Hey, didn't #Obama say something about NOT using signing statements like this?

Contrary to what some celebrity-types think, I don't think it's a good idea to blindly support a leader just because you voted for him. I mean, what if the guy blatantly goes against what he said he'd do? Like how Obama is issuing these signing statements like the NYTimes reported:



Obama says he'll enforce the parts of the new budget bill he thinks don't infringe on his powers as president. This sounds like a case of "new boss, same as the old boss" to me. Especially since Obama said during his campaign that he wouldn't use signing statements to dodge the will of Congress. And it looks like this won't be the only instance of him issuing a signing statement to get around the will of Congress. The screencap below comes from a recent post on talkingpointsmemo.com:



So, yeah, Holder says Obama will be signing the already controversial NDAA of 2012 into law but will tack on a signing statement to make it less objectionable to him. So we're basically watching Godzilla and King Ghidora trying to decide who should destroy Tokyo. Not only does the NDAA seem to violate the US Constitution, but Obama tweaking it at his whim is dictatorial regardless of the ends he uses to justify said tweaking. Hell, if Obama and Bush can decide to not follow laws they decide are unjust, then why can't everyone?

The Disturbing Truth: Our Government is Protecting Us from Nothing

Dig that crazy redaction! It's like the FOIA request from the ACLU that got this doc released got us
a whole lot of nothing--of course, despite appearances, it gave us enough rope to hang the Bushies
with... if only the Obamites will bother...

After reading today's column from Andrew Sullivan at TheAtlantic.com, I have had my fears reinforced and have come to feel that the United States Government has been and continues to be a sociopathic entity. Sullivan's column is called "The American Way Of Torture" and includes select quotes from the Office of the Inspector General's report on how the CIA systemically tortured terror suspects during the Bush years. There are some disturbing truths that Sullivan's piece forces us to consider:

1) this new OIG report pretty much damns the Bush Administration by proving they not only endorsed torture, but did so in writing.

2) this was definitely torture--what else do you call it when detainees are left in their own excrement?

3) Sullivan makes the point best:

In the past, the US was known for being a country whose soldiers would never mistreat prisoners; now, the US wants the world to know that US custody is something to be dreaded.

This is the same technique used by Grand Moff Tarkin in the original Star Wars movie--his exact line was "Fear will keep the systems in line..."

So yes, all those Daily Show jokes about Cheney were accurate: the United States was run by an evil, cartoonish bad guy.

Now this next part popped into my head thanks to Democracy Now, quoting one leader who spoke about Afghanistan:

The insurgency in Afghanistan didn’t just happen overnight, and we won’t defeat it overnight. This will not be quick nor easy. But we must never forget, this is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven, from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting; this is fundamental to the defense of our people.

That's not an old quote from Bush--that's Obama speaking at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in Phoenix, Arizona, last week.

So, here comes Obama, explaining that we have no choice but to be in Afghanistan, mimicking the same rhetoric that came from the Bush 43 Admin for so many years. We did it because the Taliban were harboring Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. My question is, how big a threat is Al Qaeda to America? OK, fine, Obama, they're plotting
against us--but how many of us can they really kill?

In 2008 34,017 Americans were killed in car accidents according to the DOT.

In 2005 (the most recent year numbers are available) 159,217 Americans died of lung cancer alone according to the CDC.

In 2007 around 2 million people worldwide were killed by AIDS according to Avert.org.

In 2007 terrorism caused 22,685 deaths worldwide according to the US National Counter Terrorism Center. The number of American civilian deaths by terrorism is almost non-existent since Americans have to leave the country to be killed by a terrorist.

What this all means is that terrorism is a tiny, tiny, tiny threat to the American way of life. Yet, the Bush administration and now the Obama administration thinks it's worth ignoring our morals and our principles to stop the killing of less than 23,000 Earthlings while seven times that number die of lung cancer in America, alone. 53,005 died of colorectal cancer, 27,259 American women died of gynecological cancers, 41,116 American women died of breast cancer--and I could go on.

So, in the end, our government is "protecting" us from nothing. We're spending over a trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan to stop this threat which does not even really exist. My only conclusion is that our government actually enjoys being horrible to people--it's literally sociopathic. Either that, or our government is too addicted to fear, or rock-stupid, to check and compare the statistics, which took me about 30 minutes to do.

With all these people dying of Cancer in the US right now, wouldn't it be nice to have a War on Cancer, instead of a War on Terror?

ObamaWatch: Obama Admin Considering Indefinite Jailing for Terror Suspects #obamawtf

ObamaWatch: Obama Admin Considering Indefinite Jailing for Terror Suspects #obamawtf, originally uploaded by thepetecom.

My sister-in-law, Lisa (she runs OnLisaReinsRadar.com ), Tweeted yesterday about how every day there's something new from the Obama camp that makes her what to ask "WTF?"

I agreed and suggested a daily ObamaWTF Tweet. Here's mine for today, taken from today's DemocracyNow.org headlines:

Obama Considers “Preventive Detention” for Indefinite Jailings

The Obama administration, meanwhile, is reportedly considering a “preventive detention” system that would indefinitely jail terror suspects in the United States without bringing them to trial. The New York Times reports President Obama discussed the proposal at a meeting with human rights advocates at the White House. Two anonymous advocates told the Times that Obama indicated he favored applying the system to future cases, not prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. Obama is set to deliver a speech later today outlining his plans on how to deal with closing Guantanamo.

Original here: www.democracynow.org/2009/5/21/headlines#5

This'll be no big deal assuming Obama doesn't do it--but why is he considering this at all? I think there's an amendment in the Bill of Rights promising due process and a speedy trial or something like that.

Dems Debate Whether to Investigate Crimes of Bush Admin or: Why I Refuse Party Affiliation

Dems Debate Whether to Investigate Crimes of Bush Admin or: Why I Refuse Party Affiliation, originally uploaded by thepetecom.

Geh... This is just sad beyond words. WashingtonPost.com is reporting that the Democrats in Washington are torn as to whether or not to go after Bush Admin officials for approving torture.

So, FOR YEARS there have been loads of evidence that the Bush Administration committed crimes. The GAO actually found that they had violated federal law (go to the GAO website and do a search for "covert propaganda"). We all know that acts of torture were committed in Iraq, we know the Bush Admin misled us into war in Iraq and mismanaged our war in Afghanistan.

Yet, no investigation let alone impeachment hearings for any Bushites.

The excuse while Bush was in office was "We can't impeach him now, there just aren't enough votes."

Then, once the Democrats took the majority in Congress, the excuse became "Well, there's not enough time left before Bush steps down."

For anyone who thinks the law should be enforced the last eight years have been very hard.

But it's not getting any easier now. If EVERYTHING ELSE wasn't enough for you, Obama just released memos PROVING Bush officials were down with torture--those of us with morals would THINK we'd finally see some criminal charges.

Maybe we still will--but not before the Democrats debate about WHETHER TO ENFORCE THE LAW.

This is why I refuse to be in either political party. The Democrats are wondering if international and US law needs to be enforced and the Republicans feel the law can go to hell if the cause is just.

The most depressing thing of all is that Obama was supposed to change all of this. Now we see that Democrats and Republicans, alike, believe that the law is to be enforced on the little people and that for the rich (mostly white) folks in government, the law is simply not a concern if one's motives are pure.

I said mostly white, above, because now, apparently, Obama is in violation of the law too--international law demands that war crimminals be prosecuted.

So while I'll never call him "King Barry," Barack Obama is, and will continue to be, above the law until he goes after the Bush Administration.

Progress?

US Gov to Boycott Racism Conference in Rare Show of Honesty

US Gov to Boycott Racism Conference in Rare Show of Honesty, originally uploaded by thepetecom.

Reuters.com reported over the weekend that the US will not be attending a United Nations conference on racism. The reason? Apparently, the declaration the conference wants everyone to sign onto calls Zionism racist.

I don't know about you, but when a single religion/race gets it's own country, I'm thinking that's racist.

Regardless of that, however, it seems pretty ridiculous for the USG to decide that because of this one difference of opinion they're going to boycott the whole thing. For a country founded on the blood of millions of Native Americans, built on the backs of generations of African American slaves, which has exploited cheap immigrant labor from the beginning (and still does to this day) this move by the US seems like a rare example of honesty.

How ironic that we have a black president right now. I suppose it just goes to show you that there is no real difference between the races--a black man can be just as racist as the white guys who came before him.

Or maybe... could this be Classism? After all, the idea here is that we are boycotting the UN conference on racism, thus sacrificing our support of all races in favor of just one--and it's a race (well, religion, really) stereotypically known for controlling wealth (not that I believe this--I just know others do).

I've got nothing against anyone's belief system (believe what you need to in order to get by, I say) but when you use your religious beliefs to harm the rights of others (COUGHpalestineCOUGH) I start to have problems.

Stateside Secretive Prisons for Mostly Muslims (Questionably Guilty, too)

Stateside Secretive Prisons for Mostly Muslims (Questionably Guilty, too), originally uploaded by thepetecom.

Damn, I wish this didn't make me feel so gross. Let me quote from the post on DemocracyNow.org that the included screencap comes from:

While President Obama has pledged to close Guantanamo and the secret overseas CIA prisons, calls are increasing for him to reexamine the treatment of prisoners detained as part of the so-called war on terror being held inside the United States.

With little public scrutiny, the Bush administration opened two secretive prisons in Indiana and Illinois, known as Communication Management Units, or CMUs, that are designed to severely restrict prisoner communication with family members, the media and the outside world. Dozens of Muslim men are still being held at the CMUs, as well as other prisoners, including environmental and animal rights activists.

Man, do we really think America is so weak that it can be threatened by folks fighting Global Warming and trying to free monkeys from labs? No wonder we think Al Qaeda are so bad-ass and killing a bunch of Somali pirates is something to be proud of (come on, they're pirates... from Somalia).

Here's a bit more from the DN transcript:

Prisoners held inside the special unit include Dr. Rafil Dhafir, the Iraqi-born doctor from upstate New York who is serving a twenty-two-year sentence for violating the Iraqi sanctions by sending aid to Iraq through his charity Help the Needy; Yassin Aref, the Kurdish-born imam from Albany, New York, who was convicted in a controversial FBI sting operation; and also the environmental activist Daniel McGowan. He’s serving a seven-year sentence for his role in two acts of arson.

Some critics have suggested McGowan and other non-Muslim prisoners are being held in the CMU, because the federal government wants to avoid accusations that the CMUs are designed to only hold Muslim men.

And from a bit further on lawyer for one of the prisoners of a CMU prison, Kathy Manley says:

Well, yeah, it’s unconstitutional to treat people more restrictively in a prison context because of their race or religion. And they’re clearly doing that. I mean, the CMU in Terre Haute is almost 90 percent Muslim.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: New boss (almost the) same as the old boss.

Obama Administration Lets the Bush Administration Get Away with It

Obama Administration Lets the Bush Administration Get Away with It, originally uploaded by thepetecom.

From the left-capped post on the Obama Administration releasing memos admitting that the Bush administration tortured available now at DemocracyNow.org:

The so-called “torture” memos from the Bush administration’s Office of Legal Counsel were released as part of a lawsuit and freedom of information request filed by the ACLU. Three of the memos were authored by Steven Bradbury in 2005, then a lawyer in the Office of Legal Counsel, and one in 2002 by then-head of the office, Jay Bybee.

The memos dispassionately describe the use of tactics such as waterboarding, holding prisoners in small dark boxes, exploiting prisoners’ fears of insects, forced nudity, and shackling and depriving them of sleep for as many as 11 days. They also include extensive legal arguments as to why these tactics do not amount to torture under US and international law.

Also from the post:

President Obama issued a statement calling for ‘reflection not retribution’ and reassured CIA officials that they need not fear prosecution.

I guess this shouldn't be too surprising. In America, if you're rich, a politician (or, let's face it, white), you can get away with anything. The banks and auto industry failed to make the best choices for the American people and for themselves, but rather than let them fail, they get rewarded with bailouts.

Likewise, when the previous administration violated laws, ethics and the very principles this country was founded on, they are now being rewarded by being given the gift of "getting away with it" from the Obama Administration.

I'll tell you, though--it makes you wonder just what Barack's boys have in mind for his first four years... I mean, why cover the last guy's ass unless you think your own ass will need covering?

Nobel-Winning Economist Says Obama's Plan Hurts the Folks Who Elected Him (that's us)

Read it!

Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who spoke out against Bush's lack of economic responsibility-taking for the disaster we're still living through is now pointing his finger at Obama. See, as politicians go, Obama is way better than Bush, but he seems to be just as bad in certain ways. According to Stiglitz, Obama's big solution to our economic issues is "ersatz capitalism."

"Ersatz," in case you're curious, is defined by Merriam-Webster.com as "being a usually artificial and inferior substitute or imitation." So, in this case, it's not capitalism that Obama is practicing here. Thankfully, he's not saying it's socialism, either, but here's what he does say:

What the Obama administration is doing is far worse than nationalization: it is ersatz capitalism, the privatizing of gains and the socializing of losses. It is a “partnership” in which one partner robs the other. And such partnerships — with the private sector in control — have perverse incentives, worse even than the ones that got us into the mess.

So what is the appeal of a proposal like this? Perhaps it’s the kind of Rube Goldberg device that Wall Street loves — clever, complex and nontransparent, allowing huge transfers of wealth to the financial markets. It has allowed the administration to avoid going back to Congress to ask for the money needed to fix our banks, and it provided a way to avoid nationalization.

But we are already suffering from a crisis of confidence. When the high costs of the administration’s plan become apparent, confidence will be eroded further. At that point the task of recreating a vibrant financial sector, and resuscitating the economy, will be even harder.

I've been saying, for a while now, that the government has been using the same old tricks to try and fix a failing system. Obama's government is no different in this sense. He is trying the same tricks that got us into this mess in the first place. Instead of forcing the men in suits to take responsibility for their choices, he's letting (almost) everyone keep their jobs and money while the real cost of the failure gets dumped on to us little people.

Gotta love that (crisis-of-)confidence builder, Obama. I almost miss Bush who you could always tell was a lying bastard. Obama seems like such a nice guy, but now he's ignoring the needs of actual Americans in favor of the needs of made-up businesses with corrupt people running them. Lovely.

Hay, Barry, where's my universal health care, man? I haven't seen a doctor in a decade. Yeah, you're welcome for your vote, jerkweed.

Obama Ditches YouTube After (not) Breaking the Law (Kind of)

OK, this is kind of a convoluted story here. According to two articles at ReadWriteWeb.com (here and here) President Barack Obama has had an interesting time using YouTube to deliver his weekly addresses.

As everyone knows, Prezzi Barry O'bama was posting his weekly vids on YouTube, but privacy advocates raised a big stink. The stink seems to be well founded since YouTube uses "long-term tracking cookies". My guess is that these cookies allow Google to know where you go after you leave YouTube? I don't know to be honest. Regardless, it seems that the White House using said cookies violates federal law. Yep. How many times did Bush violate federal law? Just a few times.

But worry not, Obamafans! The Obama Administration stopped violating federal law by, essentially, giving itself a pass. Which, you know, is pretty shitty. Talk about kingly behavior. I can hear Obama now:

"What's that? Using YouTube is uhhhhh violation of federal law? Well, uhhhh, let's just uhhhhh... changethelawforonlyus."

That's the very definition of being above the law. At least he had the decency to do it, uh, legally, by issuing himself an official exemption--just like Bush did with all of his signing statements.

Now, that was back in February--yesterday, ReadWriteWeb.com reported that the Obama Admin was ditching YouTube in favor of Vimeo (see cap above), and would no longer be using those pesky long-term cookies (we assume). Still, Obama and Pals broke the law.

Is this a concern of Abu Ghraib proportions?

Of course not.

But if this is how Obama treats the little laws, how is he going to treat the big ones when lives depend on it? Will principles, morals and/or the law win out? Or will the myth of security beat all?

The ObamaWatch continues...

Posted via email from thepete's posterous

Jay Doesn't Understand Obama's Plan

And neither do I.

Here's Jay's 12 second take:


Jay Doesn't Understand Obama's Plan on 12seconds.tv

Sure, it's an oversimplification, but if loans are what got us into trouble in the first place, how are more loans going to fix things?

Seriously: Banks give loans to people who can't afford them and then pawn off the lawns to someone else who then gets screwed.

Obama wants us to give money to the same banks who will then, somehow miraculously NOT give money to people who will default on the loans?

Since the economy is hurting, a LOT of folks won't have good enough credit to get loans, so who are these loans going to be given to?

ObamaWatch: Letting Us Down on Civil Liberties

Maybe President Amabo would do it right?

See how wrong all those racists are? A black guy can be as lame as a white guy! But I'm getting ahead of myself.

So, these five guys were in countries other than America. They were literally snatched from the street, kidnapped, transported to other countries, by American intelligence agents, via aircraft owned by Boeing (Jeppesen is their parent) and then tortured in those countries. They're now suing Boeing but can't have their day in court because the USG is invoking the "State Secrets Act" to stop them. The theory is that in order for the five guys to sue, they need evidence from the government that proves Boeing allowed this to happen on their planes. Of course, the USG doesn't want to give up said evidence because, we assume, it will make them look pretty bad too, right?

Well, right or wrong, the Obama Administration is keeping the State Secrets Acts firmly invoked.

Salon.com's Gary Greenwald makes the point in a recent opinion piece: "What makes this particularly appalling and inexcusable is that Senate Democrats had long vehemently opposed the use of the "state secrets" privilege in exactly the way that the Bush administration used it in this case, even sponsoring legislation to limits its use and scope."

So, now, Obama is protecting the Bush 43 Administration by keeping this evidence secret (despite the fact we all know it happened). Why protect the Bush Admin? My only guess is so that the Obama Admin has the latitude to also use the Extraordinary Rendition program to randomly kidnap people off the streets of foreign countries and then spirit them away to countries where torture is legal. From there, the CIA can ask questions, but locals can do the torturing. Well done, Barry!

Geh... now why did I buy that Obama sweatshirt and that Obama T-shirt?

Oh yeah: I had hope.

Of course, I'm not surprised by this--like I said, all men are created equal--in good ways and bad.

Posted via email from thepete's posterous

Cole Bombing Charges Dropped--What the Hell?

OK, when I saw this headline, I have to admit that I thought "See that? Another faulty terrorist case! Looks like the USG can't catch a real terrorist to save their lives."

Then I realized, that's not what this story is about. According to that article at Bloomberg.com, it turns out that "The U.S. dropped charges against the alleged mastermind of the bomb attack on the USS Cole while the Obama administration considers how to handle terrorist suspects detained at Guantanamo, the Defense Department said."

Wait--WHAT?
 
Because Obama wants to close Gitmo charges were dropped?

That makes no sense. That's like saying: "Well, I'm thinking about buying a car, might as well send my current car to the junk yard!"

Noooo, see, just because putting these guys on trial under military law is unfair, it doesn't mean charges should be dropped and they should go free--I mean, who ever said this? Obama never said "let's free everyone at Guantanamo" did he?

So why have charges against the Cole Bombing mastermind being dropped?
 
Maybe it IS a case of the USG not being able to catch a terrorist, after all?

Posted via email from thepete's posterous

The Obama Watch Begins

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Thomas Jefferson, who is probably my favorite founding father, is believed to have said this and whether he did or not, it's the Truth. That's right, upper-case "T" Truth.

Just because we have a Democrat and a black guy in the White House does not mean racism is gone, the world loves us and Big Brother is now your kids' cool uncle.

Just because Bill Clinton left office with poll numbers so big they'd make John Holmes blush doesn't mean Slick Willy didn't earn his nickname.

While George W. Bush created the economic mess by failing to provide moral principles and strong, positive leadership, it was Clinton (who was no stranger to lax morals) set "W" up for some of the troubles he would see before his reign in the White House was over.

Clinton messed up in Somalia.

Clinton (in my opinion) waited too long to get involved in the Serbia/Bosnia mess.

I'm also rolling my eyes at Milosevic's all-too-timely death just before he was going to testify in his own war crimes trial.

There's also a question of what Clinton knew about the CIA's use of an airstrip in Mena, Arkansas while he was governor of that state.

Of course, I wasn't paying attention back then like I should have been--like we all should always be.

If we don't watch the edges of our freedom, there is no way we'll notice them shrinking.

If We, The People, don't watch our government and make sure they don't knock those edges back several feet, we may not notice our freedoms are gone until we discover they're long gone.

Barack Obama may very well be the good man that so many think he is. However, he is still part of a system that encourages bribery, corporate-favoritism and the exchange of morals for security.

So, as President Obama does a lot of things right (like signing the order to close the detention center at Gitmo), we can't sit back and expect him to be even close to the perfect leader.

Will he make sure that George W. Bush is prosecuted for his crimes?

Will he allow the government to spy on American citizens on American soil as Bush did?

It looks like he plans to follow through on his plans to withdraw from Iraq but how long will it take and will it be as quick a withdrawal as even Iraq seems to be ready for?

Every one of us must keep an eye on things since our mainstream media has proven they aren't up to the task. Don't listen to them when they tell you they did their best because they did not. The media is the fourth branch of government. It's not connected directly to it so it can move without interference from the rest of the government. Without it telling us accurately what our leaders are up to, we are on our own to determine just what the hell is going on so we know who we should vote for. Since they are not doing that, we must do it ourselves.

Like Jefferson is said to have said, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

I, for one, will be keeping my eye on things.

But don't trust me to be perfect either. We all need to watch, read, absorb and think for ourselves. None of us are perfect on our own. Together, that's another story.

President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama's Cabinet So Far

Wow, well, it's looking good for the forces of evil, or at least, the forces of lameness. I guess we indy-types shouldn't be too surprised that Obama can't deliver the "change" promise he ran on. He may still be promising new ideas, but let's look at some of the old people Obama's appointed to his cabinet so far:

Treasury Secretary: Timothy Geithner, president of Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
ThePete Says: Wow, one of the handful of people that controls America's money supply as TreasSec? Meh, I'd rather get some generally independent economist from outside the system that is currently crumbling under its own weight. Also, he was TreasSec under Clinton, so you might suggest that Geithner had something to do with setting the dinner table we're all financially going hungry at right now.

I remember reading something about how Geithner was supposed to be corporate-experience-free--but guess what? Running a FedRes bank is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing as running a corporation. Apparently, Geithner was also instrumental in orchestrating the bailout of Bear Sterns. He also worked for Kissinger Associates--as in Henry Kissinger (many look at this man as a war criminal).

Secretary of State: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.
ThePete Says: Giving her "lost to Obama" status, this seems like a fair appointment (though I'd still prefer her as VP). However, it doesn't get much more Clintony than an actual Clinton. I know most of Americans are used to blaming Bush for all of our troubles, but remember, these economic problems are actually more complicated and older than the media is explaining right now. As I mentioned above, the table we're all starving at right now was set by the Clinton Administration.

That said, I actually believe Hillary will make an OK SoS. (!) Of course, that's in comparison to previous ones, which isn't setting the bar too high, I think.

Attorney General: Eric Holder, former deputy attorney general.
ThePete Says: Yikes, this is the dude who defended Chiquita Banana against lawsuits accusing the fruit company of supporting terrorism (which they did, in order to keep farming bananas in Columbia). He was also Deputy AG under Bill Clinton and feels drug penalties should be more harsh.

Defense Secretary: Robert Gates, a holdover from Bush administration.
ThePete Says: I love how the AP calls Gates a "holdover" from the Bush Admin. They're almost all holdovers from previous administrations. Yet the AP seems to think this is not significant. What's even funnier is that Gates is not only a holdover from George W.'s admin, but he was also the head of the CIA under George H.W. Bush. That makes him pretty much entrenched in evil. ;)

To be more specific, the Wikipedia page for Robert Gates reminds us of his role in the the Iran-Contra Affair. Remember that old chestnut?

Homeland Security Secretary: Gov. Janet Napolitano, D-Ariz.
ThePete Says: Don't think that just because she's a Democrat she's not a racist xenophobe like most southern-border-based Republicans. Seems Napolitano is quite the hawk when it comes to cracking down on illegal immigration having called for not only National Guard support along the border but also asking for more ICE resources to be sent to Arizona, as well. She was also a US state attorney under Bill Clinton--yep, she's another Clintonite.

National Security Adviser: Retired Marine Gen. James Jones.
ThePete Says: I don't know much about this guy. Turns out he's a former NATO commander and also served on the boards of Chevron and Boeing. Yeah, two big-ass companies, one oil and the other military/industrial (you know, like the complex). According to James L. Jones' Wikipedia page, he:

....became president of the Institute for 21st Century Energy, an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and chair of the board of directors of the Atlantic Council of the United States. He also served as chairman of the Independent Commission on Security Forces of Iraq.

Hmmm, seems like that energy institute thing hasn't worked out so well and that whole thing where he was to, according to that same Wikipedia page:

...investigate for 120 days the capabilities of the Iraq armed forces and police.

That hasn't worked out either. Granted, he did find "serious deficiencies in the Iraq Interior Ministry and in the Iraq National Police" but his alleged strong negotiating skills didn't exactly get his findings accepted as fact. Of course, the Bush Administration isn't known for their acceptance of facts, are they?

Commerce Secretary: Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M.
ThePete Says: Meh, yet another Clintonite. Richardson was Energy Secretary under the Billster. He is also the object of scorn for some Chinese Americans who felt that he was unusually racisty during the Wen Ho Lee mess. Lee was the fellow who was wrongly accused by the Clinton admin for spying for the Chinese. Apparently, Richardson tried to encourage the idea that any Chinese people in the US could be spies.

Here's a big however--I do like Richardson. I've seen him in a bunch of interviews and he seems like a fairly reasonable guy. Another however is that just because he's reasonable doesn't mean he's a good leader.

National Economic Council Director: Lawrence Summers, former treasury secretary.
ThePete Says: Haha, another Clintonite and another guy who's partially responsible for our current money mess. Back in 1991 Summers was chief economist for the World Bank and wrote a memo suggesting that pollution from first world countries could be exported to third world countries which he consider to be "underpolluted".

You may also remember Summers as the dude who had to resign as president of Harvard University after he said publicly that women had less innate scientific ability than men.

Office of Management and Budget Director: Peter Orszag, director of Congressional Budget Office.
ThePete Says: I hardly know anything about this guy, either. But if he's in charge of money now, that worries me. However, Democracy Now reported that Orszag felt the bank bailout would make things worse, not better and testified to that. So, he gets points from me on that.

Veterans Affairs Secretary: Retired Gen. Eric K. Shinseki
ThePete Says: Ahhh, OK, cool--this dude is OK, as far as military-types go. He was the guy who was ignored by the Bush Administration when he told them the Iraq Attack would require waaaay more troops that the Bushites wanted to send in. Turns out Shinseki was right (as you may have noticed).

TheCONCLUSION: I don't see a lot of change with this cabinet, so far. Sure, it's tentative and the names could change as they are rejected by vetting or by Congress. Still, there have to be perfectly competent people out there who have not held positions in the Clinton Admin or in the financial or corporate worlds who can be appointed. I'm sick of all of these damned insiders. Nothing is ever going to change if the same people keep getting cycled through Washington.

Am I being a bit harsh? Maybe, but it's the media's job to play devil's advocate for everything the government does. Figure, the government puts forth the "pro" argument for everything they do. Who will represent the "con" argument? Some lame Republican think-tanks? That's just letting the system criticize itself--the press needs to represent the non-government opinion and be critical of all. That's how they've let us down and that's why I cite only the negative aspects of Obama's appointees. I figure, if you want to read how good these people are, go to Obama's blog, Change.gov. Come to me for some contrarian stuff :)