Doug-at-large

Congressional Committee Debates Merits Of Proposed Inauguration Dance

I’m against war and don’t think it is acceptable for Hamas to launch missiles at civilian centers in Israel or for Israel to bomb areas where civilians are sure to be hit in Gaza. 

Hamas is a terrorist group and has no moral justification for targeting civilians. Israel isn’t targeting civilians, but its disproportionate response ends up killing even more civilian as “collateral damage”. 

I am in favor of blockades and embargoes. People say this is also “collective punishment”, but under a blockade I would also be in favor of allowing affected civilians to leave for protected areas – either in Israel or Egypt. And then starve Hamas out. 

Obviously letting Hamas continue to lob missiles into Israel is also an intolerable situation, so something must be done. A blockade seems the most peaceful thing to try. 
doug

“Prosecutors said Tuesday there is no evidence that Barack Obama was involved in the Blagojevich scandal. Or, as Fox News reported it, ‘Is Barack Obama involved in the Blagojevich scandal?’”

–Amy Poehler

Reading more about this, I can see why the idea of being secretary of state appeals to Hillary Clinton and Obama.

While there is no guarantee Obama will appoint her, it seems he is trying to take a page from Lincoln’s book where he created a cabinet of his rivals to ensure greater unity in the long run. The book “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln” by Doris Kearns Goodwin is a fascinating and good read by the way. It appears that Obama is a fan of the idea as well.

From Clinton’s perspective, she apparently feels stymied by the seniority system in the senate. Apparently at her age and relative position she has little chance, as junior senator from New York, of ever achieving control of a major committee or becoming majority leader. And she was also apparently rebuffed by Kennedy when she asked him to create a sub-committee to deal with new health care legislation that she could run. That is, after all, her trademark issue.

Also, as somebody else pointed out, while as Secretary of State you still have to attend boring meetings all the time, at least they are with heads of state in glamorous places like resorts in Dubai and Geneva instead of with transit officials at a Holiday Inn in Albany.

Even her critics don’t doubt that she would throw herself into it and do a good job if appointed. She is the type who likes to keep busy and actually accomplish things, so that’s probably why she would not be satisfied with a just senate sinecure.

doug

This from the McCain campaign is over the top:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yZd_Y_D-RaA

Obviously Obama was taken out of context and was referring to issues and not Sarah Palin herself. But it was an unfortunate choice of phrase considering her famous “lipstick” joke, which got a lot of play.

But Obama really has to make it clearer what he means by change. In the context Obama was speaking, he was saying that McCain and Palin do not represent change. It is still not clear to me why Obama does represent change. He doesn’t exactly have a record for bucking his party or reaching across the aisle. As far as his record goes, he’s always been pretty much a by-the-book Democrat.

The level of discourse in the campaign needs to rise. And Obama needs to explain himself more clearly. Dumb stuff like this gets press and youtube play and nobody cares about the original context anymore.

doug

As you know, the Japanese Prime Minister resigned last week and the ruling LDP party will hold elections on the 22nd to choose a new leader, who will also become Prime Minister.

One of the 5 announced candidates is a woman, former Defense Minister Yuriko Koike. If she wins, she would be become the first female Japanese prime minister.

Anyway, she is certainly covering all bases with her platform. From today’s “Daily Yomiuri”:

Koike, a TV news anchorwoman-turned-lawmaker, said: “What I will aim for is to change this world, the system of Japanese society. On the other hand, I would like to preserve tradition, family ties and the solidarity of community, which should be preserved.”

Sounds like Koike, Obama and McCain are all using the same campaign literature software.

doug

This one is funny – from the Daily Show.

doug

Both Laura Bush and Cindy McCain apparently disagree with Sarah Palin on abortion in two respects:

1. They both disagree with her position on banning abortion even cases of rape and incest. John McCain and George Bush disagree with Palin on that too.

2. They both disagree with overturning Roe v Wade (even though both their husbands, and Sarah Palin, are in favor of that).

So if you were making a list of Republicans and their range of views on abortion and Roe v Wade it would look like

Overturn Roe v Wade:
George Bush-yes, John McCain-yes, Laura Bush-no, Cindy McCain-no, Sarah Palin-yes

Allow abortion to protect the life of the mother:
George Bush-yes, John McCain-yes, Laura Bush-yes, Cindy McCain-yes, Sarah Palin-yes

Allow abortion in the case of rape or incest:
George Bush-yes, John McCain-yes, Laura Bush-yes, Cindy McCain-yes, Sarah Palin-no

It seems that both Laura Bush and Cindy McCain, even though they say they are in the “pro life” camp, when it comes down to specifics are actually in the “pro choice” camp.

While Sarah Palin is off in an extremist anti-abortion world of her own.

As far as Obama goes, he’s off in a world of his own too, in the other direction. He blocked the Illinois version of the BAIPA (Born-Alive Infants Protection Act), which would protect babies who are unintentionally born alive after a failed abortion. The issue is that such infants were being “shelved” – ignored until they died after being born. As stated in a “Jerusalem Post” editorial, “Obama’s position essentially boils down to this: a woman who contracts for an abortion is entitled, one way or another, to a dead baby.”

Abortion is really an intractable issue. If you believe that human life begins at conception, it follows that abortion is infanticide and it is natural that you would want to prevent that. I can understand that if you believe that infanticide is taking place that it is too simple to argue that you, as a pro-lifer, are trying to force your moral views on others. It is more a case that you believe that something really morally, intolerably wrong is going on that affects another human being. That would be something that goes beyond personal privacy, or issues involving adults engaging in mutually consensual behavior. It would be more like abolitionists who fought against slavery.

If you believe that human life doesn’t begin at conception then you are more likely to take a so-called “pro-choice” view.

Religions don’t all agree on when human life begins. Some say at conception, some say “when the soul is invested” (some say at 40 days, some say later). Some people say when the fetus becomes “viable”. I believe even the Christian church has evolved different positions on this over the centuries, but I’m not a religious historian.

My conclusion? I said it is an intractable problem, so I don’t have an answer. I think it is more complicated than the slogans that both sides want you to believe. Thus we see Laura Bush and Cindy McCain straddling the fence, both claiming to be “pro life” while they are really “pro choice”.

I wish I understand Obama’s position more though. I am not able to follow the morality or humanity or logic in his line of thinking on the issue.

doug

The GOP in all it’s diversity – this photo from page one of today’s New York Times.

Read this entry on the Alaska Independence Party, which has promoted the succession of Alaska from the U.S. Note the entry on Sarah Palin, who apparently used to be a member.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Independence_Party

A little “iffy” in the post-civil-war era for a vice-presidential candidate, I would think…

doug