Today there was a terrible bombing in Boston, which injured over a hundred and killed at least three people. These are dangerous times we are living in, and who knows, one day living in this country may be akin to living in the Arab nations where violence surrounds and abounds.
Again the media and government seems almost split and contradictory it its collective personality. While they in the media within the immediate aftermath had no problem speculating between the political affiliations of the perpetrator, or perpetrators, i.e. left-wing or right-wing, any possibility of an organized terrorist connection, they seemed hesitant to address. Yet, again, at the same time, the imagined political ideals that such a person might have, were discussed. This frighteningly suggests and shows, not only a strong partisan divide in this country, but the extent of the hate or anger that one side feels towards another. I fear this divide and strife will only get worse, and indeed we have already seen civility and tolerance, which everyone demands but nobody practices, begin dissipating into a thing of the past. This is in both media and the general public, though there are those examples to the contrary. Lastly, I would like to point out this is based on the short coverage I did see and wasn’t in front of a TV or radio all day getting continual reports, so therefore any disagreement may be well founded for all I know.
Now I would like to address this word, “terrorism.” I find it a little odd, yet still a bit understandable, as to why the President and/or White House would be so hesitant to say the word or any variation thereof. Furthermore, after a brief Google search I found many definitions of terrorism, but not one concise meaning, which I found curious. One website explains this by suggesting that terrorism is a very relative term and is dependent on whom is using it. Also, one says it need be done especially as a means of coercion. However, I would like to humbly suggest a definition myself, that occurred to me when reflecting on all these acts as they occur all over the globe.
I was driving in my car a number years back, and I found myself stuck at a light behind a car which had a bumper sticker that read, “War is Terrorism.” Well, that kind of got this whole thought process going and I began to ponder the nature of war, and of terrorism, and how they might differ, if indeed they did. I have come to the conclusion that they do. My definition of terrorism would be, “Any act of violence, or attempted violence, designed to cause harm to a innocent person’s being, life, or property.” In short, terrorism is an act which targets the innocent. In addition, these acts usually testify to some cause and/or group. Furthermore, the terrorist seeks for his act to be infamous in the public eye as a spectacle, so he may use outlandish means or claim as many lives as they can in order to spread panic and fear among the innocent, which pleases the perpetrator through the chaos it brings down.
Alright, so maybe my definition isn’t as simple as I set out for it to be, but terror and the terrorist have these like traits when an act is labeled as one of, “terror.” Thus, at President Obama’s press conference, I was surprised at the absence of the word. He may have came out and said that it was by all means an act of terror, for there were innocent, unaware people targeted, but at the same time, perhaps he didn’t want to confuse people by making them think he was referring to, “organized terrorism.” That is a group like Al Qaida or Hamas without absolute proof first. Perhaps it’s time we change our definition of what terrorism is, when those not involved in any conflict and are thereby innocent, are targeted, hurt, or killed, by those employing warlike means.
I thank you all for your time and my prayers and thoughts go out to all those affected by today’s tragic events.
I know I haven’t been around for a while and for that I apologize. I would like to express my appreciation to those who contacted me wondering where another blog entry was. It is quite flattering and to those who took the time I would just like to say thank you. It doesn’t go unnoticed!
There has been so much going on in the news that I have been dying to comment on, but I honestly have been pretty busy with school and taking my cats’ temperatures (a preemptive strike against feline illness if you will). At any rate, I will now briefly attempt to offer up some negative assessments of Barney Frank, critiques of American foreign policy and due to my slight pseudo-stoicism, a surprising defense of Obama.
But first . . .
As you may or may not know, last week the consistently over-defensive Barney Frank got up in front of a bunch of students at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. After his lisp-filled tirade, the always gracious Frank decided to take some questions from the audience and initiated a question/answer format.
A student named Joe Pollak got up to make his inquiry to the congressman. He asked the following horrible and unforgivable question, which a student, whose primary duty is to learn, should never do:
“How much responsibility, if any, do you have for the financial crisis?”
How completely unreasonable of him! Now generally, if there is one thing Barney Frank doesn’t like it is a question. Indeed, his plumage goes up instantly in a defensive posture anytime anything is asked of him and it was no different this time. Frank stated the student’s question was accusatory. This conclusion was not induced from the actual question itself, but rather the independent modifying statements which preceded it. Yet, these were completely unrelated to the question. It basically just modified the question in Frank’s mind due to a preconception of the “right.” Thus, perhaps he did hear an accusatory tone within the question, but the question itself intrinsically contains no suggested accusations and in fact, even if it did, the conditional operator of “if any” would negate it, or at least give Frank the freedom to respond however he wanted to the question posed to him.
Thereby, I draw the conclusion that Frank’s perception of accusation is nothing more than a feigned sense of outrage to assist in nullifying the challenge the question poses. It helps shift the focus and redirect or negate the responsibility of the presupposed answer, which the very nature of a question suggests. This focus is taken off the person who has been approached with the inquest by negation and it is attempted to shift the scope of focus back unto the asker. This point we will revisit in a minute.
First though, let us actually grant what Mr. Frank asserts and say it is accusatory. Does this abolish the need for him to answer the question? No, absolutely not, for intention may change exact word usage, but the merits of inquiry remain steadfast. I believe this can be proven by a simple mental exercise. Picture any person you like asking the same question to Barney Frank and then switch the intention of the asker to whatever you like. Does the question lose any of its value considering the merits of the question, the question/answer format, the audience, or the relation between the student and the authoritative figure? No, in fact the question still has merit and thereby we can determine the inquiry is not dependent upon intention as supposed by Frank.
In fact, he still has a responsibility to answer the question by the very intrinsic properties of the office he holds and to deny this is a form of delusion that is not healthy for him, or the state he represents. This is a matter that is becoming ever more frequent and an issue we certainly need to stop. To return to the feigned outrage point, any vilification of those asking a question, no matter who that may be, especially when it comes to policy, should be perceived poorly by the public and by the press. For, it is upon policies and decision where we are able to judge performance. If we can’t inquire of performance, then our ability to judge accurately and effectively is seriously hindered. If it is hindered, then the very real possibility remains that we will not be able to hold our officials to any form of accountability. Furthermore, the quality of our questions will decrease and our voice will become ever more silenced amongst those who put on a guise of anger. This tactic of feigned outrage, however, can show us something profound. If it is exercised, then one can induce that those under the guise are being challenged and have a spongy foundation, rather than a concrete one, upon which any answer they set forth rests. Thereby, the target of the inquiry feels threatened and alarmed, this manifesting in any way to take the focus off them, usually by conversing it back to the asker. The press secretary Gibbs employs this method almost daily.
This is a sad state of affairs, when one is demonized for asking a question, yet weren’t we always told there was no such thing as a stupid one? Now they are stupid if you don’t share someone’s ideology, which isn’t based on questions at all, but rather based on a community of people with like-feelings. A political, ideological ghetto if you will. We have been working at completely divorcing the mind from shaping our world by relying almost wholly on our sensibilities and although these can be useful, they can also be dangerous, for particular exceptions will soon give way to generalities which govern all our lives and contradict a democracy. A politician should realize for every single person posing a question, there are probably thousands of others wondering the same thing and it would serve them well to look beyond superficial things such as intention to the very heart and merits of the question, which they can then refute or acknowledge at their leisure.
So, even granting Frank his charge, we find his argument to be so lacking and his attack so inappropriate, it is almost beyond belief for a man who holds public office. Yet, let’s go even further. Let us grant Frank every condition. Let us take away the setting, format, relation and everything. Just two people of equal stature in discourse. By this mental exercise something else comes into focus: the feigned outrage only works with an audience. Within a personal setting it becomes almost completely void of any power. I would assert Frank wasn’t as mad as he seemed, but was rather doing a performance piece. Therefore, if this guise wouldn’t suit him within a personal conversation, why would it have any bearing within the conditions of the setting? It only does because it’s not applying to the mind, but to an inherent bias or “feelings”.
In fact, I would argue the exact opposite of what Frank did and would say he had much to gain by answering the question. Remember, if we take away everything, there is only a great benefit to be manifest by answering the charge. Even more so in front of a group of people! Unless of course he has nothing to back it up except rhetoric, of which he has plenty, but words which come from people such as him are empty and if I were the democratic party I would be thinking about putting someone else up for election in that great state.
I believe the people at Harvard began to notice all these things too though, for even the woman behind Pollak cried out for Frank to “Just answer the question.” Though admittedly she could have been annoyed at Pollak and wanted him to sit down, but it scarcely matters. Why? Because politicians need to answer to us, not the other way around! Where along the line did things get so confused? Those who are afraid of questions are those who are not qualified to answer them, which is no place we want our elected officials to be in. Lastly, and finally, where is the honesty? Reflect for a moment on the last time you were involved in a situation which was less than ideal and what if someone asked you what you would do differently or how much responsibility you had in it? I almost guarantee we would all, if honest with ourselves and them, reflect on it, answer truthfully by recounting the experience, what exactly we would have done differently if we had the opportunity (for there is ALWAYS something), and what we are doing to rectify the situation. This is a form of honesty that should be REQUIRED for our elected officials, no matter if you come from a blue state or a red. Yet, we shrug these things off because they have less impact if those not answering the charge have our same color coding. The only color such people have who won’t answer an honest question with an honest answer is “yella!”
This is what Barney Frank is and maybe I am being a little harsh here. Perhaps. Yet, it gets me really mad when a person asking a question is vilified for exercising a right they have and that was encouraged by the founding fathers. I long for the days when there were upright men and women in office who would answer the charge posed to them thoughtfully and elegantly. However, those days preceded even my existence in the world and with every passing moment, day, week, year and generation the rift spreads between the virtue of those who hold office and the current state of politics where we the public are held captive in ignorance, our voices becoming too small to penetrate the overpowering din of arrogance emanating from Washington D.C.
On Obama’s Bow and Trip Overseas.
If you have read any of my postings in the past, you probably know I am not a fan of Obama and will call him out whenever I deduce or induce a proper conclusion from the information available. Thus, it may surprise you to find I am going to defend Obama a little in this part, though the two democrat readers I have will probably be secretly pleased, so I guess I could go ahead and dedicate this part to them. Yet, I put it in the middle of the blog so they don’t get too big of a head or anything. :-P~*
At any rate there is this huge deal over Obama’s already infamous bow and quite frankly, I think there are much greater things to be worried about than if Obama bowed or not. Yet, despite me joking at the start of this section, I did put the Barney Frank entry first for a reason, so I could introduce my conclusions based upon intention, that one is hard pressed to make a judgment on intention alone as some are doing concerning this “Bowgate” thing. In fact, I will make the argument that there is another property to bowing which supersedes the one supposed by those stating the bow is somehow bad.
Now first let me say both arguments have a certain validity, but I believe another can be introduced with greater probability, due to the subservient relation between the two premises. There are really two main parts to the reasoning behind a bow:
1) Respect 2) Submission
Of course, there are various intermediate conditions within the act of bowing, which can be referred to as “status.” Yet, though the two elements of bowing can be thought of to be separate sides of the spectrum, the truth is “submission” is actually subservient to “respect”, ironically enough. That is, whatever conclusion you draw from Bowgate, the only element which remains constant is respect. In fact, without it one would cease to bow in the first place.
It is this form I saw behind Obama’s bow and not any submission to another culture. In fact, if I were to meet a world leader, just with how I am in my personality, it is the very same thing I would do. I would bow, not saying their will envelops and controls me from that moment on, but rather indicating I am humbling myself representing a form of respect that would hopefully communicate a desire for partnership despite ideological differences. Therefore, weighing the respect and submission, respect has a greater probability than submission for the reasons I just mentioned.
What submission seems to suppose is that an expressed humility is a form of weakness. I couldn’t disagree more. Some of the most humble people I know are also the first people you don’t want to mess with. As Barney Frank would be wise, so would we to not look at superficial things from bowing to displays of emotion, for our judgments on these things tend to be more projections of the self, rather than judgment of the events at hand. Thus, since they are so superficial and subjective, no real conclusion can ever be reached and they are better ignored lest they distract from other more important pressing issues. We should wait till objective evidence becomes available being not dependent on things like intention, but rather real action and things which can be measured or fully analyzed to enumerate their possible merits or falsehoods.
Some of Obama’s rhetoric was under attack too, with which I disagree as well, for contextually they seem to have more validity than not. First was in France where Obama stated America was arrogant. If one looks at this premise alone it appears to be a very harsh statement, but right after he accused Europe of having an anti-Americanism which we have been complaining about for years. The fact that Obama said this so bluntly was really the important thing. When communicating to someone some potentially abrasive information, one needs to communicate a relation and an understanding so it is received and pondered upon, instead of a defensive posture arising which deflects or defuses the convictions. One is wise to seek such things out, so I find no fault with Obama concerning this either.
Lastly, what he said in Turkey, which is perhaps the strongest argument concerning things he said and did. He mentioned our past in the US, especially with how we treated the Indians, which is so far in the past an inference that it was wrong is completely understandable. However, I think conversely it had more to do with Turkey’s past than our past with the genocide they experienced. I think Obama wanted to establish some sort of connection or relationship there by articulating similarities, good and bad. So, thus I can’t find fault for him on this either, for even if one supposes this the evidence is still not enough and the arguments really lie upon subjective grounds. Thereby, any induction is weak at best and it is certainly not enough to infer a sound deductive conclusion.
I also like the fact he stopped in and said hi to the troops and thanked them. Though I am not in the military and never have been I can see how important a presidential visit is to the troops despite your politics and what Obama did there probably boosted morale greatly. This, of course is never a bad thing unless it trespass against the conditional requirements of being a solider. So it will get applause from me any day of the week. Some wanted to attack him because it was expected, but if he wouldn’t have visited Iraq then there would have been outrage about that too.
In fact, it may have very well bumped him up another grade from the lower C’s I was giving him, though honestly with such a complex job as the presidency this is an abstract ballpark figure, for a pure letter grade is kind of unfair so take what I say concerning this with a grain of salt. Actually, just throw the whole lick on it. Anyway, though he said everything good, or rather correctly, the response by the international community was lacking, which really shows we as Americans need to be self-reliant more than anything. This “one world” thing, though reeking of drum circles, Patchouli and musk, doesn’t really ring realistic for me. The simple answer is I feel our country is trying to give away something or distribute (forgo the socialist implications of the terms for a moment) some element which we have not mastered or have not acquired ourselves. Therefore, how can we give something if we don’t have it first to begin with? It’s paradoxical, but I feel to really help the world we must help ourselves. Let us not be selfish, but let us not be selfless either. For there is some merit to Rand’s “virtue of selfishness,” which can be helpful.
Let us move from the Atlantic to the Pacific for a moment with the launch of North Korea’s “satellite.” Now everyone can pretty much see this was some sort of ICBM test, but nonetheless, the international, “one world” community is failing us and themselves by not causing a ruckus. Why should we cause a scene or attempt through political and economic channels to hinder their military might? Simple. They have an army that goose-steps. It is my theory that if a country has a military force which goose-steps (note the distinction between marching) they are up to no good and preemptive measures need to be taken to keep them, the goose-stepping crazies, at bay. Just sayin’. This being said, America has no leverage anymore. We gave that away by borrowing more money from China. China has a hold over us, so we cannot put any diplomatic pressure upon them to impose any sanction whatsoever, for they own us now. Literally. We try to impose upon them, they claim Nebraska. Or something. I think you get the point.
Now, let us fly Indiana Jones style back to the Middle East and discuss Iran. Fun times that Iran. This is a situation where we may actually appear weak because of our diplomacy. To explain I will incorporate a person who I have always admired, though who is on attack by Glenn Beck at the moment: President Teddy Roosevelt. Actually, Glenn Beck and Teddy have something in common, that though I don’t always agree with their politics, I admire them both so I have no problem citing Roosevelt here, for though I don't agree with how he did things, there is something to be admired about the man’s character.
Americans at that time also had issue with some of Teddy’s strong arm tactics, and concerning the Panama canal he stated:
"There was much accusation about my having acted in an 'unconstitutional' manner. I took the isthmus, started the canal, and then left Congress -- not to debate the canal, but to debate me. . . . While the debate goes on, the canal does too; and they are welcome to debate me as long as they wish, provided that we can go on with the canal."
Granted, his means of “persuasion” leaves a lot to be desired. Yet, how does this apply to Iran exactly? Am I drunk? No, the place I would like to focus on is the place where Teddy talks about the debate and that they can debate him all they wish and, “While the debate goes on, the canal does too.” This is the identical point I am trying to make about why we appear weak when it comes to Iran. It’s not what happens during the course of diplomatic discussions, it’s what’s going on beyond them and the fact we are engaging in them in the first place. Further understanding is required to extrapolate this point.
It should be realized Iran right now is proceeding with their program of enriching the fissionable Uranium 235 out of the Uranium 238 which is a process by which weapons grade material is produced. This variable in the diplomatic negotiations changes things dramatically, for one could pose the argument of the benefits of negotiations if their enrichment programs remains in a particular state, but if it is proceeding then they have the upper hand, for the incoming diplomatic actions are not having a desired effect as determined by those engaging the country. In fact, it suits Iran quite well to have these negotiations for it puts on an air of international cooperation, while they still have the ability to plot its demise if need be. This is why Teddy welcomed such debates about things like the Panama canal and his Navy circumnavigation, for the debates gave him freedom. It is this is element I hadn’t recognized before till recently to be honest. I thought like others, that no harm can come from negotiations and this is true, unless the talks are being used by a particular side as a means of pacification, which Iran may very well be doing. Yet, this conclusion applies the variable of intention, which is superficial as stated earlier, so other evidence must be found to base the conclusion on rather than this supposition. I believe the very fact Iran has not altered their enrichment program suggests the cogent assertion that Iran is using negotiation as opportunity. It certainly isn’t beyond the realm of probability and this probability I find pretty high, for reasons I hope I articulated clearly enough.
I find a trend in my blogs and to help defeat the trend in order to keep my bias at bay, I am going to diverge from the trend and actually close with something good I find about Obama and defend him again. Yet, we need to go to his foreign policy again for this concerning his actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are rather good and I find no fault at this time. Yes, he did go back on some of the statements he made in the campaign, but I would say we all need to take those lightly, for anyone who thinks there isn’t a difference between the amount of information available to those in the public sphere and those who sit at the desk in the oval office briefed by all military commanders and chiefs of staff are really immersed in an illogical delusion of sorts. Truth is, Obama stated a goal and when the full reality was made known to him, he needed to shift his opinions and any liberal or conservative who wants to call him out on that alone should cut him some slack. Also, he is putting more troops in Afghanistan and if the numbers are to be believed, and I see no reason that we shouldn’t take them for face value, violence is on the rise there and more troops should be sent it. Though he doesn’t need it he has my support on this front to protect the people of the region and by doing so at the same time protecting our very nation.
The circumstances concerning both Iran and North Korea I find to be separate matters, which President Obama will have to confront with the aid of the State Department and the international community.
So, I give Obama an overall grade of B- on his trip and what did occur because I think he may have changed some perceptions about our nation in the eyes of the world. Furthermore, I think he boosted the troops’ morale. Also, for enumerated reasons earlier, I don’t think he gaffed at all, though the iPod thing is a little weird, but come on; what are supposed to get the freaking Queen?!? She probably isn’t into the Nintendo DS. Plus, if he signed off on taking out the Pirates, he has my support on this as well. Though, we can’t call them “Pirates” anymore. They are now called: "Aquatic Based Individuals With Intentions Concerning The Forceful Acquisition of Various Properties Due To The Poverty Imposed On Them By Determined External Capitalist Forces." Or, “ABIWICTFAOVPDTTPIOTBDECF” for short.
In life, accountability for our actions is a necessity and one which directly affects the way we act in any given situation or when presented with any problem. This goes for every one of us and must be a truth under which our elected officials are likewise subject to if we wish for them not to abuse their power while propelling this country in a direction that is beneficial for us all. By the actions of others, predetermined consequential problems may arise, this is true, yet what it does not do is negate us from our personal responsibility when handling these problems, especially when we are in a position to rectify the issues.
Let us for a moment suppose we are hired by a company to take on a task, which the previous employee of the very same position had left in a less than desirable state. The company has let the previous employee go and we have been determined by a vetting process as having the abilities to fill the vacant spot for the purposes of fixing the situation while still furthering the company. Would the company not hold us liable for the decisions we make while occupying that position? Perhaps a different level of responsibility would be placed upon us, let us grant that, but it would be our responsibility from the moment of hiring nonetheless and any arguments concerning the previous employee’s decision making would not grant us too much extra leeway. For even if there is extra responsibility placed on us by the previous employee, we have already been vetted and determined by the management to have the ability to rectify the situation after our resume was juxtaposed with all other applicants. It could still be said that if we are given extra freedom in our position due to the mistakes of the previous employee, such explanations will ring hollow after a short time and in depth examination is still, not only justified, but it could also be argued that it is much more important as determined by the contractual obligations of the position itself, which we ourselves had applied for. In this illustration, it is obviously easy to substitute Bush as the previous employee, Obama as the present employee, and the American public as the management, while still having it all ring true.
Yet, that is not what we are hearing from some. Quite the adverse is being said and various people charge that we are not justified in passing any judgment on Obama due to the previous administrations decisions. Let us consider this true for a quick moment. What does it mean? It means the position has not really been filled, for enough power or fortitude has not been introduced to rectify the previous state, so the applicant remains ineffective. This, of course, is no more an enviable position to be in than the one who is being held to account and to say this fact somehow pacifies the need to be held presently accountable is somewhat of a delusion or misrepresentation of the facts.
Despite all this being said, it is true that presidencies are judged from a historical perspective and immediate decisions are best represented after a progression of time, for it is only after something takes full effect that its true effects can be known. We see this represented in even our own lives and coming from whatever perspective these effects can be changed if one only narrow or broaden the degree of focus. Yet, is this to say we can only judge a person’s decisions based on eventual outcome? If we indeed did this then we could not judge anyone in an immediate instance of what we have determined as being right or wrong, or indeed put any kind of ethical value on it whatsoever. Let us put it into practice and supposed a man running late for work decides to run a red light and does so successfully without anyone being hurt by the outcome. Indeed, let us say after the progression of time and broadening of perspective, he gets to work on time and we see there was only benefit in his actions and not any negative consequence. Therefore, a traffic cop who sees the traffic violation in the immediate is not justified in pulling him over. I think most people would agree it is unrealistic to judge strictly on outcome when applied in this, and many, situations.
This is the real question we need to pose to ourselves: Where can value and judgment on decision be placed? This is a highly debated question and one I think we can see representing itself in pop opinion and news coverage of the Obama presidency thus far. First, as already touched upon, some think the value in decision only lies in the outcome the decision produces. I hope I have already illustrated how unreliable the theory is. The second is that the value in decision only lies in its immediate empirical effects. Lastly, it is thought the value in decision is dependent on the will behind it. It is the last one I feel contains the most value and should be judged accordingly and it is this view upon which we build our system of law and ethics. This is not to say empirical effects are not taken into account, for this would be delusional as well, but rather effect serves as the evidence of the will which is in question.
I would like to demonstrate this point by using another illustration. Let us shift our focus from these values of decision and move to values of aesthetic expression. Where are true aesthetical values placed? Is it in the product of aesthetic desire or is it within the action itself? True aesthetic value is not solely manifest in the final object and how can it be, for aesthetics is a concept generated by human thought and not by any mere empirical object.
Let us suppose then that an individual wishes to create a work of art. The man within his studio then proceeds to splatter paint randomly upon a canvas, as in a nature in tune with the current conception of modern art. This act, henceforth, can be labeled as his aesthetic expression, but again it is not in this act where aesthetical value lies. Furthermore, let us take an example from what is empirical and confer it with the justified truth thereof, which shows us no object can be propelled forward through time and space without some applying force. To apply this with the aforementioned aesthetic example, it’s not the act, but rather, in that which propels the act, where the true value of artistic or aesthetic expression lies in terms of the expressions creator.
Therefore, it can be asserted that the real value lies within the motive and the will, which is personal in nature and this is why we hold people individually to account for their actions. So, what assigns something an aesthetical value is the cause behind which it is created. The value can be changed by those who view it, who subjectively project their aesthetical evaluation upon the manifestation of the artist’s basal motive. Therefore, this illustration also provides us a way to explain the justification in both praise and negative judgments towards our elected officials for they are projections of our own bias and motive. What we find pleasing in people, or in art, are those things we can identify with and in which we see ourselves or our desires.
Yet, to determine what the self, in an external observance of aesthetic products, considers truly aesthetical and how we assigns values to such, is a much bigger issue and one more difficult to reconcile without some underlying postulation, but such inquiries would detract from the issue which I am trying to address: The justification in judging Obama in his decision making and the will behind the decisions. By these illustrations we see there is, not only a necessity of current judgments, but also of immediate results which can be determined as evidence of those motives. So for one to say a person is not justified in passing judgment on Obama or his decisions is absurd. In fact, one could not even begin to praise him at all, if one cannot negatively judge him, for this would be an inherent contradiction. If one says that we must wait on passing judgment, then this simply means no exhortation of his presidency in its current state is justified either.
This raises another issue, for one could not make such a supposition without considering its resolution. When would be the appropriate time for judgment? I have heard everything from 1 to 3 years, but to say this, one would have to admit that perhaps the financial collapse wasn’t a bad thing at all, or perhaps the Iraq war could be a good thing, or whatever, for no true line in the sand can be drawn concerning when to judge. Truth is, one could always claim not enough time has passed for one to gain full perspective on an issue and if this is the case, nobody would ever be justified in any praise or in any negative judgments. That is, if the stock market rises, Obama could take no more credit than could Bush, Clinton or Reagan. Most Obama supporters would find such a conclusion unacceptable, but it is the conclusion that is reached if one supposes that judgments could not be made till an eventual outcome is reached.
It is the will that is most important when judging, and it is this which propels both immediate and eventual effects. Since this is indeed the source of the decision, anyone is completely justified in the values they place on Obama’s decisions. I was watching O’Reilly last week and he had mentioned it was only what he did that mattered and not the will behind it, but I could not disagree with him more. It is the will behind it that matters, for if it wasn’t, the subsequent action wouldn’t even exist at all in its present form, nor could it be molded to a will and would probably even cease to exist if completely independent from it. This will is the first cause of the effect when it comes to decision and it is this conclusion which is the most reliable when judging either decision, or action.
I would assert this very argument, that nothing can be judged till it reaches full effect, is representational of an unease which is contrary to the individual’s bias (I use “bias” here not as something horrible, but rather an inevitability of the human condition). That is, if an Obama supporter feels conflicted or disagrees with a decision, they can still vindicate themselves by saying they cannot pass judgment on it yet lest it contradict with their predetermined view on Obama. It is a means of pacification, but in my view, or in my bias, not realistic. Judgments are based on will and immediate evidence all the time. To say there is no justification in this puts government officials in a place beyond the normal human condition, which they are bound to and which are a necessary, important element in how they govern. Thus I reach the conclusion that those who judge now are not only justified, but it should also be encouraged, for it is a means of communication to those in power that they will be held accountable for their decisions. To base judgments on a future that has not occurred can neither produce an empirical negative or positive result, but it is always dependent on a subjective bias and not the immediate evidence of the will which the will is bound to produce.
I sat down last night to watch Obama’s nearly hour long speech again, this time for strictly blogging purposes. My goal was just to throw a couple comments here and there about things I felt were particularly interesting, but ended up going just a tad bit overboard. It could have been the sleep depo or the smack, fact is I really don’t know, but what I do know is there are bound to be a million typo’s, hundreds of grammatical mistakes and enough lapses in logic to rival the stimulus bill itself. Since I don’t have an editor, or any friends for that matter, I hope you have patience with me as I present my obtrusive, obsessive, overly long and at times completely boring and useless commentary on Obama’s address to congress. Enjoy (you won’t).
When it comes to charisma and charm, Obama is something we haven’t seen since John F. Kennedy, though admittedly Carter’s winning smile could melt any sorority girl’s heart. Everyone knows Obama’s ability to charm is intrinsically instilled in him and it cannot be denied by Republicans, Democrats, intellectuals, or drooling idiots with glandular problems such as myself. This was immediately manifested when Obama stepped up to the podium, flanked by Joe Biden on the left and the rather scary, Nancy Pelosi on his right. The chamber erupted in thunderous applause as he entered, the likes of which I haven’t heard since that one time when I was frying at the “Hootie” concert. I half expected lit lighters to be lifted in the air, swaying back and forth, and maybe some glow sticks or a giant beach ball to be tossed among the members of Congress.
Obama did good in his delivery as always and offered up a couple more specifics, but for the most part it was like watching an infomercial. Not a good infomercial either like the “Magic Bullet,” but rather like all those Kevin Trudeau infomercials featuring all his things “They Don’t Want You to Know About” books. Though Obama listed his “plans” to help the economy, this is far from any specificity, for something like, “we need to fix the housing crisis” does not speak of specifics, rather it speaks of a vague goal. Goals are terrific and good to have for sure, but if they are not divulging the intermediate steps between the conception and the fulfillment then it amounts to naught.
Obama starts off stating:
“I have come here tonight not only to address the distinguished men and women in this great chamber, but to speak frankly and directly to the men and women sent us here.”
I could mention that those “distinguished” people of the chamber are responsible for putting us here! Furthermore, I hope Obama is a little bi-polar so he could enjoy talking to himself, for he is a reason why we are where we are. Now that might seem unfair, Obama not being in office very long, but concerning the budget, the stimulus package and their acquisition of Citibank, I am going to take a long shot and say he has a little something to do with it. Again, someone could bring up Bush, which always happens, but that presupposes I agree with Bush, which I don’t and even if I did the actions of Obama are not nullified by the Bush or Republican argument and such arguments only serve to distract and not answer.
“The weight of this crisis won’t determine the destiny of this nation,” he said continuing on. However, later in the speech he contradicts this by saying that a new “common sense” needs to be implemented and that our current system is “outdated.” The latter connotes the ineffectiveness of the current system and thereby by it’s use in his speech it suggests a new form, or at the very least that an overhaul and revamping of the system needs to take place. So, it could be said that the crisis is the cause behind the decision to change our views on what government is and how it should be ran. This IS determining the destiny of the nation and according to Rahm Emanuel we surely “can’t let this crisis go to waste.”
He continues saying we should “Take responsibility for our future.” I don’t see how bailing out failing businesses promotes responsibility and, for that matter, neither do other countries. For instance the German chancellor Angela Merkel went on record as saying:
“I am very wary of seeing subsidies injected into the U.S. auto industry. That could lead to distortion and protectionism.”
Not that I use German policy as a cannon on which I judge America, far from it. Yet, even they, along other European nations are having some serious doubts about how we are rewarding irresponsibility by bailing out failing companies. Furthermore, by doing so the government is getting involved in private enterprise to a degree that has never been realized before. In fact, I say that though we are striving for “economic recovery” it is a mute point, for in order that something be considered recovered it need to be restored, or have the ability to be restored, to it's previous condition. However we are not restoring our economy to it's previous condition, but rather reinventing it so that the term “recovery” is a complete misnomer.
Obama then states that we in the past have not always met these responsibilities, but that he is not addressing these things to lay blame or look backwards, which sounds nice, but by even mentioning this he is looking backwards and furthermore, why shouldn’t we lay blame?!? Laying blame or holding someone or something accountable promotes this responsibility which he is such a strong advocate for.
He says our problems didn’t start with the fall of the housing markets. Unfortunately, this is what most economic experts prior to his address were saying, though I am sure since he said that in his speech they will all now change their tune. Rather it’s not housing, but energy that is one of the big problems according to Obama, which I disagree with. Is that to say the price of oil had no economic impact? Not at all, rather quite the contrary, but when we see the credit collapse, the fall of the stock market, the issues with housing, we find it is traceable to the housing market and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. It isn't oil, for oil or lack of alternative energy did not precipitate the crash of stocks and the deterioration of credit.
“Cost of health care eats up more and more of our savings each year, yet we delay reform.” Yes, the health care system is in trouble and one need only look at how much money per pay cycle is withheld to pay for coverage and it's increase on an almost monthly basis. I don’t see how universal health care at this juncture is going to solve the issue, rather its going to dip into our savings more if implemented, both on an individual level and social level.
What else is to blame? Why education of course. School apparently doesn’t help prepare kids for the global economy. Well, with schools adopting systems like not letting kids fail because it may affect their self esteem, can we really be that surprised? This is another form of the nullification of responsibility. He continues saying that we tend to look at short term prosperity rather than long term, but at the same time wishes to hike up a huge bill for our children. Yes, he hopes to reduce the deficit in half, but when he doubles it by his budget, bailouts and stimulus this doesn’t do anything, but, at the very least, bring us back to the same point we are at now if he is indeed successful. Maybe I would see this different if there was some set plan on paying back this amazing amount of money being spent, but none is really told. In fact, only about 1/4 of the national budget can be modified, which includes defense spending. The rest go to those areas he wants to expand, like health care, education and the like. In order to do this he is going to have to dip into that quarter to be able to pay for the programs he wants, so the money won’t be saved and thus detract from the national debt, but rather just go to other programs. I hope he takes our defense seriously for he seems really serious about investing in our future, but this is what defense does: invest in the future by our security.
To be fair, Obama mentions that this crisis he inherited and this is true. I was highly critical of Bush’s spending, especially concerning the bailout. Yet, since Obama is adding to it by the budget and stimulus, it goes far beyond Obama merely inheriting it to where he shares in the responsibility of it. It would be a much different matter if Obama got in office and starting cutting pork spending and reducing the budget, then such a claim would make sense. However, we see the exact opposite.
I would like to have faith in Obama concerning the budget, but when it comes to our personal finances and individual observations it seems to be counterintuitive to have so many pie in the sky like dreams, with no plan except, “Hey, charge it.”. Liberal commentators even are seeing this, but put it in a positive light to still adhere to Obama worship by changing words and saying he is being “ambitious” or “hopeful,” while in the process of discussion doubting if he can really do it. Far be it from them to be too critical of their Messiah, while it is plain that any other President would be being completely bludgeoned to death. I just find it amazing Obama criticizes the government of spending more money then ever before prior to his term and then spends more money then ever before by his budget and stimulus package while in office.
This line here really intrinsically shows Obama’s view on personal responsibility:
“People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway.”
His language here is masterful for it attaches blame, not to those who bought the homes they couldn’t afford, but to the banks that shoved these homes down their throat. It was the banks that shopped for the home and approached the buyer forcing them to sign paperwork. Then he urges to “restart lending” and this to me just indicates that he wishes to encourage the same behavior as before by enticing banks to approve loans.
Obama says he doesn’t believe in bigger government but is still expanding it all the same. This just doesn't make sense to me. When you believe in something you should stick to it, otherwise it’s not a belief, but only a mere hypothetical or rhetorical situation which holds no merit. Thus, in this context there is essentially no difference between what one believes and what one does in action. It just merely shows us the strength of that belief.
Obama said failure to act would have made the situation worse then it even is now. This could be true or not be true. Fact is, there is a difficulty with weighing such a statement because the variable it introduces is a hypothetical one. That is, the statement supposes an effect subsequent to a particular course of action which cannot be realized, so it’s rather hard to make a solid conclusion on it, though one can certainly try by available evidence. However, even this conclusion could always be refuted. I would say that Obama’s supposition isn’t correct due to the markets tanking every time such a bill is passed, which seems to show a connection between such bailouts, stimulus and the government acquiring a stake within the “private” sector such as them now owning 36% of Citigroup. Yet, again it could always be suggested that it would have been worse if government did not act as it did and because it is a hypothetical judgment cannot rest upon it and Obama and other government officials must be taken at their words if it is to be believed.
All these things sound great and who wouldn’t want such prosperity? The question remains though, where is all this money going to come from? What about the plan to pay for it all? He talks about the website “recovery.gov,” which is so vague that it being touted as being a form of “transparency” really misses the mark. One thing that occurred to me was that energy reform appears so low on the graph, just above ”other”, but according to what Obama said earlier, and because this is the issue that made the economy crash, shouldn’t this should be near the top if anything? It’s not that I am a Limbaughist and hope Obama to fail in his endeavors, rather I wish success. Even when assuming that it works, however, there is still the issue about how this will all be paid for. I don’t know and neither do a lot of other people so we have to take Obama at his word again and make an assumption that he will guide the country in the direction it needs to go.
Now rather frighteningly Obama said:
“The recovery plan we passed is the first step in getting our economy back on track, but it is just the first step (!) because even if we manage this plan flawlessly there will be no real recovery unless we clean up the credit crisis that has severely weakened our financial system.”
With the amount of money we just spent, it scares me to hear it’s only the first step; I mean for a trillion dollars someone should be able to tether and move the freaking moon! Are the other steps going to be cheap? How are we going to pay for those? Furthermore, the statement, “even if” interjects doubt, for doubt or hypothetical circumstance is always an intrinsic part of the word “if.” So, we spent all this money on a hypothetical that may not even work, and it probably would have been just as large of a risk if we had bid to doing nothing at all and let the free market run it’s course; except much, much cheaper. The frightening aspect of this statement cannot be denied in it’s possibility that we have spent all this money, changed the structure of our government, our country, and risked the well being of our children to have it all be for naught.
Then a few seconds later he says one can rely on the financial system after just getting through saying it was weakened. Would one rely on a floor or thin layer of ice to walk upon even though it is structurally unsound? Of course not, this is an absurdity and so too is his statement. Thereby, does this give credence to Obama’s points concerning the financial system’s need to be fixed? Yes, it does and it is not this fact I am disputing, rather I am disputing the means to do it. I believe a government official needs to be encouraging, but not contradict himself at the same time. It is possible.
Then he continues on stating that if we do not restart lending in this country then the recovery will be “choked off before it begins.” Noted, yet wasn’t irresponsible lending part of the problem as he mentioned before? Great care has to be maintained in such efforts, for more bad lending, which some say the government encouraged to begin with, will feed the problem. Credit and loaning reflects the state of the market and if it were allowed to work, perhaps this would provide a better, cheaper opportunity for reform, for government should not be able to determine credit. This argument isn't addressed though by many politicians because what the politicians say is designed to sound good or evoke emotion and not promote a proper balance between reality, reason and encouragement within the mind. That is, emotion is not nearly as critical as thought, thereby it serves government officials better to appeal to a persons emotion rather than appeal to their intellect. This is something that Obama succeeded quite well in doing throughout his speech, especially with the personal testimonies at the end.
“Flow of credit is the lifeblood of our economy.” The only thing I need to say about this is that I wish solid capital was the lifeblood of our economy rather then a hypothetical concept and we might be better off. Kind of wish Nixon never got rid of the gold standard. Instead we are now stuck with the inherently dangerous and baseless fiat money system.
According to Obama they are creating a new lending fund which is, in other words, a centralized system of government controlled credit. Why is this an issue? Mainly, it is an issue because it is an important element of Socialism. The fifth plank of Marx’s "Communist Manifesto" to be exact. Anyone who may deny the plank has reached full capacity within our government should at the very least be able to clearly see this is indeed the direction we are headed. The plank states there is to be:
“Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” –Karl Marx
One need only point to the government owning 36% of Citibank and talk of a “temporary” national bank to show it is being manifest during this crisis, which surely as the Chief of Staff said, “cannot go to waste.” I’m just sayin.
Concerning Obama mentioning small business however, this is something I think he should pursue in earnest. Let us briefly consider just lowering taxes for small business. First, this would provide them extra capital in which to hire people and buy goods for the services they provide. This in turn would offer competition amongst other business, which in a free market drives down cost of that being sold to the consumer. Thus, the consumer will save more money and have more to spend on that which they determine necessary. Course, this step alone may not be enough to help the economy in full measure, yet it may play a role that Obama should consider. Also, small business should be defined more exactly, for some businesses hire out people and still make barely more than $250,000 a year and may see their taxes increased due to that. If this is the case then the adverse effect may occur with jobs being lost and it may be more of a hindrance on the economy rather than a benefit, but that’s a tangent for another day.
Obama does enumerate some points to provide “specifics,” but in essence they really just describe the functions the new central credit system will have. Concerning lending, he says that they will put the full force of government behind it. In addition, they will lower interest rates and push loans; to only those who are responsible of course. It is interesting that the far left liberals who attack the Reagan legacy are quick to say it wasn’t Reagan’s economics which drove the economy to recover, but rather lower interest rates. Yet, they ignore it was Reagan who lowered the interest rates by eroding the deficit, which in turn produced this result. Reagan did it without expanding government, yet this administration wishes to do the opposite, expand spending, lower interest rates and increase government, rather than cut spending, decrease government, slash the deficit and thereby having lower interest rates. Lower interest rates were not the cause of the prosperity associated with Reaganomics, but rather an effect and it proves one can lower interest rates without pushing big government. That doesn’t mean one will work and the other won’t, who knows both might work, for though we have the conception of government working or not working in relation to one extreme or another the possibility remains this might not be justified in some cases and both extremes may work and intermediate policy may produce successful results. Even if this be the case though, then one should judge on the cost, which is extremely high in this case.
Obama says they will hold banks accountable for irresponsibility if they seek help with tax payer dollars and great oversight will be used to determine how the tax payer money is spent and I agree with this for the most part. The only issue I have with this it is how these banks were given tax payer money, for it was not all voluntary like we suppose. It is apparent that the government forced banks, especially smaller banks, to take federal money. It was not Obama that did this to be fair, but rather the Treasury secretary at the time Henry Paulson under Bush who shoved the money in the hands of certain financial institutions despite some objections. This has been reported from the Washington Post to “The Guardian” in the UK and when someone thinks of news, you obviously think about “The Guardian.” I rest my case.
The expansion of government is apparently not at an end however, for Obama then says that more resources will be required to meet these goals and the “cost of action will be great.” So, to fix the problem it will have to be greater than what we have already spent, which amounted to nothing, but a crumbling stock market, deteriorating businesses and industry, while all along the government expands in size. Yet, he assures us the cost of inaction will be far greater. Maybe I am a skeptic, but when weighing the evidence between these two hypothetical extremes, that is letting the free market work, or spending money which we don’t have and no ceiling of spending being told to the public, I would need to go with the former, for the stock market is showing us what we need to know concerning now how this is all working at the moment. With billions of dollars interjected in the banking industry the only way to account for the downward slope is it is as a virus spreading and worsening the health of the markets. Yet, Obama says the markets may just not be comfortable with strings attached to tax payer money and accountability. I will say this though, it was brilliant of Obama to do it at the beginning of his term, so if the markets increase sometime in the future, he could pat himself on the back and take full credit for it. Why would the markets go up if I have just stated that our system is fundamentally changed and damaged? Isn’t this a contradiction? I would say no, even though I am admittedly no economist, because I believe the markets to be addicted to the very same thing all American’s are now addicted to more than anything else and this is comfort. The markets will not recover as long as turmoil is introduced into them by shifting of government, our perception of private enterprise, and as our idea’s concerning government as a whole change. This is not an environment conducive to trading and if Obama chooses to step back we may see a rise, but again he will say it’s because of the Stimulus, or the bailouts or whatever. Introducing this legislation at the beginning of his term was quite honestly really smart and if the market goes up I may rejoice, but when it comes to praise for Obama concerning that rise, I will be looking at it through a veil of skepticism. Yet, the very strong possibility remains of me being wrong, and I frequently am.
To those who may say it’s a global problem that cannot be solved just by letting our free market work, it should be said that though there are some economies that were sluggish prior to the US economic collapse, truth is, the fall of our housing market was a prime mover of the global economic slide. Therefore, if it has the ability to crash global markets, it logically should then have the ability to improve them as well, for as we can easily see they are interconnected. Perhaps this is why some European countries have been so critical of our economic decisions, because they may see from an outside point of view that a free market in America benefits them. Even countries like Russia (yeah, who obviously have their @#% together) are critical of our choices according to the New York Times.
Obama then tells congress our system is outdated, which means we need a new system (got a standing ovation), or “new common sense” to govern it. This statement simply says that our form of democracy and markets just doesn’t work anymore and resources must be appropriated for the government to shift from one system to another, whatever system it is. I have already hinted as to what I think it may be, but for one of the few times within this overly long treatise I will leave that up to the reader to determine on his/her own. *wink*
Energy, education and health care are the things which need to be fixed in order for America to be prosperous Obama told the chamber of the distinguished. Yet, it’s odd that these three things are the things the stimulus package spends the LEAST on according to “recovery.gov.” Well, just above the “other” that is. I find it rather curious that our supposed greatest problems have the least amount of money spent on them, but maybe I am looking too much into this, for perhaps the funds are strategically placed. On the other hand maybe they aren’t. Dear reader, you decide what you believe on that one. Obama then attacks the huge debt our children will have to face and seems to skip over the huge part that he has had in it. Indeed, this is the largest piece of legislation ever according, again, to the New York Times.
Obama speaks candidly when he says it’s not going to fix every issue, but again for how much it is costing us it should fix every issue! I don’t know, maybe its too much to ask, but so is changing our system of government and hiking up a debt so huge, which granted the republicans had a hand in, that the whole rest of the world is sweating and undoing their collars. Yet, again he mentions it is “inherited.” The fact that he has such a large hand in it suggests to me it has skipped the previous generation and entered into his own and he is furthering it, thus the blame for the deficit cannot strictly be blamed on the past by use of any rhetoric, but rather it rests upon the present, though its full effects are yet to be seen in the future.
Obama does speak truth though when saying that this nation has responded with bold action when confronting crisis in the past and this is true, yet the supposition that all these choices were the right ones and comparable to his decisions and this stimulus bill is misleading. I need only say what the New York Times said and state that it is the largest piece of legislation ever. To compare it to anything less of equal value is not reasonable, in fact, to compare the GI bill with what is happening currently as he did is just silly. Sorry, I try to respect my elected leaders for it is part of my civic duty, but when I disagree I am going to do just that and disagree. Yet, I agree with the idea government should have a role, but it shouldn’t contradict or trespass against itself, that is, it should not move towards other forms of government independent of how it was designed. The originality of our nation and the fact we don’t resemble anyone else is what makes us great, but even now on MSNBC, the most left you can get, the phrase “European Socialism” is getting tossed about.
If one wants to have a debate about Socialist policy, it takes one of my arguments off the table completely and much of this treatise is in void. Indeed, it is the idea of the cloak and dagger kind of insertion of Socialist policies I have a problem with, though I obviously have philosophical issues with Socialism as well. One should be honest with shifts in government and not try to slip them under the radar. Joe Scarborough, the host of “Morning Joe” on MSNBC, said during his show on Friday that in six months our country will be at a place that six months ago would have been considered Socialist. The most amazing thing was nobody at the “round table” raised objection and even Mika Brzezinski didn’t say anything, which is shocking since she is never shy about voicing her opinion. It isn’t to say that one couldn’t reasonably raise such objections, but properties that can be considered Socialist are creeping into our system and again if one were to argue against this, they at the very least would have to admit it seems to be heading in that direction. If this too is to be denied then I only ask they read Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” to gain some insight into Socialism. Briefly, there is a difference between Socialism and Communism, but only by degree of practice. In fact, Marx states Socialism is merely a transitional period on the road to Communism. Both are centralized forms of government with the former being based on deeds, while the latter is determined by what the government decides are your needs. We need to remember government is supposed to work for us and not control us or reward failure and engage in “protectionism,” for that will decay the very fabric upon which our system of government was sewn upon.
Everything Obama said I wasn’t opposed to. I liked when he stated America should not fall behind in technology and the jobs of tomorrow should not take place beyond our borders and I completely agree with that. Yet, it must be remembered it is on the back of American ingenuity where this must be accomplished and not on the backs of the federal government. To fund technology is alright by me, but to do so we need not cut other industry, rather this technology should be assimilated into the culture in a gradual fashion lest there be consequences of more job loss and sky rocketing prices of the energies our lives now depend on. This assimilation is where the balance lies, and not all people who wish to drill for oil are against new technologies as it is supposed, rather immediate ease at the pump could coincide with the assimilation of new technologies if properly managed instead of conflicting against it. Obviously the funding for this new technology I have reservations about, for its going to be about $15 billion, which is said might not be enough, yet the funny thing is, this is a mere drop in the bucket concerning the whole bill. This money is set apart to fund all technologies concerning energy from solar power to fuel efficient cars.
Setting a market base cap on industry, as he calls for next, is not the proper way to fix the economy and promote different forms of energy. The reason this is dangerous is it caps industry and thereby how much money they can make, for it is directly related to how much they produce which will be confined by such legislation. A lot of people realize this so maybe that’s why so many people did not stand or cheer for this comment, but I cannot be sure. It could be said they were all Republicans, but there are really none of those left anyway, so I think more than a few Democrats realized it’s not a good idea and such legislation might spell trouble. We would all like to think businesses are noble and the shareholders and CEO’s are of a virtuous nature, but sadly this is not the case. If profits go down a business cuts corners and it’s usually the jobs that suffer. In a time of such economic turmoil this may not be the best time for such actions because it will cost more jobs, but at least then there will be another “opportunity” in crisis for the government to enact wide sweeping power and reform. It will be interesting to hear what the unions think of this.
He then talks about the auto industry and states the “nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.” I get his point and this is just kind of a side note, but the invention of the automobile is actually credited to Germany’s Karl Benz in 1885. Yet, some also attribute the automobile to be invented in France a century earlier, though that model was steam powered. Henry Ford did invent or perfect the assembly line, so it isn’t that big of a gaff and his point remains valid, but I thought I would just point that out since I have addressed just about everything else.
He keeps going and moves into health care and thus so will I. He states they passed a bill to provide health care to children. This tugs at that one fraying heart string I do have left in my black conservative heart so I won’t attack him on this one. In addition, the centralized database of medical records sounds great too, and it would serve a Socialist and Communist government very well when health care is being run by the state. Not that’s what they are trying to do of course, but it would . . . I’m just sayin . . .
I really had no qualms worth mentioning about what he said concerning education. He even addresses family and that education must begin at home and I cannot agree more. From this point he transitions into addressing the debt and his concern that it not be passed on, which aroused great cheering. He quickly added, in my mind detracting from the momentum he built, “the deficit we inherited . . .” Again, I will say that he has such a part in it that whoever initiated it, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, or whoever you want is irrelevant, for he has increased it an amazing amount which cannot be denied when one looks at the numbers. You may be tempted to say, “Well, what about the Republicans who were spending out of control?” Yes, and you would be right, however this argument would be a form of misdirection trying to detract from the point at hand, which is Obama’s own responsibility for the current state of the deficit. Now, I don’t expect him to erase it a month after he takes office, that is as silly as comparing our current situation with the GI bill. Rather, one cannot expand on something or exacerbate it and then play the victim role or that this was impressed upon him. You and me have inherited the deficit this is true, but Obama hasn’t because he is in a position to do something about it and furthered it. This is part of the responsibility which comes with the presidency. Whether it may work or not is again irrelevant in the present. Yet, if he somehow decreases the deficit in the future then he will be at a position, the past under him and a fullness of the events being known, to state he inherited the deficit, but as long as he has a hand in it and is furthering it then this is not to be used as an excuse, and Barney Frankly it just makes him look a little silly to me. Yet, that’s just me, but I hate everyone as you know.
At 37:31 in the speech Obama states amazingly, “I am glad we passed a recovery plan free from earmarks.” I don’t know how this could be mistaken for anything but misleading. Obama himself has $7.7 million of earmarks in the bill and Biden $94.9 million. In addition, interior secretary Ken Salazar has $227.4 million in earmarks with other names including the likes of Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel. With programs such as management of pig manure odor in Iowa for $1.8 million and studying the genetics of grapes in New York for $2.2 million, I don’t see how this could be considered anything but earmarkish. These don’t seem to be an important “national priority.” I know government does stuff like this, but to state that plain as day in front of congress and the nation seems a little wrong to me and completely belittles people’s intelligence. He is my president darn it, he is supposed to stroke my ego and make me feel smart! Furthermore, one may say that its really not that much money in context of the whole bill, but again this is misdirection, for Obama himself said it didn't include earmarks. It should be said this brought a great mixed reaction from those "distinguished members" seated in the chamber. This is shown explicitly just behind the President with the kiss-buttock Nancy Pelosi clapping and beaming and Biden, well, Biden playing his Game Boy or whatever he was messing with the whole time, but that’s probably just a coincidence, for I would be surprised if they even knew where they were (cheap shot).
He says that they are going line by line through the national budget, which I do hope is true, and they have found enough garbage to cut (so they have room for the earmarks, or skidmarks as I will refer to them from now on) to decrease the deficit. Forgive my skepticism, but with all the pie in the sky “ambitious” promises being made and the amount of information made available to us, I doubt it can be done. He says they have found $2 trillion in wasteful spending over the next decade and that is terrific, if one supposes that the government doesn’t increase spending as it has. Most this "wasteful spending" I think is going to come out of defense and not just Iraq like one may suppose, though he says they will end the no bid contracts concerning desert location, which I hear is lovely this time of year. Barney Frank has already encouraged Obama to decrease military funding so this will happen, though Obama says he will increase military personnel, meaning such a decrease in funding will come from technologies and “defense systems . . . we don’t use.”
I do agree we should do away with tax breaks to those companies which ship jobs over seas. Furthermore, I also agree that the richest of the rich shouldn’t have tax breaks, though just because they are rich doesn’t mean their tax's shouldn’t be reasonable. I think you could easily accomplish this in a healthy economy, in conjunction with giving tax breaks to small businesses and citizens. This, in a good economy would work and we should have tried to implement it in our past, but because big business isn’t noble or virtuous, nor are their shareholders, to do it now could prove disastrous. It could only be accomplished, in my opinion, in a good economy and even then, it would have to be done delicately or jobs will bare the brunt of the cost. Then you insert my previous small business theory here; you have my theoretical economic policy, which I sometimes implement upon my house cats just to make sure such a theory is plausible. Due to the ratios represented in canned soft-moist Fancy Feast amongst “Mittens” and “Nom-Nom” in particular, I have determined that it indeed is.
He mentions the tax cuts and says the checks are on the way, but that makes it a tax rebate and not a tax cut, if that makes any difference to anyone whatsoever. Though, it doesn’t translate very well when applied to my cats, for the cat’s just gorge themselves and puke outside my bedroom door. It’s really no good and quite nasty.
Obama then calls for honesty and accountability in the budget, but I guess that excludes the stimulus package. Yes, I went there again. I find it kind of humorous that not even five minutes have gone by since his statement concerning the skidmark absent stimulus package and he is talking about honesty, accountability and responsibility. Yet, to paraphrase Obama, let me be absolutely positively clear about this one: I like the fact that the Iraq war will be included in the budget so we will know its price. I think that is a semi-important thing for the American public to be aware of by having it included in the budget and I also agree with our forces RESPONSIBLY leaving Iraq and forging ahead in Afghanistan. I have no issues with that and neither does “Mittens.“
Thus far during his Presidency Obama has seemed a little hesitant to talk on Iraq and Afghanistan and this was no exception in his speech, but I did find his shout out to the troops really quite touching and I to see the support from the President and all those present made even my, again, bias, conservative black heart swell with pride. Just for a minute though. Then I went back to murdering small woodland creatures.
Obama plans to expand military personal and increase their benefits, to which I say, “Why not?” These men and women put themselves in places that cannot be comprehended while we sit on our butts watching “House” and grubbing on box after box of delicious Girl Scout cookies. They, and their families, deserve any provisions the government can offer along with our utmost respect. They have earned it and with this I agree with Obama. He then moves to speak about Gitmo, which I disagree with and have written about it here. You are welcome to check it out, but if you don’t want to, you are welcome to kiss my butt. He urges that we uphold our values, but still hands them away with the passing of the Stimulus and the press towards Socialism. Yet, this push towards Socialist policy doesn’t only rest with Obama remember, but also with the bailout bill of the previous administration as well.
He then says that America “does not torture,” which is great, but one thing that needs to be defined is the word “torture.” It is a problem when a word doesn’t have guidelines associated with it upon which to judge. In fact, it is rather very subjective from incident to incident and person to person. Truthfully, under the current definition an argument could be made that any form of incarceration is torture as it could be argued that a sudden death due to a shot to the back of the head is not. There is a wide range here and much heated debate surrounds it. I don’t like fingers being cut off or any Tarantinoesque type stuff, for under these kinds of conditions the information may not be reliable, for a man’s mental faculties are severely diminished and the body resorts to its most carnal natures, that is the nature of self-preservation. Therefore, the inmate will say whatever is needed to stop the immediate threat, which is the torture. I think, in fact, we should judge strictly on Quentin Tarantino movies. If it’s in one of his movies it is torture, if not your good to go. That means no gimps.
Obama then closed allowing me and “Mittens” time to reflect on what we just saw. Obama’s demeanor is masterful and he certainly has charm. Truth is I want to like the guy, but at the same time disagree on many of his points. I have reservations about all these matters concerning what the structure of our government is. News commentators have increasingly been reflecting on this very question and pondering, “What is the role of government?” This is not to say we should all judge based on what journalists say, but to say they don’t give us insight into what is going on in the world would be delusion. So we see that America stands at a place it has never been before, though we have certainly have had our problems. We fought for our independence with sweat and blood, developed a Republic and then shifted into a Democracy. Now, we are confronted with the ironic possibility that we revert back to some of the systems we tried to escape, by being united with Europe in their “brand” of Socialism. Folks, the nation will not be restored because it has now fundamentally changed and control no longer rests in the hands of the people as it once did, but rather in an expanding government who doesn’t even bother anymore to read, discuss and ponder the laws it passes. One cannot help but ponder, what that great, but small group of men sitting in a small, hot room in Philadelphia in 1776 would have thought about what we have become. Yet, to blame this all on Obama would not be fair either. No, the frightening reality is the fault lies with both you and I for sitting back and watching it happen, while so many died for that which we are just giving up willingly. This is the greatest tragedy of all and worthy of a Greek’s pen.
