In a spirit of bipartisanship, let me offer in good faith three things I believe will be positive about an Obama presidency:
1) Obama has said he will end raids of medicinal cannabis distributors, or “buyers’ clubs.” The idea the government gets to decide what a fully informed adult is allowed to ingest in the privacy of his own home is so contrary to the principle of individual rights that we can scarcely call ourselves a free society if such prohibitions exist. This promise is a small but very important step in the right direction.
2) Obama has at least ostensibly promised to cut taxes. Much of this “tax cut” is actually welfare in disguise as it’s in the form of tax credits to people who already pay no taxes, but when a politician offers any kind of tax cut I have to applaud the principle.
3) Electing our first black President will show America has come a long way. I think we’d all like to see the final nail in the coffin of the days of Jim Crow, and the far more shameful days of African slavery. Nothing we do as a nation could more meaningfully demonstrate the triumph of American tolerance than electing an African-American (with an Islamic middle name, no less!) to the highest office in the land.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 31 comments }
I would have to agree for the most part, and frankly since I think a negative income tax for those below a certain income level is a good idea and often better than simply issuing welfare checks (which are also sometimes a good idea but sometimes not), I am happy with all of them.
Obama, if elected (it’s looking good for him now but elections can change on a dime so we’ll see) will be an inspiring choice by the American people in a whole lot of ways. He will also be the Commander In Chief and fully due the respect owed by that position, and even if my serious concerns about his lack of experience will still be there, the American people will have decided they disagree with me on how important that is (or will have decided that Senator McCain is not much more qualified on the experience front, which is not an indefensible position). I’ll also say that at this point it’s pretty obvious that a President Obama would have to screw up pretty bad to mess up Iraq at this point; I’m not sure he wouldn’t do just that, but I have a lot of confidence in the Iraqi people at this point and I think it’s pretty clear that by the time he takes office what’s left of the evil fascist murdering "insurgency" that is so hated by everyday Iraqis will be all but gone anyway.
Let’s hope it all works out for the best.
I can’t agree with 2. He has promised to cut some, raise others. You may think that such wealth transfer has value; but to praise it as a cut is misleading.
hear hear! now let’s get aziz over here for 3 things to like about a mccain presidency!
Martin,
True, but it’s a cut for some people, arguably most people. I like McCain’s better, but I’m old enough to remember Mondale campaigning on raising taxes for pretty much everyone.
Dave,
Yes, it’s good that tax cuts are now popular. But I like truth in advertising. A transfer is not a cut, any more than an inflation-adjusted reduction in increase is a cut. If we start giving politicians credit for pretty words, pretty words is all we’ll get.
Martin and Dave,
That reminds me of the people complaining about the Bush tax cuts not giving cuts to people below certain income levels. Of course, the fact that they paid no taxes and therefore could not receive a cut was beside the point.
To me, that’s like a store having a 50% off sale and someone complaining they didn’t get 50% off the free drinks and hot dogs they were handing out.
Also, I agree on the drug issue. My brother was in the narcotics division of the local sheriff’s department for several years, and they just didn’t have time to worry with marijuana users. They were after the meth labs.
I’d vote for a black man (or woman), just not this one. The financial crisis shows EXACTLY what’s wrong with the Demoncratic approach, and Obama is married to Democratic philosophy. The government should not encourage tying risk to financial institutions,  see Fannie, Freddi, and medical insurance regardless of medical status.
It is the definition of racist to vote for Obama because he is black regardless of whether or not he (1) is qualified or (2) represents the voter’s values.
And BTW, NOTHING prevents Obama from turning in 65% of his income to the IRS if he thinks it is patriotic or moral.
Point 1. is trivial. Pot Clubs represent such a minuscule part of the inane ‘War on Drugs’ that protecting them is as consequential as stepping on an ant. Let’s see some balls here.
Point 2. is likely a falsehood. Sticking it to the people who are already paying 70%+ of taxes in order to reduce taxation on those paying <5% is feel good politics. Obama is about wealth redistribution. Give to those who in return will provide votes is popular politics but crappy policy.
Point 3. is also fairly trivial. I think the US has been ready to elect a Black as president for some years. The problem has been finding a Black candidate that was capable of doing the job. I’m really not eager to make a PC point at the serious risk of destroying the country. I do think an Obama presidency would destroy the country.
Dean: How about 100% taxation and then let the government give us all allowances? You know, however much it thought we needed. Or at least however much it takes to buy votes for re-election….
John_B’s last blog post..US, Israel, Arab States, and Nuclear Iran
I too have a problem with Obama’s "tax cuts." Because he is increasing the taxes on a few and reducing the taxes for most, it is a form of wealth redistribution not a true tax cut. I’m making no judgment if it is the correct action to take or not, just call it what it really is. You can put lipstick on a pig……
Here is an analogy about our progressive tax system and beer drinking. You have probably heard it before.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,†he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.â€Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20,â€declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,†but he got $10!â€
“Yeah, that’s right,†exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!â€
“That’s true!!†shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!â€
“Wait a minute,†yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!â€
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
1) Cannibis is a controlled illegal substance under federal law, which is legislation that I doubt Congress will change for any president. As long as it is illegal, I want the drug laws enforced, and that applies to supposed medicinal use of cannabis, which I think is a bullshit excuse to turn on like the 1960s zombies. When I find people violating laws, I routinely turn their license plate numbers or names over to police agencies, whether for willful traffic violations, or more serious matters such as narcotics violations. No exceptions.
2) There will be no tax cuts, because this country’s economy has totally tanked, we are wasting what is left of our national wealth on imported petroleum, and on our overseas imperialist adventures. Instead, I can see tax increases as a way of getting people and freight out of petroleum-fueled vehicles; something I wholeheartedly support.
3) I could not care less about the color of skin of any given US president. In any case the presidency of this country is not just another useless affirmative action program for the benefit of racial minorities. I am determined that there shall be total equality before the law in this country, with no legal barriers to exercize of free citizenship. But I have no interest whatsoever in economic or social equality. That depends totally on the american subculture in which a person is raised.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WIÂ Â
"When I find people violating laws, I routinely turn their license plate numbers or names over to police agencies, whether for willful traffic violations, or more serious matters such as narcotics violations. No exceptions."
Arnold, you remind me of someone from the past…..
Medical cannabis use is not an excuse to turn into 1960s zombies I can assure you. If you think that’s bullshit, talk to some people with experience in this area. While I am quite certain that there are people abusing the system, just as there are people who abuse prescription painkillers (believe me, I’ve met a lot of them in the last year), it’s ridiculous to assert that this is the primary reason they exist.
And any conservative who claims he gives a damn about states’ rights should damn well be angry when the Feds come in to California and other states and interfere with something that is specifically legal under California law. It’s an abuse of Federal power, and any "conservative" who claims he’s for "smaller government" is rendered a liar if he wants the Feds to harass people doing something perfectly legal and licensed under state law.
On all three counts, Obama falls far short of where I’d really start cheering.
1. I’d much rather see the law changed to permit medical marijuana, or at least to permit states to opt out of portions of federal drug laws. Leaving bad laws on the books is dangerous, even if you don’t enforce them. Perhaps “especially if”, as stopping enforcement removes the pressure to repeal, and leaving them on the books lets you dig them out when you want to throw the book at someone but can’t convict them of a real crime.
2. No need for me to complain here, since you already complained in the original post about the same thing I would have.
3. Electing a black president would be a valuable symbol of how far we’ve come, but that we still care either way I think shows how far we still have to go. Had Giuliani won, he would have been the first Italian-American US President, and it would have been a random piece of trivia that most people would scarcely have noticed. I look forward to the day when we care that little about race.
One thing I would like to add to your list without reservation is that I think Obama would reverse the trend under the Bush administration of asserting broad inherent executive powers rather than working with congress and the courts to produce well-defined processes with appropriate checks and balances. I think McCain would also reverse the trend, but I’m glad it’s likely to be reversed even if (as seems likely) my guy loses.
Robert E Lee, you had a great namesake. Had I been on his battlefields as Billie Yank, I would surely have fought him and his men, for the Union Forever.
Â
Nevertheless, his name resounds through the ages with the magic of purity and nobility, and his fame shall never diminish from the pages of glory of the history of the American nation.
—
Onto the topic at hand. I am indeed a man out of the past. Born in the depression era in April 1934. My father was a WWI veteran who went to France with the AEF. I joined the US Army Reserves in 1952 when I was 18, and served two years of active duty plus one locally with my reserve unit. My culture is a product of the late 1930s and early 1940s, the time of my childhood, and of the late 1940s and early 1950s, when I came to adulthood. I have accommodated myself to the 21st century in numerous ways that are light years ahead of the thinking of many much younger people. Nevertheless, my culture was fully formed long ago, in an America of true hardship, national unity and sacrifice for a common purpose, in a family for which integrity was its own form of wealth.
Dean,
Our federal and state legislatures, acting under authority of our respective constitutions, alone determine what is legality and what is illegality in use of narcotics, mild or otherise.
I am not interested in states’ rights pre-empting federal narcotics control laws. For much the same reasons that I approved Federal troops being sent to Little Rock, Arkansas and Montgomery, Alabama for purposes of pulling their respective governors out of the doordways through which those state officials sought to block the entrance into schools of african-american students.
As far as I am concerned, users of illegal drugs, for whatever excuse offered, are felons in violation of federal drug control law.
And that’s the way things stand for me unless and until someone duly authorized to do so actually changes those laws.
And most of the hop-heads I have run across I would always classify as useless zombies.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Robert was my father’s name and Edward comes from an uncle. Sadly, I wasn’t named for the Great man you are thinking of.
Yes, we are a nation of laws. But what do you recommend we do if a federal law, or any law for that matter, is unconstitutional? What should the citizens of this Great Country do when the federal government over-steps it’s expressed powers?
I’m curious…
Robert E Lee,
Â
What do I recommend if you think a federal law is unconstitutional?
I recommend that you file suit in a federal court of law, and see to it that the suit is taken all the way to the United States Supreme Court. That bench alone, as Chief Justice John Marshall accomplished early in our republic through Marbury v Madison,  has the authority to review acts of Congress to determine their constitutionality.
What?  You say you lack the resources to pursue your issue as far as the US Supreme Court? Then combine with other Americans to form a pressure group which might gain you better leverage in the system.
If you feel you have such a problem yet cannot follow either of my suggestions, than I suggest you get used to living with the laws as they are written, and either obeying those laws or suffering whatever consequences befall those who disobey them and get caught.
And I think you know enough about me by now to understand that I wrote none of this response in jest.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WIÂ Â Â Â Â
What if it’s against the law to be Jewish, or wear a certain shirt? There’s a time when we’re obligated to disobey the law. Ever see marinol prescribed as a painkiller? It works very well too. Guess what it’s made out of? Not "horny goat weed".
The people who are lobbying for medical marijuana use do not want it sold on every street corner. They want it to be a controlled substance like any other drug.
A joint is not medical, but the medical marijuana advocates (
dopeheads) in San Francisco and Santa Cruz are convinced that chemical THC just doesn’t have the kick that a good joint offers for the sick nor for the healthy.Arnold,
As a city planner/manager just how much managing do you think the federal government/President ought intrude on our wallets and our personal lives ?
Arnold,
I must assume, since you wrote none of your response in jest, that you are very much against civil disobedience. Is this true? After all, the act of civil disobedience is rebelling against unconstitutional laws.
Hmmm…. You must feel the American Civil Rights Movement, Woman’s Suffrage Movement, and oh yea The Boston Tea Party where wrong. I guess these citizens should have taken their case through the courts all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Just a curious question:
I have been coming here to DW for the long past and I always turn cookies to off unless I am commenting which requires that cookies be allowed.
DW world asks permission to set cookies only for DeansWorld, Twitter and Day by Day cartoon, always.
That has been the case except for the most recent four or five days, I now get a pop-up screen requesting that my.obama.com be allowed to set a cookie. This happens if I put the word Obama in a comment even though I may delete it before I submit.
I am either paranoid beyond usual or there is some spyware and intrusive internet subterfuge from my.obama.com that is very interested in my comments ?
If there is free speech why is it under monitor by my.obama.com ?
Why is that any of Obama campaign business, when I’ve never go to any Obama or liberal websites as daily kos or whatever and I always delete cookies when I am in read status only ?
So who is my.obama.com ?
I must assume, since you wrote none of your response in jest, that you are very much against civil disobedience. Is this true? After all, the act of civil disobedience is rebelling against unconstitutional laws.
Since in the past Arnold has advocated extra-legal mob violence against persons declared innocent in a court of law based solely on the fact that rich bastards must be guilty, I await his answer on this with some eagerness.
Since in the past Arnold has advocated extra-legal mob violence against persons declared innocent in a court of law based solely on the fact that rich bastards must be guilty …
Martin,
Have you any specific evidence or data to support your rather flagrant accusation ?
McKiernan,
I would have if I could work Dean’s broken archives of old posts. After the Duke rape acquittals, Arnold remained vehemently convinced that the accused must be guilty because the accused were rich white frat boys and the accuser was a poor black woman; and he said that if they suffered some mob violence, they had it coming to them.
After Arnold supported mob violence and bypassing of the justice system, I just see a little irony in him now drawing a strict law and order line. Guilty of drug infractions? Throw the book at ‘em! Innocent of rape accusations? Throw the book at ‘em! So I’m curious whether his answer to civil disobedience — which in our history has been a tool to advance racial equality, a cause Arnold has always staunchly supported — will also be "Throw the book at ‘em!"
And trust me, if Arnold chooses to respond, I have no doubt he’ll provide all the evidence needed. He’ll painstakingly explain yet again how rich white frat boys are always causing trouble just like some once caused him, and so they can’t be trusted.
I assumed that as a staunch Second Amendment defender, Arnold would be equally staunch in defending principles like innocent until proven guilty. When he came out in favor of guilty until proven guilty, I lost a lot of respect for him; but since I know from his other posts that Arnold doesn’t care one way or the other about our respect, I know that won’t impact his opinion one bit.
Arnold may not necessarily be against civil disobedience. He is in favor of those who break the laws facing the punishment for breaking the laws. Someone who is honestly committing civil disobedience accepts that he will face the penalty for breaking the law.
The whole thing that makes civil disobedience work is the hope that others will see the punishment, think that the punishment is unfair or unreasonable, and foster a larger movement to change or abolish the unfair law.
Those today who think civil disobedience is just an excuse to commit some crime without punishment are not honorably practicing civil disobedience.
Thoreau fully expected to go to jail and serve his time. Being willing to accept the punishment was a sign of how strongly he believed in the cause.
Thoreau was a big believer in that stuff —you do the crime–you do the time— but that was when he was outside the box —if you know what I mean.
And it was a very small box unsuitable for more than one
egoperson.That he became a pariah seems self-evident and a lot of smucks followed/follow him.
Went to a local junior college bookstore, today, nearly by accident. The smucks are now teaching from the textbooks of (perfessor in situ) one Al Gore.
More later
Obviously I am the new guy around here. Lurking for a few weeks, just started recently posting. Several of you have been here a LONG time.
I was looking for a little engaging discourse. Oops, guess I poked an old wound.
Robert,
Heh, don’t mind them. Arnold’s just cantankerous.
 civil disobedience is just an excuse to commit some crime
Some civil disobedience is clearly not crime even when the law disagrees, which was sort of the point of those blacks sitting at white-only lunch counters illegally.
I recommend that you file suit in a federal court of law, and see to it that the suit is taken all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
Sometimes the courts are wrong.  But in our system, there’s a better way to ensure the innocent are not persecuted for their non-crimes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
If you mean some civil disobedience is not wrong, even if the law says it is illegal, then I think we agree.
I’m not that old, so maybe someone with a little more personal experience can fill me in. As far as civil rights goes, in the 1940’s and -50’s, was the rest of US society ignorant about what was going on in the south, somewhat willfully blind to the problems, or just out and out jerks about it?
Was it just something that flashed across the consciousness of the rest of society, and maybe even bothered it for a moment, but was also easily pushed aside, until the marches and the protests kept it in the front of people’s minds on a regular basis?
Did the presence of televisions in more and more homes make the issue more real to the rest of society? Was seeing, in your own living room, what was going on in some far off place, a key or major part of the success of the civil rights movement?
My responses to the points in the original post:
1) Ditto
2) Hopefully
3) I hate this argument. It’s basically the affirmative action argument. "Hey, there are much better candidates for the job of CEO and this guy comes across as a mongoloid; but, hey, we’ve gotta show the world/nation/our peers that we are enlightened so we gotta give him the position!"
Speaking of topic 1… Proposal #1 passed in MI. Marijuana is now medicine!
Can’t wait to see it on a care plan.
Comments on this entry are closed.