Restitutor Orbis

Environmentalism impacts our lives in many ways - sometimes unexpected. We many of us recycle - some more than others, with it being understood that different communities can hinder or advance efforts at recycling. It can be particularly difficult in apartment buildings, as I've discovered. Where I am now, recycling reduces my garbage output by a good 33%. It makes a noticeable dent in what I throw out, even being limited to type 1 and 2 plastics.

We're also all familiar with the need to not leave all our lights on, and vampire-energy and so forth, and the evils of big SUV's and other gas-guzzlers.

But now they're after our TVs. I just read on Saturday that "California assails TV power usage" and that a "one-third cut" has been mandated by 2011.

The problem is that the big new flat-panel TVs, though lighter and easier on my back, suck up more power than the old fashioned cathode-ray tubes of yesteryear. TV's account, they say, for 10% of household electrical use if you include "related devices" like digital recorders and game consoles.

Egads, they'll be after our games next, and my gods' given right to record programming for later viewing. The Consumer Electronics Association, as might be expected as an outfit representing manufacturers, disagrees with the 10% figure and says 3% is more reasonable.

Personally, I'm more worried about my back than the power.

Even so, I wasn't consulted and California has decided that there be limits on TVs over 58 inches wide.

So they're shooting for a one-third reduction by 2011 and a one-half reduction by 2013. Those that can't meet the standards won't be allowed in CA. I wonder if they'll stop you at the border when you're moving into the state and make you throw your TV into the desert if it's too big.

And that's not all. Washington, Oregon, and Massachusetts, along with Canada and Australia, are considering similar measures.

My biggest TV is 42 inches. Just upgraded from 27. So I'm set even in California, but it's not about me.

Well, okay, it's about me, but it's about a lot of other things as well - where do we draw the line, for instance, between consumer rights and the needs of the environment? What becomes necessary? And how much can we justify in the way of government interference?

The environment is a precious thing. We only have one. I'm a Heathen - a Pagan if you will - and Pagan religions are nature religions, as all original religions were. We have a good healthy respect for the environment. That's perhaps natural when you understand that we live in a world filled with the divine.

As such, I try to be careful. I try not to drive when I don't have to. I don't leave unnecessary lights on. In short, I follow Solon's advice: Nothing in excess. Or, as it is put in the Icelandic Sagas, "A wise man does all things in moderation" (Thorkel in Gisli Sursson's Saga).

If everybody lived according to these rules, we could go a long way towards voluntarily resolving some of the problems we are now seeing legislated against. As we go on, we may see more extreme measures taken to protect the environment.

And they will likely be necessary. The problem is, most of the burden falls on the individual in this country. Very little in the way of regulations control what industry does to our environment. They have power lobbyists in Washington. They practically own members of Congress.

So industry pollutes and we lose our big TVs.

Now being a moderate guy, I can probably live without a TV bigger than 58 inches. Honestly, I don't have the wall space for more than that unless I finish my basement.

Will that be next? You can't finish basements because the construction process pollutes? Or will it harm some heretofore unknown microbe that dwells in the cracks of the concrete.

Excess, you see, can go many ways, not only in individuals who might be careless environmentally, or in businesses which remain unregulated, but in governments - even environmentalists, who resort to extreme solutions where moderation might suffice.

I've seen some crazy things over recent years. Crazier even than wanting to take away our TVs (and you don't see an NRA-like group protecting our TVs do you?). I would just like to see common-sense, moderation prevail.

I don't think that's too much to ask, or to expect - from all sides.

Rush Limbaugh seems to have assumed control of the Republican Party as of Michael Steele's surrender. Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee had this weekend called Limbaugh an “entertainer” whose comments are “ugly.”

"I'm the de facto leader of the Republican Party."

"Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh's whole thing is entertainment," Steele told CNN. "Yes, it is incendiary. Yes, it is ugly."

Of course, like every other conservative who has criticized Limbaugh, he quickly back-peddled when called to task by the GOP's pope. It took all of 3 minutes. it took Steele about 3 minutes to backpedal; he contacted the radio host to say he was sorry that he had told the truth (that Rush is an entertainer) and that he has enormous respect for Limbaugh.

It turns out that what he actually meant was that a lot of people want to make Limbaugh the “bogeyman” when he’s not. Now the de-testicled Steele says that he has spoken with Pope Rush and “we are all good.”

Nice to know where the buck stops in the GOP hierarchy! We would hate to mistake the party's chairman as somebody who actually has any authority.

It is difficult to believe all this has taken place, that an entertainer, a radio show host, has taken control of one of our two major political parties. Can you imagine Johnny Carson running things? The man isn't even reputable. He makes John Stewart and Stephen Colbert look like reputable journalist. If you wrote this in a novel, nobody would believe it.

Of course this can only be good news for Obama and the Democratic Party. This is, after all, what Obama wanted. He is the one who appointed Rush, if you will remember. Rush will keep the party so extreme that they will rapidly lose any credibility still remaining to them. The last thing the Democrats need is a reputable figure running things over there.

EDIT (3.4.09): The Democratic Congressional Committee (DCC) has a nifty little DIY "Republican Apology Machine" which allows you to generate a letter of apology to Rush Limbaugh. You can find it here.

They offer the following snippets which I didn't have time to add last night:

Republicans who've dared to criticize Rush only to beg for his forgiveness:

Michael SteeleRNC Chairman Michael Steele:

Rush is not the head of the Republican Party. He's an "entertainer" whose show is "incendiary" and "ugly."

I'm Sorry, Rush
"My intent was not to go after Rush - I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh [...] I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. [...] There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership."

And...

Congressman Phil GingreyCongressman Phil Gingrey (R-GA):

"I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don't have to try to do what's best for your people and your party."

I'm Sorry, Rush
I clearly ended up putting my foot in my mouth on some of those comments and I just wanted to tell you, Rush, [...] that I regret those stupid comments.

And...

Gov. Mark SanfordGovernor Mark Sanford (R-SC):

"Anybody who wants [President Obama] to fail is an idiot, because it means we're all in trouble..."

I'm Sorry, Rush
Sanford’s Communications Director, said that "the governor was not referring to anyone" in particular.

And to this we can soon add Congressman Eric Cantor. You can be sure of it.

Politico also has a piece on Limbaugh and White House influence on his role as leader of the Republican Party: Rush Job: Inside Dems' Limbaugh Plan

Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House.

The strategy took shape after Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned their longtime tormentor was deeply unpopular with many Americans, especially younger voters. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were showering him with praise.

Soon it clicked: Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.

It is the fourth day of the new Era. I can easily understand ancient dating systems that were reckoned according to the reign of a king. That is how clear the demarcation between January 19th and January 20th seems. Where nothing was possible before, everything seems possible now, and no critics have so far managed to rain on my parade. People are too quick to judge. No matter what Obama does, some will say he acted rashly, and others will say he acted too slowly. But it's the nature of people to think they know better (including me) as well as to be impatient. And can you blame them after the eight years we have endured?

There are concerns among some that Obama's executive orders of yesterday left too much wiggle room - too many things on the table that should not be on the table. For example, the army manual will be examined to see if anything needs to be changed. The ACLU fears methods might be added to the 19 methods of approved interrogation that could lead to further abuses and violation of international law. Apparently even the "isolation" of a prisoner is against international law and that is one of the 19 methods approved of by the army manual. An army general stated that it's much ado about nothing, that the military is constantly re-assessing its tactics and methods to improve them. I suppose this is one of those times we will have to wait and see what happens. Like the ACLU, I'm hopeful. We've been a rogue nation long enough and I do not believe Obama intends to further the alienation begun under Bush.

The big news today is the signing by Obama of another executive order, this one revoking the so-called "Mexico City policy" - a rule which prohibits U.S. money from going to international family planning groups that promote abortion or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion services - first put in place by President Reagan in 1984, then canceled by President Clinton in January of '93 as one of his first acts in office, only to be reinstated by President George W. Bush in 2001 as one of his first acts. Obviously, the conservatives are unhappy over this but CNN tells us that "The group Population Action International praised Obama's move, saying in a statement that it will "save women's lives around the world."

Something is being made of the fact that Obama chose today - one day after the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade - to sign this order. Other presidents have chosen that day to act, and it has been suggested that Obama deliberately held off one day to show so-called "pro-life" groups that he is not looking for a fight. I doubt Obama is that naive. He will get a fight either way. The abortion opponents (I simply can't grant them their self-styled title of "pro-life") offer no quarter and no compromise. It seems to have been the only real platform of the Republican base in this past election, and it is certain to resurface in 2012.

Also arguing against this interpretation are Obama's own words yesterday. According to CNN Obama said that Roe v. Wade

"not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters."

On the international front, there are complaints that Obama is continuing the policies of his predecessor with reports Friday (unconfirmed by US officials) of U.S. drones striking militant targets in Pakistan and killing 17 people. Here is the interview former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf gave to CNN's Wolf Blitzer:

Perhaps there will be more news by tomorrow that will affirm or reject these claims.

All in all, though less newsworthy, this fourth day of Obama's presidency has been quite satisfying.

It is Day 3 of the presidency of Barack Obama. I get an almost giddy feeling even typing that, as though it's a dream I never quite thought would come true. But it has, and it is difficult not to bask in the reality of it.

The New York Times provides a nice analysis this morning of Obama's first day as President, On Day One, Obama Sets a New Tone discussing and analyzing the president's initial moves and their importance in setting the tone of his administration. Another offering from the New York Times that is worth a read is Nicholas D. Kristof's The Remaking of America. Kristof makes the following memorable remark:

A BBC poll in 17 nations found that on average 67 percent believed that President Obama would improve America’s relations with the rest of the world; just 5 percent thought the opposite (or maybe feared that if they seemed critical of George W. Bush, they would be waterboarded).

Perhaps the biggest news of the day is the signing by Obama of an executive order to close Gitmo - Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - within a year. CNN reports that

During a signing ceremony at the White House, Obama reaffirmed his inaugural pledge that the United States does not have "to continue with a false choice between our safety and our ideals."

Two other executive orders followed the first:

A second executive order formally bans torture by requiring that the Army field manual be used as the guide for terror interrogations. That essentially ends the Bush administration's CIA program of enhanced interrogation methods.

This is a positive step, and one that I cannot praise too highly. And finally,

A third executive order establishes an interagency task force to lead a systematic review of detention policies and procedures and a review of all individual cases.

Obama says this task force will "provide me with information in terms of how we are able to deal (with) the disposition of some of the detainees that may be currently in Guantanamo that we cannot transfer to other countries, who could pose a serious danger to the United States."

Clearly, it will take more to close Gitmo than simply assertion a will to do so. The illegalities of the Bush administration has made the fate of some of the prisoners there highly problematic. They have already been denied due process. They may be guilty, but how can we try them now? I saw it suggested yesterday on MSNBC that some of them may end up being sent home to be tried by their own governments. It may well be that there are two choices, neither of them being "good" and "better."

Two additional executive orders followed:

A second executive order formally bans torture by requiring that the Army field manual be used as the guide for terror interrogations. That essentially ends the Bush administration's CIA program of enhanced interrogation methods.

This is another positive step. And finally,

A third executive order establishes an interagency task force to lead a systematic review of detention policies and procedures and a review of all individual cases.

Obama says that this task force will "provide me with information in terms of how we are able to deal (with) the disposition of some of the detainees that may be currently in Guantanamo that we cannot transfer to other countries, who could pose a serious danger to the United States."

Of course, the crazies are still out there. A sampling of today's rants:

* Obama will impose socialism on the United States
* Obama plans to kill millions of babies
* Obama plans to destroy "traditional" marriage

There is more, but those are the "high" points. The Right Wingnuts are doing everything they can to get themselves worked up and if it means inventing "facts" out of whole cloth, they've got the experience and lack of standards to do just that.

Finally, it has been reported in the New York Times that George J. Mitchell, a former Senate majority leader and the chairman of a Middle East peace commission in 2001, has been selected as special envoy to the MidEast. The paper has this to say:

The appointment of Mr. Mitchell, a seasoned and well-regarded negotiator, would signal that President-elect Barack Obama was attaching a high priority to the Middle East and the current Gaza crisis from his first days in office. Obama transition officials declined to comment on Mr. Mitchell, but David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, told CNN on Sunday that Mr. Obama would move quickly to address the instability in the Middle East and hoped that the new cease-fires in Gaza would last.

Obviously, this is good news. Now that Hilary has been made officially part of the team, the gears of diplomacy can begin to grind. I'm looking for change, but I'm uncertain how much change we'll get given the strength of the Israel lobby in this country. I'd like to see them judged as every other nation is judged but we've held to a special relationship with them since 1948 and there is a lot of inertia behind our existing policies.

Anything Obama does to re-examine that relationship will cost him political capital. Given the news coming out of Washington, both from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, you can be sure Obama will be carefully weighing where to spend that capital. Critical as the situation in the MidEast is, my own hope is that he will look at our domestic problems first.

The news services are abuzz this morning with speculation about what the first steps of the Obama administration will reveal. He began his first full day in office with a moment of solitude in the Oval Office, reading a note left for him by Bush, before making phone calls to Middle East leaders, including King Abdullah of Jordan, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

But as of last night, Obama had already acted in two ways: he ordered a halt to Gitmo cases for 21 days, allowing time for a review, and, in the words of CNN, "Chief Staff of Staff Rahm Emanuel sent a memo Tuesday to all agencies and departments of the federal government. The memo halts further consideration of pending regulations throughout the government until a legal and policy review can be conducted by the Obama administration."

These are two critically important steps. Clearly, the Obama transition team, as it has done all along, did its homework and has a playbook in place. They know exactly what must be done going forward and I suspect many of Obama's first steps are at this point pre-programmed, designed to halt a further deterioration of the problems confronting us and minimizing the sabotage inflicted on his administration by last minute regulations enacted by President Bush.

And this today from Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com:

There is some genuinely good news today from the Obama camp: following up on the appointment of the excellent Dawn Johnsen to be OLC Chief, it was announced yesterday that Johnsen's second-in-command at OLC will be Harvard Law Professor and vehement Bush critic David Barron, who, among other things, co-wrote this superb Law Review article arguing that the President's "war powers" have been wildly overstated over the last many decades while Congressional power in this area has been vastly understated. Also joining the Justice Department in a still-unknown capacity is one of the smartest, most principled, and most unyielding opponents of the legal radicalism that prevailed over the last eight years: blogger and Georgetown Law Professor Marty Lederman (who co-wrote that law review article with Barron on the Constitutional limits on the "commander-in-chief" powers). It is virtually impossible to imagine that particular group of individuals placing political allegiance to Barack Obama over the principles they have so forcefully advocated over the last several years.

As Greenwald says, "The importance of these appointments shouldn't be understated." This news alone is enough to make me want to dance in the streets, and anyone who knows me knows I'm not much of one for dancing.


It is a new day. The first morning. And if last night was a symbolic wedding, then the 100 days are the honeymoon, the best chance President Obama has of pushing his agenda forward and seeing his legislation enacted.

I feel better, physically. Stress, as everyone knows, is unhealthy. Since election night, I have been stressed by thoughts of all the awful things Bush was doing (to the environment, to our rights) and would do to inflict maximum harm on our nation and by extension, the world.

As of noon yesterday, the hostile acts of an embittered and mean-spirited administration ceased. And last night, for the first time in eight years, I could go to bed almost free of worry. I suspect many people will feel an improvement in their lives as a result. Not only scientists and economists but average Americans like me.

The skeptics and doubters, as well as conservative opponents and critics, are at work already as well. WND published an article called "Change We Cannot Believe In" making its usual list of false assertions, misstating the facts etc - basically being as propagandistic and divisive as Joseph Göbbels' Der Angriff. Rush Limbaugh has already said he will pray for Obama to fail. I haven't seen such levels of hatred since the 60s and early 70s, when I was a child.

Even so, the good news continues to pour out of Washington. Most recently, from CNN:

Promising "a new era of openness in our country," President Barack Obama signed executive orders Wednesday relating to ethics guidelines for staff members of his administration. "Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," Obama said.

This Administration even at a very early stage seems to be making every attempt to set itself apart from the previous administration. Where Bush was secretive, Obama is open. "This is going to be a general principle of governing," he told CNN's John King. "No spin, play it straight, describe to the American people the state that we're in." Where corruption was the name of the game for the past eight years, Obama swears above-board behavior. Where Bush embraced torture, Obama has abjured such methods of interrogation. Where Bush made war and looked for more, Obama has extended an open hand of friendship to those, in his words, who will unclench their fists.

A final piece of news today, from CNN:

The Senate today approved the nomination of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state by a vote of 94-2. Speaking from the floor, Sen. John McCain urged a quick confirmation. About an hour after the vote, Clinton was sworn in during a private ceremony attended by her husband, former President Clinton. She also formally resigned from the Senate.

I heartily approve of her selection. I think she will make a strong secretary of state, and I'm happy to see McCain did the right thing. I hope he will prove to be a voice of reason on the Republican side.

At noon today, eight years of failed domestic and foreign policy decisions, fueled by a divisive and corrosive ideology, stepped into the pages of history.

At noon today, a new era began. The Obama Era.



I call this blog Restitutor Orbis.

RESTITUTOR ORBIS - "Restorer of the World"

The title granted to Roman emperors who had stepped into a crisis that threatened the very survival of the empire and by their actions, saved it.

Our own crisis is no less dire than that faced by Rome in the third century of the Common Era. Our nation, like Rome, is faced with a financial crisis and with multiple wars.

In this blog I will chronicle the presidency of Barack Obama on a daily basis, reflecting not only on the state of America but of the world, and Obama's influence upon both.

This journal is dedicated to a little boy, my four-year-old son, who is too young to understand the momentous changes occurring in our country, changes that will impact his life from this day forward.

I hope that someday, he can look back, and in reading these posts, gain a better understanding of the world he is stepping into.

And I hope that by putting my thoughts down on these virtual pages that I will myself gain a better understanding of the world, and of what may well be our last best chance to save America, before our nation too becomes the stuff of history books.

Is my view of Obama biased? Most certainly. Is my acclamation of Obama as a restorer premature? I do not think so. He has already restored the most precious commodity of all, and not only to the citizens of the US, but to citizens of the world: HOPE.