December 18-24, 2008
editorial@boulderweekly.com

Obama to rely on facts
President-elect Barack Obama astonished the nation on Monday, Dec. 15, when he announced that his administration will “value science” and “will make decisions based on facts.” His announcement marked an abrupt shift with the past eight years of presidential decision-making, in which policy has been based either on the little voices George W heard in his head or, when the voices were silent, what would make George W, Dick Cheney and their buddies richest fastest.

For example, when scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency showed up with science and facts to help craft a new energy policy for the United States, they were told that neither science nor facts were relevant to the process. Instead, the needs of the oil industry became the guiding factor.

Facts weren’t important when it came to deciding whether to attack Iraq, either. Weapons of mass destruction? Nope. Yellow cake? Not really. A connection to 9/11? No, not so much.

Of course, Congress is as guilty of this as Bush-Cheney Inc. Given a choice between saving the world or having their asses kissed by lobbyists and making a buck, many members of Congress can be counted on to choose the latter.

That’s what they did when several members of Congress — Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Arlen Specter and Sen. Charles Schumer — used earmarks to force the Defense Department to spend taxpayer dollars on an inferior skin product designed to protect soldiers from chemical attacks rather than allowing the Pentagon to supply soldiers with a product that truly worked.

But Clinton, Specter and Schumer are hardly the only members of Congress to champion earmarks in return for donations. In Washington, it’s the bottom feeders — i.e., lobbyists — who too often run the show, whether we’re talking about global climate change or how best to protect U.S. soldiers.

Basing decisions on science and facts? We can hardly wait.

McCain: No to Palin in 2012
It’s been less than two months since Sen. John McCain lost the presidential election, and he’s already starting to feel like his old self again (no pun intended). Recently, when asked if he would support Palin’s bid for presidential election in 2012, the Maverick did not say, “You betcha!” Claiming that there are plenty of other good people in the Republican Party to consider, McCain mentioned Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman as possibilities. Or perhaps Larry Craig. Or Homer Simpson. Or a bucket of dirt. These are all better options than Sarah Palin.

After picking Palin as his running mate — essentially offering her the Golden Ticket to the candy factory — why is he now unwilling to give his support for a 2012 run? We came up with a few possible reasons:

5) He finally turned his hearing aide on and realized... she’s a moron.
4) He gearing up to run in 2012 himself. At 72, he’s just getting his second wind.
3) He found time to watch the Saturday Night Live sketches of Tina Fey as Palin.
2) He found time to watch the vice presidential debate and realized there was really no difference between Palin’s answers and Tina Fey’s impersonation of Palin’s answers.
1) The Republican Party is no longer speaking for him.
Basically, we think John McCain is finally able to say publicly what we all said during his campaign: that Sarah Palin is unqualified to make Slurpees for 7-11 customers, much less make decisions for American citizens.

Sex vs. stuff
A recent survey revealed just how important technology is to people. Either that, or it exposed just how indifferent we are to sex.

Nearly half of the women questioned said that they’d be willing to forgo sex for two weeks instead of giving up their Internet access for the same period of time. Almost a third of the men questioned said they’d do the same.

However, here’s something to consider: if the Internet is the central focus of your life, there’s a fairly good chance that you’ve never even had sex, so giving it up for two weeks is not much or a sacrifice. That’s kind of like asking a one-armed man to give up clapping or a horse to stop writing essays for the New Yorker.

Boulder Weekly decided we could come up with a better survey question. What would you be willing to give up if you could erase George Bush’s tenure in the White House? Answers:
—Opposable thumbs
—Eating solid foods
—Walking upright
—Toilet paper
—The ability to sweat
—Michael Jackson’s Thriller album (just kidding — nothing is that important).

Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com
back to top