do I have Hanson's "Mmmm Bop" stuck in my head? I haven't even HEARD it lately.
Gah.
Must. Get. Angsty. Music. On. Now.
Anyway... having an "eh" day. Just feeling very bleh. Erich and I are hitting the gym tonight. Hopefully that'll get me feeling a bit better (although since I've been such a slacker, at least for tonight I'm expecting myself to feel like ass afterwards).
I didn't watch the State of the Union. I did, however, read it this morning in its entirety so that I actually could see what he had to say. I can't watch Bush speak. Between the drawl slur of his voice and his condescending swagger, I just can't do it. I laughed when I read comments that people said he was such a great speaker, without the "theatrics" of New England.
Folks, I'm from the midwest. If that swagger of Bush's isn't theatrical, you have great reason to be concerned.
Sweet Jesus.
I honestly don't get it. What do people see in this guy? He's a liar. He's an alcoholic. He acts so pompus when he speaks that it's immediately alienating to anyone who doesn't fall perfectly into his category of the preferred American. He is the epitome of a phrase I heard growing up often within the religious circles of my high school friends-- "white and delightsome."
Two points if you know the religion that actually has this as part of their tenets (but claims its outdated).
In the meantime, I've had one of the Bush fanatics commenting on my journal, making all of the wild assumptions that he generally makes about liberals-- completely baseless ones that show that not only does he not care to have a dialogue with the other side, but that he takes only what he wants to hear and assumes it dictates all left-leaning political beliefs. Granted, he called one person on the Diary-X forums a whore for not having pro-current American political leanings. Nice, isn't it? (*snort*) So really, his ability to discuss things as an educated, respectable adult are... questionable.
Because you know, I should assume that all conservatives have gun racks in the back of their truck, are going out lynching non-Christian Americans, and think that Pat Robertson is the best thing since sliced bread.
This is the type of jump that he makes. It's astounding.
Anyway... so I read Bush's State of the Union.
His comment on spending taxpayers' money wisely made me laugh out loud. Apparently he hasn't been paying attention to his own administration's misspending the past four years.
Economy-- Perhaps other areas of the nation are improving. Massachusetts is still in recession, if not continuing to decline. I don't buy his claims that things are improving at all, considering the jumps in my health care costs, costs of living, and the amount of my friends who have been unemployed for a year or more.
Needless lawsuit regulation? Yeah, I can go along with that. I don't see how he'll do it. He has no substance there. It needs to get done. But given his pro-corporate stance, I see it as going along with anything a corporation wants to do, rather than protect consumers.
Health care? Sure... it would be nice for one of these presidents/presidential candidates to actually DO something to improve health care. I don't believe he will do a damn thing. I swear politicians just throw health care in their speeches to just note that it's a problem. They don't actually ever DO anything about it.
Energy costs: The term "safe, clean nuclear energy" terrifies me. Sorry. It does. Three words: Three Mile Island.
Tax code: Great idea. Good fucking luck.
Immigration: Bush is the one who wanted to give amnesty to illegal immigrants during his first term. i.e. those entering the country ILLEGALLY. Yet he wants to track who is entering and leaving the nation and give temporary work permits. O-kay. And BTW, having heard from an Irish national who works in my office-- the work visa has become a nightmare under Bush. It does punish those who just want to make a good living for their families.
Social Security-- I have a suggestion. Lock the box against federal spending against the SS accounts. Stop letting the government borrow against it. So that the money that we ALL pay into it comes back out of it TO US. We already have private savings options-- they're called 401K's (which not everyone can get, but they're pretty prevalent now) and IRA accounts (which ANYONE can get-- it just needs to be set up). Moving everything to privatized accounts would be a disaster because it would cause even more "looking over the shoulder" syndrome than Americans have right now (usually due to health care costs and the fear of a drastic illness). Bush should not be messing with Social Security at all. The notion that we shouldn't be putting money in it (i.e. it's okay for today's retirees, but screw you guys later... you're on your own) is just... *shudder* Ultimately, the private account thing does one thing-- help big business by allowing the financial corporations a bunch of new business as they open these private savings accounts.
Folks-- we can DO THIS already. Those who have the money generally already DO.
It's the people who scrape by day by day for their lives who need the SS money most of all.
On the marriage amendment-- Bush has reversed his position twice-- quickly. First he wants the amendment. Then two weeks before the election, he says he's for civil unions and doesn't want the amendment. Now he wants it again. He wants to legislate in religiously-specific morality into the Constitution. As for "legislating from the bench..." Some things that are practiced in the United States are unconstitutional. There have always been problems. It is the responsibility of the courts to hear the complaints of citizens who feel their rights are being trampled, and rule according to law.
Using the oft-complained about Massachusetts ruling on gay marriage-- the courts of Massachusetts did not rule that gay marriage was legal under Massachusetts law. It ruled that there was nothing within the law that PROHIBITED gay marriage. Big difference, folks. It didn't legislate from the bench. It took the current constitution of the commonwealth and determined if gay marriage was illegal, as the current laws defined. It found no restriction against gay marriage, but also didn't find anything specifically stating that it was legal, either. The state legislature then took that ruling and started discussing a new point of law to make it clear. Which is why we had all of the debates. But because it wasn't illegal, gay marriage has been given a temporary stay of legality in Massachusetts. We, as citizens of Massachusetts, vote on it in 2006. Only then can gay marriage be permanently legal in Massachusetts. But of course, misinformation keeps getting posted about this by the anti-marriage activists who don't pay attention to anything beyond gays getting married.
Faith-based support? I'd like to see some non-Christian groups getting support. Better yet-- I'd like to see some groups that aren't part of the monotheistic triad getting support. Then, and only then, will I believe that this is a good thing. Until then, I still see it as a subversive way to spread Christianity.
War on Terror... *wrings hands*
No mention of Bin Laden. At all. That guy who claimed responsibility for 9/11, which Bush carries as his battle cry? The reason we supposedly went on this unwinnable (by the sheer fact of human nature) "War on Terror"? Non-existent.
Homeland security is a joke. All around America, firehouses and police stations are closing because they can't get funding. It's disgraceful. Particularly after the attention drawn to them on 9/11. Bush-- you want to fund homeland security? Start with federal funding of the first-response organizations... the firehouses, the police stations, and the EMT's.
This struck me specifically...
"In the long term, the peace we seek will only be achieved by eliminating the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder. If whole regions of the world remain in despair and grow in hatred, they will be the recruiting grounds for terror, and that terror will stalk America and other free nations for decades. The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom."
Currently, the United States is FEEDING the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder. We have been destroying entire towns. Killed innocent Iraq's, leaving hundreds (if not thousands) of children without homes and without families. These children are being raised in a situation where they see the anger and pain on their parents faces. Or they see themselves as having lost their parents at the enemy's hands. They will blame us. And they will hate us. And the cycle will begin again.
Perhaps the Iraqis want to be free and democratic- but they need to discover freedom ON THEIR OWN. American-style "freedom" is quite possibly not the correct version for them. They must define it for themselves. To do this, we need to get out and leave them to solve their problems.
Ultimately, we need to stop dictating (clue into that word, please) how other nations handle their own affairs. We should be more aware of America's role as the current world dictatorship and learn to be more humble and diplomatic.
Another thing that pisses me off...
The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies. They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life.
While I don't think the United States is expanding an empire of oppression... I strongly feel that we're trying to impose our form of government on other nations. And really, from what I've seen... most nations, regardless of their government, are really not expanding empires at this point. They're busy trying to maintain their own. The only one that's invading other nations recently is *us*.
Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to peace.
The American Government does not answer to its citizens NOW. And we don't respect our own people or neighbors. That's absolute, utter bullshit.
On the Middle East-- I've strongly come to the conclusion that Israel and Palestine need to get all of the other mediators out of the mix and duke it out themselves. Neither side is any more innocent than the other here. I see a Jewish state, formed after the shock of the Holocaust, building walls to keep Palestinians removed from their society. Sixty years ago, these types of walls blocked off Jews from the rest of society into ghettos. And that's exactly what the Jews are doing to the Palistinians now.
At the same time, the Palestinians keep re-inforcing the fear of the Jewish people by sending suicide bombers in, aggrivating the government into causing more damage to Palestinian territories... and again, reinventing the vicious cycle.
They need to figure it out on their own. They'll either figure it out that it needs to stop-- on BOTH sides (not just one), or they'll kill each other.
As for Syria and Iran-- how much do you want to bet that Bush is invading them next. Say... in two years, once he gets bored with Iraq (as he did with Afghanistan?)
As for his pandering on Iraq and his closing statements... I honestly have nothing to say.
It's going to be a long four years. But America did get the President it deserved. And it will get the backlash from other nations that it deserves as well.
