Just to make sure I am clear, I was an excited Democrat when it looked like it was down to Obama and Clinton. Man, we were going to make history, I preferred Obama, but would have been happy with Clinton.

But Clinton has now gone so far.

Yesterday she was coming out with new numbers saying that after the election in Pennsylvania she was now ahead in the popular vote. She of course was saying that what we really need to do is look at the popular vote when determining who to nominate. The agreed upon process of electing delegates was not the way to do it. What? I was surprised, so I looked into it a little more deeply.

Well to get the number that shows she is ahead, she included the votes in Florida and Michigan. She said that it was unfair to disenfranchise those voters, since we needed them in the general election, and it was simply undemocratic to ignore them. This on its head is ridiculous, since she herself agreed to the sanctions on Florida and Michigan back when she was sure she was going to win. Also, no-one campaigned in those two states, and Obama wasn’t even an option on the Michigan ballot!. But all that aside, maybe she is sincere in wanting to enfranchise voters?

No!!

This same bogus process that comes up with her lead in the popular vote also ignores any state that used a caucus process to elect its delegates, including Washington. Since they use a caucus, they don’t track every individual vote, the only tracking done is delegates that are elected because that is SUPPOSED to be the process by which we nominate our candidate. In other words there is no count of how many people voted for each candidate in the caucus states. So her numbers simply ignore all the caucus states (which Obama won all but one) altogether. Got that? She is disenfranchising every voter in those caucus states (where both campaigned and were on the ballot and followed the rules) while at the same time calling for enfranchisement of voters in two states which she agreed should not be counted, no-one campaigned, and Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in one of them.

The cynical hypocrisy is driving me crazy!!!

So Primary Season.

I want to first say that I am very happy with our Democratic Party candidates. Any one of them would make a great president, and we are very lucky to have such a field. We could be like the Republicans, having to hold their noses and pick the best of the bad lot.

I am an Obama supporter. There are a lot of reasons, and I will be totally honest, a lot of them are hard to articulate. I don't support him because I love his policies, honestly they are similar except in details to all the major Democratic candidates. I mostly support him because he inspires me.

I was won over by Obama the first time I heard him speak, back July 28th, 2004 when he spoke at the Democratic National Convention. I blogged about it then (you can search for the word Obama and you will find it on my blog) and I was stunned and won over by his sense of optimism, and his articulation of all the reasons why I am a Democrat. Hearing him subsequently in many speeches (and once live) I have never been disappointed, and my support for him just grows. I want that man to be our leader.

I think the main reason is that he reminds me of what it is that the Democratic party stands for. It is more than just doing whatever it takes to get power, it is about standing for fairness, for those who are less fortunate, for ensuring that every child has equal opportunities and can fulfil their potential. It is about each of us realizing we are our brother's keeper, and we, as a society, have a responsibility to help each other out. That is why I am a Democrat.

That is also why I have a hard time with Hillary Clinton. She doesn't differ greatly on her policies from Obama, and she would make a good President, but I worry that she is too entrenched with the special interests, too tied up in the political morass that is Washington, and I think she often forgets why we are Democrats. She simply doesn't inspire me.

Other than the inspiration effect, Obama also has some other incredible intangibles he will bring to the Presidency. We need to heal our relationship with the world, and I think he can do that. What better way to calm moderate Muslims than to show that the American people have elected as their leader a black man whose father was a Muslim! I think he will be able to do a lot of good.

That leaves John Edwards as the last of the major Democratic candidates. I like him, and he too would make an excellent candidate. Back in 2004 I was a delegate for him, he was my first choice, and he still would be if Obama hadn't burst on the scene. He is a man who will stand for equality and fairness, and I think he would do a great job. He is not my first choice, mostly because I don't think he has the personal magnetism and charisma of Obama. A President needs that, as it greases the wheels of his job, just look at how far Bush has gone with nothing but charm and "charisma".

As for the Republicans, all of them have major flaws in my book. Guiliani just has fallen into self parody. How can you mock the man anymore, when he can't stop himself from mentioning 9/11 in every sentence. He would make an awful President, he would be authoritarian, he would ignore the law, and he would invade any country that looked at him twice.

Romney is someone who is roundly criticised for changing his positions to fit the political need. Funnily enough, that is why I wouldn't be too horrified if he won the Presidency. He was a reasonably liberal Governor, and I think he would probably be a similar President. I get the feeling all this current posturing and conservatism is mostly what he feels is needed to get elected. I don't believe that is who he really is.

McCain drives me crazy. I actually have respected him a lot in the past. Is work on campaign finance reform has been flawed but well intentioned, and his willingness to do what he believes is right even if his party doesn't agree has endeared me to him in the past. However he has morphed into the strange war monger that he is today, positioning himself as probably the staunchest supporter of Bush's war on terror of any of the candidates except for maybe Guiliani. Basically he disappointed me, and went from maybe the only GOP candidate I might have considered voting for, to one I wouldn't vote for if you paid me.

Huckabee would scare me to death if he was elected, however I don't think he will do well in the general election. My biggest fear with him is that he genuinely makes decisions primarily based on prayer and inspiration for guidance. I want someone who takes a really good hard look at the facts before they turn to prayer. That and the fact that I suspect that he believes the primary role of the next President will be to ignite the flames of Armageddon so that the Savior can return makes me a little nervous.

On a non religious vein, his tax proposal (the only policy proposal I have heard from him) is disastrous, and would mean another major move of the tax burden from the rich to the poor. I will have to discuss that some other time.

So there you have it, my 5 minute analysis of the candidate pool. It is going to be a fun year, and I am looking forward to November. Unless the "September" surprise terrorist attack occurs like some have predicted, Edwards, Obama or Clinton will be our next President, and I couldn't be happier.

Well it has been a long break, but I am back, at least temporarily.

Why did I stop posting? Honestly it was the mood of the country. When the country was mostly behind Bush, I felt like I had to do everything I could to keep people focused on the absurdity and danger of his presidency. However once Americans turned against him in most part, it just felt like piling on and not as necessary.

We are now well into the madness that is the Primary season now, so I am back at least for a few observations, and hopefully through the election.

Two Important Stories Today

There are two important stories being reported today, and they are both related. The first is Colin Powell and his continued opposition to the President's torture policy proposals. Ever since the Bush Administration was caught torturing suspects in the war on terror, and the courts rejected his right to do so, he has been pushing for "clarification" in the form of a bill he is trying to push through Congress. However Powell (as well as McCain and others) has strongly opposed the bill, which would allow for many actions that the international community would define as torture.

Powell was dismissed by the Bush Administration as being out of touch, so Powell came back to explain his position. He claims that this is not just a policy issue, but a moral issue. I agree 100%. Powell also has argued that our own troops will be in danger if we don't uphold the Geneva Conventions. I also 100% agree.

What we seem to forget is that our troops get captured by the enemy as well, and part of what protects them is the very conventions the Bush Administration is flouting. How will we ensure they are not tortured, and how will we hold accountable those who torture our troops, if we don't uphold those standards ourselves? One of these days one of our troops will be tortured (maybe even using the "clarifications" the Bush Administration wants) and we will not have a leg to stand on. This is about protecting our troops, and people forget that.

The other problem with torturing captives is that it simply is not effective. People will say anything under torture, and we may have no real way of determining the validity of what they say. Personally I know that I would pretty much confess to anything if I was tortured enough.

A great example of this is the second important story today. Maher Arar is a Canadian citizen who became a victim of the post 9/11 intelligence fiascos. He was suspected of being a terrorist sympathizer, and he was arrested in the United States while changing planes. Now in any normal country with a moral compass and a rule of law, he would have been charged with something and explained his rights, and been able to contact a lawyer. But we don't live in a country that follows the rule of law or has a moral compass. So instead he was flown to Jordan, and then driven to Syria for interrogation.

Now my first question is this... Why Syria? Are their interrogators much more skillful than ours? Do they do a better job? Why are Syrian interrogators better than American interrogators? Well the answer of course is simple, they are good at torturing suspects, and we still feel better having someone else do it for us. So Arar was tortured in a Syrian prison in our name until he confessed to training in Afghanistan, and being a terrorist. He was then locked away in a small cell for 10 months without any charges and without access to legal advice.

Let me state this clearly, he was a regular Canadian citizen, and he was given NO rights at all.

So what happened? Well it turned out he was innocent, never had been to Afghanistan, and is not a terrorist. We the American people stole a year of his life, put him through hell, all because we suspected he might be a terrorist. Personally I am deeply ashamed and horrified that this is being done in my name.

We should not torture because it is the moral thing to do. We should not torture because we don't want our own troops to be tortured. We should not torture because it is ineffective and gives bad information. We should not torture because it ruins lives. We should not torture because we become less as a people when we allow this to be done in our name.

Cheney admits he and Bush are fine being War Criminals.

Hear me out.

Everyone understands that there are times where you can kill someone legally, and times when you can't. For example, someone is in the process of killing your wife and you kill him. No-one would fault you, and in fact you would likely be praised. However you can't just kill the guy for looking at your wife in a bad way.

Ok, so say you killed the guy and told everyone he was in the process of killing your wife. However over time the information comes out that he simply leered at your wife, and what you thought was him killing your wife was actually just an impolite look. A reporter asks you about this new information and asks you if you are still glad you killed the guy. Your response is that you would have killed him even if he was just leering at your wife, because it was the right thing to do.

Would this be acceptable to anyone?

What does this have to do with Cheney and Bush? Well they have basically done the same thing. Cheney (on Meet the Press - Reported here) claimed that even though it appears that all of the evidence linking Saddam with WMD was wrong, it would have still been the right thing to do to invade Iraq. He would do it again, even with evidence from the CIA that showed Saddam didn't have WMD. What!!!!

One thing that everyone in America seems to have forgotten, is that you have to have a valid reason under International Law to invade another country. In fact it is pretty clear, there are only two legal reasons. One is if you have U.N. authorization for your invasion (i.e. the world agrees it needs to be done) or you are acting in self defense. That is it. Any other invasion of a sovereign nation is a war crime.

Now we never received authorization from the U.N., so our justification for invasion was that we were acting in self defense. Why? Because Saddam had connections to Al Qaida, and he had WMD that he would give to the terrorists. So we had to act in Self Defense, and therefore we had our legal justification.

Well as we all know, there were no WMD, and Al Qaida and Saddam had no connections. The amazing thing now though is that Cheney is saying that even if they had known this at the time, they still would have ordered the invasion because it was the "right thing to do."

I am sorry Mr Cheney, but that would have been a war crime, and you are now admitting that you are willing to be a war criminal. Even without your flimsy claim of "self defense" you would have still invaded! They try people for this all the time. Remember Nuremberg? How about the International War Crimes Tribunal?

I cannot believe that we live under such leadership. These men would have invaded a sovereign state that was no threat to us in any real sense of the word, based on no evidence whatsoever, killing thousands of innocent civilians, even though it would have been a war crime. I am disgusted.

Barack Obama, Faith and Politics

I haven't posted for a while, and honestly it has mostly been because I just wanted to avoid "I told you so" kinds of posts. Bush is at the lowest approval ratings of his Presidency, and Iraq is going badly, and it just seems like everything I would say is simply self evident.

However today I listened to the latest podcast from Barack Obama, and it was a recording of his keynote address at a "Call to Renewal" conference. I simply have to say, I want this man to run for President. I have said it before, and I will say it again. He is simply the most articulate and most surprisingly moving progressive we have today in the Democratic party.

The best thing about this speech is that it is a call to people of faith to express themselves. It explains how he feels as a man of faith, and how he is motivated to do good through that faith. He also talks about the place of faith in a progressive political arena. It is remarkably good, and I hope you simply read it (or even better listen to it) for yourself.

As a man of faith myself, and someone who is progressive largely because of my faith, not in spite of it as many conservative Christians would have you believe, this is a wonderful thing to hear from one of our leaders.

Here is a link to the speech in audio form, and the page also includes a transcript so you can read it if you prefer.

Keeping things in perspective.

According to Wikipedia, the United States suffers from around 42,000 deaths from car accidents a year. This is a lot of deaths. We could probably save a lot of these lives by doing a few simple things. We could increase the penalty for speeding to a felony. We could raise the driving age to 21, and we could not allow anyone over 65 to drive. We could place sensors in every car that could track your driving style and forwards the data to the department of transportation for review. All of these things are possible, and would save lives, however we don't do them. Why? Because people accept the current level of traffic laws as intrusive enough, and are prepared to accept 42,000 deaths a year in order to not have to lose some of their freedom.

Another example. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, we lost 696,947 people to heart disease in 2002. That is a HUGE number of people. Not all of these deaths are preventable, but a lot of them could be avoided. We could make exercise mandatory, monitored by a chip implanted in our chest. We could make it illegal to eat high fat foods. We could force every American to submit themselves to a battery of tests each year, and then data mine that information to find who needs immediate preventative care. We could reduce these deaths dramatically, but we don't do these things. Why? The same reason as above, we do not feel that the loss of personal freedom is worth the lowered risk of dying from heart disease.

These two examples are obviously to illustrate a point. We are willing to give up our freedom, and allow external control and oversight of our lives up to a certain point. Most of us are happy to accept seat belt laws, but we would balk at having our driving records monitored and forwarded to the government. We are willing to accept a certain loss of privacy for our own good, but only to a certain extent.

If we lose 42,000 people a year to car accidents, and almost 700,000 people a year to heart disease, but we aren't willing to give up more of our privacy on these issues, then why are so many Americans willing to give up their privacy to protect us from terrorist attacks?

In the last 5 years, we have lost less than 4000 people to terrorist attacks, the vast majority of them in one attack. You are far more likely to die of heart disease or a car accident, or any number of other preventable ways than as a result of an attack. Yet so many Americans have been willing to allow the Bush Administration to gather details on every call they make, adding it to a large database, so it can be analyzed to protect us from Terrorism. We have given up a fundamental right of privacy, to protect us from a very unlikely risk. We wouldn't be willing to allow the government access to every detail about our driving, or every detail about our health, so why is it that every detail of our communications is any different?

The only difference I can see is that people have a disproportionately large fear of terrorism, and this is very easy to understand, considering the fear mongering of our President and his Administration. We have spent millions, even invaded another country, to save us from a reasonably minimal risk. We refuse at the same time to pay attention to, or spend similar amounts of money on, health crises that can be easily prevented. We are concentrating on all the wrong things.

I am not saying that it is not important for us to protect ourselves from Terrorists. It is absolutely essential that we work hard at that. But should we be quite so willing to allow our President to break the law, violate the constitution, and remove some of our basic freedoms? Should we let him take away our rights? Of course not. We need to keep a clear perspective, and we need to remind our President that he is not a King, he too is subject to the law.

Stephen Colbert Tells it how it is

Most of us in the left half of the country would kill for an opportunity to sit in the President down and tell him what we think of him for 20 minutes. Get him out of his bubble, and force him to really hear a contrary view. Make him realize we are all not as stupid as he seems to think we are. Fantasy?

Well Stephen Colbert (of Comedy Central's Colbert Report) had such an opportunity. He gave the keynote speech at the White House Press Corp dinner which the President attends. He didn't waste the opportunity.

While he could have gone the easy route, and simply made some standard jokes about the president not reading, or his difficulties with giving speech and language, but instead he decided not to go the funny route at all. While his speech was on the surface a funny discussion of current events and the President, in reality it was a no holds barred slam of the President and the mainstream media. He didn't hold back, and reminded the President and those who cover him, of all the awful things the President has done over the last 6 years. He covered everything from scandal, to leaks, to violating the constitution, to Iraq etc etc. It was amazing to watch.

The reaction in the room was incredible too, most sat there in stunned silence, feeling too awkward to respond. I wonder if the President has really ever heard anyone talk to him like that.

It was amazing!

Anyway, watch it here for yourself. It is well worth the effort, to finally see someone with the guts to speak straight to the President.