President Obama's response to the clearly fraudulent Iranian elections?
We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran and obviously, after the speech that I made in Cairo, we tried to send a clear message that we think there’s a possibility of change and, ultimately, the election is for the Iranians to decide but just as what has been true in Lebanon, what can be true in Iran as well, is that you’re seeing people looking at new possibilities [sic], and whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact that there’s been a robust debate hopefully will help advance our ability to engage them in new ways.My BS meter went off the scale on this one, all vacuous nonsense reminiscent of the "we are the ones we've been waiting for" rhetoric of last year's European tour victory lap, all draped around a scrupulous "we won't interfere in Iranian internal affairs" (yes, the same dictatorship hypocritically demanding what it itself ignored while it felt free to furnish the Iraqi resistance with IED's targeting American soldiers and has been funding Hezbollah in Lebanon...). Where's the moral outrage? What about the violation of human rights in the Iranian dictatorship shooting down protesting voters? Where's the leadership in demanding respect for the democratic rights of the Iranian people? Have we already forgotten the Iraqis proudly displaying their purple fingers (indicating they voted in the first free election in decades)?
I'm usually critical of Congressional resolutions, because I prefer to see our legislature deal with real problems. But given the lack of leadership in the White House, I strongly recommend passage of the Pence resolution:
Resolved, That the House of Representatives–
1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who struggle for freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and the protection of the rule of law;
2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran, pro-government militias, and affiliated entities against the people of Iran, which has escalated since the June 12, 2009, process of selecting Iran’s next political leader; and
3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.
In Support of Obama's Recent Measured Steps on Gay Issues
As a straight (heterosexual) man, I don't pretend to understand gay behavior or the daily issues that gays encounter, but I do know, as a scientist, that homosexual behavior has been repeatedly observed among a number of species, and I do know that people are attacked for being born different, for factors beyond their control. As a conservative/ libertarian, I'm empathetic to individual rights from majoritarian abuses of power and the rights of consensual individuals to pursue happiness in private without intrusive Big Government.
At the same time, I am respectful of the historical concepts of marriage and family, which have remained constant for thousands of years in the Judaic-Christian and other traditions. Homosexual relationships have co-existed during the same interval and presumably have their own traditions. Marriage is not some arbitrary discriminatory filter; it's an institution that evolved for the survival and stability of society. Nature itself decided the issue of mixed-gender relationships for the purpose of procreation.
The Obama Administration filed a brief in favor of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which gay activists are challenging and which Obama had initially opposed; this act allows states the right of refusal to recognize nontraditional "marriages" from other states and establishes traditional marriage as the foundation of marriage in federal law.
More controversially, Obama is extending federal long-term insurance for coverage of partners (e.g., Alzheimer's), the application of sick leave for children or partners, and for health coverage of partners while based overseas. These are reasonable, compassionate steps which I can support.
The gay activist community, of course, considers these steps "too little, too late". They are also furious about the administration continuing to support "don't ask, don't tell" on US military with the Supreme Court's implicit approval. I don't think it's ever been a big deal in the ranks; when I was in the Navy years ago, I knew about two unrelated lesbians (one a fellow officer, the other enlisted); they simply were discreet. As far as I was concerned, what people do in the privacy of the bedrooms has nothing to do with what they do on the job as professionals. A linguist got recently discharged for deliberately defying "don't ask, don't tell" policy and outing himself in the media; I thought that was deliberately insubordinate. Others are upset that the Obama Administration isn't following the California Supreme Court's lead.
ABC News Competes with MSNBC For the Coveted Title of The Obama Channel
As Drudge Report puts it:
ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE (Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET)
On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!
RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay protested:
Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected...this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda.ABC News has responded with mock indignation, insisting the audience will include some health care critics whom will be permitted to ask questions. Yeah, right: That's fair. Let's get this straight: We are talking about Democratic health care proposals ranging from $1T upwards over the next 10 years, with details still in flux, which Pelosi and others want to push out before the August recess, and ABC's view of a national debate is turning over the bully pulpit to a President and limiting debate to an occasional critical question from the audience? Tell me, ABC, will the occasional critic be given equal time as the President to flesh out an opposite point of view and authentically debate the President on equal terms? I don't think so... This is not a news event; it's a de facto townhall meeting, a political event, which primarily serves one point of view. ABC News' response is self-serving, and as far as I'm concerned, the event constitutes a journalistic breach of ethics.
Of course, ABC News, which had previously noted the White House had barred the liberal mass media from covering the visit of the NCAA Champion University of Connecticut female basketball team and instead produced its own video, was probably worried Obama TV would simply issue the video on its own. I'm sure there will be better fiction elsewhere on cable TV during the time slot than Obama's views on health care.
Obama Fly Swat and PETA
Once again, the national media is gushing over the celebrity of Obama: during the campaign, they marveled at his shooting an unopposed 3-point shot, there was the widely-viewed incident of Obama volunteering to write an excuse for a fourth grader at a Green Bay event, and now there's Obama's deft swatting of a fly during a CNBC interview.
PETA, no doubt disturbed by Obama's harsh treatment of a second, affectionate family pet, has sought to educate the President on "catch-and-release" procedures. (If they think that's bad, they should check out the bottoms of his shoes for remnants of roaches and spiders...) That's all we need; in the middle of a world crisis on North Korea or whatever, Obama puts his Cabinet meeting on hold while he releases a fly to the outdoors. Me, I'm okay with the President swatting flies, so long as they don't land on the red button...
Deportation of Parents of US Citizens
I get tired of the media/pop conservatives railing against "illegal aliens". As I've mentioned in past posts, I regard the real problem as a broken-down visiting worker program, largely the result of Democratic capitulation to the unions in the early 60's. These same "conservatives" claim to represent the private sector, small businesses and farmers whom make use of visiting workers. For pop conservatives to treat hard-working gardeners or hotel maids as criminals because the latter had to work around laws that make as much sense as pietistic laws against sodomy is unconscionable and I do believe there's a foul stench of xenophobia about it.
Don't get me wrong; I don't believe in open borders, and I recognize the vulnerability of infiltration by undesirable elements (e.g., drug smugglers, gang members, or even terrorists). What bothers me is the polarizing rhetoric which contributed to McCain's loss of key battleground states.
There are some 12 million unauthorized immigrants in the US, with approximately 4 million U.S.-born dependents, citizens by birth. If and when immigrant families are caught by INS, the families are offered a heartbreaking choice: leave the U.S.-born children in the US (e.g., with relatives) or bring them back to their native countries. The Solomonic decision requires choosing between their child in their lives or the future for their child. What a terrible thing to ask of a parent of an American child! America is better than this. I urge my fellow citizens to support worthy organizations, such as the Organization to Help Citizen Children.
US Senate Passes Resolution Apologizing for Slavery
Iowa Senator Tom Harkin sponsored a resolution, apologizing to African-Americans for the wrongs of slavery and Jim Crow laws (this did not address the controversial issue of reparations). This is long overdue, and I unconditionally support the resolution.
