Election 2012

Today I'd like to talk about the election.  Not that anyone really cares about my opinion, but this is my blog and if you're here, you get to read my rants...you're welcome.

But seriously, as it stands today, things are looking promising for Obama.  Nate Silver's model currently gives Obama a 79.7% chance of victory, and Romney's campaign is quickly turning into a joke (albeit a disturbingly frightening and callous one if you're a little light in the bank account).  I think that's what happens when you run for president after holding only one prior elected position and are the least bad choice in a primary filled with incompetent hacks.  Romney's just not ready for the big leagues, and it shows.  Maybe I should be thankful this election is showing that being rich can't buy you the presidency...or at least not yet.

I'd be lying if I said I was feeling this confident back in January.  With the slow economy and the promise of unlimited Super PAC money supporting the Republican party, it seemed Obama faced an insurmountable hurdle.  As it turns out, lots of Americans seem to disagree with the Republican fantasy that cutting all assistance to the poor and lowering taxes on millionaires will magically fix the economy because job creators will suddenly have "confidence".  As I see it, if business people need to feel confident all the time in order to run a business, then maybe they shouldn't be in business, but maybe that's just me.

With the Super PAC spending, it seems to have discovered the point of diminishing returns.  There are only so many commercial slots one can buy, and after a while people just tune it all out.  In some way this has been the silver lining of the Citizens United ruling.  Let the billionaires waste their money.  It wouldn't make it into the economy otherwise.  But I am glad I live in Germany at the moment so I don't have to suffer through the barrage every time I turn on the TV.

As for Obama, I will gladly vote for him again even though being a Texas resident will render my vote mostly harmless.  Still, I've been generally pleased with Obama's first term.  Sure, he hasn't done everything the liberal in me would like, and he has done little to relax the police state atmosphere that arose after 9/11, but from the beginning Obama has presented himself as a centrist candidate so it shouldn't be a surprise.  Moreover, he's accomplished far more than any Democrat since LBJ.  He managed to get health care reform through Congress.  No, it wasn't perfect and was more of a give-away to the insurance industry than I would have liked.  Still, it's a start, and it finally allows the US to join the rest of the world in providing some degree of socialized healthcare for its citizens.  That alone is a monumental achievement, but then the stimulus was the greatest investment in alternative energy in US history, gay and lesbian service members can finally serve their country without having to hide who they are, and Obama was the first president to publicly support gay marriage, which finally pushed the Democratic Party to make the issue a plank of its platform.

Of course, the Tea Party came along halfway through and put the breaks on everything.  I know the media tries to claim that both parties are responsible for the gridlock, but when Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Senate Minority Leader, says his number one goal is "to make Obama a one term president" even when there's a severe recession and two ongoing wars (at the time), you know there's something seriously wrong with a party's priorities.  My greatest concern at this point is that Democrats will not be able to retake the House, and we'll have two more years where the only thing to make it out of the lower chamber will be Ayn Rand fantasies masquerading as "serious" ideas.

Back to Obama, I have been deeply disappointed with his growing use of drones to assassinate individuals, even US citizens, without due process.  While the world might be better off without those killed (especially Bin Laden), it is a disturbing milestone in our nation's long slide away from the ideals of justice and fairness for all.  Still, the Republican Party's opinion on the matter is even more ruthless, so I guess I can thank the President for showing a degree of restraint.

Sorry about the long post.  I know I'm jumping into the race at the home stretch, but I felt like airing my thoughts before moving forward.  For what it's worth, I endorse Obama for reelection, and I wil be voting for him in November.  Please go out and vote, and let's run up the score to get Obama some help from Congress.  And if you're a Republican, I still want to encourage you to go out and vote for your preferred candidates.  It's your right as an American and the best chance you get to have a say in what happens in this country.
  

Wherein I Lament the Idiocy of an Elected Official

Think Progress had a mildly disturbing quote from Representative Steve King (R-IA) the other day. When asked if he thought the attack on the Austin, Texas IRS building was motivated by the overwhelming anti-tax rhetoric from the Right, he replied:

I think if we’d abolished the IRS back when I first advocated it, he wouldn’t have a target for his airplane. And I’m still for abolishing the IRS, I’ve been for it for thirty years and I’m for a national sales tax. [...] It’s sad the incident in Texas happened, but by the same token, it’s an agency that is unnecessary and when the day comes when that is over and we abolish the IRS, it’s going to be a happy day for America.

Ignoring the fact that he completely dodged the question and saw some sort of justification for the crime, I wonder if Rep. King has ever really thought this out during his "thirty years" of being for the abolition of the IRS. Even if there were a national sales tax, there would need to be some government entity that has to oversee the collection of those taxes. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but I hope he's really not that stupid. Then again, the anti-tax believers have never been amongst those I would consider rational.

On a side note, tax revenue still has to come from somewhere if we want to have a functioning government, whether it's from income taxes, a value added tax, or a sales tax. Besides, I seriously doubt shifting the mode of taxation would do anything to change the irrational tax hatred that dominates the Right. They seem to believe cutting taxes are a magical cure that will allow the ever-benevolent market to save us from all of our problems. It's a pipe dream. Now, I don't enjoy paying taxes anymore than the next person, but it's a price I willingly pay to ensure we still have a generally functional, modern nation where we're not completely at the mercy of those with the most money...some of the time...maybe. Okay, now I'm just depressed. Better work on my novel and imagine happier places.

The End of Constellation

One of the big news items of the day is that President Obama's proposed budget for FY 2011 includes a cancellation of NASA's Constellation program. The program was meant to create a multipurpose vehicle that would replace the soon to be retired space shuttles. Additionally, Constellation was meant to carry astronauts back to the Moon and on to Mars by 2020. While disappointing, I think cancelling this program is for the best.

With the nation's fiscal woes, NASA's budget isn't going to grow much larger (although the 2011 budget does propose a slight increase). Cost overruns for Constellation would have cut into the rest of NASA's budget, thereby forcing the agency to sacrifice more and more worthy projects in the name of manned space flight. Don't get me wrong, I think it would be incredible to send people to Mars. But is it worth it? Look at just some of the incredible work being done by unmanned probes: Cassini has been sending us breathtaking images and measurements of Saturn and its moons. The Spirit and Opportunity rovers have been tottering about Mars for the past 6 years (Spirit recently became stuck, but it can still conduct scientific measurements from where it's at). Kepler might locate other Earth-like worlds around other stars. New Horizons will provide us with our first up-close images of Pluto. And that doesn't even touch on NASA's aeronautical and meteorological research. All told, these sorts of missions provide far more data and benefit than sending a handful of people to the Moon and Mars for brief periods of time.

Sure, the shuttles are nearing their retirement, so NASA won't be able to send humans into space by itself. However, without the huge money hole of the shuttle, NASA can shift funding towards unmanned exploration of more places, finding more efficient means of carrying humans to the stars, and understanding our own planet better. Once space travel becomes more cost effective, or we find something we truly must see first hand (alien life, perhaps), then it will be worth the cost of sending people. Until then, let's cast a wide net and examine as much as we can with our available resources.

Sarah Palin: The Ongoing National Embarassment

I'm going to say this very plainly: Sarah Palin is an absolute farce. Her public persona is so well shielded and crafted, that few of her supporters know how horrifically uninformed she really is. What's worse is that she has virtually no desire to learn more. Perhaps her supporters are just projecting their hopes and preferences onto her. She's been so well shielded from the press and from any sort of direct inquiry, that her overall ambiguity makes this projection fairly easy.

However, the ugly truth has been slowly leaking out. Recently, 60 Minutes featured an interview with several McCain campaign strategists concerning their choice of Palin as the GOP running mate:



Andrew Sullivan did a nice job summarizing the ignorance of Sarah Palin as revealed by her old campaign managers:

Palin had no notion of basic high school history. She barely understood what the Cold War was.
She didn't know what the Federal Reserve did. She believed that her First Amendment rights meant she was protected from press inquiries. She couldn't tell you why there's a North and a South Korea. And she had an inability to distinguish between her own view of the world - which always rationalized everything that Sarah Palin did - and reality.

While her complete lack of knowledge was appalling enough, what's worse is that she was chosen without any real consideration of her credentials or her stances on any of the major issues. When the McCain campaign realized her gross ignorance of even the most basic facts, they moved quickly to shield her from all media scrutiny. She conducted no press conferences and held only a few interviews with friendly media outlets such as FOX News. The only time the campaign managers let her speak on the record with a non-friendly interviewee was for the now infamous Katie Couric interview, where her shortcomings were laid bare for the world to see. Even after the campaign, Sarah Palin has continued her media blackout, refusing to speak with media sources that don't share her partisan views. The only time she divulges anything is through carefully controlled sources such as her book or her Facebook page.

As a result, her fans only know the crafted, fictional version of Sarah Palin. Any attempts to point out her obvious lies or gross ignorance are considered liberal smears. Palin supporters even insist the "smears" are why Palin stepped down from the governorship of Alaska, even though she never gave an actual reason. Besides, if she really wanted to escape the supposedly unfair "liberal" media, she would have dropped out of public life completely. But she hasn't. In fact, she continues to insert herself into the political dialog, holding up her Downs Syndrome child as a political prop (quite disgusting, really). But despite all evidence to the contrary, her supporters continue to believe she is "just like them" and that she would make the perfect president. I think projection is the obvious explanation for this. On most issues, Palin has remained purposely noncommittal except for the few issues that drive the Religious Right, including abortion, gay marriage, and patriotism (read, nationalism). Beyond that, no one really knows where Palin stands (it seems she has no idea either), and that makes it easy for her supporters to assume she shares their beliefs. After all, she unquestioningly loves Jesus and sticks to the party line on the major issues that Fundamental Christians care about. She must be exactly what they want, right?

Before I am accused of being a liberal, partisan hack, let me point out that a lot of liberals were guilty of the same problem with President Obama.  This is also why there's such a liberal backlash against Obama right now.  Too many projected their wishes onto him, and are now deeply disappointed he hasn't been everything they dreamed of.  However, President Obama differs from Palin in the fact that he never hid his views or his stances during the campaign.  He was always open to the press, and has largely followed his proposed agenda.  More importantly, he's knowledgeable of the issues and shows a remarkable degree of open-mindedness.  Sarah Palin is the exact opposite.

Frankly, I fear for the future of America if incompetent know-nothings like Sarah Palin can get anywhere near the presidency just because she's attractive and can convince enough people she's "just like them". It's a sign that America's infatuation with celebrity has risen to dangerous new heights.

Now This Is Refreshing

Personally, I've been more or less pleased with President Obama's performance.  Sure, he hasn't been able to make the sweeping changes we'd hoped for, and he's been rather disappointing when it comes to his refusal to change several Bush policies regarding the prosecution of terror suspects being held by the government.  However, the burden of reform falls on the legislative branch, which has become completely hamstrung with the now routine use of the filibuster in the Senate.

Nevertheless, President Obama said this yesterday in regards to the failure to stop the Underwear Bomber:

I am less interested in passing out blame than I am in learning from and correcting these mistakes to make us safer. For ultimately the buck stops with me.  When the system fails, it is my responsibility.

What a refreshing change from his predecessor.  George W. Bush seemed incapable of admitting any mistakes.  Apparently, he thought it made him look weak.  In reality, it just revealed his cowardice, since it takes real courage, political and otherwise, to own up to one's mistakes.  Good job President Obama for actually being a leader.

On a final note, I cannot stand the chorus of blame being thrown around.  Depending on where they sit on the political spectrum, you see pundits and politicians blaming Obama, the intelligence community, Homeland Security, and so on.  Hey, shit happens.  A terrorist is going to sneak through from time to time.  Stopping all of them is virtually impossible, especially if we want to maintain a free and open society.  It's the cost of having our style of life.  I understand that.  Besides, you're far more likely to die in a car accident or succumb to heart disease than ever experience a terror attack.  Everyone just needs to take a deep breath, and go on with their lives.

Huckabee: Make the Constitution Adhere to the Bible

I don't know what to say about this, but I can't say I'm surprised since it's coming from a former Baptist preacher. Here's a bit from the article at The Raw Story (they even have video if you don't believe me):

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

So basically this bastard came out and said we need to turn the US into a Christian theocracy. What's worse is the nitwits who cheered him for it.

Do these people not realize that favoring no religion in government is the best way to protect all religion? More importantly, do they not realize that freedom of religion is one of this nation's most important principles and an essential component of our liberty?

I've said it before and I'm saying it again, Mike Huckabee becoming president is the worst thing that could happen to this nation. What terrifies me is the fact that this man actually has a chance even after publicly declaring that he would work to deprive us all of an essential freedom. There's so much I could say, but I think the man's words speak for themselves and no rational person should want this potential theocrat in office.

Huckabee's Medieval Mindset

Everyday, new bits of information come to light concerning the positions presidential candidate Mike Huckabee took while he was governor of Arkansas. From Think Progress:

In June 1998, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a “statement on the family” that asserted, “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.” Two months later, then-governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee was one of 131 signatories to a full-page ad in USA Today specifically endorsing the Convention’s view on marriage:

You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband’s sacrificial leadership.

I sincerely hope this and Huckabee's other archaic statements drive all the Republican moderates and idependents towards more rational-thinking candidates. Surely the moderate Republicans can see that Huckabee would lead with the Bible first and foremost in his mind and constitutional considerations would only come as an afterthought. Surely they can see that Huckabee would create a virtual theocracy where only the Southern Baptist version of Christianity would have any real say.

However, I think the progressive bloggers' efforts to bring these sort of facts to light will go a long ways towards sinking Huckabee's campaign by driving away any independent who might have considered him a decent candidate. Furthermore, I doubt any self-respecting woman who isn't deluded by her church would support a candidate who stands behind such a blatant violation of women's rights.

Romney Doesn't Get It

If you've been following the presidential campaigns at all, you know that Mitt Romney has recently been spending considerable time defending his Mormon faith, on the grounds that it shouldn't matter. In a speech earlier today he said:

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution.

No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

On that point, I have to agree. It shouldn't matter what a candidate's religion is as long as he doesn't let it interfere with his job so he or she can stay fair to all the nation's citizens.

However, Romney goes on to show that he has no idea on how to maintain that fairness when he lambasts separation of church and state:

It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

I'm going to look past the fact that secularism is, by definition, not a religion.

However, Romney wants to have his cake and eat it too. Secularism is the only way to ensure that no religious liberties are trampled upon. If Romney refuses to adhere to secularism when governing, then what religious philosophy does he propose to utilize? Governing through any type of religion convictions will immediately infringe on other religious beliefs, due to their mutually incompatible doctrines. Secularism is the only way to maintain any sort of fairness.

And I'm not talking about oulawing any sort of belief system. I'm not even talking about atheism. That's not what secularism is about. People are free to have their beliefs. I want to be very clear on that. But people can't have their beliefs uninfringed so long as the government rules through specific religious ideologies. No matter how vague, these religious ideologies will only appeal to a fraction of the nation's citizens. Only a secular government that rules through reason and clear evidence can be truly fair. After all, beliefs are subject to interpretation. Facts are undeniable.

The only way Romney's faith would become a non-issue is if secularism were the name of the game in our government. However, since he seems intent on pushing religion into our governing process, his Mormonism will never cease to matter.

Although, he'd be a far better choice than Mike Huckabee. The last thing we need is a former Baptist minister in the White House. If you think Bush has been bad, he'd be nothing compared to the theocratic crap that Huckabee would bring to the executive branch.

Anyway, you can read more on Romney's speech at CNN.