One year later…

Barack Hussein Obama became the President-Elect of the United States one year ago tomorrow. It’s a handy yardstick, even though it doesn’t mark a full year in office, and I think it’s worth comparing his accomplishments so far with George W. Bush’s.

In terms of legislation, in all of 2001, Bush signed:

• June 7: Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
• September 18: Authorization for Use of Military Force
• September 28: United States-Jordan Free Trade Area Implementation Act
• October 26: USA PATRIOT Act
• November 28: Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act

In 2009, Obama signed:

• January 29: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
• February 4: Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act
• February 11: DTV Delay Act
• February 17: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
• March 30: Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009
• April 21: Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act
• May 20: Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act
• May 20: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009
• May 22: Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009
• June 22: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
• August 6: Cash For Clunkers Extension Act
• October 22: Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act
• October 28: Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
• October 30: Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act

Now lest you think I’m giving Obama the edge solely on quantity, I’d like to note that I am, as a rule, in favor of less legislation. I recently expressed to a friend my desire to drop back to the Constitution (plus its amendments) and start the legal system over from there. But the content of the legislation passed under Obama speaks volumes.

Each president signed some form of economic booster legislation. In each case, it was ideologically motivated, and quite frankly I have my doubts about the effectiveness of either. If you, as a government, claim to believe in the power of capitalism, it helps to… you know… believe in capitalism. It may not be pretty, but the market will eventually sort itself out. Violently changing the system by adding (or trying to add) huge amounts of government or consumer spending to it mostly muddies the water and strings along an economy that is long overdue for a collapse and subsequent rebuilding. Think of it as the equivalent of preventing skyscrapers from collapsing in an earthquake by building other skyscrapers to support them. It may work for a while, but eventually it’s all going to fall down.

Bush’s other signatures went, respectively, to an authorization of military force (arguably necessary, but perhaps a wee bit rushed), a free trade agreement that has led to an increase in sweatshop conditions, the PATRIOT Act (a piece of Big Brother-esque legislation that cynically took advantage of the fear felt by many Americans after the September 11th attacks), and an act that predominantly extended anti-internet-tax laws that were already in place.

I appreciate that I have the advantage of hindsight in examining Bush’s freshman legislative agenda. I would even enjoy the minimalism of it, were it not for the PATRIOT Act’s overarching reach. Nevertheless, let’s examine Obama’s freshman legislation.

Aside from the economic stimulus bill, Congress under Barack Obama has (among other things) lifted the ban on using federal money for stem cell research, helped ensure the rights of women to receive equal pay, extended existing health insurance programs to more children, expanded AmeriCorps, improved consumer rights regarding credit cards (although admittedly only for new contracts, once the law goes into effect in February), provided for the veterans’ health care budget to be decided a year in advance to ensure care can be provided, reauthorized an act ensuring care for HIV/AIDS victims, and extended hate crime legislation to cover crimes committed on the basis of a victim’s sexual identity (while simultaneously reaffirming First Amendment rights and stripping a death penalty clause that had been included in a previous version of the bill).

I have mixed feelings about hate crimes laws; they do tend to run up against freedom of speech issues, and they look a little bit like double jeopardy. Existing laws against violence really should be sufficient to prevent hate violence. On the other hand, hate crime legislation is generally passed to help protect those who are in the minority or who otherwise lack the power to defend themselves, which is something I can absolutely stand behind.

None of that is my point, though. During George W. Bush’s freshman session, Congress stripped away rights from individuals, libraries, and academic institutions. During the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency, Congress has taken a progressive stance, extending rights to those who lack them and protecting the American people from hateful and predatory entities within our own borders.

I know which of those agendas I prefer.

(originally published at Chasing Sunsets)

Recalculating…

The amount I’ve been writing has increased substantially recently. Keep an eye out for posts to start up again here in the near future. I guarantee nothing, but it seems likely.

New Tablet Scuttlebutt

Well, word is going ’round again about an Apple tablet. This time, the sound byte involves an October release, a 9.7″ touchscreen, and an $800 pricepoint. WinTek is also mentioned once again.

The constant repetition of the same rumor reminds me of the run up to the announcement of the iPhone. I think now, as I did when I started this blog, that we will definitely see this device. I wouldn’t be at all surprised about a September or October release.

The most interesting possibility I’ve encountered is the suggestion that Apple’s acquisition of PA Semi may lead to the tablet (still hoping it’ll be called the MacBook Touch, myself) running on a proprietary Apple processor. Until Apple straight up announces a new processor, though, anyone who believes this part of the rumor is taking an awful lot on faith.

Real Change

In the 2008 presidential election, voters of my generation turned out overwhelmingly in favor of now-President Barack Obama. The media says—and I agree—that we did so because we have been exposed to more than eighteen years of divisive, polarized politics. Partisan hackery is all the voters of my generation have ever known. An articulate and intelligent man promising change—promising to end that partisan hackery—reignited our idealism. Barack Obama guaranteed himself our vote with promises of a new Washington.

Half a year later, it’s hard to see what progress he’s made. From the closing of Guantanamo to the illegal wiretapping performed by the Bush administration, Obama has toed the establishment line on important issues that had earned him the vote of the iGeneration. His fiscal policy, like that of the majority of Washington politicians, is indeed a form of socialism—or, more accurately, social democracy; the Washington establishment abandoned its claim to anything resembling true capitalism when it branded financial institutions, and worse, large businesses, ‘too big to fail’—if not long before. The Obama administration has made no effort to prosecute the criminals of the Bush administration, and from all reports the largest change Obama has made in the White House since taking office is a sartorial one: the dress code has been relaxed in the most powerful building in the world. Whether or not you’re in favor of formal dress, that’s a poor decision issue to be famous for as the President of the United States.

Some may point out that Obama is at least articulate and intelligent and doesn’t practice cowboy diplomacy, that he at least uses hope instead of fear to gain support, and these things are true. However, the last eight years have made many of us forget that a president bright enough to understand national security briefings and remain friendly with the civilized world, a president capable of leading with hope instead of threatening with fear, should not be a luxury, but our basic expectation for the position. Although I for one am truly grateful to once again be able to claim such a president, I would remind my fellow Americans that we should not rate a merely competent president more highly than he deserves simply because he follows an incompetent one.

In retrospect, Obama’s indebtedness to the political establishment seems apparent. His rise to the presidency was meteoric, and began, for most of us, with his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention during the 2004 presidential elections. I predicted then, without benefit of any political party’s polling numbers, that Barack Obama would run in and win the 2008 election. If I predicted it as a seventeen-year-old, we can rest assured that the Democratic Party was more than aware of his ability to sway voters and win elections. His keynote address that year was the Party’s way of introducing him into the public eye. He was already being groomed then by diehard members of the Democratic political establishment for a run at the presidency. The image of change he projected during the 2008 electoral campaign was carefully calculated and chosen by his staffers and the Democratic Party at large as the one most likely to win the election for him—no more.

Obama’s challenger, John McCain, had been part of the Washington political establishment for far longer. Except perhaps for the blatant idiocy of McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, no part of the 2008 election was a real danger to the status quo in Washington. Regardless of the result, the man who moved into the White House would be a man picked and groomed by the Washington power brokers to fill the most powerful seat on Earth. He would not be a true outsider. There would be no real change.

And so we come to the most important questions the iGeneration has faced so far. Willingly blind as we were to his establishment ties, we still have the right to be angry at Obama for so glibly accepting our support; we still have the right to be angry at the Washington political establishment for maintaining a two-party system that is nearly as restrictive and choice-denying as a one-party system. We still have the right to be disappointed in ourselves for accepting the stories of change they told us without question.

But in the face of our disappointment, will we remember that we have these rights? In the flow of our anger, will we accept the responsibility to disempower the Washington establishment that has so blunted our political rights and replace it with a system worth supporting?

In the final estimation, will we be the generation that brings real change to Washington?

WinTek Again

World of Apple reports that Digitimes reports that Apple has chosen WinTek to provide touchscreens for an ‘upcoming e-book form factor netbook product’.

You may recall this from the last time someone posted it without evidence, back in March. While I still maintain that the MacBook Touch will exist, it’s probably worth taking this particular report with a healthy dose of sodium chloride.

Ω