The principles that rule this blog

Principles that will govern my thoughts as I express them here (from my opening statement):


  • Freedom of the individual should be as total as possible, limited only by the fact that nobody should be free to cause physical injury to another, or to deprive another person of his freedoms.
  • Government is necessary primarily to provide those services that private enterprise won't, or won't at a price that people can afford.
  • No person has a right to have his own beliefs on religious, moral, political, or other controversial issues imposed on others who do not share those beliefs.

I believe that Abraham Lincoln expressed it very well:

“The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do, at all, or cannot
so well do, for themselves — in their separate, individual capacities.”


Comments will be invited, and I will attempt to reply to any comments that are offered in a serious and non-abusive manner. However, I will not tolerate abusive or profane language (my reasoning is that this is my blog, and so I can control it; I wouldn't interfere with your using such language on your own!)

If anyone finds an opinion that I express to be contrary to my principles, they are welcome to point this out. I hope that I can make a rational case for my comments. Because, in fact, one label I'll happily accept is rationalist.

Monday, December 01, 2008

He's actually doing some things right!

Anyone reading this blog must be aware that my thoughts on Barack Obama prior to this election were extremely negative. So I have to admit that I'm surprising myself with this post, under the title "He's actually doing some things right!" Yes, President-elect Obama is actually doing some things right: I'm talking about his appointments to date.

He's made a number of appointments lately, and some of them (like Pres. Bush's Defense Secretary to continue in office) are positively mind-boggling, given Obama's remarks about Bush's war policies! But one thing they all have in common: Whether I've heard of the person or not, every one is competent for the position which he was picked for. This is quite a contrast with the last two Democratic presidents. Carter picked — to head the anti-drug program — a doctor who was reprimanded by his medical association for improperly prescribing drugs! And in general, Carter tended to appoint people he knew from Georgia, regardless of competence; of course, Carter liked to micro-manage everything, so one might say it didn't matter much who he appointed, because he'd call the shots anyway himself! Clinton was so obsessed with naming a female attorney generalregardless of qualifications — that it took him three tries, and the one who made it, Janet Reno, made a botch of the Eli├ín Gonzalez case. Some of Obama's appointments may be questionable for some reasons, but competency isn't the reason for my doubts on any of them.

2 comments:

Asclepius said...

I couldn't agree more.

For me, these appointments serve as validation that a) Obama's term isn't going to be as radically left as I believe his own politics are and b) Those who voted for him to "Bring home the troops!@$()$@!" and promote sweeping tax reforms (if you'll notice, he's backed off of higher taxation of the "rich" in light of the recent economic downswing, because - surprise, surprise - the higher taxation of those who pay the majority of taxes is bad for the economy) now look like the fools they are for believing Obama to be anything other than what he was as an Illinois state senator: a politics-as-usual kinda guy, versus some kind of political savior.

Hope you're doing well, by the way.

Opinionator said...

Thanks for your post. I must say that your comment that "Obama's term isn't going to be as radically left as I believe his own politics are" looks like it may be right. But we will have to see when he actually starts making proposals to the Congress.