In case you missed it the first time around.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
2nd reactions to the SOTU.
Pres. Obama went back to his campaign roots tonight. There's already been a lot of talk about "reaching across the aisle" so far, but I think a more accurate term is that he was reaching INTO the aisle; I got the impression that Obama was making a deliberate effort to appeal to the Independents again. If I'm reading things correctly (I think I am, of course), the White House recognized last week's lesson that America's Moderates are just as opposed to rampant radicalism from the Left as they were from the Right.
I also liked the ear-marking website idea: let's see if we can follow through with that 100% transparency on ear marks.
I also liked the ear-marking website idea: let's see if we can follow through with that 100% transparency on ear marks.
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! :)
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! :)
Monday, January 11, 2010
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.
Further investigation is due to be complete on the 13th of this month. Cross your fingers, everybody. I want to see it.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
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.
The world is stunned.
Really.
Look...this is my stunned face.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
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?
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?
Friday, October 16, 2009
"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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)