We Interrupt This Programming

I know this is not really on the topic of the blog but I hope you will all indulge me with a political aside here.

So I voted Obama in the primary and I'm walking all over town displaying my Obama button but this week Obama has completely tried my patience. The reason why I voted for Obama in the primary was because I viewed Hillary Clinton as a sell-out; she would say or do anything she needed to to get elected. And while I completely recognize that that is the name of the game and it has to be done to some extent in order to win, I think Obama has gone too far on three occasions just this week:

1. The New York Times had a story this week about how Obama is in favor of subsidies to corn farmers and development of corn ethanol while McCain would like to reduce sugar import tariffs and explore sugar ethanol. It is a scientific fact that corn ethanol is worthless and only sugar ethanol is a viable energy source. South America in fact has made great strides in sugar ethanol - the only thing that would come out of developing corn ethanol is more money in corn farmers' pockets. Now I'm not trying to rail against corn farmers since they're just trying to make a living but how on earth can Obama support developing a worthless alternate energy! Bush is in favor of corn ethanol for pete's sake!

2. The Supreme Court yesterday ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute someone convicted of rape, even if it is a particularly heinous child rape. Now I obviously agree that it is a horrible, horrible crime but there is nothing anyone will ever be able to do or say that will convince me that the death penalty is ever appropriate. Recognizing that the death penalty is popular in this country (this country, Iran, China, and all dictatorships everywhere), I understand that a politician can't come out too much against the death penalty (although by god I wish they did). However, why does Obama have to come out against the Supreme Court decision to restrict the death penalty to murderers? Couldn't he have at least said that he respected their decision? I understand that he did make strides to protect against the execution of the innocent in Illinois but why criticize the court now?

3. And if you were going to criticize the court on a decision, why on earth pick yesterday's over today's that says D.C. can't take a real, hard stab at controlling its gun problem? Yesterday, he's against the liberal court's judgment on the eighth amendment but today he respects their views on the second? His full statement is:

“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.
“As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today’s decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.”

I understand that he is trying to get his gun control message through and he can try and twist today's decision all he likes but if he was really interested in protecting the streets he should be just as critical today as he was yesterday. Scalia has zero interest in acting responsibly to find a solution to our gun problems. Honestly, the most responsible thing Scalia could do is try taking the long route home from court on foot late at night - let's see then what he thinks about gun control.

Political rant over - and now back to our regularly scheduled programming.