Controversy By Association -- Redux

Questions for McCain, if you're a fan of "controversy by association".

Controversy By Association -- A Bad Idea

The Media, the Clinton campaign, and I am assured, in time, the GOP, have and will continue to make great hay out of the fact that the Rev. Wright, Barack Obama's pastor, has some ideas about HIV, or said he had those ideas, that are fairly crazy.

I think there's a limit to how much crap one should have to accept for beliefs of people that candidates associate with.

Frankly, I feel the same way about McCain's 2006 reconciliation with Rev. Falwell. Rev. Falwell, as you will recall, said, in regard to the 9/11 attacks:

And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, "You helped this happen."

--Jerry Falwell, quoted in the Washington Post, 9/14/01.

It is the nature of life, the nature of politics, and the nature perhaps of spiritual belief that we sometimes take the bad with the good, that we respect people in part for whom we see some really dumbshit ideas in other places. I'm sure that, having read this blog, you think I have some pretty dumbshit ideas, and yet you continue to read it. QED. :)

I do think it was fair to ask Sen. Obama how he feels about Rev. Wrights statements about HIV, I similarly think it's fair to ask Sen. McCain about Falwell's comments about whether gays and atheists and people who give a damn about civil liberties are the responsible for the 9/11 attacks. But I don't think there's any reason to take Obama's repudiation of those beliefs, or any repudiation that McCain would make (if anyone bothered to ask him, that is) about Falwell's beliefs, at less than face value. Asked and answered--can we please move the hell on to things that actually matter, like Iraq, the ethics of torture, the budget debt, the housing crisis, or the coming demise of Social Security and Medicare? I'd appreciate it, thanks.

Why aren't you entitled to an apology when *your* privacy is infringed upon?

When a candidate's privacy is infringed on, Secretary of State Rice issued an apology.

Don't you deserve one, too?

GOP on the Protect America Act

Click for the GOP ad over at Youtube

One of the key provisions, which the GOP fought to be included in this act, is retroactive immunity for any illegal acts communication giants such as AT&T may have done when handing over your private data to the government without a warrant.

Those companies are already protected against anything they did that's legal.

Those companies are already protected against anything they handed over with a warrant.

So, what's the urgency of that provision? Hmmm? The commercial doesn't seem to cover that question.

Well, here's one theory. It's a little bit rude, but if you have anything better, just say so.

This act would invalidate existing lawsuits against the putatively illegal actions of these telephone companies. In doing so, it would stop the pre-trial discovery in those cases, discovery which would help sort out whistleblowers's contentions that the illegal warrantless wiretaps predate the 9/11 attacks.

When the GOP brings "24" sensibilities and minor chords to selling you on the idea that it is trying to Protect America, perhaps you should ask yourself if that is really what, or who, they're trying to protect.

California same-sex marriage amicus briefs

Amicus briefs in the California same-sex marriage cases. There's a lot of good stuff in there, e.g., the awesome NAACP brief. The primary arguments are here.

"Stealing from our Children"

60 Minutes: Head of the GAO explains the budget debt crisis, in words even small enough for politicians to understand.

List of unpledged superdelegates

List of unpledged superdelegates. Hey, some of those are folks I should write. :)

Obama 2008

It's Super Duper Fat Tuesday Eve, and as has been the case most of my life, I'm not feeling deeply connected with the political mindsets of any of the major candidates. Nonetheless, unlike many past elections, I will be voting in this primary for a major-party candidate, Barack Obama, and I'll be doing so with a reasonable amount of comfort.

There's much that Obama and I disagree on, and let me outline some of that laundry list:

I don't believe, as he does, that "civil unions" create equality, I think that any thinking person must be suspicious of any system which attempts to create "separate but equal" queues for its citizens.

Obama's support of the death penalty, while one I can relate to, is not my own, I believe the horrifyingly bad record of Death Penalty jurisprudence in the United States demonstrates problems that give me qualms about such "final penalties".

Obama supported the 2006 version of the USA Patriot Act.

Obama supports "cap and trade", rather than emissions tax approaches to CO2 harm reduction. It is my feeling that the systems he supports rely too much on protecting existing industries from the problems created by their past practices and not enough on creating a system that balances any emissions against other economic and environmental goods.

So, why Obama?

Two issues dominate my thinking this election. Foreign policy in Iraq, and the economic health of the country. On the Republican side, the race is largely left to McCain at this point, and he refuses to accept the enormous failure of policy and of government that our involvement in Iraq represents even today. This blinds him to the economic damage being done as well. For someone who had (to me) a fairly convincing record in years past as someone who believed in fiscal responsibility, McCain seems to have taken a dark turn, one matched by his sudden shift towards rights-sapping 'social conservatism' and, well, thanks but no thanks.

On the Democratic side, I find little basis in direct policy on which to choose between Clinton and Obama. Either, I think, could make a pretty decent president. I think both recognize the problems in Iraq without ignoring the enormous practical difficulties and consequences of immediate withdrawal--and recognize just what the war in Iraq is costing is. (They both have plans which concern me economically, too.) Neither supports same-sex marriage. And the election of either would represent a historic moment for the country in either case.

I'm not saying there aren't policy differences between the two. It's simply that, when I count up the differences, they seem small and offsetting, and that leads me to consider a factor that moves beyond one of pure issues.

The power of the presidency resides in part in the "bully pulpit", the ability to have oneself heard and to apply pressure on issues to affect change. In the end, while I believe Clinton has made enormous strides at speaking well and effectively (in particular, during the last debate), I personally believe that Obama is arguably the strongest speaker we've had up for a presidential race in the past twenty years, and, left "in balance" on specific issues, it's my best estimation that this speaking ability will allow Obama to be an even more effective leader.

We need that. We need direction, purpose and change in this country, and while I am always cynical about what we'll really see, I think Obama represents the best hope we have for a brighter tomorrow.

A timely reminder on FactCheck.Org

The Annenberg Project's FactCheck.org is an excellent non-partisan caller of bullshit, highly recommended.

Any other recommendation for organizations doing this sort of work, whether on a local, national or global basis?