Illusion

Blaise's article is superb, a dark garden of thorny prose and deep, flowery cynicism:

Lord, there is no such city anywhere, but all is a vision. America’s spires and turrets are built on mountains of debt and a fairyland of trust in the faithless apostles of the unregulated Free Market. We have indulged ourselves in fantasies of national superiority and continue to do so, all the while condemning the Islamists who make no bones of their urge to subdue the world to their own vision of harsh justice and superiority. Think Obama won’t perpetuate these fantasies? He’s going to send even more troops into Afghanistan, recapitulating the failures of Bush in Iraq, in the one place in the world where every textbook of military history tells us empires go to die. Less Lincoln and more Plutarch for President Obama: let our Fearless Leader see how Alexander fared east of Persia, both in the nature of Alexander’s successes and failures.

Anon, the whole fair city had disappeared, the reckoning has come due. Yet the illusion has not been dispelled.

Obama is a fine man, as good a man as the times have produced and the country is well-pleased with him, both Republicans and Democrats alike are charmed by his glamour. But of old, the word Glamour meant a spell of illusion...

Read the whole thing.

More on Obama and Gay Marriage

Video via Friar Zero in the comments:



It remains true that Obama is very much like Russia--a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma...

It's official

We have a new President.

I'd say it's about bloody time. Congratulations America!

Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Well, he did in 1996. I don't think he's changed his tune since then, though we'll see if he actually does anything about it.

Questions of Inquest

Paul Krugman is displeased with Obama's apparent unwillingness to investigate the Bush Administration:

I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.

Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. It’s not just torture and illegal wiretapping, whose perpetrators claim, however implausibly, that they were patriots acting to defend the nation’s security. The fact is that the Bush administration’s abuses extended from environmental policy to voting rights. And most of the abuses involved using the power of government to reward political friends and punish political enemies.

I'm torn on this subject--truly torn. I can't see any fault with transparency, with holding those who occupy our highest offices accountable, perhaps even more accountable than any others. But if we are to go into it with Krugman's presuppositions--basically asserting that there was abuse even before it's been proven--than aren't we waging a political vendetta more than seeking justice?

Krugman declares that "the fact is" the Bush administration committed various abuses, though really, sans the inquest, how can he possibly know what any of the facts are? This isn't necessarily meant as a case against an inquest, but it certainly reveals Krugman's argument to be more emotionally based than anything. The fact is, we don't know anything. I think this is a pretty good argument in and of itself to do an inquest. But until that time we should be asking questions, not stating opinions as though they were facts.

Krugman's a smart guy. He should know better. A far better case could be made from a more nuetral standpoint. Hell, I think the case should be made that all outgoing administrations will be wihout fail investigated thoroughly by an independent inquest upon their departure from office. We should set precedent that regardless of a President's popularity or perceived honesty or dishonesty he or she, and the men and women in their cabinet, will be investigated for wrong-doing while in office.

We should keep all our elected officials honest. But honesty doesn't necessarily equate with popularity, and Bush's unpopularity should not be reason enough to investigate him, no matter how politically opposed we may be to his decisions. This should simply be status quo. Take the politics out of it, and demand the rule of law above all else.

Death and taxes

Okay, well not death really, but most certainly taxes.

From the NY Times:

From 2001 until 2004, when he received his final payments from the I.M.F., Mr. Geithner paid his state and federal income taxes but did not pay self-employment payroll taxes. The I.M.F., as an international organization, does not withhold U.S. payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare from its American employees’ paychecks, so they are required to pay the roughly 15 percent tax on their own. The Obama transition is calling his mistake a common error for American employees of the I.M.F.

After a 2006 Internal Revenue Service audit identified the lapse on his 2003 and 2004 tax returns, Mr. Geithner paid tax and interest of $17,230 and the I.R.S. waived penalties, according to the transition.
But Obama vetters discovered the same lapse for 2001 and 2002 and brought it to Mr. Geithner’s attention last Nov. 21, after which he paid tax and interest of $25,970, transition officials say.

That leaves for Mr. Geithner the question of why he did not correct the earlier years’ non-payment of self-employment taxes after the 2006 IRS audit identified the problem for 2003 and 2004.

What really bothers me about this is that the last thing we, as a country, need right now is a dishonest, sneaky, tax-evading Secretary of the Treasury. We've had a bad enough time with Paulson, who I personally wouldn't trust with my money (if that were an option)--we don't need Geithner embroiled in a scandal the moment he hits the ground. Beyond the scandal, though, we don't want a man who can't be trusted to pay his own taxes running the Treasury Department during this period of turmoil. It sends the wrong message. Of course, with the inauguration only days away, we're awfully late in the game finding a new Sec. of the Treasury.

On the other hand, perhaps this is all much adieu about nothing...perhaps Geithner really is the man for the job, and he made honest mistakes, perhaps egged on by a willful subconscious.

Anything is possible.

And as I've argued in the past, I'm not in favor of disqualifying people based on suspicion alone.

Is Obama a bigot?

Much has been made recently of the passage of Proposition 8 in California, nullifying the recent court decision to permit same-sex marriage. Now, I am a supporter of gay marriage for many reasons, not the least of which is my belief in the family unit and the societal importance in bringing the homosexual community into the mainstream. We should afford our fellow citizens basic equal rights. It will make for a stronger culture and a stronger nation. It is cruel to deny the foundation of marriage to adults who love one another. That's what I think. Others disagree, and they are welcome to disagree.

There are those, like the Westboro Baptist Church who are most certainly comprised of bigots. They protest at the funerals of soldiers and say that America has brought about the deaths of our brave young men and women through our lax moral code, our acceptance of gays, etc. They hoist signs that say "God Hates Fags." Just check out their website. It is a crash course in hatred and bigotry.

I doubt I'll find much argument on that point.

But a much larger swath of America disagrees with me about same-sex marriage. Many moderates, religious or otherwise, think that marriage is sacred and that it is defined by the union of one man and one woman. (I take issue with both points, citing divorce rates as one major flaw in the argument, but that is neither here nor there...)

One such opponent of gay marriage is our own President-elect, Barack Obama, often described as "the most liberal Senator in the United States Senate" or "in the history of mankind" or something to that effect. Not liberal enough, apparently, Barack Obama has made it very clear that he does not support gay marriage, but does support gay rights.

Is this like saying, "I support civil rights for black people, but not black marriage"? Or should I not touch that with a ten-foot pole?

In any case, the hue and cry out of the gay activist scene now is that bigotry brought about the passage of Proposition 8. Only bigots voted for it. This begs the obvious question: If bigots are the only ones opposing gay marriage (and no argument of tradition or religion has any merit) than does our new President-elect qualify as a bigot?

You tell me. Is Barack Obama a bigot for not supporting gay marriage? Or is it a more complicated issue? Once we start using such black and white language, the obvious flaws in this reasoning become apparent. After all, if Obama is a bigot, then how do we describe the members of Westboro Baptist Church? Do we begin to water down our words when we start to use them overmuch? Or do we hold all accountable equally?

Like I said...

Andrew is right:

I'm as struck as Mark McKinnon by the sudden, if tempered, swooning of the center-right for Obama. even Fred Barnes has had an epiphany of sorts. They are responding to his obviously sensible and accomplished picks for the economy and foreign affairs as if they have realized for the first time who "that one" actually is. He is not now and never has been a leftist ideologue. That was a paranoid fantasy that helped kill the GOP this year. He is a pragmatic, sane, reasoned centrist liberal. He doesn't want to surrender to terror or abolish capitalism - he wants to hone our fight against the Islamists to better effect and to save capitalism from itself. And the core meaning of his candidacy - an end to the polarizing culture war battles of the post-Vietnam era - is not just hype.

Of course, the more Obama seemed to say sensible things, the less he sounded like the crazed lefty so many on the Right believed him to be (or wanted him to be?) the louder the cry of anti-American, "palling around with terrorists" etc. became. Now there is a two-part reaction to his picks. On the one hand we have the so-called center-right, which is, as Sullivan points out, fairly well-pleased with the Obama cabinet choices.

On the other we have a strange union between the far Left and the far Right, the former critical of Obama for what they perceive to be a betrayal, and the latter simply irreconcilably unhappy with any Liberal, no matter how centrist, sitting in the White House. Make no mistake, this crowd would have been almost as unhappy with McCain. In fact, I'd say the reactions would have been similar under a McCain Presidency, from all parties...

Gobsmacked? Flabberdygasted? Hibbettyschnabbered?

James doesn't understand Max's surprise over the Obama cabinet thus far. I think what we need to understand is the conservative press, blogosphere, etc--with the exception of Culture11, The American Conservative, and a few other beacons of reason and sensibility--were all raving poetic about the danger of "radical leftist" Obama, the "most liberal Senator" in the history of all mankind.

Certainly, had one remained in the insulated right-wing bubble during the course of the election (which many conservatives, alas, did) than one would suspect that Obama's choices would have consisted of terrorists, radical preachers, and Dennis Kucinich.

So Max is just a victim of a trend--intellectual isolationism--that is plaguing so many on the Right these days...

Roland Responds

Roland disagrees with my skepticism of Obama's hawkishness, and he could be right. I am not so sure, but we shall see:

I do think that his commitment to not only continue our mission in Afghanistan, but deepen and broaden it, is a hawkish position...

Obama initially positioned himself on the left of his party on this issue, but I would have a hard time believing anyone deduces that he continues to hold those foolish positions after looking at his appointments.

Indeed, expanding efforts in Afghanistan is certainly not dovish, though perhaps owl is a better term than hawk when it comes to Afghanistan. After all, Afghanistan has long been the "good war" while Iraq has been its more sinister twin. Certainly walking away from either would be disastrous, as Roland points out, but being smart and practical about these things is not the same as being a hawk.

Now if Obama decides to either A) invade Pakistan, or B) take a hard line with Iran or C) flex our military muscle with some other future threat, I may be willing to concede. But as it stands, I see Obama more as the practical politician (thank God!) who knows when quitting is simply the wrong, and inhumane action.

Obama the Hawk? Probably not...

Roland Dodds wonders if Obama will be more the hawk than the dove he seemed at first. It seems likely to me that rather than pursuing Hawkish policies, Obama is instead ensuring that his Cabinet is made up of people who can effectively transition our way out of Iraq, which would include keeping Bob Gates in Defense. Clinton in State is also savvy, but not necessarily indicitave of Hawkishness.

Obama does seem committed in Afghanistan, though finishing a war is hardly the mark of a hawk. At this point, any other course of action would be dangerous. We need to at least stabilize the situation there before making our exit. With Pakistan's fingers so deep in the mess, I'm not sure how this can be done. So in my mind, it is likely that Obama will please no one but the pragmatists.

Perhaps Douthat is right:

Among right-wing hawks, there will be strange-new-respectful talk about Obama's centrist instincts, his Scoop Jackson-ish tendencies, his Reaganesque blend of idealism, pragmatism and strength. Meanwhile, the rest of the right-wing coalition will be getting steamrolled.

I would disagree, however. Obama will do his best to disentangle us from foreign actions, and will also quite likely begin scaling back defense spending. That conservatives will be steamrolled is open to debate. Right now, we are all in this crazy economy together, and I think partisanship ought to be at the end of a long, long line...

Uh...

Powell Weeps

See it here.

Obama's victory speech & McCain's concession speech

Obama Wins!



McCain Concedes (graciously)!

Congratulations Obama!

As of this writing I have seeded, on Newsvine, 270 links, the exact number Obama needed in electoral votes to win this thing. Well, he far surpassed that, and I think this election is as much a referendum on George W Bush and the failed policies of his administration as anything else.

It's also, as many pundits have put it, a transformational election. Nobody, regardless of political affiliation, can deny that. America has just elected the first Black President in its history. For the first time ever we have someone other than an old white guy at the helm--and that, in and of itself, is pretty damn cool.

So while I may not agree with Senator Obama on many things, I'm still filled with pride that America has come as far as it has. I think Obama has a real chance to govern from the center, for all of America, and I hope and challenge him to do so, and to work with his opponents in the coming years to make this country as great as it can be.

Congratulations Obama. You deserve it.

And on a side note, good job McCain, too. You fought hard, and bowed out graciously. You will always be one of the most admirable public servants this country has ever been blessed with.

So who is supporting who?

Bob from Brockley has a pretty good rundown. Yours truly is on the list, so that accounts for something...

One link will take you to writer Oliver Kamm's endorsement of Obama. Or, rather, his un-endorsement of McCain/Palin.

Western liberals, secularists and Atlanticists have an interest in minimising the possibility that there will ever be a Presidency of the ignorant and insular Sarah Palin.

Colin Powell endorses Obama

What a brilliant American. Watching this I wished we'd had the chance to make Powell President. Talk about a man of substance.

ObamaZen

The nuanced writing of David Brooks continues, in this appallingly cool description of Barack Obama. I think a lot of conservatives, if they really started to look at him as a man and a leader rather than as "the most liberal member of the Senate" might see some of these qualities:

Some candidates are motivated by something they lack. For L.B.J., it was respect. For Bill Clinton, it was adoration. These politicians are motivated to fill that void. Their challenge once in office is self-regulation. How will they control the demons, insecurities and longings that fired their ambitions?

But other candidates are propelled by what some psychologists call self-efficacy, the placid assumption that they can handle whatever the future throws at them. Candidates in this mold, most heroically F.D.R. and Ronald Reagan, are driven upward by a desire to realize some capacity in their nature. They rise with an unshakable serenity that is inexplicable to their critics and infuriating to their foes.

Obama has the biography of the first group but the personality of the second. He grew up with an absent father and a peripatetic mother. “I learned long ago to distrust my childhood,” he wrote in “Dreams From My Father.” This is supposed to produce a politician with gaping personal needs and hidden wounds.

But over the past two years, Obama has never shown evidence of that. Instead, he has shown the same untroubled self-confidence day after day.

He is this zen force--it's disarming in a way. Like a weird calm in this political maelstrom...how frustrating to be a Hillary Clinton or a John McCain in the face of such calmness and collection...

Debate Reaction

I thought Obama was more gracious, thoughtful, and spoke more clearly about the issues Americans care about.

McCain, on the other hand, was petulant, brimming with fury, and repetitive. Not a win for McCain. Not a terrible loss, but he needed a win.

So it goes.

Obamacorn

Obamacorn, Malkin calls it. And don't get me wrong, ACORN is a troubling entity. I just think these little hybrid word-games are a bit childish. Michelle Malkin childish??? Never.

In any case, if you've been reading Malkin lately, it's almost like a menu she's got going. You can have a side of Obamacorn with your crap sandwich.

Truly, though, commentators like Malkin just feed off of this stuff, to run the pun down to the nub...The Coulters and Malkins and Olbermanns of the world have so little of importance to say about the world at large that they are left railing about their enemies, forgoing any and all nuance in their quest to destroy the opposition--verbally, of course.

It's highly entertaining, but it doesn't do much to raise the level of dialogue...