cjax's Open Salon Blog

Obama and Nico Pitney

Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:06:11 -0400

People have been fulminating about the why the President chose Nico Pitney of the Huffington Post for the second question at today's press conference.

I think the President picked Pitney in order to show the level and flavor of the White House's monitoring of the ongoing tumult in Iran. Pitney has been all over the aftermath of Iran's elections, as anyone who has been trying to follow the mess of rumours, misinformation, and stirring images that has passed for news the last week and a half knows. Someone in the Administration clearly has been following Pitney's blog, as they contacted him after he began soliciting questions from Iranians to potentially ask at today's press conference:

"Last night, after emailing with a few people about Obama's press conference and what he might say, I decided to throw it open to our readers. I received a call from White House staff saying they had seen what I'd written and thought the President might be interested in receiving a question directly from an Iranian...The White House didn't guarantee that I would be able to ask a question...They were up front about not being able to assure that a question would be asked [and] they never asked what the question would be. "

As the President himself said, the administration has noticed the citizen journalism out of Iran. I think he wanted to assure these new-media revolutionaries (and by extension their foreign conduits) that he is listening.

The question Pitney asked— whether the U.S. would ever accept the election results and whether that would be tantamount to a betrayal of the protest movement— was no softball. And while the President edged around the question, saying that with no observers on the ground and little transparency it is impossible to tell what the result of the election truly would have been, he strongly condemned the violence of Iran's ruling regime and sided with the Iranian people's right to peaceful, unmolested protest.

The President and his staff have been and need to continue to be cautious and conservative in their comments on Iran's recent upheaval. Nonetheless, the President signaled unambiguously that he is watching and listening to the Iranian people very closely and is sympathetic to their cause.

We Want Women

Thu, 28 May 2009 14:05:24 -0400

I think it is disingenuous to pretend that people's life experiences do not inform the decisions they make, whether those decisions are about what car to buy or if the Constitution provides women with the right to abortion. I also think it is disingenuous to say that women and men are the same, and that the special (gender-related) insight of a woman (or a man) can be just as easily gleaned from the opposite sex.

With that in mind, I submit that until our Supreme Court more accurately reflects the gender composition of our nation, men should not be considered for the highest court in the land. We men have had two-plus centuries of unfettered dominance of the judiciary. Now it is time for us to move in the other direction.

In my ideal world, only women (and there is certainly no shortage of qualified female candidates for a future post) would be considered for the next few openings on the court. Once there are four women on the court, any new spots could be open to both female and male candidates, with the emphasis going forward on keeping the equilibrium between the sexes.

I am not suggesting a law be passed or even that a statement of intentions to create "gender equilibrium" by the President or by those who hope to take his place be given. Instead, I can only hope that those to whom this decision falls will remember that for the vast majority of our nation's history, women (and many other "non-white-male" groups) languished in the judicial wilderness.

Pragmatism and Realism

Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:12:25 -0500

Listening to the howls of some on the left about Obama's centrist cabinet appointments, I've come to some conclusions:

First, it seems like some of these lefties weren't listening to the President-elect during the last few months of the campaign. By the time it became clear that he'd secured the Democratic nomination, Obama had already begun "tacking" hard to the center. I only put "tacking" in quotations because, while his lofty rhetoric and anti-Iraq War stance allowed him to attack Hillary Clinton and the other primary candidates from the left, his main approach was always a return to rationality in government (this was the "change we can believe in").

Secondly, Obama will not be the same weak-willed "decider" as Still-President Bush. It seems pretty clear that the tenor of the new administration will be set from the top down. Hopefully, everyone involved realizes this isn't the time for grandstanding and that their reputations and political careers hinge on actually accomplishing something instead of besting each other in bureaucratic infighting. Hillary Clinton wouldn't have consented to joining the new administration if she wasn't willing to follow Obama's orders. Robert Gates wouldn't have stayed on unless he believed that Obama wanted a reasonable withdrawal from Iraq instead. Clearly, Gates isn't buying into the "cut-and-run" B.S. that has dominated discussions about leaving our Middle-Eastern quagmire.

The same goes for the appointment of Rahm Emmanuel as chief-of-staff. The man has brass balls and knows Congress as well as anyone his age can. His ties to the Clintons put some off, but as has been mentioned pretty much everywhere, Rahmbo is Chicago boys with Bams and is absolutely foaming at the mouth to be unleashed as Field Marshall for the Hope-ocracy.

Obviously, Barack Obama is a liberal. But he isn't a knee-jerk leftist. People on all sides of the spectrum (excluding the fringe elements) are dying to work with him. The man is smart and reasonable. Let's just trust his judgement for about five minutes before we start harping on him

Our Big, Beautiful Bus

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:11:02 -0500

When we woke up
Our right wheel was drifting over the right line
Onto the road's shoulder.
Pebbles, kicked up by the turning tire,
Were striking the undercarriage,
Their pinging and cracking
Warned us of the ditch on the side.

Someone on the bus shouted
"Who the hell is driving?"
A clamor went up, demanding that someone
Relieve the weary (some said drunk)
Pilot at the wheel.

Someone had to start paying attention to the road
Because the mind of the present driver
Was clearly wandering, dreaming of glory
(Or at least some off-road vehicular recreation).

A few people stood up from their seats
And shouted, "I will drive!"
"This bus needs to be pointed in a new direction!"
Though a few welcomed the ditch,
Insisting that our sturdy conveyance
Needed no road, and could blaze
Any trail it so chose.

One man, though, began showing
Around the bus a new map, and with it
Passed around his expert pilot's license.
He had passed the driver's education course
Only recently, but with better marks than many.
It was his clear eye and steady-seeming hand, though
That impressed me and others the most.

We asked him
"Where do you think we should go?"
And he told us that the way was clearly marked,
But that without quick correction
Our beautiful bus would soon be stuck
In that deep ditch on the right of the road.

As he walked up the aisle,
The off-roaders shouted that he wouldn't just
Point us back into the middle of the lane.
Instead, we would find ourselves drifting across the center line,
Crossing the double yellow into oncoming traffic.

The man answered them,
Promising that he would not destroy our conveyance
And that if we saw troublesome motorists coming our way
Or the beginnings of inclement weather
He would appreciate and take to heart
Any reasonable detour or rerouting.

At just about this time
We began to run out of gas
And pulled into a way-station to refuel,
To stretch our legs, and to get some fresh air.
Those who looked at our driver realized that
He was in no shape to continue on, and needed a rest.

By now, everyone knew that it was time for a change.
The passengers had whittled it down to two potential drivers.
We already knew one; he once drove straight.
Now he looked longingly at the dirt roads and trails that led off to the right.
Most everyone on the bus, though, was unhappy
With the bumpy ride the last leg had taken.
We had no stomach for more of the same.

So we chose the man with the fresh map
And the newly-laminated license.
We all climbed back onto the bus,
Still worried about the rocks in the road,
Still anxious about the oncoming cars,
Yet hopeful about our new route,
Confident that our new driver
Would keep us in our lane,
Would see trouble ahead with his clear eyes,
Would keep a steady hand on the wheel
Of our big, beautiful bus.

An Excessive Show of Force

Fri, 7 Nov 2008 11:11:46 -0500

I work in Chelsea in a building that overlooks the Javits Center. Fairly often, I'd say at least once a week, I see a massive police convoy speeding away from Javits down the West Side Highway or 11th Avenue. Each of these convoys average about 30 cars. A few times, there have been as many as 50 squad cars, sirens blazing, flying with impunity through traffic.

I don't know where these cars are going or who they are protecting because I can't find any information anywhere. In each of these cars are two police officers, which I know because they've sped by a few times while I've been waiting for my gyro at the street-meat stand.

As far as I know, there haven't been any riots or street protests that would warrant this kind of police presence. I know Barack Obama wasn't in town, and Ahmadinejad didn't come to the West Side.

Does this seem like a massive waste of taxpayer funds to anyone but me? Maybe they had a purpose to what they were doing, but from my vantage point it just seemed like a joy ride to show off NYPD's numbers. Those 60-100 officers, the gas they are using, and the squad cars that aren't patrolling seem like they could be put to better use.

I would appreciate any information that anyone has on this subject or other incidences of police and taxpayer waste.