Finally!!

After a grueling 2 year campaign and what seemed like an eternity between Election Day and Inauguration Day, Barack Obama is now the President of the United States. I still get choked up when I see other people getting choked up.

It is not that we haven't had Presidents that appealed to the younger generation or Presidents that were outsiders who promised change in the way we do Government. I mean Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and even Ronald Reagan were all met with enthusiasm at that level. But when you throw in the significance of Barack Obama being the first African-American President, it just becomes overwhelming.

I was especially moved by the pictures from overseas where they showed people watching the inauguration and then talking about how great America is. It was like the days immediately after 9/11. The world once again has hope in America.

Of course, nothing in politics is without controversy. The oath could have gone maybe a little smoother. Would it have killed Justice Roberts to just jot it down? I mean, I know he has a Harvard education in Constitutional law and is the Chief Justice of the United States, but I would not have thought any less of him if he had to read the oath from a piece of paper. I do however think just a little less of him for botching such a significant moment in history.

Leave it to Fox News's Chris Wallace to actually imply that Obama is not really President and that this may, "end up in the courts". What? Come on. Even if we concede that the oath was not verbatim as written in the constitution and therefore was not valid, why would it have to go to the courts? Wouldn't giving Obama the oath again, as they did, resolve the issue? Did Chris Wallace think that Obama would refuse take the oath again or something.

While Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are right wing nut jobs, I generally try to believe that the actual news being reported on Fox News is 'Fair and Balanced', but when one of their anchors makes such statements I have to shake my head a little bit.

That aside, Obama is now the President of the United States. I have put a lot of faith in his abilities. He shows a lot of promise. He has a lot of support. No pressure or anything, but he better not let me down.

Not Right

Most of my blog has been dedicated to political opinions. On some level this entry may also be considered political, but at its core this event was just wrong and I find it very disturbing.

I am embedding a video in this post and I will warn you that while it is not graphic, it contains bad language and at 1:26 into the video a man is shot. This man has since died of his injuries. I will provide my account the situation below so I leave it to you to decide if you wish to watch the video.

For starters, here is the video.



What follows next is my account of the situation. If you watched the video and/or do not wish to read my full account, then feel free to skip this section.

The location of this event is a subway platform in the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) system. A few BART police officers have detained at least 5 people. The train is stopped and our point of view is from the train. We are watching along with all other travelers. We cannot hear what is being said between the officers and those being detained.

To the left of the screen is a man that is apparently handcuffed and lying on his back. His legs are extended in front of him and he is propping himself up by his elbows. He is visibly separated from the other detainees and, possibly because he is handcuffed, the police pay little attention to him during this video.

There are four other men sitting against the far wall of the platform with police standing in front of them. They are not handcuffed. The first man wears a hat and his hands are held above his head. The second man is the victim of the shooting. As the video starts he is sitting with his hands at his side. The third man is also just sitting with his hands at his side. The fourth man is only visible for parts of the video, but he mostly sits still. From my perspective it seems the police are going working their way from man to man searching and handcuffing each.

I do not claim to know anything about why these men are being detained. That is really irrelevant when weighed against what transpires. I have seen other videos from different angles and it is clear that the police were outnumbered and at one point some bystanders approached the officers. More police showed up and, between the outnumbered police and the crowd screaming from the train, the situation looked very sensitive.

After several moments of discussions, and possibly negotiations, between the officers and the detainees, two of the officers pull one man to the ground. They hold him on the ground for several seconds. The man is face down. One officer holds his back, or legs, and the other has his left knee on the man's neck.

There is movement by the officers and it appears that the officer at his legs is doing a standard search for weapons and such. The officers do not appear to be in distress and none of the other officers come to their aid. There is, in fact, a third officer standing right next to them talking on his radio. He never makes any attempt to assist the other officers so I have to believe there was no belief that they were in danger. Again, keep in mind that it is not possible to hear what is being said between these officers and the man on the ground.

While holding the man on the ground, the officer holding the man's legs stands suddenly and starts to draw his gun. At the same time, the other officer takes his left leg off the man's neck, turns, and puts his other knee on the man's neck. All the while, the man is still lying on the ground. For the instant while the officer at his head is changing position and the officer at his legs is drawing his gun, the man is not being physically restrained. Yet, I do not see him make any attempt to get up or resist the officers.

Just as the officer puts his knee to the mans neck again, the other officer finishes draw his gun, holds it for a second and then shoots the man in the back. The officer that had been holding the detainee's neck jumps up. The officer that was talking on the radio stops talking on the radio and puts his hand on his gun.



And now my opinion on this tragedy.

All I can say is that I saw nothing in this video to justify this man being shot IN THE BACK. Even if the man was resisting, he didn't seem to be resisting very hard. Was shooting this man in the back really the only course of action here?

A BART spokesman said there was more to this than what can be seen in the video. If that is the case, then they better start talking soon because the public is already forming their opinions. The public has staged protests, which devolved into a riot. This should show how sensitive this issue is.

I have heard reports that the officer mistook his gun for his Taser. I will admit that, from the look on the officer's face after he fires his gun, he almost appears shocked at what he just did. That being said, I find it hard to believe that a trained police officer, who took several seconds to grab his weapon, could mistake one for the other. Even after he drew his gun he paused for several seconds before actually firing.

And if he did draw the wrong weapon, I still question whether or not the victim was doing anything that warranted even the Taser.


That is really all I have to say at this point. We will see what the BART Police office does in the next few days.

Bailout debates

So we now have a bailout for the financial industry on the order of $700billion. We also have a bailout for the auto industry in the neighborhood of $15billion. That is wonderful. I will sleep so much better knowing that these executives that ran their companies into the ground will be able to continue earning their money.

It is amazing how Bush and his cronies can speak about capitalism and free market and small government, but when his fellow members of the upper class are in trouble, all that goes by the wayside and suddenly the government needs to step in.

Now I do not have a problem with the government helping out business that are in trouble, but only if the businesses are faltering for reasons beyond their control. As an example, back in 2001, the government provided some relief to the airline and tourism industries. Based on the events of 9/11, these industries suffered great losses. I do not have a problem helping out these businesses given the circumstances.

I did have some reservations regarding the assistance given to the airline industry because they overextended themselves and were already hurting before 9/11. However, since 9/11 really prevented any hope of them getting out of trouble on their own, I accepted the situation.

The downturn in the economy in 2008 is the direct result of lenders giving bad loans. These are people whose business it is to identify acceptable risks and provide money to consumers that they are confident can pay it back. Because these companies rode a wave of greed and gave loans that should never have been given, they found themselves on the losing end of the gamble. There were no circumstances beyond their control forcing them to give bad loans.

I don't care what anyone says about government policies desiring more loans to minorities or games being played with interest rates. The bottom line is these companies make the final decisions regarding who they will give money to. If they give a bad loan, then the fault is theirs and theirs alone. I am not sure making bad decisions is enough justification for government assistance.

So what about the auto industry?

Because the financial industry gave bad loans, the industry collapsed. They were then unable and/or unwilling to give loans to anyone with anything but exceptional credit -- a knee jerk reaction serving only to demonstrate how incapable the executives are at managing their businesses. The problem is that industries such as the auto and housing markets rely on consumers being able to get financing. When loan money was no longer available, these industries began their collapse.

The auto industry has only themselves to blame for continuing to sell gas guzzlers while Toyota and Honda saw the future of hybrids. If that were the only reason they were struggling, then I could not justify it, but I am okay with them getting a little help to see them through.

Through all of this my only real concern is the individual. While all of these industries are getting their bailout money, who is bailing out the consumer? Who is protecting their jobs? The workers at Merrill-Lynch and Goldman-Sachs had no say in the decisions that were made, yet they are the ones in the unemployment line. The assembly line workers at GM cannot control which cars the executives decide to build, but it is they who see their pensions disappear. Where is their bailout?

If I make a bad decision that costs me money, then I am just stuck. Yet and executive at a company can make a bad decision and can run to the government for help. Something is not right about that.

I am fine with bailouts, but I think they should be focused on saving the jobs and pensions of the people that are doing the work. The bailouts should simply be a way to protect the workers while the company goes through bankruptcy.

I will be glad to see what the Obama administration plans to do to help the people that really need it.