JarrettHarris.com

“Beltway Veterans” and “Wall Street Insiders” are probably not categories most Obama voters thought his cabinet members would fall under when they pulled the lever. But the president-elect’s choices so far seem to be… not so much about “turning the page.”

Tom Daschle, Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Eric Holder… these are hardly names most would associate with “change” (my use of quotation marks is annoying me, too). Following this afternoon’s announcement of Tim Geithner as the Treasury Secretary nominee, I heard commentary that his age and new face helped the president-elect convey a consistent theme. But I’m not so sure his comparative youth really represents the degree of change voters were clamoring for.

So I’m asking all the Obama supporters in the audience – and I really am asking out of curiosity – what do you think of these selections?

I’ve always felt this logo was unnecessarily detailed.

In the 2008 presidential campaign, much discussion centered around perceived media bias in favor of President-Elect Barack Obama. “In the tank” was a phrase thrown around pretty loosely to describe news outlets’ propensity to lend disproportionately positive coverage to the Obama campaign.

In yesterday’s Washington Post, Ombudsman Deborah Howell recognized a marginal tilt in the paper’s campaign coverage in favor of Obama. “Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin “Tony” Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago,” Howell said.

Others in the media have justified campaign coverage favoring Obama, citing his organization’s superior performance. Still others said the Obama story naturally lent itself to more favorable media coverage. “The press likes a good story, and Obama fits that role well,” blogger Terry Heaton wrote. “It’ll be exciting with an Obama Presidency, and the press likes that, too.”

With a margin of nearly 8 million votes, it is probably a bit of a stretch to claim that media bias alone won Barack Obama the presidency (though I’m sure others more qualified than I are delving into that very question). What I’m more concerned about is – what happens next?

The role of the press – at least in U.S. political society – has typically rested on its foundation as a “watchdog” of the government. “Freedom of the Press,” though noble in and of itself, is far more compelling when put in the context of the Founding Fathers’ observance of government-controlled newspapers before and during the Revolution.

In the last eight years, it can be argued that the role of the press expanded beyond watchdog and into bulldog territory (or maybe pit-bull?). As an unpopular president during tumultuous times, President George W. Bush’s every decision was thoroughly scrutinized by the press. But oftentimes the scrutiny preceded the policy decision/public appearance/verbal gaffe.

Even so, the aggressive relationship between the press and the President was not a danger to democracy. It essentially amounted to spin-doctors on two opposing sides offering two divergent views of the truth. Annoying? Yes. Threatening? No.

But what happens when the two institutions charged with providing accurate information of domestic and global events are playing for the same team? If the story of the next four years turns out to be the overwhelming failures of President Barack Obama (and I sincerely hope it does not), will the press be willing to tell it?

Found these interesting.

First, national debt since the Nixon years.

Second, stock market activity the day after each election since 1896.

Most Christians agree that murder is prohibited by God – that the taking of a human life outside the bounds of God’s justice is sin. But many Christians disagree on whether an abortion qualifies as murder. Further, Christians disagree on whether such a distinction – if made – is a sufficient justification to vote for a particular candidate.

Tomorrow, I will cast my vote for Senator John McCain. But this decision has nothing to do with qualifying abortion as murder. Rather, I cast my vote as a citizen desiring justice for the oppressed and exploited minorities in the U.S.

It is my contention that the precise beginning of life is a moot point, because the issue of abortion is not nearly as complicated as philosophers, scientists and social pundits make it out to be. From a historical standpoint, the impetus of a society’s decision to prevent childbirth has always been simple: protecting the status quo.

The book of Exodus opens with a dismal scene. Following Joseph’s ascension to power, his entire generation has passed away and the Israelites’ influence in Egypt has diminished. When a new king takes the throne, he immediately recognizes the potential of the Israelites. “Look, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we,” the king said to his people. “Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and it happen, in the event of war, that they also join our enemies and fight against us, and so go up out of the land.”

The king’s first step was to ratchet up the workloads the Israelites were required to perform for the expansion of Egypt. But when this proved insufficient, he ordered the sons of the Israelites to be killed upon birth.

This text makes no indication that the king was otherwise bloodthirsty or anti-family. In fact, given the cultural context of that day it is likely the Egyptian king understood how integral the family unit was to a properly functioning society. So long as it was his family unit. Indeed, fear of an upset balance in the social landscape fueled his decision.

This isn’t the only example of such behavior in scripture and it certainly isn’t the only example in broader human history. While the time and place for such decisions are broad, this much remains constant: the prevention of childbirth has always been an instrument of population control. It rarely impacts all strata of society equally but is established by the ruling class as a tool of oppression designed to protect the societal/political status quo. A prevention of innovation, even – a prevention of change.

Today, minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they undergo approximately 36% of abortions annually. Of course, it’s not Hebrew midwives showing up during labor to kill their newborns, but it’s worth noting that an estimated 90% of all U.S. abortion clinics are located in predominantly minority neighborhoods. And really, if you are the ruling class, what could be better than voluntary population control?

This is an admittedly brief discourse, but I hope it can aid undecided .Comrades in making more informed decisions. Abortion has long been an issue associated with fuzzy baby pictures, Catholic Nuns and all manner of protesters. But it is really about so much more than all that.