New York magazine recently published a slideshow: A History of Obama Feigning Interest in Mundane Things. It's funny stuff ("Obama is back in his pensive mode, except this time he has thrown in an open-mouthed gape to demonstrate how awestruck he is with this jar of dirt."), but it doesn't tell the whole story.
Dean Trippe reveals what's really going on in his slideshow, Barack Obama Looking at Awesome Things.
This is cool:
The White House is going to host an annual science fair.
“If you win the N.C.A.A. championships, you come to the White House. Well, if you’re a young person and you’ve produced the best experiment or design, the best hardware or software, you ought to be recognized for that achievement, too,” Mr. Obama said. “Scientists and engineers ought to stand side by side with athletes and entertainers as role models, and here at the White House, we’re going to lead by example.”I'm so glad we've finally got a president who appreciates the value of science and knowledge.
He added, “We’re going to show young people how cool science can be.”
At the Radio and Television Correspondents Association dinner, John Hodgeman puts President Obama's nerd cred to the test. It takes a little while for him to get rolling, but there are some nice moments here.
Sometime in November, when Barack Obama was elected president, some of my friends and family members asked if I'd be going after Obama when I thought he was wrong, just as I went after Bush. (The fact remains, though, that I'm no bulldog -- the last few years of Bush didn't see as much fire from me as the first years. Ya get worn down, is what I'm saying.)
Well, here's one of those times.
There have been a number of things in recent days that I'm not happy about. I'm not entirely satisfied with Obama's handling of the torture photos, nor the dismissal of the idea of prosecutions for torture. I think our moral standing is the greatest force we have as a nation, and it erodes when we don't police our own. I understand the desire to avoid further inflaming the factions in the Middle East who would point to those photos as evidence of war crimes, rather than pointing to the release of the photos as evidence that the war crimes have ceased. That's a subtle point, and one liable to be lost on a lot of people. I get that, and I'm a lot more inclined to trust Barack Obama's judgement on these matters than Bush and Cheney's. But there's a principle that makes old horror movies come alive in the way that new ones seldom do: The most terrifying thing of all is that which is unseen. By withholding the pictures, anything can be in them. Better, I think, to have concrete photos to look at than to let imaginations run wild.
But that isn't what I'd intended to write about. It's this: The majority of the country believes that gays should be able to serve openly in the military. And by majority, I mean majority. The majority (86%) of liberals (of course). The majority (77%) of moderates. The majority (58%) of conservatives. Practically every subset of American society believes gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the millitary. 69 percent of us, overall.
So get on that, willya? The Supreme Court is passing the buck, but honestly, as commander in chief, the ball should be in your court, anyhow. I'm tired of hearing about gay Arabic translators being fired for their orientation. It sucks for the people being discharged, and it makes us less secure as a nation, not more.
But regardless of the polls, equal human rights are not a popularity contest. There are some cases where the right thing to do is as clear as day, and this is one of them. An estimated 65,000 members of the military are gay. It's time they breathed a sigh of relief.
Rob
As much as it galls me to say it, I think the 80-some Republicans who voted against taxing the AIG bonuses* at 90%** are right, in their stopped-clock kind of way. The tax is a Bad Idea.
Granted, it's a Bad Idea that feels good -- I don't want the folks responsible for burning down our economy to get a trophy and a pat on the back, let alone millions of bucks for the experience. I spent all week being pissed off at those bums. But the more I think of this 90% tax, the less I like it.
I should be clear: I'm absolutely fine with a progressive tax system. If you have more, give more. I'm cool with that, and I'll try my hardest to be cool with that once I make my millions.
But this? It's not saving us a considerable amount of money. I mean, it'd be quite a bit if it showed up in my bank account, but compared to the overall cost of the bailout, it's a drop in the canyon.
No, this is revenge. It's using taxes as punishment. And that's not what taxes are for. I'd have no problem with regulations preventing bonuses like these from happening again. But taxing the bonuses that have already legally been given out? It's effective, and it's clever, but it stinks.
Worse yet, it's what the Republicans *say* Democrats use taxes for: to "punish the rich." Which generally isn't true, but in this case, well... yeah it is. Because this branch of AIG deserves punishment in such a big bad way that half the Republicans voted for the same damn tax. But come election time, this tax will be hung like an albatross around a lot of necks. So not only is it bad policy, but I think long-term, it's bad politics.
It's not about the money; it's about spite. That's no way to govern. Obama and the Democrats are on the wrong side of this one. Granted, the right side -- letting them have their bonuses -- well and truly sucks. But just because it's not fair doesn't mean stopping it by any means necessary is the right thing to do, even if it feels good at the time. If you're going to make a bunch of puppet companies, it's best to have all the strings attached from the beginning.
Rob
*and the bonuses at all TARP-assisted companies.
**if the employee's household makes more than $250K a year.
He said, "I have appointed a proven and aggressive Inspector General to ferret out any and all cases of waste and fraud." While I always like hearing ferret as a verb, I can't help but think our ferrets can't find their own asses with two paws and a flashlight. (Gus seems to have no problem finding She-Devil's butt, though.)
During the first few interruptions for applause, Obama had a sour look on his face, like he'd rather address the press. At least they don't cut him off while he's on a roll.
Speaking of sour looks, did someone force-feed a lemon to Joe Lieberman?
There were some really nice rhetorical flourishes and turns of phrase in the speech, but my favorite was actually a new look at an old problem: "Dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself, it's quitting on your country - and this country needs and values the talents of every American." It's unpatriotic to drop out. I never thought of it that way before.
But here's something I don't think I've ever heard a president say before: Curing cancer in our time? I haven't seen any bloggers mention this yet, but for me it was a moment of electricity. It was like Kennedy saying we'd go to the moon. We can do this. We must do this, and we need the will to fund the research and make it happen.
Rob
"How am I supposed to effectively lead this nation when [attorney general nominee Eric] Holder has to stop the meeting and ask what the story of Taurus using the black lotus powder to kill the five guard lions has to do with increasing broadband Internet connections nationwide?" Obama said while vigorously rubbing his temples.Added the president, "For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?"
Rob
Because Chief Justice Roberts bungled the first administering of the Oath, he and Obama had a do-over this evening, just to be sure.
Rob
On my walk to the office today, I noticed some fifteen people lined up outside Jim Hanley’s. Through the door, I could see a much longer line inside. I can already tell: that Spider-Man issue with Obama in it is going to make my lunchtime stop for comics more like waiting in line to get into the Vatican.
Earlier this week, I was hoping they’d have enough to meet the demand. Suddenly, I’m hoping they sell out early. I’m fine with getting a second printing next week; I just want to buy my issue of Final Crisis without waiting in line for an hour.
Rob
For the last year or so, we've been bombarded with Obama merchandise of every type. Commemorative plates, T-shirts, buttons, replica coins, photographs, "Yes We Can" posters. And it was an historic election, I'll grant you, and his will be an historic presidency. There's nothing wrong with celebrating that fact through the proud American tradition of kitsch.
But this guy goes a little overboard, don't you think?
Selling Obama's Senate seat?
First of all, I don't even know how he got it. The Senate's not like an old ballpark scheduled for demolition. You can't just walk out with a row of seats or a men's room sign -- and there's not even a legal way to buy them, as far as I know. And they're not going to make one senator stand when there's a packed house. They'll just take a seat down from the bleachers, and let the last senator to come in sit in that. So you know who loses out? The fans.
Still, assuming the seat can be authenticated (maybe the President-elect carved his name into the arm?), I imagine this guy will get some high bids for the chair where Obama parked his magical heinie for four years. Even in a recession, rich people are always willing to spend money on all sorts of craziness. If it's not Obama's Senate seat, it's John Wayne's waffle iron.
What's that? He's not selling the chair at all, but Obama's vacated position?
Oh, that's just corrupt.
(Need I say it?)
Never mind.
Rob
Why do so many Republicans keep endorsing a socialist like Barack Obama? From Steve Benen:
So, on the one hand, we have the McCain campaign and its cohorts working assiduously to convince voters that Obama is terrorist-sympathizing Marxist. On the other, we have Obama getting endorsements from Ronald Reagan's national security advisor, solicitor general, and White House chief of staff.
And Duberstein joins, of course, former Sen. Larry Pressler, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Gov. William Weld, former Gov. Arne Carlson, Charles Fried, Scott McClellan , and Ken Adelman as notable Republicans who've announced their support for Obama over the last couple of weeks.
I doubt this will affect the McCain campaign's smear efforts, but for those paying even a little attention, it's tough to characterize Obama as a radical leftist when high-profile Republicans -- including top officials from Reagan's White House -- keep announcing their support for him.
Could it be that he's not socialist at all, and it's just another label McCain is using to scare people?
Rob
People make excuses for John McCain. "It's just a nasty campaign all around." "This isn't the way he's like to run, but he's doing whatever it takes to win." "He needed Sarah Palin to shore up the base." "They're making him run this way."
With all due respect: Bullshit.
McCain's choice of Palin was political opportunism at its worst: He has elevated a woman who is clearly unfit to lead the country to a candidate for the second-highest office in the land. It's a sign of palpable disrespect for our judgement to suggest that she is qualified or even ethically fit for the office. She's a disaster, and even McCain supporters know it. Even if he were fit as a fiddle, the idea that he would still put her in line for the Presidency is astounding... and kind of heartbreaking, in respect to the good man I thought McCain was. I thought John McCain would put country first, long before he adopted that as his slogan. With that nakedly political decision, he's shown us otherwise.
Second, when did "whatever it takes" become a virtue? Are there any lines that shouldn't be crossed in pursuit of victory? Someone with a sense of honor would think so.
McCain has been running a disgraceful, race-baiting campaign for a long while now, and this latest bit, smearing the name of a Palestinian professor--who McCain himself gave money to on several occasions--because he's friends with Barack and Michelle Obama is reprehensible. At its core, it's about one thing: saying the name Barack Obama as many times as possible in the same sentence as Rashid Khalidi. Because Khalidi has an Arabic name, and McCain is trying to get people scared of Obama, and he's betting that we find Arabs scary.
I'm not calling John McCain a racist. But he is an opportunist, and he's hoping, deep in his heart, that the American people are racist. He's hoping enough of us are the type of people who will be swayed by garbage like this. Like words like "welfare" in his ads. At the "secret Muslim" nonsense. He's counting on more people being drawn to his tactics than repelled by them.
I hope to God he's wrong.
John McCain is clearly, manifestly unworthy of being President. He shows palpable disrespect for our judgement by proposing that Sarah Palin is qualified in any way to lead us. And this is his campaign, no one else's. He is ultimately responsible for every ad, every smear, and every lie... and every bit of horrible race-baiting that should have been left in the 19th century, to say nothing of the 20th.
Rob
Looking down at the post I wrote last night, I can't help thinking that it would read a lot angrier had I written it after I was laid off this morning.
Vote Obama. I'd like to get a new job as quickly as possible.
Rob
Anyone who's gone through my recycling bin and meticulously pieced together my shredded bank statements knows I don't have a lot of credibility on this issue, but I want to say this once:
Barack Obama is a better investment than John McCain.
A while back, Kevin Drum posted this piece based on a paper by Princeton economist Larry Bartels, showing that 95 percent of the country does better economically with a Democrat in the White House than a Republican. Here's part of what he wrote:
Under Democratic presidents, every income class did well but the poorest did best. The bottom 20% had average pretax income growth of 2.63% per year while the top 5% showed pretax income growth of 2.11% per year.
Republicans were polar opposites. Not only was their overall performance worse than Democrats, but it was wildly tilted toward the well off. The bottom 20% saw pretax income growth of only .6% per year while the top 5% enjoyed pretax income growth of 2.09% per year. (What's more, the trendline is pretty clear: if the chart were extended to show the really rich — the top 1% and the top .1% — the Republican growth numbers for them would be higher than the Democratic numbers.)
I thought it was pretty eye-opening. You should follow the link and see the charts and read the whole thing.
"Because despite what our opponents may claim, there are no real or fake parts of this country. There is no city or town that is more pro-America than anywhere else--we are one nation, all of us proud, all of us patriots. There are patriots who supported this war in Iraq and patriots who opposed it; patriots who believe in Democratic policies and those who believe in Republican policies. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America--they have served the United States of America."
