NPR has been doing an interesting series this week. They’ve sent out a reporter who is going all across Pennsylvania interviewing people at local food markets. He found a fish shop in Pittsburgh, a market in Lancaster, and some shops in Philadelphia. He sought out Democratic voters to ask them about their thoughts on Clinton vs. Obama.

A lot of the Pennsylvania voters were for Clinton. When asked why, most of them said that they liked Bill Clinton and his policies. A few said they liked how Hillary handled the Lewinsky affair. To me, none of that has anything to do with whether Clinton or Obama would be better for the country.

Then there was the person this morning who was criticizing Obama for not offering specifics. She said she is Jewish, and so Israel is important to her, and Obama hasn’t said anything about helping along the peace process. So I went to barackobama.com, clicked Enter the Site, went to Issues, Foreign Policy, then Israel. Then I clicked on the full fact sheet, which was a full 2 pages on Israel, including far more detail than the voter said she wanted.

I often wonder about these people that say Obama doesn’t have specifics. Just because each speech doesn’t read off a whole lot of information doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have it — it’s all there on the website. I’m sure people that don’t have Internet access could call the Obama campaign and get information, too. It seems Obama ought to do a better job of mentioning this fact at every possible opportunity.

Then I hear a lot of Clinton supporters saying that since Clinton has won states like Ohio in the primaries, she’d do better there in the general election. I think that is a totally facetious argument. Just because Clinton did better with Democrats doesn’t mean that she’d do better in the general election. We can generally assume that the Democratic voters will vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it is. The question is how many independents and Republicans a person can win over.

The author of the xkcd comic has endorsed Obama for president. Among other things, he wrote:

Obama has shown a real commitment to open government. When putting together tech policy (to take an example close to home for xkcd) others might have gone to industry lobbyists. Obama went to Lawrence Lessig, founder of Creative Commons (under which xkcd is published) and longtime white knight in the struggle with a broken system over internet and copyright policy. Lessig was impressed by Obama’s commitment to open systems — for example, his support of machine-readable government information standards that allow citizens’ groups to monitor what our government is up to. Right now, the only group that can effectively police the government is the government itself, and as a result, it’s corrupt to the core. Through these excellent and long-overdue measures, Obama is working to fight this corruption.

Having Larence Lessig as an advisor, instead of some RIAA shill, speaks volumes about the candidate.

Mr. Bush said today:

“The cumulative effect of the election was a thumpin'”

So recently the prime minister of Iraq criticized Israel for a disproportionate response in their attacks against Lebanon. I don’t know his exact words, but in general, I agree with that sentiment.

It’s no big surprise that Bush and Republican leaders have all been rushing to support Israel and taking their sweet time before helping with a ceasefire, and taking plenty of time with that process, too.

So it’s also no big surprise that a number of Washington politicians mustered up a good deal of righteous-sounding moral indigniation at the Iraqi PM. There were some that boycotted his address to Congress today. Lots of fiery rhetoric.

But here’s the surprise: it was the Democrats doing this.

Huh?

The populist party, the one that’s supposed to be valuing life and perhaps has recently started to grow a backbone in opposing ever-broadening war, is now in support of Israel’s tactics?

I think it’s all politics. The Republicans don’t want to criticize the PM because he’s part of the process their party started. And the Democrats want to pander to their base and criticize anything related to an unpopular war.

I don’t think very many people in Washington from either party have genuine ethics these days. They just take whatever moral position they think will win votes.

I can’t understand Bush’s (and the typical Republican position in general) opinion on life issues. He recently said that it is wrong to “destroy life to save life” and that every being is a valuable person in the context of the stem cell debate. He also said last year that 30,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed as a result of the Iraq war.

So, here’s a Handy Chart:

I can’t figure out any possible way that the first two should be OK for someone that believes that the last two are wrong.

In fact, to me, the items in this list that most clearly are wrong are the first two. There is no question about whether life has begun with them. Treating 30,000 people as regrettable results of an operation is not treating them with full human dignity. 30,000 people were killed. That’s more than 10 times the number of deaths from Sept. 11.

I’ve got episode 2 of my new podcast Sound of History online.

It’s been really interesting to find these old recordings. For this episode, I found Kennedy’s famous 1963 speech in West Berlin. I keep being struck with what an amazing orator Kennedy was. It is quite the captivating and amazing speech.

Reagan’s speech to West Berlin in 1987 is also in this episode. It’s three times longer than Kennedy’s, and probably less inspirational, but still an interesting listen.

Next week I’m going to have one of the forgotten opposition speeches, trying to argue against Reagan. Also some good material out there from that perspective.

In other news, ourmedia.org is being terribly annoying. It’s much easier to upload to archive.org directly. I don’t know why I ever bothered with ourmedia.org (or why anyone does, really).

That’s the title of an editorial in the Austin-American Statesman, which begins:

David Gunn, a noted railroad-turnaround specialist who was making solid progress in putting Amtrak, the national rail-passenger system, on the road to financial stability, was unceremoniously fired last week.

Astonishingly enough, Gunn was canned not for doing a bad job, but for doing a good one. Apparently he thought his assignment was to make a success of Amtrak, while the Bush administration seeks Amtrak’s collapse.

And this is my last post on this topic.

Very interesting stuff.

First, a Time investigation into his resume, including statements released by the White House at the time of his nomination. Many of them turn out to be not quite true. He also was fired from not just the horse association, but a law firm as well.

A report on NPR’s Fresh Air yesterday included an interesting interview with a journalist that has done some work on the topic. Among the interesting quotes from Brown are: that he was never told that this hurricane could be any worse than others (untrue, according to the weather forecaster that briefed him), that FEMA had no way of knowing people were at the convention center in New Orleans until 3 days after the hurricane hit (Ted Koppel asked him, “Don’t you have TV? We’ve been reporting on this for days.”)

This guy sounds like a total liar to me. He should be fired immediately, and somebody competant put in charge of this operation.