I’m as happy as the next guy, but I wonder how much of it is just, “holy shit holy shit, he’s not Bush”. I would think anything with a pulse would look better than him, at least for a while. When I try to step back from the “no more Bush” elation, I think things still look OK. Most or all of Obama’s new appointments are very cool, and his speeches are wonderful. What else?
Ian: from a former-European-now-Canadian – how about reversing the Mexico City doctrine, closing Guantanamo Bay, lifting restrictions on stem cell research, an *actually sane* stimulus plan, a good start on transparency, and now the start of a process that looks to allow states to set their own auto efficiency requirements – all in, what, less than a week? I’d say the dude’s doing pretty well so far.
Philip – it should be just “Dear President Obama” or “Dear Mr. President”. “Mr. President” is the correct form of address directly to the president, “President Obama” is the correct way of referring to him in, say, a written article. It’s not normal to write or say “Mr. President Obama”, conflating the two different forms.
Adam: I’d never heard of the Mexico City doctrine, thanks. Stem Cells and Emissions – points taken.
I’m not sure I’d credit him with the Stimulus plan yet, (1) because it’s not yet passed and, (2) because to what degree it will work is unknown and, (3) the “buy American” measures that might violate WTO rules and finally, (4) because I think we’d be getting something similar under any not-insane incoming president. But I can’t find any fault in him there, certainly.
Isn’t his Guantanamo order largely symbolic right now (symbolically RIGHT ON of course)? I have seen reasonable estimates that it’ll take a year or more to get to the part where it’s actually closed, and many more years till things are really resolved (everyone put on trial/returned home/executed/whatever). And who knows how it will turn out? Then again none of that is Obama’s fault, and one can hardly accuse him of dragging his feet…
On the down side, what about his new Treasury Secretary possibly stoking protectionist fires? – Buy American stimulus, and Chinese currency manipulation. Not that he’s wrong on the facts (that they pegged the Yuan to maintain export competitiveness is without question), but I would think this is not be the time to set the grounds for a trade war. On the other hand perhaps it’s the opening move in some sort of bargain. Who knows?
Dear Mr. President Obama:
Thanks for ordering an air strike on a village in Pakistan and killing innocent people.
Thanks for trying to push through yet another wasteful, pork-filled bailout (oops, I mean “economic stimulus” bill.
Thanks for rescinding the Mexico City policy and allowing organizations to use American tax dollars to fund abortions in *other countries* (and yes, I’m pro-choice, but you do NOT use my tax dollars, meant for services in the U.S., to promote this stuff around the world!)
Thanks for calling for the end of the horrific war in Iraq (I’m being serious there). How about Afghanistan? Oh, that’s right, you’re increasing troops there. And let’s not forget the 40,000 troops that will stay in Iraq past the end of the war.
Thanks for using the same “end-of-the-world” fear tactics that George Bush used to increase power over the military and make his office unaccountable to increase your control of what’s supposed to be a free market economy (which it hasn’t been for a while, since Clinton and Bush particularly).
His calling for the closure of Gitmo and the end of torture is seriously a very good thing and I’m pleased about that.
Don’t get me wrong: I HATE George Bush. I didn’t support either Obama or McCain in the election. But what has President Obama done, specifically, that you are impressed with, particularly as a European?
Yours in Liberty,
Kevin “Yeaux”
Kevin: “Thanks for ordering an air strike on a village in Pakistan and killing innocent people.”
Please describe a policy toward Taliban – whose modus operandi is to set up base inside civilian housing – that does not result in deaths of some of those civilians. Your criticism is hollow without it.
Kevin: “I didn’t support either Obama or McCain in the election.”
Who DID you support?
Ian, fair questions.
Taliban policy? Leave. The US is risking our own citizens’ lives by trying to be the policeman of the world. How is al Qaeda able to recruit so many young men to fight and kill themselves against the United States? The fact that we’re over there, attacking their citizens. Does that make the Taliban right? Of course not. But they are not a direct threat to us. What would we do if foreign countries set up bases and randomly attacked our government and our people? Pull our troops out, use them for *real* defense.
I supported Dr. Ron Paul for the Republican nomination until McCain won. In the general election, I volunteered for and supported Bob Barr, the Libertarian Presidential nominee (www.BobBarr2008.com)
Kevin: “Taliban policy? Leave.”
That really says it all, doesn’t it? The classic Libertarian hand-wave. All the world’s problems result from DOING SOMETHING, therefore if we all do the equal and exact opposite – NOTHING – then all of they must vanish, QED.
I like some libertarian ideas as much as any other red-blooded American, but you people are really fucked in the brain sometimes. The meat of your argument is so lazy and self-serving, I’m not sure I should respond to it. But let’s have a brief look.
“How is al Qaeda able to recruit so many young men to fight and kill themselves against the United States? The fact that we’re over there, attacking their citizens.”
ORLY? That’s it? It’s entirely US troops that brought Al Qaeda into existence? It had nothing to do with the Soviets in Afghanistan. It had nothing to do with Pakistani influence. It had nothing to do with the miserable state of existence in the Middle East since the 13th century. Nor had it anything to do with the execrable state of theology in the Muslim world. None of that. America is the first, last, and only cause here. Right.
“Does that make the Taliban right? Of course not. But they are not a direct threat to us.”
+5 Insightful. You can only morally respond to DIRECT threats. I’m with you. Once the Taliban fly THEMSELVES into the World Trade Center, we go get ’em! Till then they’re just, uh… indirect. I’ve got this great plan – sky scrapers that can dodge. You have to rebuild them every couple of years, but it’s OK, we should only have to remake the New York skyline a few times before the Taliban slip up and threaten us DIRECTLY…
“What would we do if foreign countries set up bases and randomly attacked our government and our people?”
Randomly. Really. What penetrating insight. If only we attacked them for REASONS, they’d form regular militias and fight fair. “No more of this subway bombing shit, guys! The great Satan has REASONS!”
What nonsense. What utter nonsense. Thank Christ so few of you people exist.
Ian: sure, the stimulus plan hasn’t passed yet, but I was more pointing out that the basic shape of it – aimed at large, forward-thinking infrastructure projects centred around a) energy efficiency and b) the information economy – is a really good one. Point being that the guy is clearly on the right track with this stuff.
Side note – WTO rules can, frankly, go stuff themselves. The WTO has been following a very narrow and, frankly, perverse economic doctrine for years, now, along with the World Bank and IMF, which has lead to a lot more pain than gain, I reckon. Protectionism versus free trade is a thorny issue, but in my opinion it’s never as simple as Protectionism Bad, Free Trade Good, that kind of simplistic thinking is always dangerous. In practical terms, of course, you have to be seen to more or less follow the rules most of the time, so they might have to lose a few of those bits, but let’s face it, it’s hardly the core of the proposal.
I wouldn’t say the Guantanamo order is ‘symbolic’. Guantanamo exists entirely by dint of executive privilege, and now the President’s ordered it to be shut down. Not effective immediately? Sure. But then it’s hardly practical to shut down the entire place on a day’s notice. He’s ordered it to be closed within a reasonable and *defined* timeframe. That’s a big step. Now, if in a year it turns out not to be closed down and he’s giving wheedling evasive answers as to why not, that’s a bad thing. But for now, what we know is good.
“but I would think this is not be the time to set the grounds for a trade war.”
I dunno. The U.S. / China trade relationship – which up until now has been based on China exporting about five times as much as it imports, and using the profits to buy up vast amounts of U.S. government debt – rather needs re-negotiating, for the sake of the entire fricking world, and right now – while everyone’s economy is in the doghouse – is probably as good a time as any to do it…
Adam: I don’t think we really disagree that much to tell the truth. Though on free trade and the WTO I’m not sure. I’m not going to make the case that free trade is always better everywhere (because surely it’s not), but I will say trade wars are usually bad. We have real trade imbalances that have to be addressed, but I think this is the kind of thing you take care of when times are good (more the shame that we didn’t get a president Obama before everything fell apart) – because nobody can afford to take care of it when times are bad.
Also it’s easy to think of this entirely in terms of East Asia vs. America, but in fact the EU has begun setting the grounds for trade retaliation because of the proposed “Buy American” parts of the stimulus. So, trade war with China and Japan? Maybe. Trade war with the EU at the same time? During the biggest recession in decades? I’m not so sure it’s worth it.
On the other hand if this is just his way of beginning a negotiation… well, I reserve judgment till I see how it goes.
geez, thanks for sharing your enthusiasm!
What in particular did you like so far?
I’m as happy as the next guy, but I wonder how much of it is just, “holy shit holy shit, he’s not Bush”. I would think anything with a pulse would look better than him, at least for a while. When I try to step back from the “no more Bush” elation, I think things still look OK. Most or all of Obama’s new appointments are very cool, and his speeches are wonderful. What else?
Ian: from a former-European-now-Canadian – how about reversing the Mexico City doctrine, closing Guantanamo Bay, lifting restrictions on stem cell research, an *actually sane* stimulus plan, a good start on transparency, and now the start of a process that looks to allow states to set their own auto efficiency requirements – all in, what, less than a week? I’d say the dude’s doing pretty well so far.
Philip – it should be just “Dear President Obama” or “Dear Mr. President”. “Mr. President” is the correct form of address directly to the president, “President Obama” is the correct way of referring to him in, say, a written article. It’s not normal to write or say “Mr. President Obama”, conflating the two different forms.
Adam: I’d never heard of the Mexico City doctrine, thanks. Stem Cells and Emissions – points taken.
I’m not sure I’d credit him with the Stimulus plan yet, (1) because it’s not yet passed and, (2) because to what degree it will work is unknown and, (3) the “buy American” measures that might violate WTO rules and finally, (4) because I think we’d be getting something similar under any not-insane incoming president. But I can’t find any fault in him there, certainly.
Isn’t his Guantanamo order largely symbolic right now (symbolically RIGHT ON of course)? I have seen reasonable estimates that it’ll take a year or more to get to the part where it’s actually closed, and many more years till things are really resolved (everyone put on trial/returned home/executed/whatever). And who knows how it will turn out? Then again none of that is Obama’s fault, and one can hardly accuse him of dragging his feet…
On the down side, what about his new Treasury Secretary possibly stoking protectionist fires? – Buy American stimulus, and Chinese currency manipulation. Not that he’s wrong on the facts (that they pegged the Yuan to maintain export competitiveness is without question), but I would think this is not be the time to set the grounds for a trade war. On the other hand perhaps it’s the opening move in some sort of bargain. Who knows?
Dear Mr. President Obama:
Thanks for ordering an air strike on a village in Pakistan and killing innocent people.
Thanks for trying to push through yet another wasteful, pork-filled bailout (oops, I mean “economic stimulus” bill.
Thanks for rescinding the Mexico City policy and allowing organizations to use American tax dollars to fund abortions in *other countries* (and yes, I’m pro-choice, but you do NOT use my tax dollars, meant for services in the U.S., to promote this stuff around the world!)
Thanks for calling for the end of the horrific war in Iraq (I’m being serious there). How about Afghanistan? Oh, that’s right, you’re increasing troops there. And let’s not forget the 40,000 troops that will stay in Iraq past the end of the war.
Thanks for using the same “end-of-the-world” fear tactics that George Bush used to increase power over the military and make his office unaccountable to increase your control of what’s supposed to be a free market economy (which it hasn’t been for a while, since Clinton and Bush particularly).
His calling for the closure of Gitmo and the end of torture is seriously a very good thing and I’m pleased about that.
Don’t get me wrong: I HATE George Bush. I didn’t support either Obama or McCain in the election. But what has President Obama done, specifically, that you are impressed with, particularly as a European?
Yours in Liberty,
Kevin “Yeaux”
Kevin: “Thanks for ordering an air strike on a village in Pakistan and killing innocent people.”
Please describe a policy toward Taliban – whose modus operandi is to set up base inside civilian housing – that does not result in deaths of some of those civilians. Your criticism is hollow without it.
Kevin: “I didn’t support either Obama or McCain in the election.”
Who DID you support?
Ian, fair questions.
Taliban policy? Leave. The US is risking our own citizens’ lives by trying to be the policeman of the world. How is al Qaeda able to recruit so many young men to fight and kill themselves against the United States? The fact that we’re over there, attacking their citizens. Does that make the Taliban right? Of course not. But they are not a direct threat to us. What would we do if foreign countries set up bases and randomly attacked our government and our people? Pull our troops out, use them for *real* defense.
I supported Dr. Ron Paul for the Republican nomination until McCain won. In the general election, I volunteered for and supported Bob Barr, the Libertarian Presidential nominee (www.BobBarr2008.com)
Kevin: “Taliban policy? Leave.”
That really says it all, doesn’t it? The classic Libertarian hand-wave. All the world’s problems result from DOING SOMETHING, therefore if we all do the equal and exact opposite – NOTHING – then all of they must vanish, QED.
I like some libertarian ideas as much as any other red-blooded American, but you people are really fucked in the brain sometimes. The meat of your argument is so lazy and self-serving, I’m not sure I should respond to it. But let’s have a brief look.
“How is al Qaeda able to recruit so many young men to fight and kill themselves against the United States? The fact that we’re over there, attacking their citizens.”
ORLY? That’s it? It’s entirely US troops that brought Al Qaeda into existence? It had nothing to do with the Soviets in Afghanistan. It had nothing to do with Pakistani influence. It had nothing to do with the miserable state of existence in the Middle East since the 13th century. Nor had it anything to do with the execrable state of theology in the Muslim world. None of that. America is the first, last, and only cause here. Right.
“Does that make the Taliban right? Of course not. But they are not a direct threat to us.”
+5 Insightful. You can only morally respond to DIRECT threats. I’m with you. Once the Taliban fly THEMSELVES into the World Trade Center, we go get ’em! Till then they’re just, uh… indirect. I’ve got this great plan – sky scrapers that can dodge. You have to rebuild them every couple of years, but it’s OK, we should only have to remake the New York skyline a few times before the Taliban slip up and threaten us DIRECTLY…
“What would we do if foreign countries set up bases and randomly attacked our government and our people?”
Randomly. Really. What penetrating insight. If only we attacked them for REASONS, they’d form regular militias and fight fair. “No more of this subway bombing shit, guys! The great Satan has REASONS!”
What nonsense. What utter nonsense. Thank Christ so few of you people exist.
Ian: sure, the stimulus plan hasn’t passed yet, but I was more pointing out that the basic shape of it – aimed at large, forward-thinking infrastructure projects centred around a) energy efficiency and b) the information economy – is a really good one. Point being that the guy is clearly on the right track with this stuff.
Side note – WTO rules can, frankly, go stuff themselves. The WTO has been following a very narrow and, frankly, perverse economic doctrine for years, now, along with the World Bank and IMF, which has lead to a lot more pain than gain, I reckon. Protectionism versus free trade is a thorny issue, but in my opinion it’s never as simple as Protectionism Bad, Free Trade Good, that kind of simplistic thinking is always dangerous. In practical terms, of course, you have to be seen to more or less follow the rules most of the time, so they might have to lose a few of those bits, but let’s face it, it’s hardly the core of the proposal.
I wouldn’t say the Guantanamo order is ‘symbolic’. Guantanamo exists entirely by dint of executive privilege, and now the President’s ordered it to be shut down. Not effective immediately? Sure. But then it’s hardly practical to shut down the entire place on a day’s notice. He’s ordered it to be closed within a reasonable and *defined* timeframe. That’s a big step. Now, if in a year it turns out not to be closed down and he’s giving wheedling evasive answers as to why not, that’s a bad thing. But for now, what we know is good.
“but I would think this is not be the time to set the grounds for a trade war.”
I dunno. The U.S. / China trade relationship – which up until now has been based on China exporting about five times as much as it imports, and using the profits to buy up vast amounts of U.S. government debt – rather needs re-negotiating, for the sake of the entire fricking world, and right now – while everyone’s economy is in the doghouse – is probably as good a time as any to do it…
Adam: I don’t think we really disagree that much to tell the truth. Though on free trade and the WTO I’m not sure. I’m not going to make the case that free trade is always better everywhere (because surely it’s not), but I will say trade wars are usually bad. We have real trade imbalances that have to be addressed, but I think this is the kind of thing you take care of when times are good (more the shame that we didn’t get a president Obama before everything fell apart) – because nobody can afford to take care of it when times are bad.
Also it’s easy to think of this entirely in terms of East Asia vs. America, but in fact the EU has begun setting the grounds for trade retaliation because of the proposed “Buy American” parts of the stimulus. So, trade war with China and Japan? Maybe. Trade war with the EU at the same time? During the biggest recession in decades? I’m not so sure it’s worth it.
On the other hand if this is just his way of beginning a negotiation… well, I reserve judgment till I see how it goes.
Successful troll is sucecssful!