Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts

Friday, March 27, 2009

"Obama: Yup, We're At War In Pakistan"

Wired's Danger Room blog reports:
Perhaps you were wondering whether or not the U.S. was really at war in Pakistan, as well as Afghanistan. Well, President Obama just put those questions to rest.

With everyone from Hillary Clinton to Robert Gates to General David Petraeus at his side, Obama announced this morning "a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." Not Afghanistan, with an occasional cross-border drone strike. Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Continue reading.

I highly recommend reading Danger Room on a regular basis. The writers there provide some of the best reporting on military issues that I've ever found.

Papa Obama Knows Best

It’s a good thing we have President Obama leading this country. Without his enlightened guidance, ordinary little people such as ourselves would likely wander blindly, unsure of what path our lives should take.

But because we have Obama’s noble example to follow, we all know exactly what we should do.

To start with, school is important. As the president has said, dropping out of high school isn’t just a bad decision because it limits one’s options later in life. If people don’t live up to their maximal educational potential, they’re letting everyone down. And if one doesn’t live up to society’s expectations, how can one ever hope to have a fulfilling life?

Though studying the liberal arts or sciences at a four-year college isn’t for everyone, those who can excel at such pursuits are obligated to do so. An education isn’t just a way to expand one’s horizons and increase one’s earning potential. It’s a way to increase productivity.

Being maximally productive is key not because it allows a person to accumulate wealth that can be spent in the pursuit of happiness but because it benefits the whole community.

If a sharp-witted young woman is capable of success in law school, she possesses the ability to become a civil-rights attorney, a law professor, a legislator, or even president. In all of those positions such a person would be empowered to help those in need. Living as a public servant, she could attain the highest virtue, which is serving one’s fellow human beings.

And we all know that because Obama tells us so.

As he continually stressed during his campaign, the president knows in his heart that we are our brothers and sisters’ keepers. Logically, since we are obligated to provide for our fellow men and women, failing to choose the career that adds the most value to the economy is wrong.

For example, if our hypothetical young woman chooses to become a writer instead of a lawyer, she won’t be able to provide nearly as much practical assistance to her community.

If rather than studying political science and law, such a person were to study creative writing, she’d be unable to become a civil-rights attorney or law professor and far less likely to be in a position to even consider running for elected office. Especially if she never becomes a particularly popular author in her lifetime, such a woman would never produce as much tangible wealth for society through her labors. Perhaps working a simple service job to pay her minimal living expenses, our selfish writer wouldn’t end up paying nearly as much in taxes to her local, state, and federal governments. And without this much-needed tax revenue, those who, like Obama, have done the right thing and chosen to live the ideal life of public servitude won’t be able to help society as much as they could have if our hypothetical young woman had done her duty and worked herself into a higher tax bracket.

One may object that the young woman’s own satisfaction with her life would be greater if she were to live as she sees fit, but that would be missing the point.

The motivation to succeed ought not come merely from the desire to fulfill one’s own dreams. That’s just crass. As Obama has shown us, simply supporting oneself and refraining from harming others is not enough. Each and every one of us also has the moral obligation to serve the interests of humanity at large. And the best way to do that is unquestionably to be as much like the president as possible.

After all, reflecting on history, who is it who has done the world the most good? Is it service-minded politicians like Obama or self-serving writers, inventors, and entrepreneurs who strike out on their own individual paths and live by their own unique standards?

It’s not even a close contest.

(Cross-posted at the Daily Iowan's main site.)

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Obama Is A Paradigmatic Political Hack

The president clearly knows better than this:



All that the marijuana question's popularity says about the people who voted for it is that they actually know how to think clearly and independently about drug policy. This is in contrast to Obama who, though he has to be aware that the prohibition of marijuana is even sillier than the prohibition of alcohol, is still willing to parrot the conventional wisdom to maintain the support of the ignorant. And that's not change I can believe in.

So welcome to my long list of political hacks, Mr. President. You're just the latest addition to a long and ignoble list.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Love In The Time Of Commenters



Topics covered:
Ann gets engaged to one of her blog’s commenters... Is the internet full of shy, lonely men?... Are women always in it for the man’s money?... Ann accuses Obama of excessive frivolity... Should we be more freaked out about the economy?... Reviving the Althouse vs. BhTV commenter rivalry...

Monday, March 23, 2009

"Guantanamo State Of Mind"

Jacob Sullum writes for Reason:
In January 2002, the Pentagon began imprisoning men it described as “very hard cases”—“the worst of the worst” terrorists in American custody—at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. During the next seven years it released more than 500 of them. “What’s left,” Vice President Dick Cheney declared in the final week of the Bush administration, “is the hard core.” That was a few days before the Pentagon released half a dozen more.

Unless the Bush administration recklessly loosed hundreds of hardened terrorists on the world, its initial descriptions of the detainees were mistaken. That pattern of error reinforces the argument against allowing the executive branch to wield the unchallengeable authority it asserted at Guantanamo.

As President Obama proceeds with his plan to close the prison, he should recognize that Guantanamo is not so much a place as a state of mind. It’s an attitude that says: We know who the bad guys are, and we’re not about to let anyone endanger national security by second-guessing us.

Continue reading.

Law Professors Discuss The Politics Of Emergencies


(http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/18503)

Topics covered:
Executive power in a time of emergency... Can the president change reality?... Obama’s political Ponzi scheme... Secrecy in the Obama administration... Jack vs. Eric: Should we fear the modern presidency?... Imagining an executive branch 2.0...

Friday, March 20, 2009

"Obama's Self-Immolating Capitalism"

Will Wilkinson writes:
There are two capitalisms. There is mundane market capitalism and there is political capitalism. Markets regulated by the rule of law and governed by a freely functioning price system are post and beam in the architecture of prosperity. You step into a grocery and there in the freezer are your coveted waffles waiting as if someone knew you were coming for them. But no one is looking after your need for breakfast treats. Each looks after her own needs by looking to the free play of prices and there emerges a rough-but-remarkable convergence of the waffles wanted and the waffles supplied. As the great Adam Smith noted, it seems like magic, but it's not. It's just amazing — in the way the evolution of the eye is amazing.

Continue reading.

Even though I regularly highlight excellent criticisms of Obama's economic policies here on the blog as well on the DIOpinions Twitter account, an increasing number of people who only seem to read the Daily Iowan's main website are asking that I pen a column on these issues. And I suppose I should--even though my field of expertise is not economics. I'll have to think about what specific angle to cover.

Obama Addresses The Iranian People, Government

Here it is--just in case you haven't already watched it:



I hope Obama's strategy for Iranian relations works out well. It's certainly a lot more subtle than anything Bush ever attempted, as the Cato Institute points on in a good blog post on the subject.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Obama, Medical Marijuana, And Liberaltarianism

From Reason:
Today Attorney General Eric Holder gave the clearest indication so far that the Justice Department plans to respect state laws that permit the medical use of marijuana:
The policy is to go after those people who violate both federal and state law....Given the limited resources that we have, our focus will be on people, organizations that are growing, cultivating substantial amounts of marijuana and doing so in a way that's inconsistent with federal and state law.

As medical marijuana activists noted, that still leaves unresolved the issue of what will happen to pending cases against people who provide cannabis to patients in states such as California. Thomas O'Brien, the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, has gone back and forth on that question. Charlie Lynch, who ran a medical marijuana dispensary in San Luis Obispo, is scheduled to be sentenced on Monday and could spend decades in federal prison.

It's telling that there's been no significant backlash against Obama's move to respect states' rights with respect to medical marijuana. I think this is evidence of the workability of a liberaltarian alliance. When the interests of liberals and libertarians overlap, it can be difficult for conservatives to offer an effective response.

But what's happening in this case could just be a result of there not being any good argument to be offered against allowing states to decide their own medical marijuana policy.

Update:

Just when I thought it looked like no major politicians were silly enough to speak out against Obama's change in DEA policy, the Republican senator from my own state steps up to the plate--from the Associated Press (via Slog):
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley says the Obama administration's change in policy toward medical marijuana is a bad idea.

...

Grassley says the new policy outlined by Attorney General Eric Holder Wednesday is counterproductive because marijuana leads to use of harder drugs.

Oh, Chuck, just when you were wooing me back with your suggestion that AIG executives ought to consider seppuku, you have to go and say something completely ridiculous. Well, that's the GOP way, I guess.

Saturday, March 14, 2009

Obama And "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"


(Via Towleroad.)

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Only "Several Dozen Thousands Of Soldiers"

Jon Stewart continues to adapt well to mocking the Obama administration:


(http://www.thedailyshow.com/video)

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Obama Marks His Territory

From ABC News (via TPM):
President Obama announced today that his administration will begin stamping an emblem on projects funded by the economic stimulus package so that people can easily recognize the effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

All projects will be stamped with the ARRA logo (short for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) and lists the recovery.gov website on the emblem.

Here's what the emblems will look like:



Seems like a waste of money to me. But it makes sense politically. Obama is basically covering the country with permanent signs advertising for his reelection campaign in 2012.

(I got the inspiration for this post's title from the UI Advocates for Liberty blog.)

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Obama And The Media


(http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/17848)

Topics covered:

Obama’s Bushian press instincts... Matt laughs at Obama’s pledge to “create or save” jobs... The downside of a celebrity president... Journalism gets stuck in campaign mode... A fond look back at the McCain campaign’s stupidity... Why Ana left Time...

Friday, February 13, 2009

How’s Obama Doing?


(http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/17717)

Topics covered:

Obama’s stimulus: legislative victory, policy defeat?... David says the media confused bipartisanship with success... A key problem with Geithner’s bailout plan—it’s not a plan!... Will wily execs wriggle out of compensation caps?... An unsettling new Afghanistan-Vietnam parallel... ‘80s flashback! Was Reagan heroic or horrible?...

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Does Obama Intend To Continue Bush's Secrecy?

Andrew Sullivan, Marc Ambinder, and Glenn Greenwald are caught up in something of a bloggy war of words over the Obama administration's handling of the state secrets controversy over the last few days.

Here's how Sullivan sums up his stance:
For my part, I have not changed my mind and never, pace Glenn, stated that the Obama administration was complicit in torture. I said it should be very careful to avoid that. I would prefer that this evidence be released, but I understand that there may be some serious reasons for a holding pattern in the first weeks of a new administration. I'm going to watch this carefully; and I'm happy that Feingold is asking for a briefing.

He also mentions this odd Guardian story, which I highly recommend: "Binyam Mohamed torture evidence 'hidden from Obama'"

Regardless of how it all plays out, Obama's hand is being forced early-on. I remain cautiously optimistic regarding Obama's intentions in the realm of civil liberties. But it's time to start demanding results.

Update:

Wired reports:
U.S. Lawmakers on Wednesday introduced legislation that might make it more difficult for federal judges to scuttle lawsuits in which the government claims state secrets might be exposed.

The proposals in the House and Senate came two days after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder ordered the agency to review litigation inherited from the Bush administration in which the so-called state-secrets privilege was invoked. That same day, however, the Justice Department invoked the privilege before a San Francisco federal appeals court in a bid to block a lawsuit brought by five U.S. prisoners who claim they were kidnapped – or rendered – from the United States and flown overseas where they claim they were tortured.

Continue reading.

Update II:

Glenn Greenwald reacts to Congress' movement to limit the president's power to assert state secrets as a reason to dismiss lawsuits:
Earlier this week, I wrote about the State Secrets Protection Act of 2008, which was co-sponsored by numerous key Senators [including Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, as well as the Senate Judiciary Committee's Chair (Pat Leahy) and ranking member (Arlen Specter)], and which was approved by the Judiciary Committee last year with all Democrats voting in favor. That bill, in essence, sought to ban the exact abuse of the State Secrets privilege which the Bush administration repeatedly invoked and which, now, the Obama administration has embraced: namely, as a weapon to conceal and immunize government lawbreaking (by compelling the dismissal of entire lawsuits in advance) rather than a limited, document-by-document evidentiary privilege.

Yesterday -- as an obvious response to the Obama DOJ's support for the Bush view of the privilege -- Leahy and Specter, along with Russ Feingold, Claire McCaskill, Sheldon Whitehouse and Ted Kennedy, re-introduced that bill in the Senate.

Continue reading.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Questioning Obama's Economic Claims

From the Cato @ Liberty blog:
On economics, the president made claims such as “I can tell you with complete confidence that a failure to act will only deepen this crisis.” Yet how can he have “complete confidence” when the economics profession is divided on the stimulus issue, and when we have seen policymakers and top economists making continual mistakes with their policies and predictions over the last year?

On economists, the president opined “although there are some politicians who are arguing that we don’t need a stimulus, there are very few economists who are making that argument.” Mr. President, please look at the Cato list of more than 300 university economists who oppose a big stimulus spending bill. Please have your advisers call these experts to get an independent outside-the-beltway view.

Continue reading.

Though I agree with the new president on many issues, I remain highly skeptical of his economic policies--particularly because his statements on his proposed stimulus plan are so lacking in nuance and, frankly, honesty. Thus, I'm glad that organizations like Cato are out there to keep me informed about the other side in these debates.

Perhaps the best thing about these libertarian writers is that they were equally critical of Bush's economic liberalism. Unlike most members of Congress, these guys aren't just a bunch of partisan hacks. They actually offer principled reasons for opposing Obama's economic plan. Most Republicans are in no position to do so because of their complicity in Bush's wild spending over the last eight years.

Ron Paul is, refreshingly, a notable exception:



If only Paul (minus his disappointing coziness with some disgusting bigots) and Obama (minus his willingness to claim false certainty on complex economic issues) really represented the true nature of their parties. A choice between these two would at least leave us with decent stances on civil liberties regardless of who won. But the rank and file office holders in both parties are far worse than either of these mostly respectable men. At some point, we have to find a way to fix our absurdly corrupt party system.

Obama Answers Huffington Post Writer's Question


(Via Think Progress.)

The fact that he called on this reporter at all as well as the content of his response helps me maintain my cautious optimism about Obama overall.

Monday, February 9, 2009

Justice Department Reviews State Secrets Claims

Here's some good news to end the day with...

Wired reports:
The Justice Department said Monday the agency is reviewing litigation inherited from the Bush administration in which the so-called state secrets privilege was invoked.

But it remains to be seen whether the Obama administration would cite the privilege less frequently than the record number of times it was invoked under the Bush administration. On Monday, Obama's Justice Department was defending the privilege invoked by the Bush administration in a bid to scuttle a lawsuit brought by four U.S. prisoners who claimed they were kidnapped, taken overseas and tortured.

"The attorney general has directed that senior Justice Department officials review all assertions of state secrets to ensure it is being invoked in only legally appropriate situations," Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller said in a telephone interview.

Continue reading.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Cheney Attacks Obama For Following The Law

CNN reports:
The Obama administration's new policies on Guantanamo Bay prison and the treatment of detainees makes it more likely a terrorist attack against the United States will succeed, former Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday.

In an interview with Politico, the former vice president issued a stringent defense of the Bush administration's record on the war on terror, and said he worries the President Obama has already made the country more vulnerable.

“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,” Cheney said in the interview published Wednesday.

Obama should ignore this, but Holder should get the ball rolling on a criminal investigation into Bush officials' illegal actions. Cheney is obviously trying to goad Obama into a war of words to make any future prosecution look like personal retribution. But this shouldn't be about Cheney or Obama. It should be about the law. Torture is torture. Period.

Update:

Andrew Sullivan shows how America's torture practices under Bush are having serious consequences for our country's relationship with the UK.

Update II:

More from Sullivan, this time on Cheney's inexcusable behavior.

Update III:

Sullivan links to Spencer Ackerman's thorough take down of the nonsense Cheney continues to spew.

Monday, February 2, 2009

"Get Your Obama Check"; "My $12,000 Bailout"

A sign of the times: There are now Facebook ads for instructional materials that will supposedly teach you how to bilk the government out of money.

These are the ads I've seen thus far (I'm not linking to the sites because that would only contribute to the hits they get):
Get Your Obama Check
The government's giving back billions to the public to stimulate the economy. Find out how I got $12,000.


My $12,000 Bailout
I paid $2.99 and Obama gave me $12,000 in less than 30 days. Get yours today!


The pages the ads link to are obviously cookie-cutter websites set up as part of a shady scheme to separate fools from their money. Amusingly, despite the fact that the two ads I republished above link to different sites that claim to be run by different people, they use the exact same photo of a check allegedly procured from the United States Treasury. Even the name, which appears to be poorly photoshopped in on both images, is the same:



Stupid free-money scheme advertisement epic fail.

Please, people, remember: TANSTAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)! Thus, if it sounds too good to be true, it almost certainly is. The best way to obtain money is to work.

Update:

Here's another version of the ad:
Your Government Bailout
The United States government is giving away billions to stimulate the economy. Buy a house, pay debt, start a business. Claim yours!