President-elect Obama spoke briefly about what he expects his first moves to be in his first
press conference since winning the election.
He outlined a far-reaching and extensive stimulus package that he intends to push through
Congress as fast as possible (I note that the newly elected more heavily democratic majority that would speed his proposals through isn't in office yet) He mentions the credit crisis, increased unemployment insurance, job creation, help for the Automotive industry (While I would applaud more fuel-efficient cars, the government does not control either the laws of physics or consumer preferences). He also mentions thatstate and local governments are facing a crunch: They must raise taxes or cut services. This neglects the fact that the Federal government has a similar problem, because if the economy doesn't improve instantly, tax revenues will also decline, and with all these stimulus programs in place, spending will increase. Maybe he has a plan to deal with this, but I've seen more slogans than economic wisdom from his campaign.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
More on Obama's crew
Rahm Emmanual is reported to have accepted the job as Obama's chief of staff, and will
resign his seat as Representative.
According to the New York Times,
Obama is expected to hold a press conference for tomorrow, Friday, Nov 8.
resign his seat as Representative.
According to the New York Times,
In turning to Mr. Emanuel and Mr. Podesta, Mr. Obama sought out two of the
hardest-hitting veterans of President Bill Clinton's administration, known
for their deep Washington experience, savvy and no-holds-barred approach to
politics. Neither is considered a practitioner of the “new politics” that
Mr. Obama promised on the campaign trail to bring Republicans and Democrats
together, suggesting that the cool and conciliatory new president is
determined to demonstrate toughness from the beginning.
Obama is expected to hold a press conference for tomorrow, Friday, Nov 8.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Obama's crew
Jake Tapper of ABC News reports President-Elect Obama's transition team is being run by former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, Valier Jarrate, and Obama campaign chief of staff Pete Rouse.
Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano;
former Clinton Transportation and Energy Secretary Federico Peña, and
former Clinton Commerce Secretary William Daley
have been named to the transition team advisory board.
He also reports that President-elect Obama has asked Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a
Democratic representative from Illinois, to be his chief of staff.
Columnist Yura Levin at the Corner on National Review describes Emanuel as "a vicious graceless partisan: narrow, hectic, unremittingly aggressive, vulgar, and impatient". To me, this
doesn't sound good in a Chief of Staff.
Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano;
former Clinton Transportation and Energy Secretary Federico Peña, and
former Clinton Commerce Secretary William Daley
have been named to the transition team advisory board.
He also reports that President-elect Obama has asked Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a
Democratic representative from Illinois, to be his chief of staff.
Columnist Yura Levin at the Corner on National Review describes Emanuel as "a vicious graceless partisan: narrow, hectic, unremittingly aggressive, vulgar, and impatient". To me, this
doesn't sound good in a Chief of Staff.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
US President-elect Barak Obama
I was wrong, last August, when I predicted he and his campaign would self-destruct.
However, I cannot bring myself to congratulate him on his victory.
We as Americans have put our trust, not in God, but in a man, and we will very
shortly see what kind of man we have elected. I do not believe he will be the "One",
the miracle-worker, the Messiah figure that many of his supporters have made him
out to be.
Now that the has won the campaign and no longer needs to promise the voters anything to
get elected, we will begin to see what kind of man we really chose: Whether he is the
thoughtful, judicious person he presented himself as, or whether he attemts to defame and silence his critics: whether he upholds the law to see that it is faithfully executed, or whether he views it as a straitjacket to be wriggled out of.
I recall a line I read somewhere a long time ago, about how if you want to know which direction the new captain is going to steer the ship, watch who he puts on the bridge crew. Who is the President-elect Obama going to name as his officials and advisors?
I for one will be watching. Closely. Starting now, with his victory speech.
However, I cannot bring myself to congratulate him on his victory.
We as Americans have put our trust, not in God, but in a man, and we will very
shortly see what kind of man we have elected. I do not believe he will be the "One",
the miracle-worker, the Messiah figure that many of his supporters have made him
out to be.
Now that the has won the campaign and no longer needs to promise the voters anything to
get elected, we will begin to see what kind of man we really chose: Whether he is the
thoughtful, judicious person he presented himself as, or whether he attemts to defame and silence his critics: whether he upholds the law to see that it is faithfully executed, or whether he views it as a straitjacket to be wriggled out of.
I recall a line I read somewhere a long time ago, about how if you want to know which direction the new captain is going to steer the ship, watch who he puts on the bridge crew. Who is the President-elect Obama going to name as his officials and advisors?
I for one will be watching. Closely. Starting now, with his victory speech.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Shameless
A tour of the house of Jeremiah Wright, the preacher of the church Barak Obama attended for many years.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is quoted as saying:
If there were a prize for fatuous utterences by a politician, this would be in contention.
Not that the Republicans have it much better.
Senator Ted Stevens R-Alaska, was convicted yesterday on seven counts of
felony corruption, he announced today that he had no intention of resigning.
Well, and why should he? No conscience, no shame. But then, since I'm not from
Alaska, I don't get a choice about whether I want this particular convicted felon
serving in the Senate.
And I know that ye do walk in the pride of your hearts, and there are none save
a few only who do not lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts, unto the
wearng of very fine apparel, unto envying, and strife, and malice, and
persecution, and all manner of iniquities; and your churches, yea, even every
one have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts. For behold,
you do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning
of your churches, more than you love the poor and the needy, the sick and the
afflicted. (Mormon 8:36-37)
The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is quoted as saying:
Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there.
But I do tell you that if the Democrats win, and have substantial
majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan," said
Pelosi.
If there were a prize for fatuous utterences by a politician, this would be in contention.
Not that the Republicans have it much better.
Senator Ted Stevens R-Alaska, was convicted yesterday on seven counts of
felony corruption, he announced today that he had no intention of resigning.
Well, and why should he? No conscience, no shame. But then, since I'm not from
Alaska, I don't get a choice about whether I want this particular convicted felon
serving in the Senate.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Wearied
Over the past couple of months, I've been reading quite a few political blogs. I tend to read the comments as well, and while there are some very intelligent and well-thought responses, a great many of the comments are intolerant and hateful. It's depressing to wade through through the sensless comments, and get stirred up to say something...only to realize that it would take me
quite some time to labor over an intelligent response, and wind up deleting half of what I wrote,
because in the end, isn't fitting. I really hate venemous conflict.
Part of the difficutlty is that I'm very much concerned over the upcoming election. I've stated before that I don't trust Barak Obama, and the more I see, the less I like. I'm afraid of being someone infected by overly partisan information, but when I look at the other party...it's even worse. There are those in the country who are predicting civil war, in the not so distant future,
and I read all too many people who are calling to "Get your gun and be ready for a fight". It could come to that. But I certainly hope not, and I'd rather avoid it.
I don't really think that if Barak Obama wins the election, he's going singlehandedly repeal freedom of the press, or religion, and unleash the FBI on everyone who disagrees with him.
The rule of law isn't going to evaporate overnight.
I'm somewhat distracted by another question, one that came up about the logic of what is compulsory and forbidden:
If (A) Forbidden, then (not-A) is compulsory
If (A) is compulsory, then (not-A) is forbidden.
A couple of specific examples were used. Those are hard to refute, but in generally, this
kind of argument is tricky to make. From my studies as an amateur logician, this looks like a branch of deontic logic, which resembles modal logic and isn' strictly aristotelian. This analysis doesn't account for the optional: That which is neither obligatory nor forbiddent. Also, there's a possible question of dichotmimes... there may be a middle ground between A and not-A. So, I'm sucpicious of the logic, though I can't quite refute it. I'll have to set this one aside.
I still see the debate on same-sex marriage in California, and I really object to the rhetoric that anyone who doesn't approve of it is a bigot and trying to deprive homosexuals of equal civil rights, or that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. I don't have a clear, sound refutation of these argoments, and if I did, those who advocate same-sex marriage wouldn't listen anyway. And I don't have much of a way to appeal to the undecideds.
I also came across an article (Helen McAffrey, writing for the Philadelphia Inquirer, which deplored the demonization of Sarah Palin She expressed suprise that, since since Gov. Palin is an example of what has been considered a feminist ideal (combining motherhood and a career) that she would be so viciously vilified. She objected to a student who wore a T-shirt with the slogan, "Sarah Palin is a ****, and expressed her opinion that Gov. Palin ought to be treated with respect and consideration. I was suprised to read how many of the commenters on this article defended the attackers. When did obscenities become accepted in academic discourse? The next step after violent and degrading words is violent and destructive actions, and it's not all that big a step.
I've been pondering on how radical feminism...the man-hating, lesbian, genitalia focused, pro-choice and anti-marriage wing of it... is dehumanizing to both men and women. In hindsight, it shouldn't have been all that surprising that someone who represents the opposite evokes such mindless hatred. Feminist, behold thyself.
I saw in another bit of news that the "Code Pink" organization that had announced its intention to shut down the Marine Recruiting Station in Berkeley, California, is moving out of its offices there. Yes, as I recall, that WAS the strategy advocated by those who opposed the Vietnam war, "declare victory and get out". I'm sure it will work just as well this time around. Didn't anyone warn these people that real peacemaking can be *hard*?
quite some time to labor over an intelligent response, and wind up deleting half of what I wrote,
because in the end, isn't fitting. I really hate venemous conflict.
Part of the difficutlty is that I'm very much concerned over the upcoming election. I've stated before that I don't trust Barak Obama, and the more I see, the less I like. I'm afraid of being someone infected by overly partisan information, but when I look at the other party...it's even worse. There are those in the country who are predicting civil war, in the not so distant future,
and I read all too many people who are calling to "Get your gun and be ready for a fight". It could come to that. But I certainly hope not, and I'd rather avoid it.
I don't really think that if Barak Obama wins the election, he's going singlehandedly repeal freedom of the press, or religion, and unleash the FBI on everyone who disagrees with him.
The rule of law isn't going to evaporate overnight.
I'm somewhat distracted by another question, one that came up about the logic of what is compulsory and forbidden:
If (A) Forbidden, then (not-A) is compulsory
If (A) is compulsory, then (not-A) is forbidden.
A couple of specific examples were used. Those are hard to refute, but in generally, this
kind of argument is tricky to make. From my studies as an amateur logician, this looks like a branch of deontic logic, which resembles modal logic and isn' strictly aristotelian. This analysis doesn't account for the optional: That which is neither obligatory nor forbiddent. Also, there's a possible question of dichotmimes... there may be a middle ground between A and not-A. So, I'm sucpicious of the logic, though I can't quite refute it. I'll have to set this one aside.
I still see the debate on same-sex marriage in California, and I really object to the rhetoric that anyone who doesn't approve of it is a bigot and trying to deprive homosexuals of equal civil rights, or that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. I don't have a clear, sound refutation of these argoments, and if I did, those who advocate same-sex marriage wouldn't listen anyway. And I don't have much of a way to appeal to the undecideds.
I also came across an article (Helen McAffrey, writing for the Philadelphia Inquirer, which deplored the demonization of Sarah Palin She expressed suprise that, since since Gov. Palin is an example of what has been considered a feminist ideal (combining motherhood and a career) that she would be so viciously vilified. She objected to a student who wore a T-shirt with the slogan, "Sarah Palin is a ****, and expressed her opinion that Gov. Palin ought to be treated with respect and consideration. I was suprised to read how many of the commenters on this article defended the attackers. When did obscenities become accepted in academic discourse? The next step after violent and degrading words is violent and destructive actions, and it's not all that big a step.
I've been pondering on how radical feminism...the man-hating, lesbian, genitalia focused, pro-choice and anti-marriage wing of it... is dehumanizing to both men and women. In hindsight, it shouldn't have been all that surprising that someone who represents the opposite evokes such mindless hatred. Feminist, behold thyself.
I saw in another bit of news that the "Code Pink" organization that had announced its intention to shut down the Marine Recruiting Station in Berkeley, California, is moving out of its offices there. Yes, as I recall, that WAS the strategy advocated by those who opposed the Vietnam war, "declare victory and get out". I'm sure it will work just as well this time around. Didn't anyone warn these people that real peacemaking can be *hard*?
Monday, September 8, 2008
Circus
In the past week, I've been watching in amazement, and some amusement, as Democrats have gone screaming ape over Sarah Palin. There is a whole list of rumors that have been floated, picked up, and soberly repeated by leading media. Some of them are so clearly absurd that they give the clown show at Ringling Brothers-Barnum and Bailey serious competition.
The show of verbal acrobatics including headstands and backflips from politicians and pundits who've participated in the ' hear fabulous rumor/ broadcast fabulous rumor / have fabulous rumor exploded within a day or two' act is truly amazing. I'd need a video camera to capture it. I did manage to puch up a bit of some delightful satire, such as appears at the end of this blog post, which captures some of the hysterical absurdity of the last week's political dialogue.
Since I do have other things to do, I can't do any justice to a review, but I must confess that for the moment I'm being hugely entertained by what's beginning to resemble The Greatest Show on Earth.
The show of verbal acrobatics including headstands and backflips from politicians and pundits who've participated in the ' hear fabulous rumor/ broadcast fabulous rumor / have fabulous rumor exploded within a day or two' act is truly amazing. I'd need a video camera to capture it. I did manage to puch up a bit of some delightful satire, such as appears at the end of this blog post, which captures some of the hysterical absurdity of the last week's political dialogue.
Since I do have other things to do, I can't do any justice to a review, but I must confess that for the moment I'm being hugely entertained by what's beginning to resemble The Greatest Show on Earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)