I think you're wrong to think that the reason he was elected was due to his race. Such a view clearly represented a very small minority of voters. Black people historically usually vote democrat anyway, and even way before the democratic nomination was over all the polling suggested that a democrat would win. The only time it looked possible the Republicans would get up in the last 18 months was when Sarah Palin first came on the seen. So all the evidence suggests any democrat would have won regardless of skin colour. To show that Obama won because of his race you'd need to demonstrate that people who voted for him would have voted for McCain if he were white. I find it very hard to believe that anybody would have done that.
I just also wanted to add that so far Obama has really impressed me with his commitments to science and finally a world leader who is putting the most qualified people in charge rather than playing politics. I'd say he's doing a much better job than I expected and I wish we could have somebody like that as our leader in Australia.
US Presidential Election
Sorry for the double post. Just to explain my post a little better.
Ken says he voted for Obama because he plays basketball. Now lets imagine that he didn't. McCain doesn't either. So there is no reason to suppose that if Obama didn't play basketball Ken would have voted for McCain just because he says that's the reason he voted for Obama. If Obama didn't play basketball Ken would have to find a completely different reason to vote for somebody. Replace basketball with black. etc.
Ken says he voted for Obama because he plays basketball. Now lets imagine that he didn't. McCain doesn't either. So there is no reason to suppose that if Obama didn't play basketball Ken would have voted for McCain just because he says that's the reason he voted for Obama. If Obama didn't play basketball Ken would have to find a completely different reason to vote for somebody. Replace basketball with black. etc.
It was a given Obama would be elected. The real reason isn't just his race, but that it is making history.
I just hope Obama is given the chance so that everyone can see if the decision was the correct one. I hope Obama doesn't end up getting shot by some redneck racist punk. That would throw our country into a race war. I know a got a little off subject, but who cares.
I just hope Obama is given the chance so that everyone can see if the decision was the correct one. I hope Obama doesn't end up getting shot by some redneck racist punk. That would throw our country into a race war. I know a got a little off subject, but who cares.
Corey N.
What's worth the prize is always worth the fight~ Nickelback
What's worth the prize is always worth the fight~ Nickelback
Bullshit. It was a given that a Democrat would be elected before Obama was considered a likely winner of the Democrat nomination. It's completely false to put forward that view that his race and "making history" were the reason for him to be elected when the democrats were polling so well for the last couple of years. For your argument to be believable you'd need to provide evidence that had McCain been up against a white male he would have won, and there's nothing that suggests that's the case.
-
Frank_Sinatra
- Avenging Disco Godfather
- Posts: 1660
- Joined: 09 Jan 2007 12:43
- Location: Chicago, IL
I've done some thinking, and now I do believe Barack Obama will be just what America needs. America needs someone that will change things and be radically different than George Bush. I hope he can strengthen the economy like he says.
As of now, I will give the guy a fair chance.
As of now, I will give the guy a fair chance.
Corey N.
What's worth the prize is always worth the fight~ Nickelback
What's worth the prize is always worth the fight~ Nickelback
I want to see Obama listening to and following the directions of the scientists he's appointed to important places - especially John Holdren. So long as he follows their advice, I will be happy with the job he's doing. Indeed the issue of making political decisions based on science and scientific method is the reason I've basically disowned the Labor party in Australia and will vote them dead last in the state election next year (even though they're not really the worst party, although a hung parliament would be better than what we have at the moment) and may well vote informal in the lower house next federal election (I'll still preference the ALP in the upper house). I have full confidence that Obama's science appointees are qualified enough to be making the right decisions, it's always a concern in politics as to whether they are listened to or not.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Obama preserves rendition two days after taking office
Jeremy Gantz
Published: Sunday February 1, 2009
Two days after taking the helm of a country ready for change after eight years of George W. Bush, President Obama has allowed one controversial "War on Terror" tactic to remain in place: rendition.
Despite frequent condemnation of the practice around the world, rendition -- the secret capture, transportation and detention of suspected terrorists to foreign prisons in countries that cooperate with the U.S. -- remains in the CIA's playbook, thanks to a Jan. 22 executive order issued by President Obama.
Other executive orders shuttered the CIA's secret prisons and banned the harsh interrogation techniques that have been termed torture. And in his most widely noticed break with his predecessor, Obama signed an order to close Guantanamo Bay's prison within one year.
But rendition will remain. Obama and his administration appear to believe that the rendition program was one piece of the Bush administration's war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard, the Los Angeles Times reported.
An administration official told the newspaper anonymously: "Obviously you need to preserve some tools -- you still have to go after the bad guys. The legal advisors working on this looked at rendition. It is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice."
The momentous decision by Obama and his young administration appeared in a small provision of one executive order, which states that instructions to close the CIA's secret prison sites "do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis."
Under that language, the Soviet-era black site used by the CIA between 2002 and 2004 and revealed by Raw Story in 2007 would remain open. Intelligence officials signaled the facility would no longer be used after it received broad public attention in the Polish press.
In late 2007, the U.S. House voted to effectively end CIA renditions. But that prohibition, part of a $50 billion Iraq funding bill, was never passed in the Senate. Also in 2007, Congress apologized for the wrongful detainment of Canadian citizen Maher Arar, who was "rendered" to Syria, where he was tortured into making a false confession.
Obama's decision to continue rendition on an apparently limited basis revives questions about the tactic's effectiveness -- not to mention legality.
"The reason we did interrogations [ourselves] is because renditions for the most part weren't very productive," a former senior CIA official told the Los Angeles Times anonymously.
But surprisingly, Human Rights Watch -- the worldwide watchdog group that vehemently opposed Bush-era secret detentions facilities and torture tactics -- supports Obama's decision to continue the practice of rendition.
"Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, told the Los Angeles Times. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured..."
But the former CIA official wasn't quite so optimistic.
"In some ways, [rendition] is the worst option," the former official said. "If [the prisoners] are in U.S. hands, you have a lot of checks and balances, medics and lawyers. Once you turn them over to another service, you lose control."
Liberals push back against LA Times story
Many liberal online journalists and bloggers are pushing back against the LA Times story, saying that the paper "got rolled" and/or "punked."
At his blog at The Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan writes about the "rendition canard."
"For some reason, many people on the right and a few within the CIA feel the need to minimize the difference between Obama and Bush on the terror war," Sullivan writes. "And so we are greeted with whoops and hollers because the Obama administration will return to the rendition policies of the GWH Bush and Clinton administrations."
However, Sullivan, Washington Monthly's Hilzoy, Harper's Scott Horton, and Cernig at Newshoggers all beg to differ with the LA Times take on Obama's 'endorsement' of rendition.
"It is not the practice of 'extraordinary rendition' that the Bush-Cheney administration pioneered to supplement its own torture program," Sullivan writes. "It is the practice of capturing terror suspects and rendering them to non-torturing foreign governments for detention, interrogation or prosecution."
Sullivan charges, "The LA Times got rolled by the usual suspects, who seem not to understand how the program changed under Bush-Cheney."
At Washington Monthly, Hilzoy argues that "in addition to announcing that the administration will obey the Convention Against Torture, the administration will also study not whether to send detainees off to be tortured, but how to ensure that our policies are not intended to result in their torture, and will not result in their torture. This seems to me like a very clear renunciation of the policy of sending people to third countries to be tortured."
"The Los Angeles Times just got punked," Scott Horton writes.
Horton adds, "In the course of the last week we’ve seen a steady stream of efforts designed to show that Obama is continuing the counterterrorism programs that he previously labeled as abusive and promised to shut down. These stories are regularly sourced to unnamed current or former CIA officials and have largely run in right-wing media outlets. However, now we see that even the Los Angeles Times can be taken for a ride."
-hds
Jeremy Gantz
Published: Sunday February 1, 2009
Two days after taking the helm of a country ready for change after eight years of George W. Bush, President Obama has allowed one controversial "War on Terror" tactic to remain in place: rendition.
Despite frequent condemnation of the practice around the world, rendition -- the secret capture, transportation and detention of suspected terrorists to foreign prisons in countries that cooperate with the U.S. -- remains in the CIA's playbook, thanks to a Jan. 22 executive order issued by President Obama.
Other executive orders shuttered the CIA's secret prisons and banned the harsh interrogation techniques that have been termed torture. And in his most widely noticed break with his predecessor, Obama signed an order to close Guantanamo Bay's prison within one year.
But rendition will remain. Obama and his administration appear to believe that the rendition program was one piece of the Bush administration's war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard, the Los Angeles Times reported.
An administration official told the newspaper anonymously: "Obviously you need to preserve some tools -- you still have to go after the bad guys. The legal advisors working on this looked at rendition. It is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice."
The momentous decision by Obama and his young administration appeared in a small provision of one executive order, which states that instructions to close the CIA's secret prison sites "do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis."
Under that language, the Soviet-era black site used by the CIA between 2002 and 2004 and revealed by Raw Story in 2007 would remain open. Intelligence officials signaled the facility would no longer be used after it received broad public attention in the Polish press.
In late 2007, the U.S. House voted to effectively end CIA renditions. But that prohibition, part of a $50 billion Iraq funding bill, was never passed in the Senate. Also in 2007, Congress apologized for the wrongful detainment of Canadian citizen Maher Arar, who was "rendered" to Syria, where he was tortured into making a false confession.
Obama's decision to continue rendition on an apparently limited basis revives questions about the tactic's effectiveness -- not to mention legality.
"The reason we did interrogations [ourselves] is because renditions for the most part weren't very productive," a former senior CIA official told the Los Angeles Times anonymously.
But surprisingly, Human Rights Watch -- the worldwide watchdog group that vehemently opposed Bush-era secret detentions facilities and torture tactics -- supports Obama's decision to continue the practice of rendition.
"Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, told the Los Angeles Times. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured..."
But the former CIA official wasn't quite so optimistic.
"In some ways, [rendition] is the worst option," the former official said. "If [the prisoners] are in U.S. hands, you have a lot of checks and balances, medics and lawyers. Once you turn them over to another service, you lose control."
Liberals push back against LA Times story
Many liberal online journalists and bloggers are pushing back against the LA Times story, saying that the paper "got rolled" and/or "punked."
At his blog at The Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan writes about the "rendition canard."
"For some reason, many people on the right and a few within the CIA feel the need to minimize the difference between Obama and Bush on the terror war," Sullivan writes. "And so we are greeted with whoops and hollers because the Obama administration will return to the rendition policies of the GWH Bush and Clinton administrations."
However, Sullivan, Washington Monthly's Hilzoy, Harper's Scott Horton, and Cernig at Newshoggers all beg to differ with the LA Times take on Obama's 'endorsement' of rendition.
"It is not the practice of 'extraordinary rendition' that the Bush-Cheney administration pioneered to supplement its own torture program," Sullivan writes. "It is the practice of capturing terror suspects and rendering them to non-torturing foreign governments for detention, interrogation or prosecution."
Sullivan charges, "The LA Times got rolled by the usual suspects, who seem not to understand how the program changed under Bush-Cheney."
At Washington Monthly, Hilzoy argues that "in addition to announcing that the administration will obey the Convention Against Torture, the administration will also study not whether to send detainees off to be tortured, but how to ensure that our policies are not intended to result in their torture, and will not result in their torture. This seems to me like a very clear renunciation of the policy of sending people to third countries to be tortured."
"The Los Angeles Times just got punked," Scott Horton writes.
Horton adds, "In the course of the last week we’ve seen a steady stream of efforts designed to show that Obama is continuing the counterterrorism programs that he previously labeled as abusive and promised to shut down. These stories are regularly sourced to unnamed current or former CIA officials and have largely run in right-wing media outlets. However, now we see that even the Los Angeles Times can be taken for a ride."
-hds
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... zfDxfbwhzs
(Bold sections Bold-ed by me, HDS)
Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey
Commentary by Betsy McCaughey
Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.
Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.
Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).
The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United Statesâ€
(Bold sections Bold-ed by me, HDS)
Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey
Commentary by Betsy McCaughey
Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.
Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.
Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).
The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United Statesâ€
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
Frank_Sinatra
- Avenging Disco Godfather
- Posts: 1660
- Joined: 09 Jan 2007 12:43
- Location: Chicago, IL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsy_McCaughey_Ross
The opening section about her history at National Review & credibility problems at that magazine are fascinating, but the crucial part is a little further down and actually addresses the article posted above, comparing Betsy McCaughey's frightening, misleading inferences to the actual language of the bill.
What the bill does say is, essentially: look at the overall research on various treatments, make an educated decision about which are most effective, and push the research money towards those procedures.
What it does not say is: create an office that will tell individual doctors or patients what they can or can't treat, or how to treat it.
Here's an example... I work with databases that contain a wealth of financial information, social security numbers, bank account numbers, and so forth. But I never see that data. The data itself can be aggregated or filtered or drilled-down on, but inappropriate identifiers are programmatically masked, so I don't see any of that. Why are these things programmatically masked? Due in part to governmental regulations! It would certainly be faster (thus cheaper) to produce these products if they didn't have to comply with privacy standards. Regardless, I could put all kinds of statements into scare quotes about my access to databases containing sensitive personal data, but it would be a distortion of reality.
Regarding rendition, of course it is difficult to know exactly what rendition under Obama looks like compared to rendition under Bush, due to the secrecy of both. It is disappointing to me that the door is still potentially open to disregard basic human autonomy. I feel very strongly that we must not allow the head of any state to confer unchecked power on themselves. On the other hand, the Obama administration is saying their use will be constrained, there will be significant limitations, etc. Again, due to secrecy it is difficult to evaluate the difference.
I'm also disappointed that Obama has not stood up for FISA & isn't a strong opponent of the wiretapping programs started by the Bush admin (as far as we know... again, there's a high degree of secrecy and there's a lot that none of us can know).
All that being said, I find it hard to believe that any civil libertarian would not see Obama as (at least) a vast improvement over the previous administration. Not perfect, room for improvement on major issues, but still so much better.
I'm going to go further and speculate that civil libertarians are going to have an easier time pushing for those improvements without this administration 1: going after them so fiercely in the arena of public opinion and 2: obstructing court oversight.
The opening section about her history at National Review & credibility problems at that magazine are fascinating, but the crucial part is a little further down and actually addresses the article posted above, comparing Betsy McCaughey's frightening, misleading inferences to the actual language of the bill.
What the bill does say is, essentially: look at the overall research on various treatments, make an educated decision about which are most effective, and push the research money towards those procedures.
What it does not say is: create an office that will tell individual doctors or patients what they can or can't treat, or how to treat it.
Here's an example... I work with databases that contain a wealth of financial information, social security numbers, bank account numbers, and so forth. But I never see that data. The data itself can be aggregated or filtered or drilled-down on, but inappropriate identifiers are programmatically masked, so I don't see any of that. Why are these things programmatically masked? Due in part to governmental regulations! It would certainly be faster (thus cheaper) to produce these products if they didn't have to comply with privacy standards. Regardless, I could put all kinds of statements into scare quotes about my access to databases containing sensitive personal data, but it would be a distortion of reality.
Regarding rendition, of course it is difficult to know exactly what rendition under Obama looks like compared to rendition under Bush, due to the secrecy of both. It is disappointing to me that the door is still potentially open to disregard basic human autonomy. I feel very strongly that we must not allow the head of any state to confer unchecked power on themselves. On the other hand, the Obama administration is saying their use will be constrained, there will be significant limitations, etc. Again, due to secrecy it is difficult to evaluate the difference.
I'm also disappointed that Obama has not stood up for FISA & isn't a strong opponent of the wiretapping programs started by the Bush admin (as far as we know... again, there's a high degree of secrecy and there's a lot that none of us can know).
All that being said, I find it hard to believe that any civil libertarian would not see Obama as (at least) a vast improvement over the previous administration. Not perfect, room for improvement on major issues, but still so much better.
I'm going to go further and speculate that civil libertarians are going to have an easier time pushing for those improvements without this administration 1: going after them so fiercely in the arena of public opinion and 2: obstructing court oversight.