Obama upholds Faith Policy

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama-faith6-2009feb06,0,2126007.story

So is this good or bad? What does it say about our new President? Has he broken a campaign promise for political purposes, or is it more than that? Was there actually a campaign promise regarding this?

Or, was it an informed decision that changed from the campaign trail to the White House, with new information at his (Obama's) disposal? It seems like this can be viewed a number of ways. On the one hand, it leaves a program in place that George W. put into place, which means that any number of Republicans, especially religious leaders, should applaud him for. On the other hand, Democrats are angry with him about this as they believe Federal funds should not go to any organization that sets hiring criteria based on religion (which opens the door to discriminate against certain sub groups, namely gays, lesbians).

However, he has left himself an out:
"In essence, the executive order, which did not specifically mention discrimination, gives the White House the option to review a specific grant for legal reasons but does not overturn Bush's broader policy."

So on a case by case basis, Obama could theoretically suspend funding if a church was to be deemed discriminatory against the policy of law. Leaving the door wide open for a targetted, specific purge of funds against churches that don't get along with the Administration.

So, good deed, or good way of controlling the churches?

Obama Reviews California Waiver Petition of the EPA

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11559208

President Obama is reviewing a Bush decision that would allow states to go above and beyond the EPA regulations. This may lead to stricter standards required on cars being sold in CA, and add between 400.00 and "thousands" of dollars to the price of a car. It would require greater control of tailpipe emissions.

"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state officials praised Obama's decision to order a swift review of the state's request for a waiver under the Clean Air Act, allowing California to enforce strict limits on tailpipe emissions. At least 14 other states have adopted the California standard, with four more in the process, representing about half the nation's population."

Opponents say this will bankrupt the auto industry, raise the price of cars, and put thousands of auto dealers out of business. Proponents praise the notion, saying that tougher regulation is needed to save our planet. But what might strike one is the idea that States should have more power than the Federal government. That is something to be considered.

What happens when States are given greater leeway to regulate than the Federal regulation? A couple of things. First off, it is allowing the Great Experiment to operate. One of the ideas behind the USA was that different states could operate under different rules, and people could freely move between states if they didn't care for the rules that governed them. So if a particular state had moral laws that one couldn't abide, they could more to a more (or less) restrictive moral state. If one state had a death penalty law, and one didn't want the death penalty, one could move. And so it is for regulating the environment.

So California, and 14 other states that follow California's Clean Air policies want stronger regulations in their states. What is the downside to this? More regulation = more government. But wait, isn't the act of the Bush Administration in blocking the waiver request also more government? Just of the Federal type. So where does the debate lead to? Is it right for 15 states to dictate policy to the Automakers in regards to the emissions? Can individual states, or states as collectives, determine national policy?

It would appear that they can, under Obama. Meaning factions of states, who could conceivably target specific industries and force them to comply with potentially unfair rules that would cause economic damage to them. And yet the alternative is a stronger Federal government. Can there be a middle ground to this argument?

As a final note, something that escapes a lot of notice, is this article here:
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/01/26/federal-govt-shifts-to-hybrids-green-procurement/

This is about an Executive Order from President Bush in 2007 mandating better gas mileage from fleets run by government agencies.

"Bush’s order requires agencies to reduce their overall energy use by three percent annually through 2015 and to cut water consumption two percent annually over the same period. It mandates that agencies expand procurement programs focusing on environmentally friendly products, including bio-based products."

Is it better to tackle emissions issues from a State perspective, or should we allow the Feds to do it?

Obama - Closing Guantanamo

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-01-22-voa53.cfm

So the gist of the story is, Obama is closing Gitmo within a year. And the detainees have to go somewhere. Europeans, who have been nagging Bush since the camp was opened, are appearing somewhat reluctant to take in any of the prisoners (if prisoners they really are, legal status is somewhat nebulous on this batch of people).

So my question is, why should anyone take them in?

Meaning, they are our prisoners, why should we be shipping them off overseas? The whole argument against giving trials to these men is that they are not legitimate prisoners of war in the eyes of the Geneva Conventions. Meaning that they gave up their rights as POWs under the GC, one of which includes having a neutral country take over possession of them. But that is a digression from my main concern.

We took em, we should deal with them.

It is superfically a great thing to close Gitmo. I am not against the camp on general principles, the only thing I take issue with is granting the prisoners rights of Justice. I have heard the argument that they gave up their rights, they are illegal combatants, terrorists, horrible men. But isn't our country built on the notion that "...ALL men are created equal...", not just Americans? If we want to hold our heads high and be proud, yes proud of our country, doesn't it seem like the best way forward is to extend our notions of Right and Fair to the world, instead of acting like in some way we are better than them and can treat our enemies (regardless of their "legal" status) however we want? Including lifelong incarceration without any sort of legal recourse?

Isn't it possible that even one of these men are innocent? It seems that those people who most vociferously deny these prisoners any sort of legal recourse are the same ones who tout the USA as the best country in the world. Dyed in the wool, red blooded, they will take my gun from my cold dead hands, rah rah patriotism ridden, democracy uber alles sort of people who really and truly believe in the American flag. Why is it these are the people who are so reluctant, so afraid to show Justice to these prisoners?

I think the USA is the greatest country on the planet, for good reason. Our principles. Rugged individualism, and recourse against an unfair government. These are the ideals that we should be exporting, and extending to even our most bitter of enemies. Without our principles, we are nothing more than a bunch of thugs.