1st reactions to the State of the Union.

Lots of waffling...but some interesting ideas in there.

The #1 thing that jumped out at me: Obama intends to double our domestic exports in the next 5 years.

If he follows through, that's an excellent idea. It WOULD create jobs, and they WOULD be lasting jobs. I hadn't heard anything leading up to that decision, so that was a pleasant surprise.

P.S. Tampa gets a high-speed train! :)

Okay...scratch that.

The US Supreme Court has now halted the YouTube broadcast of the Prop 8 hearing pending investigation. They've offered no reasoning behind the decision, but it seems to be clear that that alleged "we're scared to admit what we've done" argument may carry some weight with them.

Further investigation is due to be complete on the 13th of this month. Cross your fingers, everybody. I want to see it.

Proposition 8 trial to be broadcast on YouTube!

...Apparently the argument that people are too scared of the big, bad minorities to show their faces fell flat.

The world is stunned.

Really.

Look...this is my stunned face.

Yesterday was Election Day!

...And nobody cared.

Well, that's not strictly true. The Republicans who won a couple of close elections cared. And both opponents and supporters of Maine's same-sex marriage law cared.

On that note, same-sex marriage is now 0-for-31 in popular elections across the country. Are people really that afraid?

What exactly is the deal here? I acknowledge that poll numbers are always inaccurate concerning this issue: nobody wants to appear intolerant over the phone three months before the election, but when they're by themselves in that voting booth appearances don't seem as important. That suggests that people really are that afraid, and that they are voting their fears on election day.

But is that enough to explain this phenomenon? 0-for-31 is shockingly bad! That's the kind of percentage that converts an outfielder into a pitcher. (Yes, I'm deliberately tying this in for fans of my other blogs:P) So why is the outcome so consistent? Is it really just latent fear? Or is it the result of someone stirring that latent fear; in some cases even someone turning that natural human fear of what's "different" into a frenzy of political outrage?

And who's behind this outrage? Religions.

Yes, you heard me correctly. The vast majority of contributions (monetary or otherwise) toward opposing same-sex marriage efforts comes from religious groups.

iBear will even go one step farther and give them an accurate name: Religious Lobbyists.

And yet these religious lobbyists are tax-exempt. Does that strike anyone else as odd?

"Nobel jury speaks out in defense of Obama prize"

Link to an article from The Associated Press outlining a rare explanation of the Nobel Prize Committee's decision process.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5irLyPrFK_rtRwMOsfjRBFjGDVZCgD9BAFHMO0

Of note:

Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.

"All these things have contributed to — I wouldn't say a safer world — but a world with less tension," he said.

So while I may disagree on whether his efforts actually deserved a Nobel Prize, I am pleased to hear that the Committee based their decision on his efforts rather than his politics. I can't say that I would've awarded him a Nobel Prize for those efforts, but then I'm not on the committee:)

Sincerest apologies to the Nobel Prize Committee if they found my email disrespectful or condescending. (And they may have...) My thanks for making an effort to clear up the confusion. We've entered the realm of "Agree to Disagree", and it isn't my decision to make.

Peace.

Hillary was RIGHT!?

Stumbled across a very interesting Wall Street Journal article today.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574469203986653982.html

Perhaps the most memorable part for me was the deliberately drawn parallel between the words of the Nobel Prize Committee's Chairman and one of Hillary's Clinton'08 ads:

"It's 3 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep. But there's a phone in the White House, and it's ringing. Something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call, whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders, knows the military--someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world."--Hillary Clinton campaign ad, February 2008

"Traditionally, Nobel laureates are notified in advance but Thorbjoern Jagland, the former Norwegian Prime Minister who chaired the five-strong committee, decided against it. 'Waking up a president in the middle of the night, this isn't really something you do,' he said."--Times (London), Oct. 9, 2009

I kinda hope Hillary's reading this...

Wait...a Nobel Peace Prize?

Everyone who has the slightest interest in politics--and that probably includes you since you're here:P--knows by now that President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize today.

But why?

No one seems able to answer this question. The committee chairman, former Norwegian prime minister Thorbjorn Jagland, claimed that the award was not for future actions, but for "what he has done in the previous year." Here at the blog we are attempting to get details on exactly what accomplishments Mr. Jagland was referring to, and if and when I receive a response to my email I will try to clear that up.

Of course conservative critics were quick to accuse the Nobel Prize committee of rewarding Obama for being more in line with their own political and idealogical leanings. And unfortunately, until I hear more specifics from the committee themselves I'm forced to agree. Has the Nobel Prize really been reduced to nothing more than a seal of political approval?

Details if/when I get them.