Impressive!

I've got a few thoughts swirling in my head of things I'm not happy about with the current administration, such as their adoption of the same bigoted defense of DOMA, their recent attempts to keep the visitors logs to the White House secret, and one other that's popped out of my head right now.

But today they did something which might just be really clever (or might just be a coincidence), and I wanted to say something now, so that if I turn out to be right, I can say "I told you so" (and if it doesn't, most likely no one will remember I said it. ;-) ).

I think Obama has found a way to make the fiscal conservatives support gay marriage. Really.

So far, Obama has left the political hot-potato of same-sex marriage lying in the coals, not wanting to burn himself, but he did just take the somewhat less politicall charged step of extending benefits to same sex partners of government workers.

Now of course the logical response to that is "But then what keeps the average single guy from claiming his roommate is his 'partner' to gain benefits?". I think that's unlikely to be a large problem, I think the combination of the basic honesty of most people and the "ick factor" for most straight people at claiming to be gay will keep the numbers of swindlers and con artists down (although they will exist). But it is still a possibility.

And so what is the answer? It is "we have no way of restricting it, because same sex couples can't marry, this is the only way we could be fair to them in benefits". Sure, some people will argue that the benefits should never have been offered, or should be rescinded to solve the problem, but having been offered, I suspect that there would be some very successful lawsuits if the benefits were rescinded.

This leaves the only practical result for the fiscal conservatives (those who are primarily fiscal, not social, conservatives) to be to come out for same-sex marriage, so that if Joe wants to get medical benefits for his worthless lazy roommate Steve, they'll have to actually have a ceremony, put Joe at risk of Steve taking half his stuff in a divorce, etc.

Really, if I'm right, over the next few months as we see people coming out against these benefits because of the abuse factor, they're playing right into the hands of the gay marrage folks.

Pretty slick, Mr. Obama!

Not good...

I subscribe to news alerts from several newspapers. One of them is the New York Times, which hit me with this little blurb recently:

* * *

U.S. Could Let Detainees Plead Guilty Without Trials

The Obama administration is considering a change in the law for the military commissions at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, that would clear the way for detainees facing the death penalty to plead guilty without a full trial.

The provision could permit military prosecutors to avoid airing the details of brutal interrogation techniques. It could also allow the five detainees who have been charged with the Sept. 11 attacks to achieve their stated goal of pleading guilty to gain what they have called martyrdom.

* * *

This seems, to me, to be a really stupid idea, on top of being yet another violation of the core principles which make our country great.

I dislike this on principle. Everyone gets their day in court, even those who want to plead guilty. That's the way our country works, it always has been, and while the court is likely to find someone guilty who is bound and determined to plead that way, there are certainly cases where the court has determined that the person on trial was either not mentally competant to plead guilty, or had reasons political rather than justice on their minds during the pleading.

But on top of this, how stupid is this? These people want to become martyrs, they've stated as much. If we try them in a fair trial, convict them and execute them, then justice is served, even if it does allow them to become martyrs.

But if we kill someone without a trial, even someone who asked to have it happen, we play into the worst stereotypes the Muslim world has about us, that we're "the great satan", that we're "at war with Islam", and that our way of life is not just or pure.

We need to stop this increasing tendency to view our laws as inconveniences and obstacles to be overcome, rather than as vital foundations to the strength and greatness of our nation.

Broadway? How DARE he?

OK, enough of the "how DARE the Obamas go to NY to see a Broadway show" complaints that seem to be everywhere in the last couple of days.

Presidents are human, they have the right to a social life just like everyone else. If it becomes excessive, that's a problem. If it happens during an emergency, that's a problem.

But the complaint seems to be the cost to the taxpayers, so let's think about this...

Why does the President going anywhere cost the taxpayers money? Because we live in a society where high profile people have targets painted on their chests. And if you don't believe that, take a look at the weekend's news about Dr. Tiller, the abortion doctor murdered in cold blood which at church.

Like it or not, with the inflamatory nature of cable news, talk radio and the blogosphere, there are people out there who turn a philosophical difference of opinion into a justification for a holy war.

An abortion doctor is murdered after what could almost be classified as negligent urging on the part of several high profile conservative pundits, the same people who speak of "Obama the Muslim" and "Obama the socialist" and "Obama, who we'd better hope fails or he's going to destroy our country". Add in to that the fact that Obama is of African descent, which makes him a target of the bigoted racist loons in our country, and you have a focal point that some crazy people will convince themselves would be not merely acceptable to assassinate, but actually laudible.

This has been a problem for years, but most prominently in the age of the blog and tv and talk radio.

The tax payers provide security for the President not because he demands it, but because the nature of the job demands it.

I was a big denigrator of the previous President spending record shattering amounts of time "on vacation" at his Crawford, TX ranch, but it never was about the cost to the tax payers (I hope, if it did, I was wrong). The President flies in Air Force One not because he necessarily demands to be treated that way, but because the Secret Service requires it, Air Force One being one of the most technologically secure modes of transportation available.

So what this past weekend comes down to is a man who had promised to take his wife to a show making good on that promise. If I take a day off from work and drive or fly my wife down to Broadway to see a show, it's no big deal. If my job requires high security and my employer decides to pay someone to drive us down there and act as body guard, that doesn't mean I've recklessly chosen to cost my company money, it merely means that I've lived my life and, as a separate matter, it has been determined that my life requires extra protection.

That's it.

If Obama starts spending one week out of four in Hawaii with his family, or back in Chicago, we can certainly call him to task for it. If he starts taking month long vacations every year, or being on vacation while a national emergency is unfolding, absolutely he should be held to task.

But let's not forget that he's still a human being, he's still doing a job, and he still has a right to leisure activities.