If Obama wants to get serious about getting us off foreign oil and eventually off fossil fuels altogether, he could hardly have picked a better candidate.

Dr. Chu left his home at Stanford to direct Lawrence precisely because he was very interested in alternative sources of energy and energy efficiency. He has expertise in his own right on these subjects. He also serves to send the message that the Obama administration wants to take science seriously again.

Dr. Chu will have one major challenge in his position. Though Lawrence is not a small or modest center and I’m sure he is not a total stranger to a limited amount of politics, he is still very much a Washington outsider. He is unfamiliar with Washington power circles and will probably need some very serious and wonkish advisers to guide him through the complex world of Washington politics. However I suspect it takes less time to learn the ropes of those power circles than it takes to learn as much about the relevant scientific concepts and technologies that Dr. Chu is specialized in. He is in a unique position to have the trust of the scientific community, which is notoriously insular and unlikely to trust the knowledge of a non-specialist.

Though as dedicated to the concept of alternative energies as Al Gore is, he differs from the latter in one important respect. Al Gore believes we already have all the technology we need to make the jump to alternative sources of energy and all that’s missing is political will. Dr. Chu agrees that political will is essential (and his position will allow him considerable leverage in that regard) but he believes that a major push in the relevant technologies involved is still necessary if alternative energies are to become profitable and therefore viable.

Below you can see him discussing alternative energies and the less mentioned but extremely important energy efficiencies, as well as the economics involved. 

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Obama stressed that Shinseki was chosen because of professional excellence, because of his long military career and because of the special importance of prioritizing veterans affairs in a time of both war and economic strife. He also made a point to stress the need to properly screen and treat veterans for psychological scars, not only physical ones, including PTSD. Video below the fold:

Eric Shinseki was born in Hawaii, a Japanese American just one year after the bombing at Pearl Harbor. The symbolism of presenting him on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor has not been lost on anyone. Shinseki went to West Point. He served two tours in Vietnam, earning him two Purple Hearts (one of them for an injury that blew off the front of one of his feet) and three Bronze Stars. He was the first Asian American to become a four star general and has served as Army Chief of Staff

He had a brief moment in the spotlight outside the sphere of the military when he was submitted to fierce criticism from the Bush administration for saying, in the run-up to the Iraq war, that the war would require hundreds of thousands of troops, which was far above the number the administration was trying to sell to the American people. His predictions have later been vindicated, but he has always refused to discuss the matter, which will now serve him well, as he will largely be considered outside partisan bickering

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

75 years ago the 21st amendment to the Constitution was passed, becoming the only amendment specifically created to annul another amendment. The wildly unsuccessful attempt to legislate morality ended. Though Roosevelt is better known for replacing a deeply unpopular and incompetent president that had overseen the biggest financial disaster in American history, he is less well known for being anti-Prohibition, whereas Hoover was pro-Prohibition.

With another incompetent president and another (though mercifully not as bad) financial disaster looming, I believe the time is ripe to end Prohibition one more time. We don’t even need to touch the Constitution to do it.

I am talking of course of ending a war so disastrous, so costly, ineffective and destructive, that it makes the Iraq war seem like a mild argument at a tea party. The Drug War has cost thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and given rise to massive and vicious mafias that have laid waste to entire countries, sometimes, like in the case of the poppy fields of Afghanistan, contributing to causes that have undermined our country’s very security. And for what? I don’t know anyone who can honestly say that it’s hard to find drugs if you want them, nor do I know very many young people who avoid drugs (especially marijuana) based especially on the fact that they are not legal.

Prohibition of drugs (especially “soft” drugs like marijuana and hashis) makes as much sense as prohibiton of alcohol, which is to say none at all. In times of great economic woes, this failed policy is also an especially expensive one. The money being spent fighting the failed war, keeping the millions of drug offenders (a great many non-violent) in jail, not to mention the missed opportunity of tax revenue that could be obtained if we taxed drugs instead of pretended they didn’t exist, is becoming unforgivable.

I’ll leave the final word to Ethan Nadelmann, whose article in the Wall Street Journal deserves to be read in full:

Supporters of prohibition blamed the consumers, and some went so far as to argue that those who violated the laws deserved whatever ills befell them. But by 1933, most Americans blamed prohibition itself.

When repeal came, it was not just with the support of those with a taste for alcohol, but also those who disliked and even hated it but could no longer ignore the dreadful consequences of a failed prohibition. They saw what most Americans still fail to see today: That a failed drug prohibition can cause greater harm than the drug it was intended to banish.

I’ll drink to that.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Throughout the campaign Obama has discussed the need for renovating infrastructure and the need for investing in green technologies. The increasingly grim economic news lead to speculation that these necessary renovations would have to be delayed due to the bad economy. Obama seems to want to unite both concepts. Instead of only giving huge amounts of cash to companies that show dubious intention or ability to improve the economy with them, the government will use money to invest in real, physical improvements in the country. At the same time, the massive projects will require a large workforce to undertake them.

At this point unfortunately the matter is not whether government should intervene in the economy, but what way they will do it. No doubt this project will be met by cries of “socialism!”, but quite frankly, that train left when we handed uncounted billions to irresponsible financial institutions and hence provided privatized profit and socialized risk. Very few questions were asked then, nothing compared to the grilling that (also irresponsible) automakers are now being submitted to. Is the government spending money like a drunken sailor on massive projects reminiscent of socialism? Absolutely, but not spending has ceased to be an option and I’d rather see the money spent on things that I could touch, feel and benefit from than seeing it disappear into a money hole at AIG.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

The results were depressing. The average score of regular people was 49%, meaning that on average Americans fail such an exam.

Much more depressing however is that people who self-identified as elected officials scored below regular citizens, with just 44%.

The people conducting the study did not set out to show differences between elected and non-elected officials. The exams were conducted to some 2,500 people. They were asked various questions about their education, income, habits etc. One question asked them about their political involvement:

All survey respondents were asked whether they have ever engaged in any of 13 different political and civic activities. These included, for example, registering to vote, signing a petition, contacting a public official, publishing a letter to the editor, and whether they have ever been elected to a government office.

People who responded affirmatively to holding an elected office fared worse on the exam. This includes almost all the questions asked. The exceptions were one economic question (on economic stimulus) and two historic quesitons (on the Getysburg address and the Lincoln Douglass debates). On every other of the 33 questions, regular citizens score above elected officials. Still, the overall findings are depressing overall:

Less than half can name all three branches of the government.

Only 21% know that the phrase “government of the people, by the people, for the people” comes from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.

Although Congress has voted twice in the last eight years to approve foreign wars, only 53% know that the power to declare war belongs to Congress. Almost 40% incorrectly believe it belongs to the president.

Only 55% know that Congress shares authority over U.S. foreign policy with the president. Almost a quarter incorrectly believe Congress shares this power with the United Nations.

Only 27% know the Bill of Rights expressly prohibits establishing an official religion for the United States.

Less than one in five know that the phrase “a wall of separation” between church and state comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson. Almost half incorrectly believe it can be found in the Constitution.

I must say that I find it ironic that only about one quarter of people think that the Bill of Rights prohibits the establishment of an official religion and yet 50% think that the phrase of the “wall of separation” between church and state is in the Constitution.

The results are virtually the same regardless of age,  gender, race, political ideology etc. There are some differences. People in the upper salary brackets score significantly higher than those at the bottom, and the gap between white and latino respondents was 13 points.

Education, unsurprisingly, does influence the result. However merely having college does not guarantee getting a high score. The average college graduate fails the exam, including a stunning 36% of bachelors graduates who can’t identify all three branches of government. This is, incidentally, the same number of new citizens who get this question wrong on citizenship exams. The gap between the most educated (with a doctorate) and least educated (without a high school diploma) was stark. People with doctorates scored 72% while people with no high school scored less than half that, at 35%.

Lending credibility to the idea that TV rots your brain, the more TV a person watched, the worse they fared on the exam, including people who watched news and documentaries. Activities that made for better results? Discussing public affairs and history, reading about history and current events and Internet usage. So stick around, we have all of that in one here on Poligazette

Interestingly the ignorance in matters of civics was not reflected in the opinion people had of the importance of the subject. A large majority of people believe that colleges should teach students civics. The majorities were virtually identical regardless of other factors. I would add that it’s important to teach the subject before college, as not everyone makes it that far.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

What could actually be a much more important post, given the state of the economy, appears to have been filled today.  Timothy Geithner seems to be the man who will have the unenviable task of overseeing the countries economy in it’s worst moment since the Great Depression. Geithner is currently president of the New York reserve bank.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Mr. Holder served as a federal prosecutor, a trial court judge, and United States attorney for the District of Columbia before becoming the top-ranking aide to Attorney General Janet Reno in 1997.

The biggest objection to Mr. Holder will be that he did not object to the presidential pardon of corrupt financer Marc Rich. This does not sound like the sort of thing that will be an impediment for the job.

Reportedly the Obama team doesn’t want to officially announce another major post before Treasury Secretary. Some sources say that Holder is a sure bet for the post, while others insist no final decision has yet been made.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

With 14,626 votes left to be counted, Begich leads by 2,374 votes, or 0,7% of the total vote count. The remaining votes come from Anchorage (where Begich is mayor and is very favored), so that it is almost impossible that Stevens could significantly shorten Begich’s lead, much less flip it.

Though the current lead (which Begich could still slightly enhance) is outside the 0.5% margin that would lead to an automatic recount, Stevens can still request a recount at a cost of $16,000, or what’s known as “chump change” for your average Senator.

The Achorage Daily News says that such a recount is likely but that recent recounts have not resulted in big changes in results.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Hillary Clinton is widely recognized as qualified for the job. Somewhat unexpectedly, for a woman who caused such partisan furor for years, the idea has garnered even some praise from Republicans, including former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

So she’s qualified and she causes a good impression amongst colleagues on both sides of the aisle. What could possibly be the problem?

Bubba.

Though they have always been a team, I believe that Hillary Clinton owes a great deal to Bill Clinton. Without her previous position as first lady and the support of her husband it’s not at all clear she could have won her Senate seat. Likewise, without being a part of the Clinton political establishment she would have never been considered that strong a candidate for president. I don’t doubt her personal qualifications or capacity, but it’s unquestionable that she has benefited enormously from her husbands political clout.

But now Bill may turn out to be her biggest liability to one of the most important offices in the land. Bill Clinton, thanks to his Clinton Global Initiative and presidential library, has some extremely complex finances and has received money from thousands of people, including heads of state from other nations. All these finances need to be studied and hopefully made public in order to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest or corruption, stains that cannot and must not lay on an office as important as the Secretary of State.

Even if all of this is made public, something I’m sure Bill Clinton is looking forward to about as much as a root canal, the issue remains as to what his activities will be. For years he’s been flying all over the globe, lobbying the powerful for support for his charitable initiatives. Now though his wife holds an essential post in the US government, creating the potential for all manner of mischief if the famously independent-minded (or pig-headed, depending on who you ask) Clinton refuses to be reigned in.

I believe Obama wants Hillary Clinton for that post. I also believe Hillary Clinton wants that post and that Bill wants her to have it. What remains to be seen is how cooperative Bill will be in the vetting process and if the dirt (and there will be dirt) uncovered is not so abundant as to bury the chances for an unquestionably qualified candidate.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

In a move so weak it’s almost funny, they decided to oust him from a subcommittee on the Environment and Public Works. They really shouldn’t have bothered. It matters not at all to Lieberman himself and fools absolutely no one into thinking you are at all stern or disciplined.

Lieberman, who it must be said has 10 times the huevos of the Democratic Party, did not act like a man who had been granted a second chance he may have not deserved. He called the result “fair and forward-looking” and, when asked about apologizing for some of his remarks during the campaign (like saying Obama put politics above country, that asking if he was a Marxist was “a good question” or that Obama wanted surrender) he offered what has to be one of the lamest halfway non-apologies ever:

“Some of the statements, some of the things that people have said I said about Senator Obama, are simply not true. There are other statements that I made that I wish I had made more clearly, and there are some that I made that I wish I had not made at all. And obviously in the heat of campaigns, that happens to all of us, but I regret that and now it’s time to move on.”

Imagine trying that little gem out on your significant other. In a relationship, it would have you sleeping on the couch. In the Senate, it gets you chairmanship of one of the most important committees.

Though the Democrats and Lieberman talk about reconcilliation and moving forward, this is simply another formality they should not bother with. Everyone knows that this move has nothing to do with reconcilliation and everything to do with getting within reach of a 60 vote majority. With races in the balance in Alaska, Minnesota and Georgia, Lieberman’s vote is of utmost importance, and both he and the Democrats know it.

The Democrats will not win Georgia. They will likely win Alaska while Minnesota remains quite a toss-up. This will get the Democrats 58 or 59 votes, including Lieberman. They still don’t have 60, but if they can peel off a few votes now and then, they can still wield a lot of power. If the Democrats were further away from that 60 vote majority, the word “reconciliation” wouldn’t be so frequent, and the words “discipline” and “consequences” would be rather more common.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

The protests are remarkable not only in the show of support for marriage euqality, but in the fact that they were largely organized virally, through facebook, blogs, instant messages and word of mouth. No slick sound systems or laminated signs, most protests had a few megaphones and a whole lot of homemade signs. Another common factor from different rallies is the positivity. By and large, though there was some anger, the common theme was being there in support of gay marriage and above all the optimism that eventually it will happen.

Andrew Sullivan has a great roundup of the rallies. My personal favorite is the Chicago rally featuring a picture of a (straight) married couple in full wedding regalia and a host of bridesmaids holding up a rainbow flag in support.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

To those who argue that denying marriage to loving gay couples is all about protecting children: why then are you not fighting to prevent gay couples from adopting?

Arkansas has recently shown itself to be consistent on this point. It has passed a law that denies any unmarried person from adopting a child or being a foster parent. Since a child really needs a mommy and a daddy, we’ll make sure that children (1000 up for adoption in Arkansas) remain orphans unless an ideal family is found. After all, better in an orphanage than with two same-sex parents, or even a sinful lifelong heterosexual couple. Utah is the only other state that has this law. I find it hideous and very much against the best interests of a child, but at the very least it shows ideological consistency.

In all but two states of the union, marriage remains off limits to gays and lesbians. However adoption and fostering children is allowed in most. In some gay couples can adopt and foster with an acknowledgement of their being two parents. In all the rest of the states, a single person can adopt a child, though authorities know full well that there will be two parents in the home.

My question to those who feel so strongly that they are doing a good deed by denying marriage rights to others is: If it’s important that gays not get married, how can it possibly be less important to prevent them from raising children?

How can it be that allowing two people of the same gender to get married is a threat, but allowing two people of the same gender to raise a child is less of a threat? Shouldn’t protecting children be the very first priority? And yet I see no huge campaigns to outlaw parenthood for gays and lesbians. I  don’t see the LDS Church asking it’s faithful to pour millions of dollars and hours into a fight to prevent gays from raising kids. I don’t see preachers and priests from all sorts of denominations asking their faithful to fight gay adoption. Why?

Once you allow gays to have kids, and there are thousands of gay families accross the US, it’s just as well you allow the parents to marry. If you’re allowing children to be in a same-sex household, you’d do well to give those children the legal protections that having married parents gives them. If you do not believe that children should be raised by gay parents, then you would do well to fight the gay adoption battle first, since it is directly responsible for gay families in a way gay marriage is not.

Of course you could never prevent Lesbians from having children unless you got very draconian about the matter. Lesbians can carry their own children. Even if you were to prevent unmarried couples from fertilization by sperm-donors, there are ways to achieve it without doctors help. You would not prevent two women from being mothers unless you were willing to take away their children by force. But of course that would be terrible PR, wouldn’t it?

So, I ask you, which is it? Do you really believe that gays getting married is worse than gays raising children? Or is it that while playing with the destinies of adults in pursuit of a non-existent ideal Ozzie and Harriet world is acceptable, the mind rebels at the idea of playing with the wellbeing of children in a similar manner.  Orphans will exist, children at risk will exist, and gay couples will exist. There will never be enough heterosexual young married couples to take them all in, so the realistic choice becomes whether you leave those children alone or give them to willing caretakers. At that point, I think even people who are uncomfortable with homosexuality mostly understand that a parent is better than no parent, and that two mommies is better than no mommie.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

I am somewhat consoled by the fact that the passage of this Proposition has seemingly woken up the gay and gay-friendly communities, sparking the kinds of passion in favor of their rights that was previously held only by those who wish to deny them those rights. They finally had tasted victory, and are no longer content to accept “their place” below their heterosexual peers.

However there is such a thing as going too far. Protesting institutions that overtly supported the ban is fine. Even calling for boycotts against businesses that supported the ban is acceptable. Targetting individuals is not fine, and should stop immediately.

I’ve read a few examples of this happening already. Whole businesses being targeted for protest or boycott because some prominent member (usually a Mormon) donated to the Yes on Prop. 8 campaign. Though legally within their right to do so, I believe that it is fundamentally wrong (and counter-productive) to do this.

The case that sent me over the edge to the point I feel I must say something was the Coyote Restaurant in LA. The Coyote Restaurant is an establishment with 89 employees, some gay, and a very diverse clientele, overwhelmingly gay-friendly. So did the business donate to the Yes-on-Prop. 8 campaign? No. Did the owner do so of his own accord? Nope. Well did a large portion of the employees put money into the campaign? No again. Marjorie Christoffersen, who is the daughter of the current owner of the business, donated to the campaign.

Considering the All Hell that has broken out because of this you would expect the donation to be huge, something that could actually impact the campaign itself. But Marjorie donated a measly $100. Because of this people on the other side have called for a boycott of her fathers business, endangering the jobs of 89 people, almost all of whom are entirely gay friendly. Heavyweights in the blogosphere like AmericaBLOG have targeted the business directly.

The matter came to a head when a meeting was called by the restaurant to explain their position. The place filled to the brim with very angry members of the gay community and journalists. This is how it started:

A floor manager stood in the middle of the back room where the community conference and stated that “El Coyote DOES NOT share the same views as Marjorie.” He stated that 89 families were going to be affected by this boycott and one of the community members screamed out “18,000 families already HAVE been affected!”

It went downhill from there.

The worst part was when Marjorie came out, trembling with fear and sadness, to try to explain herself.

She asked for forgiveness for being SO emotional and said that “El Coyote is as diverse as it’s clientele. Customers are considered part of the family and I responded to the call of the Mormon Church to donate [towards the ban on same sex marriage].”

As she continued to speak it seemed even MORE clear that she was distancing herself from El Coyote.

Marjorie began talking about how much her Aunt had done to support gays and the plight of the GLBT Community since opening the restaurant and asked that “[she] personally take responsability for [the] blame and anger” because she said she was aware of the boycott and pending protest slated for Thursday (tomorrow 11/13) night outside the front restaurant.

The crowd harangued her until she broke down crying and was taken away by her daughters. A pitiful sight, and one that manages to anger me as much the denial of rights based on misguided notions of “protecting” the non-threatened institution of marriage.

The following is addressed to any gay marriage supporter who may be reading this and might be inclined to agree with those attacking this woman. What the HELL are you thinking? You are targeting what by all accounts is a gay friendly business because one single member of the 100 person group is opposed to you? They have pledged $5,000 to two different Gay Rights organizations to demonstrate their support of the community, and you are willing to hang them out to dry because of the actions of one person?

In what universe is this even normal? And the treatment of the individual is not much better. She is a private citizen and you are metaphorically lynching her for donating a modest sum to a cause you oppose. She sounds sincere when she says that she cares for gays. Though I’m aware of the insufficiency of caring for someone you are willing to strip of rights, we aren’t talking about a Fred Phelps here. It looks very much like a bewildered and frightened woman who never dreamed her donation would spark this much vitriol.

What exactly are you aiming to achieve here? Who are you trying to convince? People like Marjorie will not be convinced by an angry mob calling for her head. Her gay friends can and should confront her on a personal level and say how disappointed they are, how personally this hurts them. People who are on the fence will be 100% turned off by this. I’m 100% in the pro-marriage camp and my first impulse was to think that marriage licences should be taken away from everyone, gay or straight, who enjoyed ganging up on this lady. Undecideds can only look at this and decide you are a lot more about hate than love.

Being angry about this is good and normal. Refusing to patronize businesses that have made a clear statement against marriage equality, a perfectly acceptable form of free speech. Ganging up on a lone woman because she holds a view you disagree with profoundly and threatening the livelihood of almost one hundred marginally related people is totally unacceptable. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Note: I’d like to ask commenters to please not turn this into a debate on the issue of marriage itself or homosexuality generally, for good or ill. I am denouncing the tactic. I do not believe that the tactic itself reflects how right or wrong a movement is, but yes how civilized. As an exercise, picture this sort of thing with two different scenarios: one with a subject you feel passionately about in favor, and one against. Try to see if your opinion changes based on the underlying subject. Hint: it shouldn’t

NOTICE TO READERS: Unfortunately, due to the repeated posting of both express and implied threats of violence, we have been forced to close the comments thread.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Good luck with that.

From the ultra-partisan The Corner comes a bit of soul searching. After what must have been at least a whole 3 seconds of thought, the conclusion was reached that grace is for other folks.

Several thoughts are offered in response to the election.

• “Honorable campaigns are for losers”. That’s a direct quote, by the way.
• This one deserves to be quoted:

Good riddance to Liddy Dole, the woman who gave us the national  drinking age of 21 and a host of sozzled underage college students.  She won’t be missed.

Probably the first time I agree with something on The Corner. See, bipartisanship is possible! Yes we can!

• Joe Lieberman is “worse than useless”. Poor Joe, now both Democrats and Republicans hate him. But he has the last laugh, again, since the Democrats need him in the Senate.
• That Republicans should show some class in defeat, “unlike Democrats”. He goes on to entirely slaughter the whole “class thing” by calling them “sneeringly childish”. Very classy.
• Another quotable

Understand, once and for all, that the old media is part of the Democratic Party now.  Ignore it.  Never send Michele Bachmann onto Hardball again.  Never send Sarah to play nice with Katie.  We need to develop and create our own work-arounds — Fox, talk radio, NRO, etc. — and use them.  Don’t play by their rules: make our own.

Every single media outlet that doesn’t agree with us all the time is biased and a mere tool for the Democratic Party. We will respond by expanding our own network of surrogate media arms to ensure that none of our candidates ever face a hostile question again.

If I didn’t know The Corner better, I’d have to forgive them this. Losing is never fun and venting is an entirely natural reaction when you feel like the world is going to a place you don’t want to be. I actually came this close to feeling sorry for them. But then I remembered that they are like this every day, day after day. Like all ultra-partisans, they feed on a seemingly endless supply of outrage. On both the left and right, ideological purity within the blogosphere has created a skewed natural selection that favors the most ideologically pure, the most extreme element.

President Obama (O/T:sorry, but I can’t tell you how good it feels to write that) will have to deal with the demands of ideological purity from his own party by clearly showing whose boss. The Republican party, once it clears the wreckage for the impending civil war, must take care to not let the most extreme of any of it’s (three?) wings take over and destroy the party from within. The tent has gotten small enough, time to make it bigger.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.