One is unable to go anywhere across the net, or watch TV, read newspapers or even join in everyday conversation without the topic of news coming up. News and broadcasting in one form or another have always played a part in life, but in today’s culture we find it taking on a much bigger central role than perhaps ever before and on a massive scale. A vast array of opinions have been formed concerning each news channel and the very nature of news. Thus, we find ourselves in a natural resulting conflict between the news organizations and viewership, as well as in a conversation about the duties or responsibilities of such powerhouses. Henceforth, debate on these matters becomes warranted. I would like to divulge right at the top that I am big fan of Fox News Channel and I feel it is a reliable source of information and adheres to most of my criterion concerning journalism. My reasoning for this is provided below.
However, before we get into this, there are a couple points I should acknowledge before we engage in the discussion. First and foremost is that Fox News isn’t my only source of information. If I watched Fox News all the time and didn’t question the information or look into it more deeply for myself then I wouldn’t be looking for news at all, but rather something to feed my bias and entertain. News should challenge and not enable if one truly seeks knowledge. I also tune into CNN, MSNBC and Headline News, a division of CNN, and it isn’t difficult to get a wide range of commentary and perspective on issues. There are at least two sides to every story, so for one to truly take a stand on an issue it is beneficial for the person to get all sides before making a judgment.
Now let us reflect on bias for a moment. Bias is an inevitability, its just how things work and it is indeed a filter through which we interpret the world. This is evident even in the most supposedly determined and empirical subjects of science as well as psychology, philosophy, ideology and the like. The very fact we can suppose hypothesis or form opinion suggests a transcendent bias. Thus, all news sources, no matter where you go are going to have bias; from MSNBC to the 700 Club. It’s a part of human condition and like I said before, an inevitability. Therefore, to claim otherwise is not honest and truthful of the facts which transcend news and concern the very nature of man.
So, knowing bias is represented in all media, and the fact media naturally draws constituents of similar tastes, this is in itself not enough to attack media on, for such truths are represented in any faction of society, any television station, government party, book, movie, website and piece of art. This being the case, we then have to provide other criteria in which to judge such news networks other than vilifying bias, for if we do, we vilify a part of ourselves. Now let us move onto journalism itself and quickly make a distinction between journalism and editorialism. They are both based in current events, but more freedom is given the editorialist than the journalist in terms of offering opinion. In fact, it could be stated pure journalism doesn’t editorialize at all, but rather presents raw information in a concise manner. However, when we consider the nature of the human mind and how it is represented in all actions, we find pure journalism is an impossibility, and what we are left with is varying degrees in relation to that mental abstraction of pure journalism.
Another question arises when considering these things and that is: What is the responsibility of journalism? I believe the answer is paradoxical to what one might think and most the responsibility lies not with the journalist, but rather with the readership or viewer. The journalist cannot make a person seek truth behind issues, but only provide information to the senses and it is up to the recipient of the information to formulate it, analyze it and juxtapose it with other viewpoints. The journalist is the means to the end and not the end itself, if one considers the end to be truth.
What does one look for in journalism, or editorialism then? This is the question and by the question we find it is personal in nature. Thus, I will answer what I look for in journalism. First, I look for all sides to be represented in some way. Not that someone needs to withhold their opinion, for we see above this is an improbability, but rather that it is advanced in the discussion or sharing of facts. Fox News is generally rather successful at doing this and one can see both sides of an issue relatively easy, but this is represented somewhat on other networks as well. The second criteria is where I find myself much at odds with many shows at other channels, and this criterion concerns disrespect. In this argumentative culture there a is great disrespect for those who draw other conclusions from the same information and any news network which is able to transcend this and offer both sides, without ridiculing one side or another with arbitrary insults, wins out in my book. Just because someone disagrees with another doesn’t give that other, supposedly bigger person or group, the right to ridicule. Fox is pretty successful at moving beyond this, though admittedly there are a couple shows I skip out on because it encroaches upon this line a little too much. I would mention specifics, but to whom or to what would it benefit? Nobody. I would just be encouraging the actions antipodal to my claim by doing such.
Next, it is the scope of news I look for. A lot of news shows now comment on other news shows, but to me it makes no sense. I could watch TMZ to get that. Therefore, news shows which offer up attacks to Bill O’Reilly or Keith Olbermann, while putting on the guise of a news show is to me disingenuous. Lastly, accuracy of information and its correct context upon which deeper meaning can be understood and because mistakes happen, a clarification when mistakes do happen. One should also be aware that a news mistake doesn’t necessarily equate to a lie or an intention to mislead. Thus, though I disagree with some of the things which are said on Fox News, concerning all this criteria it comes out above the rest with the CNN Networks running a close second. In the terms I have enumerated, it is successful in objectivity, representation, respect, contextual evidence, accuracy and a civility that surpasses everyone else (Again, I concede there are a couple programs I choose not to tune into unless they have a guest I particularly like, but such programs are also within their freedoms and rights to operate so I don’t hold a grudge; I just don’t tune in). These facts are also represented in Fox’s viewership which is the most equal between Republicans, Democrats and Independents when compared with any other cable news station. So to me Fox News is a great source of information (and concerning Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld, entertainment), but one needs to remember to look to other sources as well for verification. Otherwise, one is following a mob rather than the intellect.
Living in suburbia, it is always frightening when you see crime encroach upon your doorstep. I remember the good ol’ days with the only crime being the occasional pot smoker sneaking into the woods across the street or an underage kid puffing on a cigarette. Well, except there was that creepy “Aqualung” looking guy who hung out at the park down the street, but that doesn’t really have anything to do with the account I am relaying so I don’t even know why I brought it up. In fact, now I am a little disturbed by the whole thing. So, back to the subject at hand.
I got ready for class and all that stuff, including my weekly floss and my bi-weekly shower, then proceeded out to my truck to carry my squeaky clean butt to class so I could take my eagerly awaited quiz. Now, it has been freezing cold recently, you know the kind of cold where the moisture of your breath almost freezes inside your mouth and it bitterly stings all your cold sores? Yes, you know. Well, due to these frigid temperatures, my truck takes a couple hard steady pulls on the door handle to get the vehicular hatchway to open. This was what I was expecting, but not what I got. The door opened quite easily, much to my amazement (I lead a boring life) and I was further shocked to discover my glove box had been pulled open and it’s contents were strewn about all over the cab of my humble conveyance.
Me, being as bright as I am, immediately tried to figure out just what the hell I had been looking for the previous night, which apparently had warranted me to flip into conniptions and fling console and glove box contents all over my truck. I was positive I had brought my meth inside the previous night, so I was at a loss to explain it. Then it hit me, my driver side door was ajar slightly. Great, my truck had just been broken into.
Now you may ask yourself, “Brandon?” To which I would reply, “Yes?” To which you would say, “Why were you entering through the passenger side door rather than the driver’s side?” To which I would pile many exhortations upon you for asking such an insightful question and reply, “I am glad you inquired friend and the reason is this: My truck had been previously broken into before and they damaged the lock to such a degree that it is now impossible to unlock my truck from the driver’s side.” To this you would offer your condolences, buy me a drink and say, “Oh, that is really a shame. It must really be embarrassing when you have to open the door for all your guy friends.” To which I would say, “Indeed.” To this you would then ask if I would like your sister’s phone number, to which I would apply in the affirmative and we would go our separate ways.
Luckily, I learned my lesson the first time and always make sure to empty out my truck of valuables and narcotics before I even go into my abode at night. So, although they got away with some cash, a couple rocks and a massive collection of “Savage Garden” cd’s the first time, all they found this time was my toenail fungus ointment, 27 empty bottles of “5-Hour Energy,” and a copy of Tolstoy’s “Anna Karenina.” They didn’t take any of it, but this very fact alone gives me some clues to their identity. I am currently on the lookout for tired, illiterate teenagers, or adults, male or female, with legs and feet, with healthy looking toenails. Following is my message to them, that though they got something for their efforts the first time, this time, they get NOTHING! NOTHING!
Due to a lack of friends or social contact, I frequently find myself dwelling on completely arbitrary subjects within my scattered, moronic brain. The following is no exception. As I ponder such things, I find that writing about them helps me to keep my thoughts and mental formulations more linear and better organized; which is a huge plus if you have ADD, or whatever it is that is wrong in my head; surely its something. However, once I find my ponderings to be completed, or at least when I reach a reasonable stopping point, I find myself flooded with a desire to share it. Don’t know why exactly, for this is not the initial intention. Well, at least not in this particular installment. Yet, it’s hard to find adequate reason to do so, but then I realized the title of my blog gives me all the reason I need, much to my pleasure and your umbrage. It seems that the internet is so lacking in random fruitless text nowadays, you know?
On Intelligence
Intelligence is the ability to analyze, retain and apply data towards any question, situation or hypothetical, while in collaboration with a self-aware consciousness. It is this process, and its subsequent conclusion, which are considered intelligence. Even raw data alone at times can be labeled as intelligence. For example, a recon party may be deployed by the military to gather intelligence; that is information about enemy tactics or positions, while another group takes that information and utilizes it to their advantage. This does not show that any one piece of information can necessarily be considered to be intelligent, rather that there is a likewise relation between the raw data, analyzation and application as it applies to the conception of intelligence.
However, there is a difference between intelligence and consciousness, for intelligence is subservient to consciousness. That is, the more conscious or self-aware something is, the bigger it’s capacity for intelligence. If we look at a shrubbery for instance, we find it’s self awareness, if it indeed exists at all, is miniscule at best and so too then is its ability to acquire intelligence. It may have basic skills as it relates to self-preservation like bending towards a light source, but it is not capable of any self- reflection or weighing of possible consequence.
We determine something is intelligent by an apparent ability to objectively analyze information, retain it, and utilize it whenever a certain circumstance deems it necessary. This is manifest, in words or actions, which are the only way we can determine the degree of intelligence an individual holds, for the exact processes of the mind cannot be known without some external manifestation, for one cannot see thought alone, but only its effect. Even when examining brain activity, a manifest similarity between the apparent states needs to be observed before the state of the brain can even be attributed to that corresponding intellectual state.
Human beings have a consciousness beyond any other being and are thereby, the most intelligent. We can by the faculties of the mind, transcend ourselves and reflect upon our natures or the nature of external things beyond our carnal, most basic needs. We can weigh consequence, hypothetical outcomes, and employ the use of the imagination to help us determine what actions we wish to follow.
Concerning which is more valuable, the consciousness or intelligence, this is a rather difficult question to answer, for I feel both are completely and hopelessly intertwined. Yet, we see that consciousness doesn’t necessarily equate to a high degree of intelligence in humans, for there are varying degrees of intelligence in people, though they all may be equally self-aware. So, we find they aren’t completely linked, and all that an advanced consciousness seems to guarantee is the possibility for advanced intelligence.
In terms of importance, we find that intelligence guides people more than consciousness alone, but due to their link, it is hard to say which one is more important, for without consciousness completely, the mere existence of intelligence would be nullified or lessoned to some degree. Yet, when it comes to interaction within the world itself, and intelligence’s ability to guide man into choosing his actions, in any given circumstance; more duty falls upon intelligence, rather than the consciousness.
Using the above criteria for intelligence, I will attempt to enumerate each examples intelligent capacity:
Cat or Dog: A cat or dog has a very limited ability to analyze data and most of this occurs in collaboration with an inherent need for self preservation, the seeking of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Objective analyzation is nearly nil, if at all, and its ability to learn is only based on cause and effect. A small degree of pliability, which could be aptly called association, does take place. For if a dog is punished for a misdeed several times, it will associate that misdeed with punishment. A dog’s intellect is moldable to the degree that destructive traits can be weaned out of the pet by punishment and desirable traits can be encouraged by reward.
A computer: I would theorize that giving a computer self-awareness would be impossible outside of science fiction movies. Due to this, I don’t believe a computer can exhibit intelligence as a human being, for it would lack an amount of pliability. It is true, an independent programmer could come in and alter the programming, thus molding its abilities in accordance with the programmers desires, but the computer isn’t given the freedom to choose if it should or should not follow the commands; for all his functions or how it applies its programming, is predetermined. What the computer does have is the ability to do, is store memory and make calculations at high speeds, but it is more so the speed that makes the computer appear smart, and not so much the intelligence of it. In fact, it has been stated the computer is nothing more than a “fast idiot.”
Children: The intellect of a child is in the process of being molded and it has all the abilities an adult intellect has, but due to its young age, the state of the intellect is constantly changing and growing at a rate not as frequently observed in adults. The pliability is in hyper drive as it learns to properly analyze, apply, and memorize the data it comes in contact with. Due to the fact the intellect remains underdeveloped, many parents will resort to methods of teaching which are understood by the most basic of faculties, by appealing to their corporal natures, for reasoning with a child due to the minds immature nature is a difficult task indeed.
Vine: The plant climbs, due to an inherent nature that is not based on any reasoning, but rather just mere instinct for purposes of self-preservation, which represents the most basic needs of life. The plant has no ability to objectively analyze data and its motion, or scaling of the wall, can only be molded by an outside force.
One night as I lay here bored and trying to name my individual phalanges, it suddenly occurred to me the amount of power that is in a name. First, I thought about the names I had given my fingers (didn’t get to the thumbs): Steven, Bruce, Lance, Viggo Mortensen and Chevy. Yet, my thoughts began to slowly transcend those kinds of names, and I moved onto other things like: butterscotch, Trans fat, Buffalo Bills and the Saint Lawrence Seaway. However, as I slipped further into a sleep deprived delirium, I began to reflect on that which one should never dwell upon before he turns in for the evening: Government and Politics.
I considered the names “Republican” and “Democrat” for a while, but because they were just too frightening in their present form, I relinquished to ponder instead, “Progressive” and “Conservative.” Delicious, for it was in this instance the power of names became abundantly clear unto me and understood, that by mere names or titles alone, Progressives win out over the Conservatives. Yes, I know I have had a couple “witty” (according to my mother) entries recently concerning word usage, thus I will not go too far into detail in this installment of my blog, for I am just way too tired and still have a couple thumbs to name before I crash out.
“Progressive” is a very positive term. It connotes an expansion of ideological values and a social evolution towards a great utopia, which seems to be within mankind’s grasp. By promoting this form of social evolution, society can encourage virtue within every man, and bring this utopia eventually into being. If anyone, by sheer accident, detects any sarcastic tone here, let it be known, I am quite serious and no attempt to be rude is being made. This is what a lot of Progressives I have talked to tend to agree upon. There is a conception of a noble world, full of virtue and philanthropy, which can be perfected by determined social conditioning. For these virtuous values need to be encouraged with it’s very foundations, built upon the Jeffersonian inherent goodness of man.
“Conservative” on the other hand is a very negative term. It connotes a suspension of the advancement of social values and seemingly, almost completely, ignores social evolution by basing all its ideology on the past and such a viewpoint can only lead to holding the world back from this utopian society. Thereby, it must be discouraged wholeheartedly in society, and such an ideology should be eradicated. I again don’t say this to be mean, and am not being sarcastic, for I consider myself to be part of the latter group. Yet, Conservatives feel the idea of some huge utopia is unrealistic, and believe people aren’t inherently good or virtuous, but rather will look out for themselves, way before they consider the greater needs of society, which points to Adams’s fallibility of man. Thus, safeguards and absolute values are needed to promote individual prosperity and responsibility, and any true social advancement requires a system of checks and balances to counteract man’s inherent faulty nature.
These are the things that occurred to me by just pondering the words themselves. Words do have power, and I am not suggesting they be changed, but wrote this only to show that when it comes to the words themselves, again, Conservatives are at a disadvantage. I will withhold any defense of my viewpoint or critique of the Progressive viewpoint for another time, but felt the two terms needed to be reflected on somewhat, for some unknown reason. Arbitrary? Yes. Useless? Yes. Probably extremely wrong? Most likely, but sleep deprivation will make you write some odd things, as I believe my latest entry can attest. Now on to my thumbs…
It’s not often I can let my back hair down, relax and address those faithful readers which keep me writing. Without their support I would have long ago went back to my efforts of orchestrating a feline choir and my job of trying to help people with their reptile issues as the “Lizard Whisperer.” Boy, did some people get the totally wrong impression from that one and the “Herpetology Whisperer” title I switched to in an effort to remedy the situation just made it a lot worse. Thus, it is nice to know one of my endeavors is turning out okay, and by “okay” I mean I’m not getting endless phone calls from middle aged businessmen anymore.
At any rate, I wish to say thank you to everyone who faithfully reads my blog (yes, there are a couple of them smartass) and give a little something back by addressing a request I had in response to my “On My Philosophical Reflection Concerning ‘I’m Just Sayin” post. One of my good pals “Ghostgirl” requested I dip into the deteriorating soft tissue of my brain and comment on something near and dear to her heart, the terms “irregardless” and “all of a sudden.” Without further ado, lest I adont (okay not all jokes can be winners) here is another attempt to parody some philosophical writing as I try and examine a couple of these common terms:
On The Proper Use and Relationship of Linguistical Predicates
Part II: Irregardless
There is great freedom in the human dialect, which one outside philosophical reflection might not consider or realize. Indeed, it seems when concerning the study of language and composition of the written word, many rules are supposed that need to be followed, from spelling to sentence structure. All these codes have been dictated over decades by professors, linguists and philosophers alike inside their classrooms and thus, without real world application, the important part of human speech has been looked over. That is, the idea or ideal itself which is trying to be conveyed in conversation or upon any piece of parchment. The great wit Mark Twain once said, “I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.”
This is not to say such rules don’t serve any purpose, for this certainly isn’t the case. A way to formulate thought into speech or writ is an important skill to have and necessary in order for one convey an idea in the most efficient way possible. However, such rules can be a hindrance to some and an overabundance of focus may be placed on them by those who ponder over word structure, opting to ignore the message being conveyed and call the sharer of ideas or information out on their error, belittling and detracting from the scope of focus. In the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, Book 1:10, He states one should not “leap on mistakes, or captiously interrupt when anyone makes an error of vocabulary, syntax, or pronunciation, but neatly to introduce the correct form of an particular expression by way of answer, confirmation, or discussion of the matter itself rather than its phrasing-or by some other felicitous prompting.”
Even in Aurelius’s time the structure of language was an important thing, and a case could even be made it was more important, but he understood it should not overshadow the actual message behind any verbal or written discourse, but rather the message should be the main topic of focus, with grammatical theory being subservient to it and not the other way around. Indeed, while some correct with good intentions, we can readily see others correct for reasons which are pompous and independent of any concern to enlighten those who might be mistaken in word usage. This is the consequence for studying such theories in classrooms and lecture halls without applying them to real world application.
Lastly, one must remember language not only serves as an expression of ideas, but also as an aesthetical expression as well. Under close examination, we can see language tends to have an almost musical quality and indeed incorporates many of the same devices that are included within a musical score. Motif, theme, rhythm and crescendo are all represented, with the words themselves taking on the likeness of musical notes. So, it is only natural for one to organize their words in a way which is pleasing to them and conform them to fit better within a written or spoken body. In fact, it could be said this element could never be completely nullified, because speech formulates within the mind of the artificer of the thought.
In the word, “irregardless” we can see these aesthetical freedoms taken when one cites, records or speaks the word. It is not paradoxical to the degree that it becomes indecipherable, in fact quite the opposite. The paradoxical nature lies not in its meaning, but in the organization of the letters and the predicates which form the inherent construction of the word. To understand this fully we need to dissect it completely into three main parts:
First, “ir” is a prefix which means, “not, or opposite of.”
Second, “regard” means, “to take something into account or consider.”
Lastly, “less” means, “something inferior or not as important.”
From this enumeration of it’s various parts we can see by the prefix, “ir” and the connexion with “less” that it is tautological in nature and thus the “ir,” within scholarly circles adds nothing to the word, and it is a useless predicate. Yet, does this mean one could not opt to say it in conversation? Within the lecture halls it may be considered unacceptable, but this presupposes there isn’t some context where one might find it more appropriate. In fact, “ir” might play a bigger role than some linguistical scholars even realize.
First, one should not completely discount any aesthetical value concerning the elements, for the purposes of the prefix may provide emphasis to a degree by comparing similarities or differences of other words, but this is merely a hypothetical and such justifications are dependant upon medium and thus to judge on such a supposition hardly seems logical. Second, we go back to emphasis again, in that by determining the word unusable, one is presupposing “ir” and “less” negate each other and eliminate the words meaning and/or power. Yet, it does not offer us the possibility the two elements actually build upon one another adding to the value of the word in terms of emphasis. What exactly would it emphasize? Mainly, such emphasis would be to build on the definition of being “heedless” and advance it forward to introduce a higher degree of contempt towards the object upon which it refers.
Thus, I feel an individual, while in a proper medium, has the freedom to offer the word in any discourse and this will add and extra level of contempt and emotional disconnect which just “regardless” may not offer, though admittedly it would be based on relative terms. One must use discernment, however, to determine when it is appropriate, but I have reached the conclusion that it is not a negation of meaning, but rather a furthering of meaning, so it may very well have a place in creative or philosophical writ and conversation.
Part III: “All of a Sudden”
Unlike the previous, “All of a sudden” requires no extreme dissection, for its meaning and use are apparent. One may conceive of what it means in the context of which it is offered, but the phrase contains a little more wisdom than any hearer of the statement may allow himself to fully comprehend. One will see the term, “all” and “sudden” and determine some event was introduced into a circumstance very rapidly. “All” refers to the introduced situation and not the, what we will call the “precircumstance.”
It may serve us well from here to replace “all” and “sudden” that it may come more into focus. Instead of “all” let us say “circumstance,” and instead of “sudden,” let us say “moment.” Then, “all of a sudden” reads: “circumstance of a moment.” “Moment” is used to show the hurried nature of the circumstance and we see with the use of the word “of” that this circumstance is subservient to this brief “moment.” Meaning, that it is an inseparable element of the circumstance, for it is part of the phrases inherent nature.
So we can conclude by this illustration that there are two main parts to “all of a sudden:”
1.) An expeditious shift of circumstance, usually driven by forces outside the self.
2.) A shift in focus from one object or situation unto another.
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.
