Sourceforge Denies Site Access to Comply with US Law

Is open source all that open anymore? That's probably an unfair question. By definition, open source products are available to everyone without discrimination...at least from the open source community's point of view. But what about the U.S. Government's?

I was inspired to write this little missive by reading the Dana Blankenhorn and Paula Rooney blog at ZDNet.com. This morning, I took a look at their article Obama enforces trade embargo against open source. This means, among other things, that people from certain countries visiting Sourceforge will not gain immediate access to the open source projects contained therein, but rather, will receive a "nastygram" in the form of a 403 forbidden message.

Why would President Obama, the "transparent" President, do this? I thought he was reaching out to all the communities of the world, including nuclear weapon building Iran. Turns out there are certain countries the U.S. just doesn't do business with. They include Cuba, North Korea, the Sudan, Syria and yes, Iran.

You can have a look at the Bureau of Industry and Security U.S. Department of Commerce Entity List and Denied Persons List to discover the details, or just visit Sourceforge's explanation regarding how it is complying with U.S. law by denying access to their site from these countries. In other words, we don't do business with terrorists or other like "entities".

Is Sourceforge happy to comply with the Obama administration and federal restrictions? Heck, no. This flies in the face of everything open source is supposed to stand for. Reader comments at Sourceforge pretty much reflect this attitude. For instance, someone named pyalot commented:

Sourceforge, you suck! You suck so badly, I’ll hereby guarantee you that I’ll not only recommend *anybody* stay the heck away from you scumbags, I’ll actively let everybody know that you’re the scum of the earth. Shame on you! Shame!

Another, more measured response, from dutchuncle states:

SF is between a rock and a hard place on this. Law on many subjects tries to spread the responsibility around to involve more people in enforcement, whether they wanted to be or not. For example, think about how many people in business wind up collecting government taxes. Even though SF is “just” a file cabinet, not a creator, they become the first point of contact in any trail of export-controlled information, and so would be the first ones in line to get in trouble. SF is trying to make the best of bad choices, and I agree with their choice while being unhappy that they had to make it.

Bottom line is that Sourceforge must comply or break the law, but as some of the commenters at Sourceforge have noted, maybe it's a law worth breaking in order to uphold an ideal.

That said, we don't live in ideal world and no body of laws, no matter how just the intent of the lawmakers, is completely perfect or fair. Another thing to consider is whether preventing people from these countries from accessing Sourceforge is punishing the governments who are "evil" or the citizens who likely are not (at least some of them)? A person may live in Iran, North Korea, or Syria, but that doesn't make them automatically bad. Plenty of people around the world don't think much of America, but that doesn't mean every citizen of our country supports our nation's policies. Your country of origin does not automatically dictate your intention or behavior.

Who is the Federal Government punishing in compelling Sourceforge to comply with the law; totalitarian regimes who are working to promote violence and oppression in their nations and around the world, or innocent men and women who, like those of us in freer nations, just want to enjoy the work and benefits of the open source world?

The Secret of Obama's Popularity

Despite the fact that his popularity in the polls has dropped a bit lately, Barack Obama is still just about everyone's favorite President. In fact, he seems to remain amazingly popular no matter what he does. I mean it. I think the guy could say he hates babies, and burn the American flag on the front lawn of the White House, and the majority of Americans (and certainly the Muslim world in the case of the latter example) would still say he's great. What's this guy's secret? How does he get everyone to love him, regardless of his actions? Let's take a brief look at some of the events that I, in my humble opinion, think should make most reasonable American citizens (regardless of their politics) cringe. The most recent event that caught my attention, happened yesterday morning (or at least that's when I read it in the news), when two top White House officials stated that it was likely the President would have to raise taxes for the middle-class, to pay for his health care reforms. President Obama has since gone on record as saying he will not raise taxes for people making $250,000 or less a year (I consider myself middle class, but I don't make nearly that much), but of course, the rich are still up for grabs. I suppose (cynic that I am) that Obama could have had his officials release their "information" as a trial balloon to see how people would take it, then when the public balked, he went to the media and repudiated that statement. In fact, an Associated Press analysis said that raising taxes on the middle class would "be blow to his (Obama's) re-election chances in 2012 and would prove noxious to his party in the 2010 midterm elections". But people still want health care reform; they just don't want to pay for it (as if we won't in the end, anyway). Not too long ago, Obama gave an extremely attention getting speech in Cairo to the "Muslim world" in an attempt to repair U.S. relations with Islam. I suppose the assumption is that Obama's immediate predecessor, George W. Bush, deeply insulted Islam, widening the gulf between "us and them" (never mind that Islamic terrorism has been going on much, much longer than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). In President Obama's speech, he not only "made nice" with Muslims, he seemed to completely identify with them (which is rather odd for a guy who supposedly is a Christian). According to Washington Post commentator Frank J. Gaffney Jr, "Mr. Obama referred four times in his speech to 'the Holy Koran'," which is a reference typically used only by Muslims. Obama also said "I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed." Caffney said the term "revealed" "is a depiction Muslims use to reflect their conviction that the Koran is the word of God, as dictated to Muhammad". After invoking the names of the Prophets Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, Obama used the phrase "peace be upon them", which is only used by Muslims to bless deceased holy men. The American (and Christian) President seems to be at least bending over backwards, if not deliberately adopting a Muslim world view to forge an alliance with the Islamic world. While in and of itself, fence mending isn't a bad thing to do, should the American President surrender his stated national and religious identity to accomplish this task? Would Mr. Obama refer to the "Holy Torah" and say "Blessed is He" after invoking Jacob or Moses when talking to Jews in Israel? Speaking of which, the Cairo speech didn't do anything to score points with Israeli columnist Naomi Ragen in her June 10th commentary. She states that, beyond forging new bonds with Islam, terrorist organization Hamas (yes, the same Hamas that holds the people of Gaza in a concentration camp of terror, and who has retained IDF soldier Gilad Shalit as a captive for over three years now) has gained new hope for their cause (the destruction of the State of Israel and the expulsion or murder of all Israeli Jews) by the Obama speech in Egypt. Of course, President Obama's stance on Israel's continuing to build settlements in their own country hasn't exactly endeared him to our long-time ally, and the only democratic nation in that region. Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer states that Obama claims "that American foreign policy be conducted with modesty and humility", yet the President seems to experience no hesitation in dictating conditions and terms about the internal matters of only one country on the planet: Israel. Doesn't that seem like the President is talking out of both sides of his mouth? On a somewhat lighter note, Mr. Obama had a small social gathering at the White House last week. With Vice-President Biden, Obama welcomed "black scholar" (sorry, but that's how the news media continually refers to him) Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge Police Officer James Crowley over for what is sometimes (but incorrectly, according to Obama) referred to as the beer summit. This was Obama's response to his criticism of Officer Crowley's actions in arresting Gates as "stupid". Numerous police agencies immediately objected to Mr. Obama's comments and demanded an apology. Other Cambridge officers, including an African-American officer who was at the scene of the arrest, supported Crowley and said that he acted in a completely appropriate and legal manner. The entire event has been used as fodder for various political cartoons and late night show comedians. Yet, has the President's reputation and credibility been damaged all that much? Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has certainly gotten into some hot water after the recent elections in that country, and though protests continue, Ahmadinejad has been endorsed by Iran's Supreme Leader. According to one political cartoonist, it seems amazing that one President should be completely rejected for his unpopular behavior while another is wholeheartedly rewarded. What is Barack Obama's secret? How does he always come out smelling like a rose (yes, I'm exaggerating, but not by that much)? Why does it seem that in the eyes of the majority of Americans, this guy can do no wrong? Actually, the answer is simple. It's because of George W. Bush. By the time Bush left office, he was one of the most loathed Presidents who had ever served his nation. I remember that his one and only public appearance in Canada, after leaving office, was a dismal failure. People were standing in line to insult, scream at, and generally spew hate and evil in his direction. Bush has wisely kept a low profile since then and probably should for the foreseeable future. Bush was so disliked by the end of his second term, even by much of the GOP, that you probably could have gotten Jack the Ripper, Hannibal Lecter, or Lizzie Borden elected to replace him, if that was the only way to get rid of Bush (although Hillary Clinton apparently wasn't an option). Ok, that's not exactly fair. Obviously, people voted for Obama in overwhelming numbers for other reasons than he was just a warm body and looked cuter than Bush. He promised the American people something they desperately wanted after eight years of the Bush administration. He promised change. During Obama's campaign, I was trying to figure out exactly what sort of change he was offering. It never seemed very clear to me what his platform was, except that whatever Bush represented, Obama would do the opposite. That obviously seemed like a good idea at the time, but ended up (in my opinion) being the equivalent of a chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage. This isn't exactly a new trick. Politicians have been getting elected by promising people everything they want, probably since their has been such a thing as politics (which means, a very long time). Everybody wants to have all of their desires fulfilled, especially if somebody else says they'll do all the work and that they'll pay all the bills. That brings us right back to the present day. Obama was elected largely because he was going to be different than Bush and pretty much different than the Washington political machine that we've all become used to (party lines notwithstanding). That sounds good. I'd like to see a change from the status quo as well. It would be refreshing to have a President who really represented the people for a change, and not his (or her) political party (and personal agenda). Sadly, I don't think we have that kind of President. I'm not entirely convinced he always serves his party's interests (though most of the time, he does), but I am sure he serves his own internal agenda a great deal of the time. Messiah Obama has promised the country and the world that he would give them everything they want. He's an adept salesman and has managed to convince everyone that he could really pull it off. While reality is slowly dawning on America, the vast majority still see him as the greatest thing since the invention of the iPod. But what happens when someone like me does (successfully) criticize the President? What happens when someone questions something Obama has done that makes his supporters pause and register concern? They come back with "He's a lot better than Bush". That's the secret. That's the key to Obama's success. No matter what he does or how much of our money (which neither the national coffers nor we as citizens have) Obama spends, the response is "he's better than Bush". There still remains such a national "sigh of relief" that "Dubya" is no longer in the White House, that we tend to gloss over whatever "issues" Obama may have. We tend to see Obama through the lens of the Bush years, and that softens the view, obliterating the harsh wrinkles and scars, letting us see only the Obama beauty and charm. Reality check. Bush is gone. We can only hammer on what Obama inherited from the previous administration for so long. Bush inherited his mess from Clinton, and Clinton inherited his mess from Daddy Bush before him. The beat goes on. At some point, Obama has to be appraised as an objective person and President, independent of who or what came before him. Obama's actions are his own and need to be seen in that light, not in the comfortable glow of "Bush is finally gone". Given the American public's ADHD-like attention span, I'm surprised that the use of the Bush legacy has endured to this point. Love him or hate him, just look at Barack Obama for who and what he is, not who you think he's better than. Making him "the greatest President that ever lived", just because the guy who came before him was "the President you love to hate" doesn't cut it. It's not fair to the nation and it's not even fair to Obama. I was never a Bush fan. I'm a conservative, but I don't care about party politics. From what I can see, the two major political parties in this country are pretty much the same on the level of their process. Only a few superficial details are changed around. I look at the decisions Obama makes, the words he says, and how it all seems to add up. I don't think about Bush when I'm thinking about Obama. When I consider Obama's policies, it's compared to what I understand as "common sense" (if such a thing exists). All I'm saying is, don't love Obama because you hated Bush. Look at what Obama is doing, the result (not the promises...promises are worth the air they're printed on), and what it means. Does it really make sense for the President to plummet this country into the largest deficit ever, just to give the people what makes them feel good? Yes, fixing health care is necessary and it would be wonderful, but (how can I say this strongly enough?) SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY FOR IT! Seen in that perspective and in the light of what I've been trying to say, is Barack Obama really that terrific?

Are Police Racist?

As I'm sure just about everyone is aware of by now, on Monday, July 20th, pre-eminent black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested at his home near Harvard University by Cambridge police officers. There's been a great deal of analysis and opinions being tossed about the media, including those of President Barack Obama, regarding what happened, or what they think happened, that caused Gates to be arrested. The prevailing opinion is that the police officers involved are racists (assuming that they wouldn't have acted similarly if the suspect had been white) and that perhaps all police officers are racists. I don't know any more about the events of Gates's arrest than what I can gather from the media, so my point of view is just as slanted as the rest of America's, including President Obama's point of view (unless he used the authority of his office to gather "inside" information not available to the general public). Let's take a look at what we know. According to the original news report, Gates attempted to force the front door of his house in Cambridge because it had become jammed. At this time, police were notified that there were "two black males with backpacks on the porch" of the house, attempting to force entry. Sounds like an attempted break-in on the surface. Officers were dispatched to investigate. By the time the officers had arrived on the scene, Gates had already gained entry to his house. The officers talked to Gates and asked him to come outside and speak to them, presumably so he could identify himself as the homeowner, or failing that, to explain his forcing the front door open and being inside the house. Again, according to reports, Gates refused to exit his home and began to yell at the officers. Apparently (and this is my opinion), Gates had "jumped from A to Z" and assumed that the officers were trying to question him because (in Gates's own words) "I'm a black man in America". The officer's report states that "Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him". Also according to the news article, Gates asked for the name and badge number of the officer and the officer refused to provide Gates with the information (a mistake on the officer's part, which didn't help). The officer exited the home and Gates supposedly followed the officer onto the front porch, continuing to yell at him and accusing him of racial bias. At this point, Gates was placed under arrest for disorderly conduct and taken to the Cambridge police station where he was booked. He was released later that day on his own recognizance. Gates's attorney, and fellow Harvard scholar Charles Ogletree, disputes the official police version of events and says Gates never yelled at the officer. Although Ogletree did not state specifically that he believes the incident was racially motivated, he was quoted as saying, "I think the incident speaks for itself". The overriding question is, would this situation have unfolded exactly the way it did if Gates had been white? There's no way to play out that scenario in absolute terms, but I'll run through an alternate set of events and see what turns up. Let's say the police receive a call of two white men with backpacks attempting to break into an upscale home. At this point, because the suspects are white, do the police ignore the call? Probably not. It's not like white men aren't capable of being thieves, so the police respond to the scene. Upon arriving, they see a white male inside the home. Do the officers assume that the man is the home owner just because he's white? Probably not. They ask the man to step outside and talk with them. This is actually the critical moment in the scenario. What the suspect does next is going to make all the difference in how this turns out. Situation 1: The man starts yelling at the officers, saying they have no right to tell him what to do, that he's the homeowner, and the officers can "go pound sand", or words to that effect. Since the suspect is white, he's unlikely to accuse the officers of racial bias, so the emotional impact of that sort of accusation is missing from this situation. The suspect continues yelling at the officer, asking for the officer's name and badge number. Eventually (as in the actual event), the suspect shows the officer his Harvard ID card but not his drivers license. As in the original event, the officer leaves the home and the suspect follows him onto the front porch, continuing to yell at the officer and generally "getting in his face". Does the officer arrest the suspect for disorderly conduct at this point? Probably. Although the officer is reasonably assured that the man lives there, the man is acting in a highly agitated and aggressive manner. The officer could choose just to walk away, but can reasonably make the arrest based on how the man is behaving. Of course, I can't say that race is or isn't a factor here. Maybe the officer would have let it slide for a white man but not for a black man. I don't know. I don't know the officer personally, and I don't know what he was thinking or feeling at the time of the event. This issue cannot be determined based only on news reports by the media. Situation 2: At the officer's request, the man exits his home and agrees to speak with the officers on the front lawn of the house. The suspect is polite and compliant. Upon request, the suspect produces his drivers license, establishing that he lives at this address. He explains to the officers present that the front door had become jammed and he had to gain entry to his home by forcing the door. The officers comprehend the situation and determine that no crime has occurred. The homeowner thanks the officers for being so diligent in checking on this event. After all, the homeowner would want police to investigate if there was the possibility that his home was actually being broken into. The officers leave and the homeowner goes back inside his house. Case closed. Now the question becomes, would Gates have been arrested if he had behaved as Situation 2 describes? My opinion is probably not. Although it most likely isn't recorded in any law enforcement training or practices manual, there is something called "the attitude test". It is more likely that an encounter with a law enforcement officer will turn out poorly if the person being questioned behaves in an aggressive and hostile manner, than if he or she behaves in a polite and compliant manner. The first thing a law enforcement officer is trained to do when they enter any situation, is to take control and maintain the safety of all parties involved. If a suspect defers to the officer's authority and is polite and compliant with all requests, the officer will understand that he is in control, and that the possibility of danger is minimal to none. If, on the other hand, the suspect challenges the officer's authority, the officer will respond by taking whatever steps are reasonably required to gain and maintain control, up to and including arresting the suspect. Being rude and yelling isn't against the law, although doing so to a police officer may communicate that you are a potential threat and may escalate to physical violence. If Gates had responded as outlined in Situation 2, in all likelihood, he never would have been arrested and this incident would never have come into the realm of public knowledge. It would be a "non-event". Am I saying this is all Gates's fault? No. Anybody who's ever heard of Rodney King knows that police can stop, question, and even brutalize a person due to racial bias. A recent NPR News Story outlines the experiences of black men and their encounters with law enforcement. The information as anecdotal, and I'll reproduce it here:

• "Erroll McDonald, one of the few prominent blacks in publishing, tells of renting a Jaguar in New Orleans and being stopped by the police — simply 'to show cause why I shouldn't be deemed a problematic Negro in a possibly stolen car.' "
• "Wynton Marsalis says, '(Expletive), the police slapped me upside the head when I was in high school. I wasn't Wynton Marsalis then. I was just another nigger standing out somewhere on the street whose head could be slapped and did get slapped.'"
• "The crime novelist Walter Mosley recalls, 'When I was a kid in Los Angeles, they used to spot me all the time, beat on me, follow me around, tell me that I was stealing things.' "
• "William Julius Wilson ... was stopped near a small New England town by a policeman who wanted to know what he was doing in those parts."

A number of years ago, when I lived in Orange County, CA, I spoke with an African-American man who was an attorney. He drove a very nice Mercedes. He told me that he was stopped on a fairly regular basis by different city police agencies and the Sheriff's Department, because he was a black man driving a very nice Mercedes. He had not been arrested on those occasions, presumably because he was polite, provided his drivers license, registration, and proof of insurance, and did what he was supposed to in order to pass "the attitude test". We live in a racist country. The American awareness of racial issues has gotten better over the past several decades, but racism continues to exist. I used to investigate child abuse for Orange County (California) social services back in the 1990s, and worked with many officers in a number of law enforcement jurisdictions. Most of the officers I worked with seemed professional and generally friendly. I did work with a few that could have used an attitude adjustment or a personality transplant but, at least in my case, my encounters with these types of officers were few. Also, I'm white so I lack the ability to trigger a racist response from a white officer, thus I can't speak from that perspective. Was the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. racially motivated? I have no idea. I can spin scenarios to explain how Gates could have been arrested, either including or removing the variable of racial bias. I can say that based on my analysis, it is possible for Gates to have been arrested just as he was, and the officers not be motivated by racial bias. Asking to question Gates under the circumstances reported is not racism. The officer would have been irresponsible to not investigate the report, regardless of the race of the suspect. That said, it is completely understandable why Gates would "go off" on the officer and automatically assume that racism was involved, based on the disproportionate amount of suspicion black men encounter from law enforcement in this country. This also probably accounts for Barack Obama's opinion that the officer in question acted stupidly when he arrested Gates. It is likely that Obama is projecting himself into the situation (at least at a point in his life when he was not the President), imagining how he'd feel under similar circumstances. Of course, involving himself in this news story as President may be a case of "overkill", but even the President has a right to his own opinion. Could this situation have been avoided? Sure. Gates could have held his temper, passed the attitude test, and the whole thing would have been over in 10 minutes. Also, the officer could have chosen to ignore Gates verbal tirade (I'm assuming the official report is correct that Gates did yell at the officer), determined that Gates was upset at being questioned because of his assumptions, and just walked away. Actually, the officer attempted to walk away when he exited the home, but Gates followed him. While Gates's emotional state is somewhat obvious based on reports of his behavior, we don't know what the officer was feeling. I know from being yelled at, that it's really unpleasant, and the tendency is for me to want to yell back or otherwise retaliate. A police officer ideally doesn't let his emotional state dictate his professional behavior, but not all officers always behave according to the ideal. If the officer made a mistake, it would have been in letting his emotions take control (I'm making another assumption) of his behavior, resulting in the arrest. What can we (society, America, law enforcement, other) learn from this? Regardless of the amount of press this incident acquires, I doubt it will represent a pivotal moment in our nation's history. This is just one of many such encounters between a person of color and law enforcement where racial bias might have or did change the outcome of events. It is a signpost of where we are as a people, and how far we have to go. Everyone just about flipped out with joy when the United States of America elected its first African-American President. "Look how far we've come!", declared our country. We may not see lynchings of black men in Mississippi anymore, or civil rights demonstrations down the main street in Selma, Alabama, but we don't have complete equality, either. African-American President aside, racism in American has not gone away. Are police racists? No, not all police officers or all police organizations are universally racist. I don't doubt that some police officers have personal racial biases. I don't doubt that certain police organizations promote, or at least ignore, the occurrence of racial bias among its officers. This incident is a reminder of what exists in the world, and while we've gotten better as a nation, we need to continue to pursue justice for all of our citizens, regardless of race. Is the officer who arrested Gates a racist? There's no way to tell. As far as I can see from the information publicly available, both Gates and the police officer made some bad decisions, and the result is what we see on the news channels. In that sense, the situation seems less racially caused and more the result of the people involved being human and having feelings.

Check and Balances?

The news that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire, started me thinking (yes, I know...quite dangerous, or at least annoying). If the three branches of Government are supposed to be independent, how come the President can pick his Supreme Court Justice? Sure, Congress still has to approve, but if both the President and Congress belong to the same political party, won't the Judge also be of the same ilk? Doesn't that slant Government to one view only? So much for the two-party system and checks and balances. Can anyone out there supply an answer to this quick question? Please post back a comment if you can. Thanks.

Peace with Islam is A Call to Democracy

Update, January 28th: I've been hearing about this for a few days now and heard about it for the first time months ago. Can Islamic terrorists be "rehabilitated"? Sounds like the idea is that you're treating them as if they'd been brainwashed by a cult (which I guess is more or less true) and the treatment is some form of "deprogramming". You can read all about it at Time.com and see if this seems like a viable solution. As it's presented, it will probably be most effective at the low-level jihadists who would be convinced to blow themselves up...what used to be called "cannon fodder". For the Bin Ladens of the world, all the therapy available since Freud smoked his first cigar wouldn't help.

Original post starts here: I've been following President Obama's efforts to keep this campaign promise with interest, and some trepidation. Under the Bush administration, it was a foregone conclusion that the vast majority of Muslim Arab nations were at least at odds with our national interests if not our outright enemies (read: Iran). Obama has been busy reversing just about every act Bush ever made as President, but can he really accomplish his goal of peace with Islam? Can there be peace between America and the Muslim nations? As far as establishing peace with Islam, it would be naive to assume that the Muslim Arab world would ever truly desire peace with the U.S. as long as we support the existence of Israel. If we advocated the total destruction of every last Jewish man, woman, and child in Israel and turning the entire land into "Palestine" for the "Palestinian Arabs", then they'd say they want peace with us. The issue of "Palestine" cannot be extracted from the entire debate, since every Arab nation, including our ally Saudi Arabia, supports the establishment of a Palestinian "homeland" within the borders of Israel (kind of like moving the fox into the back bedroom of the hen house). The irony in all this is that, whenever the Palestinian people have sought to establish their presence in any of the Arab nations, they were sent packing back to "Palestine". Even today, movement of Palestinian citizens to into Egypt, right next door to Gaza, is strictly controlled by the Egyptians. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has long expressed his heartfelt compassion for the Palestinian people, once suggested that, if the Europeans felt so guilty for the Holocaust, why didn't they establish a "Jewish homeland" in Europe, and leave 100% of Israel for the Palestinians? I'm sure that Iran has more than enough real estate for Ahmadinejad to annex some portion of it for "New Palestine". Why doesn't he follow his own best advice? The issue of "extremist" (as if they're just three guys in a garage somewhere in Montana building bombs) organizations is another potential roadblock. Islamic terrorist organizations act out the will of the mainstream Islamic hard liners. Many "average" Muslims support terrorist acts towards the US and Israel who they are told are the enemy. While these average people may never commit a terrorist act themselves, they at least emotionally and cognitively support terrorism, if not donate to terrorist causes. How will those people, who have already been convinced that we are the enemy, be "unconvinced"? While Obama says he wants to establish peaceful relations with Muslim countries like Iran but totally rejects Islamic Terrorist organizations, he doesn't acknowledge that Iran is the willing training ground for Al Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and so on. Did the CIA fail to brief the new President on these facts? How can we support peace on the one hand, and still ignore that our would be allies continue to support violence against us? What about the human rights violations committed on a daily basis in Iran and other Islamic nations? How can we close down "Gitmo" in order to wash our sins from our hands, yet ally ourselves to nations that employ the same (or worse) interrogation techniques on their political prisoners? Do we accept a superficial "peace" with these nations while turning a blind eye to the suffering of their prisoners and their citizens? We tried that with the Soviet Union and it didn't work. Even after the fall of Communism and establishment of relationships with the former Soviet states, many problems remain. Is our desire for "peace" stronger than standing up for our stated ideals of Justice and Freedom for all? Despite what I said earlier about "average" Muslims supporting terrorism, at least passively, I do think that most Muslims, here in the west and in the Arab nations, want to have peace. I believe that many Iranian citizens desire that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be replaced by a more moderate leader. However, just as citizens in every nation run by a dictator have very little say as to the official policies of their country, the average Arab may have no control over implementing these desires. An excellent book that illustrates the plight of a subjegated people is Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror. Sharansky himself was a Soviet Jewish dissident, living in Russia during the cold war period. He points out that, while some of the citizens truly supported the Soviet goals and were "partners" with the oppressive regime, most people wanted to at least have a greater dialogue with the west and at most, the freedom to leave the Communist state. Few people live in a dictatorship by choice. The same propaganda process existed for the Soviets then as it does for Islam now. If people in the Soviet Union believed the west was "evil", it was because their leaders told them so. Some chose to believe while others saw through the lies. The same is true today in Islamic dictatorships, except while the Soviets chose to "demonize" religion, Islam by definition, uses religion as the compelling tool to convince the people that Allah (not the same as the Jewish or Christian God) believes the west is "evil". This not only justifies violence against westerners and Jews, but demands it. Obama is not ignorant nor stupid, and I find it hard to believe that he's even naive. So what does he expect to gain out of extending the hand of friendship to a dictatorship that could not function attached to a democracy? As allies, wouldn't we be critical of their many human rights violations? The answer I see is that he gets to make good on his promise. No, I don't believe Obama is shallow, but I do believe he has a rationale. There have to be a set of "reasonable" conditions for us to accept a nation as a friend (at least if Obama really means he wants to run government without duplicity...a first, if he can pull it off) and new ally. That means, we couldn't reasonably accept friendship with countries such as Iran unless they ceased (not just "agreed" to cease, but actually ceased) all of their internal activities that violated the rights of their citizens and stopped 100% of their support for terrorist organizations. I frankly don't see that happening unless or until a revolution occurs in Iran, tossing out the old regime. There's nothing wrong with stating that we are not aggressors and desire to have peaceful relations with the nations of the world. That said, we must accept that, if we are true to the principles of democracy and freedom, we are not going to be friends will all of the nations of the earth. We can extend the olive branch to the Islamic world, but we need to not be afraid to say that there will be no peace while Islam supports injustice and violence. Source articles: The New York Times and CNN.com.

How Open Can Obama Make Government?

Update: This sounds like a challenge to "ObamaWeb 2.0"; the so called spy-proof 'BarackBerry' phone. Original blog post starts here: When I say "open" in my professional life, I usually mean Open Source. The question posed by this blog post is somewhat related, but it really talks about "openness" in a much broader sense. My post was actually inspired by a link Tim O'Reilly posted on twitter to the O'Reilly blog What Does it Mean to be an Internet President? I have no intension of reinventing the wheel and rehashing what writer Joshua-Michéle Ross wrote (even if I could), but one piece of the blog post captured my interest:

"getting beyond a paternal sense of government (what government does for me) and towards a participatory model of government"

The point Ross makes is almost like describing the differences between Web 1.0 and 2.0 (static vs. interactive/participatory), though John F. Kennedy's famous Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country statement was certainly an ancestor. However, at our core as Americans, are we ready to move that far? Are we ready to be truly participatory in our government? You might think I'm nuts even asking that sort of question. After all, wasn't our nation founded on equal representation in government? Yes, in theory, but I'm not sure it ever really worked that way. I know it doesn't work that way now. I think if offered, people are going to have a hard time adjusting to as much access as Obama and Co. seem to offer. As Ben Parker said to his young nephew Peter, "With great power comes great responsibility." Responsibility comes with access and interaction, too. Right before the inauguration, CNN posted a story to their politics page about a group of Republicans in Wyoming who were not at all thrilled that Barack Obama was going to be President. Part of their concern (and they were very polite and measured when expressing their concerns) was that traditionally, Democrats favor "big government" and significant Federal government involvement in the States. Many of us who live in the West, tend to favor each individual State having more control over its own affairs and smaller Federal government involvement (some would say "intrusion"). There's a sense you have in the West about taking care of your own messes "in-house" so to speak, and not calling on "Big Daddy" every time you scrape your knee. In fact, the State Constitution of Idaho (where I live) poses very strict limits on when the State can legally ask the Federal government for assistance; more than most states. The sort of access that the Obama "Web 2.0" administration is proposing has a lot of advantages and a few disadvantages, as least as I can see it. With that level of participation, information goes both ways. In some sense, if we as citizens are more involved with the Federal government than ever before on an interactive level, then the Federal government will be more involved with us. I suppose if you see the government as a completely benign entity, that may not bother you much. With the overwhelming sense of good will that seems to have attached itself to the Obama administration, the idea of "trust" may not have entered into the minds of most people just yet (unless it's framed as "I trust Obama completely"). The other side of the "trust" coin is how widely will Obama open the access doors? Government tends to have it's dark corners and it's shadowed closets where none but the "insider" may venture. Certainly, the President can't do away with the concept let alone the practice of "national security" in a day (or a week, or a month, or a...). Will there truly be no secrets from the American people anymore? Where do we draw the line in terms of information flow relative to allowing other governments and outside groups access (If I can find it on whitehouse.gov, so can Hamas or Al Qaeda)? In my living memory, the government has always been "paternal". You could question it, but only up to a point. You could "buck the system", but if you pushed too hard, the system pushed back (ask people like Abbie Hoffman). Even the "kindest and gentlest" government could bare its teeth if you stepped on its toes. It's hard to imagine the kind of openness that is being discussed in articles like the one Ross posted. It's quite possible that I've gotten so used to relating to the government in one way, that I find it difficult to change gears, at least very quickly. Yet the digital age is all about very fast information transfer and manipulation. On the other hand, Obama has been in office for little more than a day. As one person commented on the blog I've referenced, "He hasn't done anything yet and people continue to praise him. Amazing." In the sense of openness I've been discussing, the responsibility isn't solely on Obama's shoulders. It can't be to fulfill it's purpose. The door has to swing both ways. Both sides (here I go again..."us vs. them") have to be willing to be "open", providing give and take of information, participation, exchanges of ideas and energy...and especially responsibility. If the American people don't want the government to be a "Big Daddy" anymore, then they're going to have to grow up...we're going to have to grow up. That means we participate and take the risks that go along with it. If it works, it could be revolutionary, but even revolutions take more than a day. One of the things that slows down the "revolution" for me, is whether or not we can or should trust the government, and whether or not they're willing to trust us. On the surface, the offering of trust by this administration seems to be the intent, but just because Barack Obama will be sleeping in the White House tonight, doesn't mean that the entire "Military Industrial Complex" has rolled over. Part of us being responsible citizens is making measured decisions. In any relationship, even the most intimate relationship, 100% of all information is never exchanged. "Personal privacy" isn't a dirty word, and I don't see a citizen's relationship with the government being all that "intimate". Am I ready to throw caution to the winds and immediately accept and embrace all this? Well, I've never been much of a "hugger". The government already knows a great deal about me and yet, I don't find myself thinking of our relationship as "intimate". I think I'll see how the relationship develops, before I let myself relax that much.

I Could Be Wrong about Obama

Update: And so it begins. That is, the demands of the Arab world on Obama. Both the Arab world and Israel have a set of expectations relative to the newly minted American President. Since you can't make all of the people happy all of the time, it'll be interesting to see how President Obama responds. Original Blog starts here: I'm not above eating my own words when I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong. This article published by Arutz Sheva seems to indicate that I'm wrong. Let me explain. One of my concerns about President Obama has to do with his statements that he wanted to forge a new relationship with the Muslim world. That's fine and well in the spirit of international cooperation, but some of those nations and groups have long called for the total destruction of Israel and the US; actions I certainly am against. Yet the aforementioned Arutz Sheva article states that the Arab world is, at best, suspicious of President Obama's motives with some referring to him as a "Black Bush". No rational person would consider Obama's stated policies anywhere near those of George Bush's, so the assumption is a tad psychotic. On the other hand, it seems that Arab suspicion is crystalized by a statement made by civil servant Khalil al-Attar, "Despite everything that has been said about his Arab origins, something I personally don't believe, he will act according to the interests of the people who elected him." The President of the United States acting on behalf of the interests of the people who elected him? Well...yeah. What do you expect? By the way, what "Arab origins"? Obama's birth father was from Kenya and his step-father was a Muslim from Indonesia. Of course, Arab suspicion aside, no one will know for sure which way Obama will jump on the issues in the Middle East just yet. Campaign rhetoric is one thing, but we've already seen that once elected, Obama has demonstrated a tendency to make his own decisions in his own way. While there was celebrating in Gaza by Hamas and their supporters when Obama was inaugurated, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ignored the proceedings, based on the "hostility" he perceives Obama has against his country. While millions in Israel cheered as Barack Obama became America's 44th President, we can only wait and see who in the Middle East has more reason to be concerned about this nation's actions, the Arab world or Israel. I hope I'm wrong. I'll gladly eat my words. But before I put the napkin around my neck and raise my knife and fork, I'll need to see what is on the plate in front of me.

God and the Inauguration

I was glad to see that the prayers some people tried to prevent from happening, were able to be said at Barack Obama's inauguration. I've been wondering about this all day. While I was successfully able to follow the event just by keeping my eye on twitter, the issue of prayer, much discussed and argued over in the weeks before the inauguration, wasn't brought up once. After I got home, I scanned the online news again and discovered that Yahoo.com had covered the story (I haven't taken a look at CNN yet). At one point, the somewhat controversial Reverend Rick Warren (by virtue of the fact that he supported Proposition 8 in California), seemed to have "knuckled under" slightly, not referring to Jesus by name but "in the name of the one who changed my life". He also quoted from the Shema, Judaism's holiest prayer (Deuteronomy 6:4) "Hear O' Israel, the Lord our God; the Lord is One". He also referenced what commentators referred to as "a phrase from Muslim devotion", "the compassionate and merciful one", but this phrase is also common in Jewish prayers (I checked) and probably predates the Islamic usage. Later in the news article, it stated that Warren invoked the name of Jesus in English, Spanish, Hebrew, and Arabic, so he didn't become so "politically correct" for the occasion (pardon the obvious pun) that he withheld the name of Jesus in order to accommodate the sense of inclusiveness promoted by the event. Actually, the only unhappy comment regarding Warren's prayer came from Rabbi Gary Greenebaum, interreligious outreach leader of the American Jewish Committee, who said, "inclusive even as it was slightly exclusive", referring to the mention of Jesus and ending the prayer with The Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9–13, Luke 11:2–4). That's rather a faint criticism, though. Of course, if Warren is to be true to his faith and his beliefs as an Evangelical Pastor, it's unreasonable to expect that he'll pray any other way, publicly or privately. The news story also mentions some of the other religious leaders present who offered prayers, and Obama was true to his mission of offering inclusion to the faithful and the secular alike. During his campaign, Obama has mentioned his own faith more than once, but the expressions of his faith seem to include issues that those people referred to as "the religious right" would not find in their Bibles. The article made a point of mentioning that "the religious right" did seem to play a significant role in the Bush Presidency, which may be yet another reason why so many people were anxious to see Bush get out and Obama go into the White House. Is God inclusive of all things and all people? He certainly wants all people to come to Him. The problem arises when people decide how they want to define God, and go church (synagogue, mosque, whatever) hopping to find a place of faith that will be tolerant of (which these days means "wholeheartedly accept") their particular lifestyle and habits. I know from my studies of the Bible that God is not tolerant of sin (well, he's more tolerant than we deserve, but there will be an ultimate reckoning), so people tend to go "God-hopping" looking for a faith, or a faction of a faith, where "God" includes whatever they want Him to include, and often where the concept of "sin" is never mentioned. Many Christians refer to America as a "Christian Nation". Personally, the way America is going, I don't see it and haven't for quite sometime. While Obama states that his faith is Christian, his desire to include all other faiths plus non-faith (unless one has faith in Science or Society) will likely, officially define America as "not" a Christian nation for the first time in our country's history. I'm glad to see the prayers were said at this historic event. Matthew 18:20 says, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." I take heart that He was there in the midst of those who have faith in God and attended Barack Obama's inauguration. May He continue to have a presence in this nation, especially at a time when so many are demanding that He leave.

Living up to Expectations

Post the Obama Inauguration, the whole world and certainly the United States, seems to be doing one big happy dance. The Messiah apparent has now taken the throne and all of our troubles and woes will quickly vanish, and an age of unprecedented and everlasting peace is upon us...maybe. It's a little too soon to start analysing President Obama's performance. After all, he hasn't had a chance to actually do anything yet. That's not a criticism, it's a fact. And yet, I do see signs of unrest already forming in the clouds. There are many examples, some of which I outlined in my previous blog I feel sorry for Barack Obama...and I admire him. I want to use just one recent example; the controversy over Obama's appearance on the cover of MS. Magazine. The link I posted in the last sentence includes a picture of the cover, which depicts Obama, ripping his shirt open in "Superman" fashion with the t-shirt underneath saying, "This is what a Feminist looks like". In fact, feminists were split on whether or not this was a good thing. Occasionally, but rarely, does MS. Magazine have a man on its cover and many dissenters thought that a woman such as Hilary Clinton or even (gasp) Sarah Palin should have appeared instead. Others, and chiefly the editorialship of MS. Magazine, say that it's possible for a man to be a feminist and that an Obama Presidency is good for feminists. The previously mentioned dissenters still, to some degree, are smarting that Clinton didn't win the Democratic nomination for President (and possibly the Presidency itself), nor was she even vetted as a possible VP for Obama (the latter would have ended up in a hopeless battle of wills between two strong leaders, neither one wanting to take the back seat to the other...Clinton will better serve "the party" as Secretary of State). As I recall watching and reading the various reports on this issue, one of the criticisms levelled against Obama's being displayed on the magazine's cover, was that he hadn't appointed enough women to high Cabinet positions (and I previously discussed this). I guess this means Obama failed the "feminist" test by not meeting his "woman-in-high-places" quota. Before you condemn me to "male chauvinist pigdom", I do believe strongly in equal access and don't believe in making distinctions between men and women in terms of capability for any role. I have no problem with Obama being President based on race and would have had no problem (had it worked out that way) with Clinton being President based on gender. What I am saying is that I don't believe that anyone is entitled to any particular role just because of race or gender. In other words, I don't believe in quotas. Affirmative Action's dismal failure proves they don't work. In fact, quotas are demeaning to the very people you're trying to benefit, because they say "you couldn't have made it on merit alone...you need help". Obama is supposed to be the superhero that rights all wrongs, frees the oppressed, heals the sick, raises the dead...no wait, that's Jesus. Well, as far as the American public and citizens of the world are concerned, Obama is all that rolled into one person. He can do no wrong, at least today. However, when tomorrow and the day after tomorrow come around, criticisms such as those I've just mentioned will rise over the horizon like rain clouds hiding the morning sun. The feminists are just an example. Every interest group expects President Obama to serve their particular needs. It's almost as if each American individual is expecting Obama to service just them. What happens when he doesn't? What happens when President Obama continues to use his own judgement to make decisions rather than everyone's expectations? What happens when someone asks him for something and he has to say "no"? Everyone loves a rising star, but will turn them into "paparazzi-fodder" the split second they appear to fail. Obama doesn't even have to actually fail to be turned against by the fair-weather fans. All he has to do is seem to fail by not meeting everyone's expectations all of the time. Given the dismal reputation George W. Bush takes with him, like a personal storm cloud, as he leaves the White House for the last time, it's relatively easy to be the popular new kid on the block. All you have to do is say, "I promise to be different than Bush". The whole world is ready for that. The question of what "different" actually means will become important in the weeks and months ahead. We not only must pray that Obama guides this nation with wisdom, but we have to pray that we understand that a leader must lead the people, and not follow their every whim.

Letting Sleeping Scandals Lie (again)

Tim O'Reilly's recent tweet pointed to an opinion piece written by Paul Krugman for the New York Times regarding how to address the latest government scandal. To quote, Last Sunday President-elect Barack Obama was asked whether he would seek an investigation of possible crimes by the Bush administration. “I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” he responded, but “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.” Krugman disagrees, based on the principle that any abuse of power needs to be examined, and those responsible need to be held accountable. Apparently, that hasn't held true in past similar scandals such as Iran-Contra (Reagan), and while President-Elect Obama seems in favor of sweeping Bush's "possible crimes" under the rug, Krugman would like to drag them out into the light of day. I'm all in favor of "justice for all". If the Bush administration is guilty of illegal acts, then the individuals involved, right up to and including the President of the United States, should be held accountable. I believe that was the idea behind the Watergate hearings (remember Nixon?). It would seem like Obama should be all in favor of justice. Why would he suggest otherwise? The article states that healing bi-partisan wounds could be part of the motivation. Obama has made a point out of crafting an administration using players from both of the major teams (Democrat and Republican). This is a great time for "mending fences", and dragging Bush and Co. up before the inquisition would likely tear those fences down, crush them to sawdust, and then ignite them, burning said fences into ashes. The other thing to consider is what you get from moving forward and not back; letting the sleeping scandals lie. You get (ideally) the same treatment from the next administration as far as whatever mistakes or (gasp) misdeeds you may commit during your time in the White House. Could Obama be looking ahead, not only at the big picture, but also at the mirror? Who says that only Republicans are capable of making mistakes or (at least being accused of) breaking the law? Are Democrats scandal-proof? Bill Clinton would probably say "no" (though, he's bounced back rather nicely).

I feel sorry for Barack Obama...and I admire him

I know he probably doesn't feel sorry for himself, and many people won't understand my position, but hear me out. Based on the Washington Post story of December 7th of last year and a variety of similar articles, Barack Obama isn't living up to the expectations of his supporters. Don't get me wrong; he's still loved by millions, but that love isn't as completely unreserved as it was during his campaign for President. In a nutshell, Obama's cabinet picks haven't exactly fit the mold of the standard liberal "progressive" and in fact, many have seemed to be more "centrists". Just as an aside, I've been trying to figure out what a "progressive" is and why such a person would be desirable. To that end, I Googled for definitions. In simplest terms, a progressive is a person who promotes progress and change. Naturally, you have to have some sort of idea of what defines progress, and not all change is necessarily good. Of course, Obama's entire campaign platform was built on the concept of change, and it was assumed that such change would fit the ideas dancing in his supporter's minds and hearts. Based on Obama's decisions to date, there doesn't seem to be a one-to-one correlation between Obama's definition and those of his supporters. I suppose we all have a different idea of what "the Messiah" will do when he comes to power. If you are thinking of the Jewish Messiah or the Christian Christ, you might have some sort of idea, based on the Bible, of what the Messiah will do to "fix the world". I don't think there's any such book or guide available to tell you what to expect from Barack Obama, except perhaps what guides you in your own imagination. Reality, as people are seeing, is somewhat different. After all, Obama has a mind of his own. That means he's quite capable of making his own decisions and I commend him for it. What I see (and I'm not any particular fan of Obama's), is that he's sizing up each position, what qualifications a person needs to be able to fill those positions, and then making his choices based on who can best fill the given roles. That is, he's choosing the best person for the job, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, or sexual orientation. He's doing what you'd think most "progressives" would just love...he's being completely non-discriminatory. He's not playing favorites. He's not putting more women in cabinet seats because he's worried about meeting some sort of "woman quota". He's not putting more people of color in cabinet seats because he's worried about what people of color will think of him. He's doing what I have always wanted a President to do. It's kind of cool, actually. I feel sorry for Obama, because I can see a time when the "progressives" who supported him, will turn on him like so many rabid dogs who didn't get their ears scratched in exactly the way they expected. Progressives seem to think that if you put the right percentage of "types" of people in high cabinet positions, then everything will work out fine. I'm no mind reader, but from what I can tell just observing Obama's choices in this area, he seems to think that if you put the most qualified people in these positions, then you have the best chance of getting a really good job done. What the heck is everyone complaining about?

Obama Inauguration Declared a National Emergency

LOL. I actually did chuckle when I first saw the link to this New York Times story posted on twitter. The "emergency" as such, is that additional funds are required to deal with the extraordinary crowds that are expected to show up for this historical event (and whether you're an Obama supporter or not, this is a historical event). The ironic point here, is that those who haven't and don't support Obama (apparently a minority of the world's population), probably see this as an "emergency" of a different type.

Let's Be Realistic

Barack Obama: "I want to be realistic here...Not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace that we had hoped". Is this where I get to say, "No, you think?" To be fair, I don't believe any person who is running for President of the United States has access to all of the necessary information to actually make promises they'll be able to keep. I can almost see the moment when Obama finally won. Then, some people in dark suits pulled him aside and said, "Excuse me Sir, but we need to talk. This is why you aren't going to be able to keep all those promises you made". Obama listens, first attentively, then solemnly, and finally with a look that says, "Oh my G-d! I had no idea!" Shortly thereafter, President-Elect Obama starts saying to the news media, "I want to be realistic here..." Speaking of the news media, the source of the quote is at CNN.com.

All Things to All People?

President Elect Barack Obama has taken a fair amount of heat for selecting Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at Obama's inauguration on January 20th. Unless you've been hiding in a cave, you know the issue centers around Warren's support of Proposition 8 in California, which won and effectively bars same-sex couples from becoming legally married (they can still retain most or all of the rights of a married couple under the domestic partners laws, and there are any number of churches that will perform same-sex religious weddings). The Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender community has taken it personally and don't believe that the choice of Warren for this plum position at the inauguration, represents Obama's stance on inclusion of all American peoples in political process. Obama seems to recently have taken steps to correct this oversight. According to this Yahoo! News story, Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, will "offer a prayer at the Lincoln Memorial at an inaugural event." While Robinson himself denies that this decision was made to appease the Gay community after the outrage of including Warren, it can't help but be noticed as Obama's olive branch to the Gay community that all "minorities" (and equating sexual orientation with race in terms of "minorities" is still a rather thorny issue) are welcomed as Americans. This raises a couple of issues, though. The first is the issue of "fairness". Obama, in the context of these decisions, can be seen as trying to be fair to the widest set of groups possible, by showing in a tangible way, that each group has a representative at the inauguration. While the Gay community can most likely see that including Robinson is fair, does the door swing both ways? That is, can the Gay community also see that it's "fair" to include Warren to represent conservative and traditionally Christian Americans? Often, in the liberal world view, something is "fair" only if it includes representatives of the liberal view point and deliberately excludes opposing perspectives (such as Warren's). The other issue has to do with splitting hairs. While there are quite a number of different Christian denominations that present their version of Biblical interpretation, do all versions represent God as God sees Himself? Assuming that Obama actually has a personal understanding of the Bible and thus, what God stands for and expects from humanity, can Obama reasonably "play politics" with his faith and "dance on the head of a pin" like so many proverbial angels? All Presidents since the ol' cherry tree chopper himself, have stated that they have a Christian faith, but all Presidents have tended to lead the country first as a politician and somewhere down the line (I won't say "second" because that might put their faith too high on the list), as a Christian. Recently, even "Dubya" has gone public and said that he doesn't believe that many of the events depicted in the Bible are literally true. Politics not only makes for strange bedfellows but also for strange "pew warmers". In being so inclusive, does Obama risk appearing as if he has no personal convictions on faith at all? Having both Warren and Robinson in attendance may present Obama as "inclusive" but what message does it send about what he believes, in terms of his core faith? I certainly don't expect to find Obama sharing the same faith view as the very conservative Rick Warren (a likely heir apparent for such old guard Christian icons as Dr. James Dobson), but with Robinson, Warren, and other religious luminaries present, just what can we conclude about Obama's faith? Based on the observation of the events leading to the inauguration to date, I haven't the faintest idea.