Richardson points out that, if you're a conservative, Obama's actually done a lot to please you in the areas of foreign policy. If you're a liberal, he's done a lot to please you with his domestic policy.
But either way, to suggest that he hasn't done enough strains credulity, he argues. Just remove the partisan blinders:
So the question, a year since we elected him, isn't how much Obama has accomplished. The question is why we've turned so small and mean that we only see half of it — the half we happen to agree with.
From the B-roll, just chatting with the CNBC reporter before the "real" interview. Obama is kind of aware that he may have stepped in it, asking "Where the pool?" (meaning the press pool), but he laughs it off:
At a town hall forum at the DNC yesterday, Obama was asked where the lies about health care reform are coming from. After laughing and making reference to "certain" news channels (he didn't mention them by name, but we all know which ones), this is what Obama supposedly said:
"...I have to say, part of the reason it spreads is the way reporting is done today. If somebody puts out misinformation, 'Obama's Creating Death Panels,' then the way the news report comes across is: 'Today such-and-such accused President Obama of putting forward death panels. The White House responded that that wasn't true.' And then they go on to the next story. And what they don't say is, 'In fact, it isn't true.'
"You know, it's fine to have a debate back and forth -- he said, she said -- except when somebody else is just not even telling remotely the truth. Then you should say in your reports, 'Oh, and by the way, that's just not true.'
"But that doesn't happen often enough."
This is a problem that has been noted by many, for many years. Even when it is not propogating, the media, rather than reporting the facts, chooses instead to report what both sides say are the facts, as if both positions are equally valid. It exaults fairness over accuracy.
If Republicans said there were flying unicorns invading Oregon, and Democrats said there wasn't a single flying unicorn in Oregon or anywhere else, the media -- even the better journalism outlets -- would report "Republicans say there are flying unicorns in Oregon; Democrats deny this", rather than reporting "We've investigated it, and there a no flying unicorns in Oregon."
So what Obama said isn't new. But it's new and interesting that he said it.
Barney Frank took a protester to task after she refered to Obama's "Nazi" health care reform. He asked the woman "on what planet" does she live, and said that trying to have a serious discussion with her about health care would be like talking to a dining room table.
Now, comes the tut-tut of the conservative media. How both sides are engaging in uncivil discourse...
... as if there is no difference between (1) mobs of shouting angry conservatives, many of them playing the Nazi/facism card, some of them carrying guns and (2) the rare pushback against those mobs (like Barney Frank's response).
Sure, uncivility can be found on both sides, but how about a little perspective on the degree and frequency?
For decades, the American people believed that the Republican Party, despite whatever else they may lack, was the go-to party on issues involving national security and terrorism.
A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll from 2002 said that 57% of Americans felt Republicans were better on handling terrorism (only 22% favored Democrats).
An NBC/WSJ poll from 2002 said that 49% of registered voters preferred Republicans to deal with terrorism (compared to 13% for Democrats).
A Fox poll from 2003 had similar results: 53% favored Republicans; 19% favored Democrats.
In all cases the spread was 35-40 points, Republicans beating Democrats.
Who do you trust to do a better job handling the threat of terrorism — (Obama) or the (Republicans in Congress)?
Obama: 55%
Republicans in Congress: 34%
Looks like the GOP no longer has the edge on the subject of terrorism either. It sum, this graph compiles the poll on the "trust" issue:
With that much approval on the issues, it is hard to understand why Obama is having such a hard time getting certain things like health care reform approved. In fact, it's hard to tell why he's even bothering to be partisan.
GREEN BAY, Wis. – Ten-year-old Kennedy Corpus has a rock-solid excuse for missing the last day of school: a personal note to her teacher from President Barack Obama.
Her father, John Corpus of Green Bay, stood to ask Obama about health care during the president's town hall-style meeting at Southwest High School on Thursday. He told Obama that his daughter was missing school to attend the event and that he hoped she didn't get in trouble.
"Do you need me to write a note?" Obama asked. The crowd laughed, but the president was serious.
On a piece of paper, he wrote: "To Kennedy's teacher: Please excuse Kennedy's absence. She's with me. Barack Obama." He stepped off the stage to hand-deliver the note — to Kennedy's surprise.
"I thought he was joking until he started walking down," Kennedy said after the event, showing off the note in front of a bank of television cameras. "It was like the best thing ever."
The fourth-grader at Aldo Leopold elementary in Green Bay already knew what she was going to do with the note: frame it along with her ticket to the event. She said she'd make a copy for her teacher.
Kennedy said she had never seen Obama before. "He's really nice," she said.
While I could only stay for the first hour or so of the 3 hour "protest", I can report the following:
First of all, I take bad pictures, made even worse by the fact that I used a cell phone camera which was set to black/white (which actually seems to be blue/white). I'll pepper the most legible photos here. [UPDATE: BlueNC was there and took better photos].
The turnout was quite good. I would estimate about 800. Very few minorities (natch). Mostly the elderly (men and woman). The middle age was mostly women (to my surprise). And there were comparatively few under 30. There were a few families, and little girls were forced to carry signs that they didn't understand.
What exactly were they protesting?
Well, was like I posted a couple of days ago: it was basically "whatever you got", to paraphrase Jimmy Dean.
Going from the (handmade, yard-sale quality) signs, one clear thrust of the protest dealt with taxes, even though the Obama administration is cutting taxes for all except the very richest of Americans. Even then, the message wasn't clear.
A few signs said "No Taxes", but these were mostly held by kids (and presumably made by them as well). Most of the tax-related signage didn't go that far, but contained messages like "Taxed Enough Already" (the first letters forming "TEA") or "I already pay enough taxes". Apparently these people were protesting future tax increases.
One sign read "10% of the people pay 72% of the income taxes!! Is that fair??" I'm not sure what the signholder's intention was. The wealthiest 10% of Americans do pay the lion's share of income taxes -- but that's because they receive the lion's share of income. That does strike me as fair. I would rather have the wealthiest 10% of income-earners pay 72% of the taxes rather than try to squeeze it out of the poorest 10% (or even the middle 10%), wouldn't you?
I didn't ask this sign carrier what he meant. It's probably not a good idea to, as this CNN reporter found out today:
[It's interesting for the teabagger in the above clip to invoke Lincoln in his anti-tax screed. Anyone want to guess the president who first mandated income taxes? Bueller? Bueller? And by the way, FOX aired this clip, cutting out the guy with the Obama-Hitler poster]
Of course, I'm trying to find logic where perhaps none exists. As publius writes:
The tea parties, however, don’t have much to do with logic.I’m sure our modern-day Samuel Adamses aren’t supporting big military spending cuts.I doubt they care that taxes are unchanged or lowered on 95% of families.I suspect they had almost nothing to say about the spending and executive overreach of the Bush years.Logical consistency, remember, isn’t the point.
The point is that tea parties give them an opportunity to reaffirm their own ideological self-image.In their own heads, they want to be “small government” people.In this sense, the tea parties are simply atonement – trying to “out out” the damned spot.
The other clear thrust of the protest dealt with the other end of the economic equation: government spending. Here, the message was even more disjointed. Many people objected, for example (again, going by the signs) to the bailouts. Others, to government "pork". And still others, to the stimulus. Many of the signs expressed concern about the deficit.
I personally don't have a problem with people expressing concerns about the government running up deficits. It should be a concern. But I was left to wonder where these people were when Bush was turning the huge surplus that Clinton gave him into a massive trillion dollar deficit.
One could argue, "well, Bush had to spend the massive amounts of money -- we were attacked and that led to us fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan". Fair point, but we're still fighting those wars. And more importantly, what is the reasoning which leads one to condone deficit-spending in order to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, but get upset about deficit-spending to rebuild our own infrastructure to combat an economic crisis?
But I digress.
Once the speakers took the stage, it got more interesting (for me). It was quite clear that their goal was to channel this mass discontent into pleas to join their organization, their think tank, their whatever.
The first speaker, an organizer from ncteaparty.com was refreshingly candid. He acknowledged that he knew diddly-squat about organizing protests, and suspected that most of the people there had never been to a protest.
The second speaker was a woman from the John Locke Foundation, and it was clear to me that she was either (1) stupid or (2) catering to the naivety of the crowd. It was remarkable. She said she was going to talk about "freedom". And then she proceeded to talk about excessive government spending.
It was never made clear to me what excessive government spending has to do with "freedom". I mean, here were hundreds of people exercising their freedom to assemble, their freedom to protest, etc. Even I, an opponent of everything said there, was moved by the "vox populi"ness of the tea party protest. I LOVE it when the people speak, even if I don't agree with them.
I apparently was the only one struck by the irony that these people were free to protest, and yet they had these speakers and signs that somehow suggested that the policies of the Obama government were infringing on freedoms. What freedoms they never said.
But every time this particular speaker used a phrase with the word "freedom" in it, people applauded. When she failed to use that buzzword (or other patriotic buzzwords), people sat on their hands. It was clear to me that many people in this crowd weren't really listening to, or not understanding, what was said so much as they were looking for an auditory cue to wave their flags (literally in some cases).
This same woman also talked about responsibility. She took on, for example, the car industry. They had the responsibility of running their own businesses. They could have, she said, not hired union workers. But they did. Now those auto manufacturers have to take responsibility for their actions, and not rely on government bailouts.
It was a cogent argument (one which I won't refute here), but as I listened to her, I wondered how her anti-union message would have been received at a tea party in Detroit or Flint.
This woman, as I said, was from the John Locke Foundation. She touted their alternative budget as being better than then the one presented by the NC legislature, which (she said) was full of tax increases and wasteful government spending.
She railed in particular against the NC government spending so much money on "social programs" (adding that such exhuberant spending limits "your freedom" although, again, I don't know what one has to do with the other).
I took a gander at the John Locke alternative budget to the one passed by the NC lesiglature. As expected, it lowers taxes drastically, and cuts government spending to "social programs", just as the speaker said it would. But at the rally, the speaker didn't bother to mention what some of these "social programs" were. I will:
Cultural programs ($26,509,810 less) -- NC Arts Council, for example, gets over $8 million less
Blind and Deaf/Hard of Hearing Services ($1,247,231 less)
Public Health ($20,565,091 less) -- includes $2,000,000 less for HIV prevention, $329,000 less for public health testing (includes elimination of jobs there), $2,000,000 less for the Breast and Cervical cancer program, elimination of UNC's OASIS program, etc.
Vocational rehabilitation programs ($3,591,938 less) -- including merging the entire disability administration with the Blind and Deaf Services (which was gutted -- see above)
Crime Control and Public Safety ($4,468,222 less) -- including Flood Map planning, National Guard and rape assistance programs
Agriculture services ($23,160,175 less [more than half of that area's budget]) -- including pesticide control, food testing
Clean Water Management Trust Fund (elimination in its entirety -- all $100,000,000): John Locke Foundation would let industries self-police
Miscellaneous: Cut DMV Driver's License Division by $4.7 million by merging DMV offices (because they're not crowded enough)
The list goes on and on and on.
And then, this same woman, griped that the North Carolina government cut spending on transportation and prisons too much.
Now, why does government budget spending increases in any of the above programs "take away your freedoms", but a failure to increase spending in transportation/prison as high as John Locke's budget also "take away your freedoms"? This apparently was lost on the audience. But they booed and cheered appropriately, as long as whatever was said was being couched in jingoistic nationalistic terms (like "freedom").
By the way, I'm not saying that limiting government spending is bad. Some things are worth spending money on; others, maybe not so much. The point is: it's entirely subjective. I'm just saying that if she had bothered to provide a complete list of these eeeeevil social programs to the flag-waving audience, I have no doubt that most of them would have said (at some point): "Wait a second. That's a good program."
But to rail against ALL taxes as oppressive, or ALL government spending as "wasteful", is just plain oversimplified to the point of silliness.
And that brings me to MY main point.
These protesters were not stupid or evil. They just hadn't thought things through.
It's easy to be against "wasteful government spending" when you're never called upon to even think about what is supposedly "wasteful".
Protesting government spending is meaningless unless you say what you'd cut.
If you favor no bailouts, then say so. If you want to see the banking system collapse, then say so. If you think the recession demands no fiscal stimulus, then say so. If you favor big cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, social security and defense, then say so. I keep waiting for [tea party promotor Glenn] Reynolds to tell us what these protests are for; and he can only spin what they they are against.
All protests against spending that do not tell us how to reduce it are fatuous pieces of theater, not constructive acts of politics. And until the right is able to make a constructive and specific argument about how they intend to reduce spending and debt and borrowing, they deserve to be dismissed as performance artists in a desperate search for coherence in an age that has left them bewilderingly behind.]
It's easy to be against high taxes, if your brain isn't allowed to consider what that tax money will be spent on. It kind of reminded me of the rabble in this Simpsons episode, where the townspeople couldn't simply grasp the connection between taxes and social services:
The most striking thing about the whole protest was the constant reference to the government as "they". Apparently, the tea bag segment of the population loves America, but hates the American government. They love the Founding Fathers, but hate the government that the founding fathers formed. They profess to love the Constitution, but they hate the government created by that document. And I'm not talking about the "Obama government" -- these people generally hate government as a concept. (They only complain about it, however, when a Democrat is at its head.)
The second speaker that I listened to was from the Civitas Institute. He again fired the masses by going for those jingoistic phrases. He was big on the symbolism of "Don't Tread On Me". The Civitas Institute had 7 or 8 Gadsden flags throughout the plaza, all bearing the iconic snake and bearing the words "Don't Tread On Me".
I won't get into this speaker too much, except to say that he was either stupid, or playing on the naivety of the crowd he was addressing. At one point, for example, he said this:
"...And whatever happened to the free market? I mean, these bailouts? Let me ask you: What would have happened if AIG had gone bankrupt? I'll tell you what: it would have gone bankrupt.But nooooo, we had to save it. It was 'too big to fail'." [boos, cheers, etc.]
This is just plain wrong, and there's not an economist -- on the left or right -- who would agree with this speaker's assessment of the AIG bailout. Look, AIG insures banks. Big banks. Big banks who made bad investments, and took out insurance on those bad investments. If AIG had failed, then those banks would be unable to collect that insurance, and THEY would have failed. And then other banks would freeze up, and there would have been no flow or credit to businesses large and small. Companies would fold, and the unemployment rate would be twice what it is now.
So the point of bailing out AIG wasn't to save AIG, its golden-parachuting senior management, or even its employees. The point was, ultimately, to save Main Street, and us. And anyone who doesn't recognize that shouldn't get in front of a microphone to talk about it. (That said, one can legitimately complain about the amount of the AIG bailout, or certainly the terms tied to the bailout, or any number of related issues. But to complain the necessity of it? Moronic.)
As I left the tea party to return to work (much to my sadness, because nationally-syndicated columnist and K'vegas resident Nathan Tabor was due to speak), the Civitas speaker was going on about government "takings", a legal reference to property. The Constitution does not allow the government to "take" your property without "just compensation". To this guy, that meant that the government cannot regulate your property, which, of course, is an entirely different thing.
The example he used was an "intermittent stream", which is a stream that forms when it rains a lot. North Carolina land use laws do not permit building on an areas that have intermittent streams -- where there is a stream during the rainy season. Yes, that was his outrage, and he went on about it, invoking the flag, and freedom, and Thomas Paine.
Again, the audience sat on its hands (seriously, he's talking about streams???) until he said a sentence that included the word "freedom" or "God" or "America". Then, applause.
He then turned to the example of toilets, saying that because the government has so many regulations regarding toilets, the third-largest thing being smuggled in from Mexico (after drugs and people) is toilets. I don't know if that Mexico "fact" is true or not, but his point was that toilet smuggling is a consequence of "needless" government regulation. And the audience cheered. What he didn't the audience was that in the 1990's, the federal government essentially banned high-flow toilets because they wasted water. That creates a problem, especially in times of drought. Now, had he mentioned that to the crowd, I'm sure there would have been a handful of tobacco farmers who get hit hard whenever there is a drought or water shortage. And their take on that "needless" government regulation would have been quite different.
Again, that was my point. The people had legitimate concerns, but in the end, they hadn't thought things through.
Anyway, the toilet hissy-fit was my cue to leave.
I'll leave the coda to This Modern World's Greg Saunders:
In the grand scheme of things, getting people to complain about taxes on April 15th might be the easiest thing in the world. It’s right up there with “eating ice cream on a hot summer day” and “laughing whenever Glenn Beck cries”. Bitching about taxes is America’s true pastime. So when a few thousand people gather on tax day to whine about their taxes (after getting massive tax breaks, btw), it’s hardly the second coming of the American Revolution. Hell, I remember a time six years ago when millions of people took to the street to protest the government. We all saw how well that worked out.
When their rallying cry is “Grrrr…I hate you TAXES!”, there won’t be a whole lot left to keep the tea bagging movement together after April 15th. Manufactured-populism and a fractured-understanding of American history will only take you so far. The great-great-great-great grandchildren of liberty will have to find some other crusade to motivate them like birth certificate forgeries or investigating whether Bo Obama was really a rescue dog. Sure, some die-hards will stick around like the asshole who keeps flipping through your DVD’s at three in the morning oblivious to the fact that the party is over, but within a few weeks, the only people left to carry the “tea party” torch will be the GOP & Fox News personalities trying to recapture the “good times” with all the subtlety and humility of Chubby Checker trying to get everyone to do the twist.
I’m going to miss the “Tea Party” movement. I’m going to miss the powdered wigs and the lunatic ranting. I’m going to miss the ideological uncertainty and the unpragmatic futility (seriously, you’re mailing tea bags to the White House to demand lower taxes after you just got a tax cut?). Most of all, I’m going to miss the jokes. These last few weeks have been a golden age for juvenile humor that passes for insightful political commentary. It’s a rare movement that chooses to describe itself with terminology that also means “testicle slapping” and those of us who relish in the foolishness of conservative activism will be much worse off for it.
(1) I guess the big news was that the U.S. Navy rescued that skipper from the pirates. Skipper? Pirates? This sounds like a bad episode of "Gilligan's Island".
But no, it happened. Obviously, it is a good thing since (1) Obama's first serious military rescue operation was a success [guess those concerns about the 3 am call were unfounded]; (2) it shows that the Navy (which -- let's face it -- hasn't had a lot to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) has still got game.
Right-wing pundits had spent most of the weeken denouncing Obama for being a wuss about the whole thing....
After the succesful mission, do they credit Obama? Of course not.
This is the first time that the Somalian pirates have taken over a U.S.-flagged vessel, and the outcome (i.e., dead pirates) means that they're going to think hard about doing it again.
Also, these Somalian pirates aren't really "pirates" as we think of them. They really are remore extensions of the al Qaeda arm. So, that's good.
On the other hand, it was 5 guys and a boat against the U.S. Navy. I mean, it would have been embarrassing if it hadn't ended up positively.
(3) Amazon.com came under fire this weekend for removing the sales ranking for adult gay-themed books.
The end result is that certain not-very-racy-nor-very-gay books have been banned from Amazon rankings....
Ellen DeGeneres' autobiography, Heather Has Two Mommies, "Running with Scissors" by Augusten Burroughs, "Rubyfruit Jungle" by Rita Mae Brown, "Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic" by Alison Bechdel, "The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1" by Michel Foucault, "Bastard Out of Carolina" by Dorothy Allison (2005 Plume edition), "Little Birds: Erotica" by Anais Nin, "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" by Jean-Dominque Bauby (1997 Knopf edition), "Maurice" by E.M. Forster (2005 W.W. Norton edition) and "Becoming a Man" by Paul Monette, which won the 1992 National Book Award.
.... while other very racy (but heterosexual) books remaing in the sale ranking pipeline -- books such as:
"Naked" by David Sedaris, "Tropic of Cancer" by Henry Miller, "American Psycho" by Bret Easton Ellis, "Wifey" by Judy Blume, "The Kiss" by Kathryn Harrison, the photobooks "Playboy: Helmut Newton" and "Playboy: Six Decades of Centerfolds," "Naked Lunch" by William Burroughs, "Incest: From 'A Journal of Love'" by Anais Nin, "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" by Jean-Dominque Bauby (2007 Vintage International edition), "Maurice" by E.M. Forster (2005 Penguin Classics edition)
Amazon has a serious PR problem on its hands, and they're being a little slow to react.
This all strikes me as odd, as I always assumed that Bebos was gay.
And speaking of teh gay, this is soooo last week, but the anti-gay-marriage ugga bugga scare tactic advertisement has been improved upon:
Poll after poll after poll after poll, we see the same thing. This time, it's CBS/NY Times (MoE +/- 3): Obama's job approval is 66% and
By contrast, Republican fortunes have dropped in the first weeks of the Obama presidency; just 31 percent of respondents said they had a favorable view of the Republican Party, the lowest in the 25 years the question has been asked in New York Times/CBS News polls.
Here's a look at an aggregate of all polls asking the right direction/wrong direction question:
That's not bad at all, especially when you consider that most of the news -- economically, at least -- is almost always bad.
Two key questions in the poll show that whatever Republicans think they are doing in Congress by voting against the stimulus and other things, the American people ain't happy with it:
Regardless of how you usually vote, who do you think is more likely to make the right decisions about the nation's economy -- Barack Obama or the Republicans in Congress?
President Obama 63 Republicans in Congress 20
Regardless of how you usually vote, who do you think is more likely to make the right decisions about keeping the nation safe -- Barack Obama or the Republicans in Congress?
President Obama 61 Republicans in Congress 27
Perhaps the GOP should climb aboard the bandwagon.
For those who ever doubted that effective diplomacy cannot lead to results, and that our new president is a skilled diplomat, read this:
According to sources inside the room, President Obama just played peacemaker in a spat between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Hu Jintao, President of the People's Republic of China.
In the finaly plenary session among the G-20 leaders, Sarkozy and Hu were having a heated disagreement about tax havens.
***
The exchange between Sarkozy and Hu got so heated, said a source -- who is not a member of the Obama administration -- it was threatening the unity of the G-20 leaders' meeting.
Obama to the rescue:
But Mr. Obama, according to this account, stepped between the two men, urging them to try to find consensus, and giving them a "pep talk" about the importance of working together.
The senior adminstration official said that Mr. Obama pulled Mr. Sarkozy aside, took him to a corner, "and discussed possible alternatives," the senior official said.
Once they arrived at one, President Obama "sent a message to the Chinese" that a counter-offer was on the table. The Chinese spent some time considering the offer. But they took a few minutes.
So Mr. Obama, with the assistance of translators, suggested that he and Mr. Hu have a conversation as well. They, too went to the corner to talk. After a few minutes, Mr. Obama called upon Mr. Sarkozy to join them.
"Translators and sherpas in tow, they reached an agreement," the official said. "There was a multiple shaking of hands."
Driving into work today, I was listening to the BBC. The topic of discussion was Obama's appearance last night on Leno. One commentator was opining that it was beneath the dignity of the presidency for the American president to appear on a "chat show". Jeez. The Brits can be such snoots sometimes.
I think it was wise of Obama to go on. There is a populist wave running through America, and people actually like that their President can be a regular guy. Not so much "the guy you want to have a beer with", but a guy who is serious, responsible, and knows the import of his job, while still being personable and agreeable.
That's how Obama came off last night. Sure, it was a softball interview. But it was a way for him to speak about the nation's problems without the media filter. He was upbeat, funny and optimistic when he needed to be, and serious and throughful when he needed to be.
Sadly, Leno focussed on the AIG bonuses far too much for me. (In fact, I think everyone is focussing on the AIG bonuses far too much for me. In the big picture, financially, they are nothing.)
Slight gaffe when he compared his bowling skills to the "Special Olympics". The right wing is trumpeting the faux pas by saying "Obama insults the disabled", which, of course, he wasn't (he was denigrating his own bowling skills). No doubt Rush will have something to say, and irony alarms will sound throughout the country; it was Rush who literally did insult the disabled when he said that Michael J. Fox was exaggerating his tremors in order to get sympathy.
Sec. 1: . . . For the past 8 years, the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to fund and conduct human embryonic stem cell research has been limited by Presidential actions. The purpose of this order is to remove these limitations on scientific inquiry, to expand NIH support for the exploration of human stem cell research, and in so doing to enhance the contribution of America's scientists to important new discoveries and new therapies for the benefit of humankind.
Sec. 2. Research. The Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), through the Director of NIH, may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law.
Sec. 3. Guidance. Within 120 days from the date of this order, the Secretary, through the Director of NIH, shall review existing NIH guidance and other widely recognized guidelines on human stem cell research, including provisions establishing appropriate safeguards, and issue new NIH guidance on such research that is consistent with this order.
In a memo to senior government officials, Obama said they must check with Attorney General Eric Holder before relying on any of Bush's signing statements for guidance. Bush often issued a statement when signing a bill into law, and critics said the statements at times showed government officials how to circumvent the law if Bush disagreed with it on constitutional grounds.
By this memorandum, I assign to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (Director) the responsibility for ensuring the highest level of integrity in all aspects of the executive branch's involvement with scientific and technological processes. The Director shall confer, as appropriate, with the heads of executive departments and agencies, including the Office of Management and Budget and offices and agencies within the Executive Office of the President (collectively, the "agencies"), and recommend a plan to achieve that goal throughout the executive branch.
Each of these events is worthy of its own thoughtful post (in fact, I've written about these subjects many times before, complaining about the Bush policies). But there's really nothing to say, except to note the speed with which these Bush-era policies are being undone.
I will comment, however, on Republican Eric Cantor. He recently said on CNN that Obama's stem cell reversal order is a distraction from dealing with the economy:
"Why are we going and distracting ourselves from the economy? This is job No. 1. Let's focus on what needs to be done."
First of all, Obama signed an executive order. Didn't really take a lot of time. Obama, I'm sure, can do that and focus on the economy.
Secondly, reversing the policy on stem cell research will create jobs (not to mention, oh, curing diseases).
Thirdly, Cantor is no position to talk about Obama's supposed failure to focus on "Job. No 1". Here are some bills that Cantor has co-sponsored in the past two months:
– H. Res. 204: Congratulating the American Dental Association for its 150th year of working to improve the public’s oral health and promoting dentistry.
– H. Res. 18: A bill honoring the life, achievements and contributions of Paul Newman.
– H.R. 997: To declare English as the official language of the United States.
– H.R. 836: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the tax on beer to its pre-1991 level, and for other purposes.
A CBS News poll of approximately 500 people saw approval of the president rise from 62 percent before the speech to 69 percent afterward.
Meanwhile, a poll on CNN showed that 68 percent of respondents -- who skewed a bit Democratic -- viewed the speech positively, 24 somewhat positively, and only eight percent not positively. Eighty-two percent supported the president's economic plan as outlined in the speech, while 17 percent opposed it.
Those results were buttressed by the findings of longtime Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. In his own dial poll, which included 50 participants of mixed gender, education and politics, Greenberg found a large swath of bipartisan support for Obama's addres. That included a 14 percent jump, from 62 to 76 percent, in the favorability rating for the president.
Saying at the onset that this was an "immensely successful speech," he highlighted a few issues on which Obama won over the audience.
* On taxes, "there was a 26-point gain," from 38 to 64 percent, "the biggest gains that he made."
* On the deficit, "there was an 18 point swing... from 42 percent to 60 percent."
* On Iraq, "there was a 18-point swing" (no numbers were offered)
"I've never seen this," Greenberg added. For a large part of the speech, all three, the Republican, Democratic and independent line where virtually in the same place."
What was striking, Greenberg concluded, was "how un-polarized the reaction was to this speech. I have not quite seen that."
I just saw something I've never seen before in my quarter-decade of following politics.
I was flipping around the dial, and came to CNN. Wolf said that they were going to cut live to the White House where Obama was about to speak at a "fiscal responsibility summit". Yawn, right?
It's hard to describe what I saw. It looked like Obama speaking to reporters -- a typical press conference. But then he called out for questions and comments from the people sitting in front of him. The first person he called on? Senator John McCain.
What Obama had done was call in a bunch of knowledgeable people -- Democrats, Republicans, people in government, people in the private sector -- and put them into various work groups to talk candidly about issues relating to fiscal responsibility (specifically, how to deal with the deficit). That is apparaentlyl what they were doing today. Then he called them all back in, and gave this summit. Each group is going to prepare a report, showing where everybody seems to be in agreement, where there is disagreement, and providing thoughts about what to do next. John McCain, for example, was in the military procurements group, and reported to the President that all in his group seemed to agree on military overspending. He noted that the President's new helicopter was going to cost more than Air Force One. (Obama quipped that the helicopter he had was just fine, and didn't need a new one).
It was remarkable in that I have never ever ever seen a President hold a nationally-televised summit where there was a back-and-forth between himself, his political opponents, and members of the public. It was clear that Obama was there to listen. Remarkable.
I don't think it was just for show. Obama was clear -- and stated repeatedly -- that he understands there are going to be politics, but he wanted agreements on policies. It was leadership like I have never seen before.
At one point, a Republican Congressman from Texas rose and spoke to Obama, noting that his obvious bi-partisan approach to fiscal responsibility issues were essentially meaningless if it was going to be handled like the stimulus package, where Republicans felt they were left out. Obama had a brilliant response. He essentially said that while his administration is dedicated to bi-partisanship, it is the responsibility of the minority party to step up with ideas, rather than simply rejecting Obama's proposals, which was essentially what happened with the stimulus package.
Was this political theater? A cynic might say so. But it just didn't look that way. It was an intelligent conversation between opposing factions on what they could and should do to reduce the deficit. One thing that came out was that health care is going to be the key.
Anyway, this should be on Youtube shortly. I'll try to post the link. But if you get a chance to see it, you will see something that is virtually unheard of in American politics. Even the media was astounded.
Obama beats out Jesus in poll asking for biggest hero:
Americans named President Obama as their No. 1 hero, followed by Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King, in a new Harris poll.
Others in the top 10, in descending order, were Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Abraham Lincoln, John McCain, John F. Kennedy, Chesley Sullenberger and Mother Teresa.
"This is not a time when we should stand in our ideological corners and shout at each other. This is a time to govern and govern well. It was my obligation to say yes."
Judd Gregg, today:
"(I)t has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the census there are irresolvable conflicts for me. Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy."
Look, it wasn't the stimulus package, which Gregg was on record as supporting. It wasn't the census being taken away from Commerce, because that was known to Gregg at the time of his nomination.
Gregg wanted the post. He campaigned for it. So he quit because he was pressured to. The GOP has declared "Screw Partisanship, It's All-out War" and they got to Gregg.
I have to say even I am a little taken aback by the force of the Republican assault. Even in a downturn as swift and alarming as this one, even after an election that clearly favored one approach over another, even after the most conciliatory efforts by an incoming president in memory, these people have gone to war against the president. The president should stay cool. The rest of us should realize what motivates the GOP: the opportunism of selective ideology.
Given the fact that Obama is our first black president, and that this country has its fair share of gun-toting wingnuts who hate him, it's one thing to pay a visit to Ford's Theater (site of the Lincoln assassination).
Sure, Obama is willing to talk with, and listen to, members of the GOP -- and solicit their views.
But it's nice to know that he's no pushover:
President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.
Countdown to right-wing whining that Obama isn't being "bi-partisan" enough by virtue of the fact that he's not caving in to their demands. 10, 9, 8, 7....
THIS WEEK marks the 20th anniversary of a profound and misguided change in US foreign policy: the Reagan administration's "global gag rule," which was first announced at an international family planning conference in Mexico City in August 1984.
The "Mexico City" policy prohibits US dollars and contraceptive supplies from going to any international family planning program that provides abortions or counsels women about their reproductive health options.
The problem with the "gag rule" of course is that most family planning programs abroad, like the ones here, provide all kinds of health services to women -- not just abortions. In fact, for most international family planning facilities, abortion represents a small fraction of the services provided.
The policy isn't about money going to pay for abortions. Even those groups that use only private funds for abortion services -- where abortion is legal -- are barred from assistance. This is money going to family planning programs.
And what has been the consequence?
In Kenya, for example, two of the leading family planning organizations have been forced to shut down five clinics dispensing aid from prenatal care and vaccinations to malaria screening and AIDS prevention. Kenya's experience is common, according to "Access Denied," a report on the impact of the global gag rule on developing nations. Researchers found that programs for rural communities and urban slums have been scaled back by as much as 50 percent. As a result more women are turning to unsafe abortion -- a leading cause of death for young women in much of Africa -- because they lack access to family planning information and essential contraceptive supplies.
In other words, better to have people dies from malaria and AIDS rather than destroying fetuses. So much for the "culture of life".
From closing Gitmo to transparent governing, from freezing last-minute Bush regulations to slowing the government-lobbying revolving door, the Obama administration has been very busy these past 24 hours. WaPo has the full rundown, all of it extremely gratifying to read.
Barack Obama will have spent his first several days in office issuing a series of executive orders which, some quibbling and important caveats aside, meet or actually exceed even the most optimistic expectations of civil libertarians -- everything from ordering the closing of Guantanamo to suspending military commissions to compelling CIA interrogators to adhere to the Army Field Manual to banning CIA "black sites" and, perhaps most encouragingly (in my view): severely restricting his own power and the power of former Presidents to withhold documents on the basis of secrecy, which has been the prime corrosive agent of the Bush era. As a result, establishment and right-wing figures who have been assuring everyone that Obama would scorn "the Left" (meaning: those who believe in Constitutional safeguards) and would continue most of Bush's "counter-Terrorism" policies are growing increasingly nervous about this flurry of unexpected activity.
UPDATE: Well, you would think that would be the end of it. I mean, it wasn't necessary in the first place (George Washington wasn't sworn in until seven weeks until his administration). But no. NOW the gripe is going to be that Obama, when he re-took the oath, did not have his left hand on the Bible. This, of course, makes no difference (legally or otherwise). You can swear on a Dr. Seuss book, a stack of Playboys, or nothing at all.
Well, the obvious. It's President Obama, rather than President Bush.
But there's something else.
Scour photos of the Oval Office over the last eight years and there is one thing you won't see -- a man sans jacket. That's because Bush had a rule -- jackets always in the Oval Office.
Obama, consciously or subconsciously in keeping with his roll-up-our-sleeves attitude, has dispensed with that rule rather quickly.
The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
Okay. So Bush and Cheney stopped being President and Vice-President at the stroke of noon. But because things were running behind schedule, Obama had not taken the oath. He wasn't sworn in until 12:03, because YoYo Ma & Friends were still fiddling around.
But if Bush and Cheney weren't President, then was Obama automatically President during those minutes?
It would seem so ("the terms of their successors shall then begin").
But wait. Article II, Section 1 states the following:
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
So there is a gray area here. Is the oath a pre-requisite to being President (along with the 12:00 noon requirement)?
One could argue that Obama became President at noon, but he could not execute the duties of that office until he took the oath. In other words, he was a powerless leader for a prescious few minutes.
But there are other views. Professor Ken Katkin, a constitutional law professor, makes an interesting argument, and comes to an interesting conclusion:
(1) The 20th Amendment provides that “[t]he terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January. . . . ”
(2) Art II., Sec. 1 Cl. 8 provides that “[b]efore he enter on the Execution of his Office, [The President] shall take the following oath. . . ”
(3) President Obama did not take the Oath of Office until about 12:03 pm today, after Vice President Biden took it at about 12:01 p.m.
(4) Therefore, there was a brief window (just after noon) when George Bush and Dick Cheney were no longer President and Vice President, but Barack Obama and Joe Biden also were not yet qualified to enter on the Execution of their offices.
(5) The Presidential Succession Act, 3 U.S.C. sec. 19(a)(1), provides: “If, by reason of . . . failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.” Section 19(b) states that the President Pro Tempore of the Senate shall act as President (under the same terms and conditions) if the Speaker of the House fails to qualify.
(6) Neither Nancy Pelosi nor Robert Byrd actually resigned their seats in the Congress. Thus, neither of them qualified to become Acting President under the Presidential Succession Act. Plus, interbranch appointments might be unconstitutional anyhow. See Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar, Is the Presidential Succession Law Constitutional?, 48 Stan. L. Rev. 113 (1995); but see Howard Wasserman, Structural Principles and Presidential Succession, 90 Ky. L.J. 345 (2002).
(7) Section 19(d)(1) of the Presidential Succession Act provides: “If, by reason of . . . failure to qualify, there is no President pro tempore to act as President under subsection (b) of this section, then the officer of the United States who is highest on the following list, and who is not under disability to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President shall act as President: Secretary of State . . . ”
(8) Notably, Section 19(d)(1) does not condition the Secretary of State’s assumption of the powers and duties of the office of President on resignation of her current office, nor does elevation of the Secretary of State raise any constitutional issue of interbranch appointment.
(9) The term of office of the Secretary of State does not automatically terminate at noon on the 20th day of January.
(10) On January 20, 2009, Condoleeza Rice was (and is) still the Secretary of State.
(11) Accordingly, from 12:00 noon until 12:01 p.m. (when Vice President Biden took the oath of office and became Vice President), Condoleeza Rice was momentarily the Acting President of the United States, our first African-American President.
Sadly, Katkin is wrong on his timing. Biden was not sworn in at 12:01 p.m.; he was sworn in before noon (before Yoyo Ma and Perlman played). So, presumably, Joe Biden was President for a few minutes under the Presidential Succession Act.
The academic issue gets thornier when you consider that President Obama did not take the presidential oath as written. In giving the oath, Chief Justice Roberts misplaced the word "faithfully". He corrected himself, but Obama repeated the words as Roberts initially said them, an an awkward crosstalk between the two.
The obvious solution to this minor problem is for the oath to be re-administered. It takes 30 seconds, and can be done in private. In fact, Charles Cooper, head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel under President Ronald Reagan, said that he would be surprised if the oath hadn't already been re-administered.
Assming that the oath has not been re-administered, then our President is Joe Biden.
But don't get your hopes up, conspiracy theorists. Legal challenges to Obama's presidency won't survive. Lyle Denniston explains why.
UPDATE: Some believe that, as a matter of tradition, an incoming President takes the oath of office privately before the official ceremony. There's no knowing if Obama did this. If he did, then of course, everything in this post is moot.
Secondly, to its credit, it reflects Obama's commitment to open and transparent government. Case in point:
The President's executive orders and proclamations will be published for everyone to review, and that’s just the beginning of our efforts to provide a window for all Americans into the business of the government.
And even better:
One significant addition to WhiteHouse.gov reflects a campaign promise from the President: we will publish all non-emergency legislation to the website for five days, and allow the public to review and comment before the President signs it.
One hopes that people will take this seriously, rather than just rant.
I'm talking, of course, about the 5th anniversary of this blog.
The first post was January 21, 2004, a passing reference to a State of the Union drinking game. I had blogged for several years prior to that -- at a group blog called "Freespeech" -- but this was my first foray into something of my own.
So it's been five years -- 6517 posts, 1148 comments, and over 533,000 visitors. You would think I would have something profound or reflective to say, but no. It's just a blog.
Speaking of historic days, I hear this Obama guy takes office in 45 minutes. Again, I lack anything profound to say. I am astounded by the TV shots of 2 million people on the mall. I'm interested to hear his address, and find the "ask not what you can do for your country can do for you..." moment.
Here at work (for those who made it in -- we had an inch of snow) there are TV monitors in every floor. Our conference room has a projection screen. And I will pop in. But I'm not much for ceremony, finding myself more interested in Obama as President, than Obama becoming President. I'm far more interested in our long national nightmare being over.
For what it's worth, I like the idea of Dr. Sunjay Gupta as Surgeon General, the current balloon being floated by the incoming Obama administration.
I like his news reports on CNN and CBS. I like his rapport on talk shows.
But this WaPo headline gets it wrong when it calls him a "journalist", as do right-wing blogs who focus exclusively on his journalism creds and obvious TV eye appeal. Sure, he does journalism, but that's a second vocation. He was trained as, and became a worldwide expert in, medicine (neurosurgery) long before the journalism gig. In fact, he has been, and still is, a practicing neurosurgeon at Emory University in Atlanta. He was there before the CNN job a year ago.
And certainly his allegience is to medicine. While being a war correspondent in Iraq, he was asked to perform emergency surgery on a 2-year-old Iraqi boy who had been critically wounded when hit in the head with shrapnel (the boy did not survive). This was a violation of journalistic ethics (becoming a part of the story), but for Gupta, it was no-brainer. As a licensed practising surgeon who took the Oath, he was compelled morally to treat the boy.
Furthermore, the job of Surgeon General is educational as well as medical. After all, it is the Surgeon General who is charged with getting the word out about health hazards (ever read a cigarette pack lately)? So who better than an established medical doctor with strong PR skills, and a small modicum of fame? And, the looks don't hurt.
The Office Of Legal Counsel is an important executive position. The OLC gives legal advice to the president and, by extension, the executive branch. Among other things, it informs the CIA and the Department of Interior what it judges to be permissible under the laws, and its opinions are binding.
Most people had never heard of the OLC before the Bush Administration. Then along came John Yoo, Bush's head of the OLC. Yoo, rather than presenting the law, used the office to find ways to skirt the law*. His so-called, now infamous, "torture memos" -- which gave legal approval to waterboarding and other torture techniques -- will go down in history as some of the most awkwardly strained legal reasoning ever put to paper.
Dawn Johnsen, Professor of Law at the Indiana University School of Law, had this to say about Yoo's memos:
"The Torture Opinion is an easy target for criticism, an extreme example of poor lawyering. A strong case can be made that the Opinion does not meet the professional standards that define any transactional attorney's ethical obligations in advising a client."
She added:
"That the President should premise his actions on the administration's best - and not merely plausible - interpretations of the relevant law is a relatively uncontroversial principle, at least as a theoretical matter. (...) Measured by this standard, the Torture Opinion utterly fails."
Johnsen believed not just that the torture memos were badly argued, but that many of the interrogation practices they licensed are in fact illegal:
"The Torture Opinion focuses exclusively on just one statutory prohibition, which could give the impression that interrogations that fall just short of the Opinion's narrow interpretation of torture are not unlawful. In fact, several other laws further prohibit coercive forms of interrogation that would fail to meet even a broad definition of torture. The soldiers who committed the Abu Ghraib abuses, for example, were subject not only to the limits of the federal anti-torture statute, but also to far more extensive restrictions contained in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), most notably prohibitions against cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment of a detainee. The anti-torture statute itself implements a treaty that prohibits "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment." A final example: Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions goes far beyond torture and prohibits "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." At the time of the Torture Opinion's issuance, violations of Common Article 3 were punishable war crimes under federal law."
And finally, this is what she had to say on the Bush Administration's (mis)use of the OLC in general:
"The proposition that the President's own legal advisors can provide an effective constraint on unlawful action understandably engenders a high degree of skepticism - especially in light of recent events. One of President Bush's legacies undoubtedly will be the deepening of Americans' cynicism about presidential adherence to the rule of law. The Bush Administration, however, also provides some evidence to the contrary, for example, in the resistance to advice given by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) regarding torture from lawyers and other advisors elsewhere in the executive branch and later from within OLC itself. Internal checks alone, of course, are insufficient. But we debase our commitment to democracy and justice if we do not view legal advice from within the executive branch as an essential component of efforts to safeguard civil liberties, the constitutional allocation of governmental authority, and the rule of law. We invite failure if we allow our cynicism to excuse presidential abuses as simply expected - in effect relieving Presidents (and those who serve them) of their obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, as the U.S. Constitution commands."
* Interesting thing about Bush's law-men, John Yoo and John Bolton. After years of advocating unbridled executive power, they suddenly think that presidential power should be limited, and Congress and the Court should act as a guiding counterbalances.
Bolton and Yoo believe -- get this -- the president should have less authority and discretion when it comes to international affairs.
The Constitution's Treaty Clause has long been seen, rightly, as a bulwark against presidential inclinations to lock the United States into unwise foreign commitments. The clause will likely be tested by Barack Obama's administration, as the new president and Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton, led by the legal academics in whose circles they have long traveled, contemplate binding down American power and interests in a dense web of treaties and international bureaucracies.
Like past presidents, Mr. Obama will likely be tempted to avoid the requirement that treaties must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate.... By insisting on the proper constitutional process for treaty-making, Republicans can join Mr. Obama in advancing a bipartisan foreign policy. They can also help strike the proper balance between the legislative and executive branches that so many have called for in recent years.
Reading this, I had to double check to make sure we were talking about the same Bolton and Yoo. After all, John Yoo has spent most of the last eight years arguing that the president has an unfettered power to do as he pleases on the international stage. Indeed, Yoo argued that the president can literally ignore any law he chooses -- including the Constitution -- if he decides it's in the nation's interests.
But that was then. Now Yoo is worried about executive overreach. Now Yoo wants every letter of the Constitution to be respected and adhered to without exception...
A-list blogger acknowledge that Barack Obama is Time's Person of the Year, and then imposes on him Wanker of the Day.
Why?
Because of Obama's decision to have Rick "A Purpose Driven Life" Warren give the inaugural invocation.
In fact many, particularly in the gay and lesbian community, are NOT happy about the selection of Warren. For example:
This selection is clearly not about “change”—it’s about making a high profile decision to give the stage over to a known homophobe; choosing Rick Warren is tantamount to asking any of the professional anti-gay “Christian” set to stand up there. There is no excuse for this; given there are so many leaders of the faith community that are in alignment with equality for all.
True. He's not the best choice. But viewed in the proper light, this is really more of a slap in the face to the religious right -- those of the James Dobson and Pat Robertson ilk. Warren may not be progressive on gay rights, but he’s been out front on a number of issues of global justice. He's at the forefront of getting rank-and-file evangelicals invested in "creation care" environmentalism and the fight against global HIV/AIDS. He's far more moderate than the religious leaders we've come to know (and disdain) for the past few decades.
And it's not like Warren is going to be dictating social policy... on gays or other issues. Obama clearly doesn't subscribe to Warren's views on gays:
Besides, it's just an inaugural invocation. So I can't find myself generating the outrage that others seem to.
P.S.: The Inauguration will also involve Reverend Joseph Lowery, who will be delivering the official benediction at the Inauguration. Reverend Lowery is a giant of the civil rights movement who boasts a proudly progressive record on LGBT issues. He has been a leader in the struggle for civil rights for all Americans, gay or straight.
But, technically, she really can't become SoS. Not legally.
It's because of a rather obscure clause in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 6) called the Emoluments Clause, which reads:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time ....
Translated? The Framers didn't want members of Congress creating new jobs or giving raises to existing jobs, and then taking those jobs for themselves. It was kind of an anti-corruption thing (an "emolument" is just an old-timey word for "salary" or "compensation").
The problem comes because of an Executive Order dated January 4, 2008, in which President Bush ordered the salaries of Cabinet Secretaries to be raised from $186,600 to $191,300. And Sen. Clinton's current term runs from 2007 through 2012. So you've met the preconditions of the Emoluments Clause:
1) a raise to existing "civil office" job (Secretary of State);
2) said raise was created during the time Clinton was a Senator; and
3) Senator Clinton now becoming Secretary of State.
Therefore, we have a constitutional problem.
Not surprisingly, this has come up before. In 1908, President Taft sought to have Senator Philander Knox (Note: "Philander" is a name that has gone curiously out of style, hasn't it?) appointed as his Secretary of State. But the pay for that office had been hiked the previous term.
How did they get around it? The Senate passed a bill which rescinded the previous pay hike for Secretary of State.
In 1973, President Nixon nominated Sen. William Saxbe (R-OH) to serve as his Attorney General after the Saturday Night Massacre, but the AG's salary had been increased in 1969 during Saxbe's term. But Nixon persuaded Congress to lower Saxbe's salary to the pre-1969 level. And that's how the inside-politics term the "Saxbe fix" was born (although really, it should be the "Knox fix", since Taft thought of it first).
And it happened again during the Clinton Administration, when Bill Clinton sought to confirm Senator Lloyd Bentsen as his Treasury Secretary. The solution? Congress employed the "Saxbe fix", thanks to a bill offered by Senator John Glenn.
And now we have it again today.
Admittedly, one can argue that the Emoluments Clause is "anachronistic".
Alternatively, one can argue that it doesn't apply, since the pay hike here came from an executive order of Bush, and not from Congress itself (therefore, nobody can claim there was "self-dealing" by a Senator or Representative, which is what the Framers sought to ban through the Emoluments Clause).
But if you read the language of the article closely, it doesn't matter who ordered the pay hike.
So, anachronistic it may be -- or non-applicable to the original intent of the Framers -- we have here, strictly speaking, in the plain words of the United States Constitution, a situation which is unconstitutional. Hillary simply cannot become Secretary of State, as things stand today.
The so-called "Saxbe fix" could be employed yet again. Yes, some might argue that the "Saxbe fix" doesn't render the unconstitutional appointment suddenly "constitutional". After all, they would argue, the three conditions above have been met, even if the pay hike is later rescinded. And such an argument might prevail. But no court has ever rendered judgment on this constitutional issue.
But, in any event, the absence of the Saxbe fix will definitely mean that Hillary's appointment is unconstitutional. So somebody in Congress better get a move-on, and offer a bill to rescind Bush's pay hike to the incoming Secretary of State.
Supposedly, there is a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth from the "angry left" with regard to Obama's choices for his "international team" -- i.e., Hillary as Secretary of State, Robert Gates staying on as Secretary of Defense, and Gen. James L. Jones, the former NATO commander, as national security adviser.
I think it's premature to complain. None of them, in my view, is severely hawkish.
Yet all three of his choices — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as the rival turned secretary of state; Gen. James L. Jones, the former NATO commander, as national security adviser, and Robert M. Gates, the current and future defense secretary — were selected in large part because they have embraced a sweeping shift of resources in the national security arena.
The shift, which would come partly out of the military’s huge budget, would create a greatly expanded corps of diplomats and aid workers that, in the vision of the incoming Obama administration, would be engaged in projects around the world aimed at preventing conflicts and rebuilding failed states.
Whether they can make the change — one that Mr. Obama started talking about in the summer of 2007, when his candidacy was a long shot at best — “will be the great foreign policy experiment of the Obama presidency,” one of his senior advisers said recently.
But the adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said the three have all embraced “a rebalancing of America’s national security portfolio” after a huge investment in new combat capabilities during the Bush years.
So there you have. A national security structure with greater emphasis on preventing conflict rather than winning conflict. Seems to me that's how we save money and lives in the long run.
It reminds me of an exchange between two characters in the now-dated but marvelously written Cold War play A Walk In The Woods. The Russian arms negotiatior is speaking with the American arms negotiator and says something like (I'm paraphrasing):
"Millions and millions of dollars our countries spend in preparing for war. Vast armies. Huge stockpiles of missiles. But how much do they invest in preparing for peace? Eh? You and me."
Well, it looks like that is about to change, as our military budget will be transformed in large part to a "peace budget".
Look, can you blame him? The president-elect had to leave his former church because some people didn't like that his pastor was an angry black man. I'm sure it was in the news.
Besides, I'm sure he's busy with his Muslim socialist cabal.
I think it is a great choice. The Clintons are still admired abroad, and it will help the United States get back some of its international esteem that it has lost. She has celebrity and credibility.
I don't agree with Mike Allen's assessment that Obama is on his way (with Clinton as SoS) to creating a "team of rivals" a la Lincoln's cabinet. I think that is overstating it.
First of all, I'm not sure Clinton counts as a "rival" anymore.
In any event, she's not as vehemently anti-Obama as many of Lincoln's cabinet were anti-Lincoln.
I think it is also a good move for Hillary's career. It places her more front-and-center.
But I still say she should hold out for a seat on the Supreme Court. She would be a great replacement for Ginsberg.
Hillary's replacement in the Senate would be decided by David Paterson, New York's Democratic governor. I think Bill Clinton woold be an interesting choice, assuming he would take the position.
There's precedent for it: Andrew Johnson returned to the Senate after being impeached as President.
But you have to answer these 63 questions (PDF format). Yes, those are the actual questions (and requests for information) that the Obama administration seeks. The one drawing a lot of attention is the request for URLs of Facebook, MySpace, and personal blogs.
Well, I'm screwed.
UPDATE: No, dammit, I'm not screwed. What exactly have I put on this blog that would disqualify me from federal office? It's not like I was in Debbie Does Dallas or anything..... oh, wait.....
Kristof's column in the New York Times, entitled "Obama and the War on Brains" is a must-read. It's about the return -- the unapologetic return -- of intellectual thinkers in the White House. An excerpt:
Barack Obama’s election is a milestone in more than his pigmentation. The second most remarkable thing about his election is that American voters have just picked a president who is an open, out-of-the-closet, practicing intellectual.
***
Perhaps John Kennedy was the last president who was unapologetic about his intellect and about luring the best minds to his cabinet. More recently, we’ve had some smart and well-educated presidents who scrambled to hide it. Richard Nixon was a self-loathing intellectual, and Bill Clinton camouflaged a fulgent brain behind folksy Arkansas aphorisms about hogs.
As for President Bush, he adopted anti-intellectualism as administration policy, repeatedly rejecting expertise (from Middle East experts, climate scientists and reproductive health specialists). Mr. Bush is smart in the sense of remembering facts and faces, yet I can’t think of anybody I’ve ever interviewed who appeared so uninterested in ideas.
***
An intellectual is a person interested in ideas and comfortable with complexity. Intellectuals read the classics, even when no one is looking, because they appreciate the lessons of Sophocles and Shakespeare that the world abounds in uncertainties and contradictions, and — President Bush, lend me your ears — that leaders self-destruct when they become too rigid and too intoxicated with the fumes of moral clarity.
(Intellectuals are for real. In contrast, a pedant is a supercilious show-off who drops references to Sophocles and masks his shallowness by using words like “fulgent” and “supercilious.”)
Mr. Obama, unlike most politicians near a microphone, exults in complexity. He doesn’t condescend or oversimplify nearly as much as politicians often do, and he speaks in paragraphs rather than sound bites. Global Language Monitor, which follows linguistic issues, reports that in the final debate, Mr. Obama spoke at a ninth-grade reading level, while John McCain spoke at a seventh-grade level.
Kristof notes that being an intellectual doesn't necessary result in political sense.
No matter.
I, for one, welcome out new intellectual overlords.
Obama aides and allies are preparing a major expansion of the White House communications operation, enabling them to reach out directly to the supporters they have collected over 21 months without having to go through the mainstream media.
They're going to be used to urge you to do certain things like "push reluctant members of Congress to support legislation, to offer feedback on initiatives and to enlist in administration-supported causes in local communities."
I guess that's okay. I mean, Obama has said many times that he alone isn't the agent of change, and it's going to require efforts on the part of all of us.
But there's going to be a law-of-diminishing-returns thing with these emails. I mean, if I get them 5 or 6 times a week, I'm probably just going to tune them out pretty quickly. I suspect most people will.
And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.
Recent Comments