Thank You, Mr. Obama

Okay, let's get this out in the open. I'm a white (European American?) Christian male in my early 40s. I was fortunate enough to have been raised in a family that was decidedly colorblind, and I'm delighted to note that my children are probably even more colorblind than my wife and I are. Skin color really doesn't seem to matter to them when they play with other kids and that fact always gives me hope for their future.

In my years I have made a lot of friends, several of whom are African American (black?). I think one of the first times I really encountered racism however was several years ago when I started dating a black woman. (This was before I met my lovely wife.) Black men I had considered friends suddenly didn't want to have much to do with me, especially when my girlfriend was around. It never bothered me (or them) in the least when one of them dated a white woman so it never occurred to me that the reverse would be a problem. She and I both felt hurt by this and really didn't even know how to address it.

She and I obviously went our own separate ways for non-racial reasons, but that taste of racism (reverse racism, if there is such a thing) did leave a scar on my soul. For God's sake, I wasn't responsible for what happened in the 1800s! I'm repulsed by the very idea of slavery! How could someone be arrogant enough to think they could actually own another person like property? If I judge someone, it's always based on their merits, not their skin color! So why was I suddenly being treated this way by black men? I didn't deserve it any more than they did.

Listening to Reverend Wright's words made me angry. Not because they were anti-American (which they were) and not because they were anti-Christian (which , quite frankly they also were), but because they were completely racist and wrong. Reverend Wright's words made me think of how many Cambodian and Vietnamese refugees came to America with no friends, no family, and nothing but the clothes on their back and immediately started businesses, took advantage of opportunities and made themselves wealthy beyond their wildest dreams! It made me contrast their outlook on America with the black maintenance worker at a motel I stayed at in New Orleans (pre-Katrina) who was willing to fix my room's toilet that ran over (All I did was take a leak, honest!), but refused to clean the floor or help me get a new room simply because it wasn't his job. Oh, and by the way, the cleaning staff was gone for the day, so tough turds! Reverend Wright's words made me angry because I have always tried to treat people with dignity, regardless of skin color, but at the end of the day most African Americans have rarely given me (a white male) the same consideration.

Mr. Obama, the speech you gave Tuesday morning may very well have been the very first time I have ever heard a black man recognize the hurt that racism has caused people like me. For too many years, I have listened to irrational and insensitive rhetoric from the egotistical likes of Jessie Jackson and Charles Rangel who insist on reopening old wounds. For too many years I have watched the black community attack Bill Cosby for suggesting they take responsibility for their own lives, a man who has arguably done more for race relations than most black congressional leaders. It was refreshing to hear a black politician (or any politician for that matter) actually talk about the issue of racism in adult and rational terms with a decidedly forward-looking vision. Mr. Obama, I may disagree with your ideas regarding Iraq and America's health crisis, but by God, you have earned my respect!

My greatest hope is that you will back up that tremendous speech with actions that will really inspire change. One of the things I have liked about you, Mr. Obama, is your ability to inspire others to meet you at least half way. It's a welcome departure from Hillary Clinton, who seems more interested in fighting than inspiring. People like me will be depending on you to inspire other African Americans to take note of the opportunities around them and take advantage of them, to take note that American society is always evolving and to look to a brighter future, to love their neighbor as themselves and realize their neighbor just might be white.

Congressional Transparency Should Not be Optional

Once again, our elected officials in Congress have told us that We, the People don't really need to know how they spend our hard-earned money. Yes, I'm referring to the use and abuse of earmarks and the proposed moratorium on their use by the Senate. Fortunately, all three presidential candidates supported the bill, though Senators Clinton and Oboma have used earmarks extensively and got on the bandwagon only recently. Senator McCain however has been a strong advocate of earmark reform for many years and backed this very bill.

Don't get me wrong, earmarks have their place and serve a purpose in directing funds to projects that are important to the local constituents of our elected officials, projects that would likely be overlooked by the executive branch. However, most earmarks these days are not reviewed by the Senate or the House of Representatives, but are instead inserted into bills anonymously during the conference phase after the bills have been constructed and debated. The president is then left having to decide whether to sign a bill full of obscenely expensive anonymous earmarks or veto a bill he (or she) would otherwise support vigorously. This quite simply is not rational.

One of the biggest problem with the current earmark process is that lobby-backed revisions can be inserted into bills by anonymous senators and representatives after they have been debated on the floor, thereby skipping the review process of the House and Senate. This virtually eliminates transparency in government spending legislation and certainly provides a conduit to corruption.

I applaud Senator McCain for his strong and long-standing advocacy of earmark reform and am very disappointed in the Senate's blatant disregard for the importance of legislative transparency. A complete tally of how rationally your senators voted on this issue can be found here.

Blogger's Going to Make Me Crazy

Someday you will be able to read this blog on www.RationalDemocracy.com... but not today. I have configured everything on this to the best of my ability (Apparently, 17+ years experience in the IT world doesn't help), but for some reason, their system says I already have a blog hosted there. I've opened a ticket with them, but so far have heard nothing.

If this keeps up, I'm liable to get rather irrational.

100 Years in Iraq?!?!?

"We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years." This is a strong statement that Barack Oboma made on Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 in a debate in Cleveland, Ohio. Both he and Hillary Clinton have repeated this basic statement many other times as well, and what really makes my blood boil is that talking heads on mainstream news organizations have continued to repeated it with little or no correction as if it were fact. Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC's Morning Joe this morning admitted this morning that he has been repeating this statement himself and was shocked to discover it was false!

Joe learned this when he interviewed a gentleman (Sorry, I didn't catch his name - My bad.) from Politifact.com. This all started with a sound bite that has been repeated many times where McCain did say we would likely be in Iraq for 100 year. Very rarely, however, have we seen the whole context of that statement in which McCain went on to note the United States has maintained a military presence for decades in such places as South Korea and Japan . He said he supported such a commitment in a global hot spot like Iraq where al-Qaida continues to have great influence and recruit followers — as long as there aren't American casualties.

McCain didn't say we would be fighting there till 2108. He was saying there would likely be a base there on allied soil much like the bases we still have in Germany, Japan, and South Korea.

In this article from Politifact.com, they point out his more recent explanation of his remark and said:

"We've been in South Korea . . . we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that’s fine with me. I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day."

Three days later, on CBS's Face The Nation, McCain further expanded his remarks saying:

"The point is, it's American casualties. We've got to get Americans off the front line, have the Iraqis as part of the strategy, take over more and more of the responsibilities. And then I don't think Americans are concerned if we're there for 100 years or 1,000 years or 10,000 years. What they care about is a sacrifice of our most precious treasure, and that's American blood. So what I'm saying is look, if Americans are there in a support role, but they're not taking casualties, that's fine."

John McCain is a veteran of war, a man who was tortured for years as a prisoner of war. To say he's "pro-war" is to me like calling him a national masochist of the worst order. He criticized the execution of this war for years at his own political peril because it so quickly descended into a virtual sausage grinder. He says he wants to win this war as quickly as possible so we can get our troops off the front lines as quickly as possible, and I for one believe him.

What Clinton and Oboma fail to point out in their speeches is that The United States is still at war with al-Qaida and regardless of past mistakes, as long as al-Qaida is in Iraq, we also belong in Iraq. To let them fester and grow unchecked anywhere in the world is to fall back on the fatal mistakes of the Bill Clinton administration.

And So It Begins...

Some of you may recognize this ominous line from the Vorlon Ambasador, Kosh, in the Sci-Fi TV show, Babylon 5. Somehow it just seems a fitting statement at this particular moment in history.

As I write these words, Ann Coulter has endorsed Hillary Clinton over John McCain, Hillary "I'm a Fighter" Clinton has accused Barack Oboma of negative campaigning and Ken Starr tactics, Barack Oboma says he has superior judgment, and the new Republican nominee, John McCain, has accepted the endorsement of one of history's least popular presidents simply so he can improve his appeal to the least rational elements of his party.

Yes, it's going to be an exciting year...

Welcome to Rational Democracy! This is a place where reaching across the isle is strongly encouraged if it means actually accomplishing something positive, something constructive, and most of all, something rational. Below is a (very) short listing of the type of things I'll likely talk about.

Encouraging startups to dream big about building great new cars that run on alternative (and clean!) forms of energy is rational. Suggesting an increase in big oil tax incentives to build new refineries when they're already recording record profits is not rational.

Providing incentives to encourage mothers of unwanted unborn babies to put their child up for adoption is rational. Making it easy for a woman to selfishly end the life of her unborn child as an alternative to contraceptives and responsible life choices is not rational. Additionally, using government funds to discourage research into ethical alternatives to embryonic stem cell research is not rational.

Complaining bitterly about Bill Clinton's lack of leadership which allowed terrorists to destroy multiple US embassies (US soil, in my book) and nearly sink the USS Cole with almost zero retribution is quite rational. Complaining bitterly about the poor intelligence that allowed nine terrorists to kill thousands on US soil and gave President Bush the excuse he needed to invade Iraq is rational. Complaining that our president has used ideology as an alternative to responsible life-altering choices is very rational. Yanking our troops out of Iraq just because we're mad about President Bush's irrational decisions is truly not rational, especially knowing the entire region would quickly fall into complete chaos and force us to risk even more US lives.

Okay, by now I'm sure I've irritated both NeoCons and NeoLibs alike. At least I didn't discriminate.

I look forward to your input! I should note that I do reserve the right to occasionally contradict myself. I'm only human after all. I also reserve the right to simply change my mind on occasion. Sometimes, when confronted with new information, that's simply the most rational thing to do. In any case, I hope that together we can come to some rational conclusions about how things should be done and tell our government leaders to either follow our advice or get out of Washington!