Decision ’08 Presidential Results

Get the latest on the election right here.

All is well, all is well

Fortunately, things went well on election night. Barack Obama overwhelmed John McCain in the presidential race. He handily defeated McCain in the Electoral College, and had a respectable lead in the popular vote.

The national nightmare is finally over. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, the reign of witches has finally passed over, their spells dissolved and the people, having recovered their true sight, restored the government to its principles.

When Obama gave his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, I predicted he would run for president someday, and he would be the one who could heal the divisions that Bush created. He sees us as Americans, not liberals and conservatives fighting for control.

While his election demonstrates a monumental move toward achieving the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, it unfortunately did not fully dispel all of our country’s racist behavior. For instance, look at the Electoral College map. With the exception of Virgina North Carolina and Florida, the old Confederacy went with McCain, showing that racism is still alive and well in the deep south.

But fortunately enough Americans judged Obama on the content of his character, and now we can move forward from the partisan bickering and rebuild the good will with the rest of the world that the previous president has squandered, along with the nation’s fortune and the blood of its citizens.

Friends of McCain

It’s really easy to see how desperate the McCain-Palin campaign has become.

John McCain and Sarah Palin are resorting to the spaghetti defense: Throwing whatever they can out there and seeing what sticks to Barack Obama. That is why you keep hearing Palin saying that Obama “pals around with terrorists” because he once attended a meeting with William Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground. By that logic, Dubyah pals around with despots every time he goes to the United Nations when Hugo Chavez and other dictators are in town for the opening of the General Assembly.

As the poll numbers are showing, it’s not working. Nor was the whole “Joe the Plumber” schtick about redistributing wealth. In reality, it’s “Sam the unlicensed, deadbeat Plumber.”

But it turns out that there is a candidate in this race the terrorists love. It’s McCain. Al-Qaida, as reported by The Washington Post, has thrown its support behind McCain because he will continue the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration, including tanking the world’s economy. Why waste personnel crashing airliners when you get politicians to do the actual destruction.

Besides, McCain plans to keep the troops in Iraq, leaving al-Qaida alone in Afghanistan so it can rebuild. At least Obama will focus on the real terrorists.

When you go to vote, just ask yourself, do you want a candidate endorsed by our enemies, or the one they’re scared to see in office?

Who’s making the real sacrifices?

President Bush wants people to know that he’s willing to make sacrifices during this time of war.

Dubyah recently told reporters that he decided to show his solidarity for the U.S. troops he put into harm’s way in Iraq by giving up his game of golf.

“I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal,” he said in the interviews.

Gee, thanks. That really means a lot.

A week later, the White House announced that Army Pfc. Ross McGinnis would receive posthumously the Medal of Honor for his actions in Iraq. McGinnins, a gunner on a Humvee, was on patrol when someone threw a grenade into the vehicle. Instead of jumping clear, McGinnis threw himself on the grenade, saving the lives of four men in the rig at the expense of his own life.

For Dubyah to say that giving up golf is a sacrifice is to make a mockery of what people like McGinnis and others are doing.

But what do you expect from a man who has no skin in the game? Are any of his children, nieces or nephews in the war? No. If he really wants to make a sacrifice, he’ll have his relative sent to Iraq and put on the front lines, just like England’s Prince Harry when he was sent to Afghanistan.

But then if he knew his darling daughters would be in harm’s way, Bush would have thought twice about starting an unnecessary war`

Olympic quislings

Jacques Rogge was touted as the leader who would reform the scandal-tainted International Olympic Committee.

At first, it looked like Rogge was a man of his word. At the 2002 Winter Olympics, Rogge chose to stay in the Olympic Village with the athletes, instead of taking up residence at the Grand America Hotel with the rest of the Olympic bluebloods.

But, as the world prepares for the Summer Olympics in Beijing, Rogge has shown his morals are no better than any other Olympic weasel.

Just in case you’re coming out of a coma, let me bring you up to date. The Olympic Torch Run has given the world a forum to blast China for its mistreatment of Tibet. In Paris, protesters managed to quench the torch, despite the fact that it was surrounded by Chinese thugs. In San Francisco, protesters forced organizers to reroute the torch run so the Chinese wouldn’t have to confront the fact that people are not happy with their brutal regime.

Rogge, who is wringing his hands over this “crisis,” warned that any Olympic athlete who tries to make a pro-Tibet statement during the Games will risk losing his or her medals and be ejected. This includes wearing a Tibetan flag or taking one for a victory lap around the stadium. Rogge claims he will clamp down on “propaganda.”

By that grounds, the Olympics should be taken out of China completely. The Chinese are using the Games to whitewash their country to convince the world that they are good people. By using the Games to highlight Chinese accomplishment, they think we will forget the violence in Tibet, the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners or their support for the genocide in Darfur. This is no different than Hitler’s co-opting of the Olympics to promote Aryan superiority (which Jesse Owens scuttled in the track and field events). The torch run, which has become a staple of the modern Olympics, was part of Hitler’s propaganda effort.

But Rogge has no problem with the Chinese using the Olympics to gloss over its atrocious human rights records, but he is bothered if athletes and others attempt to exercise what Thomas Jefferson considered one of the inalienable rights granted us by our Creator, that being the right of free expression.

Instead of meekly submitting to this gag order, every team from a freedom-loving country should incorporate the Tibetan flag into its uniforms. And the leaders of those nations should boycott the Opening Ceremonies, and remind China that it is still a pariah among the nations.

Rogge and other Olympic leaders have demonstrated that the corruption exposed in Salt Lake City not only remains, but it has festered into a cancer. Ideally, the IOC wouldn’t have chosen China, but it has. The only way Rogge can correct that mistake, short of cancelling the Games, would be to allow athletes and others to protest China’s policies.

If Rogge won’t do that, then he shares guilt with the Chinese for the crimes committed against humanity by the people to whom he kowtows.

The right to arm domestic abusers

At the Utah State Capitol, it seems lawmakers believe the Second Amendment trumps a woman’s right not to be beaten up by the man she’s dating.

Rep. David Litvack, D-Salt Lake City, proposed legislation that would let people who are the victims of domestic violence in a dating situation obtain protective orders. Currently, the law only allows spouses and ex-spouses to get restraining orders filed against their abusers.

But the measure went down to defeat, mainly because the ultraconservative members of the Cowboy Caucus were afraid that the accused’s right to own a gun would he harmed. Their logic is that a woman could file a complaint falsely, and these lawmakers wouldn’t want to see someone lose their gun rights on such a spurious charge.

While there’s a possibility a woman could make a false domestic violence accusation, there is also a good chance that a piece of space debris will come down and kill you as you read these words. The point is, it is highly unlikely. Anybody who has followed domestic violence issues knows there is no epidemic of women filing false charges. Rather, the problem is women who refuse to seek help to escape abusive relationships. When a woman seeks a restraining order, there is more than adequate evidence that a crime has been committed. The chances of a false accusation are remote.

The objection raises an interesting question: At what point should we take guns away from pigs who think women should be used as punching bags or treated as property? Must we wait until this so-called man decides to switch from his hands or a blunt instrument to a gun before we decide he’s too irresponsible to have access to deadly weapons? Short tempers or anti-social behavior and firearms nearby are about as safe a mix as gasoline cans and lit candles. The best course is to let the order be issued, the guns confiscated and not give the guns back until these people can prove they are fit to live as responsible citizens in a civilized society.

Any man who beats up a woman he claims to love, whether they’re married or just dating, has forfeited his right to own guns or even to walk freely in society. One would hope that a woman’s right to be safe trumps a lunatic’s right to own a gun.

Unfortunately, in Utah, the lunatics seem to be running the Legislature.

Who’s the crazy one?

A classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting to get a different result each time.

According to Patrick Byrne, most Utahns are insane because they rejected school vouchers in the November election. Byrne is the CEO of Overstock.com and one of the people who bankrolled the program that would take money away from the worst-funded school system in the nation and given it to rich people to put their kids in private schools.

Byrne, who said on election night that Utahns failed an IQ test because they saw through the “school choice” blarney and voted down the vouchers, amended that statement in a recent op-ed piece in The Salt Lake Tribune. He said Utahns failed a sanity test because they have chosen to stick with a public school system he claims only produces ill-educated students.

(This is also the same Byrne who said that minorities who can’t cut it in school should be burned.)

Actually, Byrne and those who support vouchers are the ones who are fitting the definition of insanity attributed to Albert Einstein.

Ever since this harebrained idea was proposed, Utahns have said in no uncertain terms that they do not want public money spent in private schools. Opinion polls over the past seven years demonstrated that the public doesn’t think the solution to an overpopulated underfunded school system is to cut its funding. They know that vouchers would only make the problem worse and create a greater gap between the haves and have-nots.

Utahns also knew that there was no guarantee that private schools would be better. In all likelihood, they could be worse as some would be ideologically driven, with students indoctrinated more than educated.

Referendum 1 was the ultimate statement from the people of Utah that this is a bad idea, and that the state needs to work on improving the public schools, not privatize them. A sane, sensible person would heed that message and change tack.

But not Byrne, nor the misleadingly named Parents for Choice in Education or the editorial board of the Daily Herald, which made a collective fool of itself by printing daily pro-voucher editorials for three weeks before the election and, even now, continues to bang the voucher drum. They know the people are against vouchers, yet they will insist on pushing for them.

That is insanity.

Royal Family truly understands duty

As Michael Moore pointed out in “Fahrenheit 9/11,” few members of Congress, and nobody in the Bush administration have any relatives in the military.

Is it any wonder why Bush and company are so cavalier about sending more troops to Iraq and keeping them there almost forever? As it’s been said, it’s easy to be generous with other people’s money, or in this case, their blood.

They would do well to consider the case of Prince Harry, third in line for the British throne.

The prince happens to be a lieutenant in the Royal Army, and he’s about to be deployed to Iraq with his unit. Harry, or Lt. Wales as his men know him, said he could not in good conscience sit safely in England while his fellow soldiers were risking their lives in Iraq.

You don’t see that sense of duty in any of the Bush clan, or Dick Cheney’s family. But then, if Bush knew his kids or his nephews were going to be on the front line, he’d probably think twice about what we’re doing over there.

While Britain’s royal family would be on “Jerry Springer” if they were out here, this is one case where they have truly outclassed our first family.

For security’s sake?

Now the Transportation Security Administration has a new way to torment American travelers: Confiscate their toilet kits and water bottles.

Reacting to arrests in Britain, the TSA is now confiscating toothpaste, perfume, lip gloss, drinking water, One traveler remarked that Colgate-Palmolive is going to make a fortune as people have to replace the goods that are being confiscated by the White Shirts. Plus, they’re going to check carry-on bags at the gate as well as at the security checkpoint.

On the one hand, one has to wonder why it took terrorists this long to figure out how to use toiletries as weapons. A perfume bottle could easily contain gasoline, Sarin or some other deadly substance.

But on the other hand, is confiscating people’s water bottles, Old Spice cologne or Chap Stick really going to make us all safer? Probably not. It will just give the Republican Party another reason to play the terror card, piss off travelers and allow the airlines to make more money charging the flying public for drinks.

All that needs to be done is to subject liquids to explosives detection tests, the same kind of tests that look for explosive residue on luggage. It’s a matter of just checking the stuff confiscated in Britain and adjusting the detection gear accordingly. It would be easier and more convenient that forcing everyone to give up after shave or trust that the luggage handlers will get it to the right place.

Only a really stupid terrorist is going to try to bring liquid explosives on a plane now. The government’s wise to the strategy and will be expecting it. Have any terrorists tried bringing utility knives or shoe-bombs on planes? No. A good tactician realizes that what worked once before is not guaranteed to work again, especially if your opponent is expecting it.

Also, what good does checking carry-on luggage at the gate accomplish? Supposedly the gate area is secure, that nothing comes in without being checked by the security screeners at the checkpoint. Either the TSA is realizing that hiring high-school dropouts to do security work isn’t a great idea, or this is a Bush administration attempt to keep the public scared and voting for the GOP. The fact that the public is disgusted with the war in Iraq means the GOP has to fall back on terrorism.

While I’m grateful that a terrorist plot was foiled, it should not be an excuse for security guards to become more overbearing or the administration to once again play the fear card.

Ignoring the real threat

The situation in the Middle East, specifically with Iraq and Iran, reminds me of a scene from the novel Fail-Safe.

In the anti-nuclear war book, a squadron of U.S. bombers is accidentally sent on a mission to bomb Moscow. At one point, there are just two planes left in the air, and U.S. officials are helping the Russians track them in hopes of correcting a mistake that could trigger World War III. The problem is, only one of the planes has a nuclear payload. The other plane carries electronic countermeasures to clear a path through the enemy defenses for the bombers.

Even though U.S. Air Force officials told the Soviets the plane they were targeting was not the one with the bomb, the Soviet Air Force shot down the unarmed plane. This blunder allowed the nuclear-armed one to continue its deadly mission and force the U.S. president to make a horrific decision to avert a global nuclear holocaust.

We made a similar blunder in the Middle East.

Iraq and Iran were two-thirds of President Bush’s “Axis of Evil,” the rogue states that were supposedly developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. In case anyone’s forgotten, North Korea was the third member of that troika.

So, which member of that unholy trinity did we decide to blow off the map and attempt to reconstruct in our own image? The one that didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction.

(For you Fox News Channel fans, that’s Iraq.)

By concentrating all our attention and effort on the weakest member of that axis, the United States gave Iran and North Korea not just time to develop their nuclear weapons program, but justification to pursue such a course of action. North Korea and Iran’s leaders can argue that they need nuclear weapons to defend themselves against the military might of a belligerent United States that attacks its global neighbors with no provocation.

What we should have done was impose the same sanctions on Iran and North Korea that we did on Iraq: Limited trade and assistance until we are satisfied that the illegal weapons programs are completely dismantled. It worked in Iraq, as we learned after overturning Saddam Hussein’s regime and finding absolutely no nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

Bush’s ill-timed war has merely exacerbated the problem of weapons of mass destruction in the world, not solved it. It will be up to Bush’s successor to make the hard decision that will correct this mistake.