So, in a fit of political something or another, I tuned in to watch Bush give his State of the Union speech tonight. On that note, let's hear it for C-SPAN for having a live webcast of the thing. In fact, let's hear it for live webcasts.
Anyway. This whole thing deserves some sort of gigantic hand wringing, which I'm not sure if I'm capable of in my current exhausted state, but we'll see what we can come up with. So...
For the curious, you can find the transcript of the thing here.
I'm not going to argue with the war on terror blurb. Mostly because there's not a whole hell of a lot to argue with, but also because I actually agree with him. To quote Regina's favorite Thomas Friedman line, "Some things are true even if George Bush believes them." Yeah. I do note, however that at this line: "Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year." rated ENORMOUS applause from the Democratic side of the isle. Certainly, I won't argue with their good judgement there.
That having been said, from everything I can tell, we're STILL screwing over the Afghans, and that STILL annoys me a great deal.
Too, I don't argue too much with the Iraq section, though I'm somewhat amused that he's still riding the still-breathing-but-not-long-for-this-earth WMD horse. I'd really love to see him take a spill off that one.
Too, the Democratic response to the SOTU speech had a point - internationalized the Iraq effort may be, more so than, say, the French would have you believe, but it's still mostly our troops on the ground. I don't really know what I want to say about that, but that's how it is.
And catch, if you will, the barely disguised connection he's trying to make between Afghanistan and Iraq in the, erm, War on Terror. We all know I'm for all of it, but Christ, Dubya, let's at least make an attempt to call it like it is.
There was much, much deserved beating of the wretched economy bullshit. A lot of it from C-SPAN callers, to the tune of "So, if we're gaining all these new jobs, where's mine?" There was a congressman what got interviewed after the thing who had some good things to say, as well, to the tune of "do you have any idea how many jobs we've lost in this recession? It's a lot. And we're not THAT recovered. Oh, and you know the No Child Left Behind crap? Yeah. What money? Because it ain't getting full funding."
It is also left as an exercise for the reader to wonder WHERE exactly all the money for these giant new programs Bush keeps coming up with, if we're cutting taxes. Apparently he's also going to reduce the deficit and balance the budget or some such crap, as well. As much in awe of Bush's mad money skillz as I may be...no.
Somewhere in the back of my mind, too, is a rant on Bush attempt to channel the spirit of JFK with that Mars thing, but it's not coming out yet, and it's best I don't let it, lest I hurt myself from the laughter.
I'm also not entirely sure what I want to make of his ideas on illegal immigrants. Believe you me, though, the callers in on C-SPAN sure had ideas, mostly involving tar, feathers, shotguns, and maybe the odd burning cross. In support of Bush, mind you. Frightening business.
I'm not sure I want to touch health care with a stick, but I will note:
I know there's not much chance of stopping the War on Drugs, but really, we need to do something SLIGHTLY less insane than we're doing. Too, this whole "Hey kids, drugs are bad, mmmkay?" thing is old. It was old when I was in fucking grade school, actually.
And the steroids thing...whatever. I'm slightly incredulous that we need the POTUS to put this in the State of the Union of all things. Aeeyah.
Too, while everything he says about abstinence-based sex ed is true in a technical sense, it's still an incredibly stupid idea. I could go on about that one, but I'm thinking not right now.
And about the time he started blathering about the "sanctity of marriage" and "faith-based initiatives" is about where I started getting very annoyed. VERY annoyed. EXTREMELY pissed off.
Although the bit C-SPAN did while he was blathering about it all where they cut to a shot of Ashcroft clapping was pretty amusing.
Still, if I didn't know anything else about Bush, the fact that he's a severe right-winger would be enough to make me frightened and ready to vote against him. Almost more than anything else he stands for, actually.
And I think the Democratic response is worth reading. I won't comment on it, but I think it's mostly pretty good.
Posted by Dwip at January 21, 2004 12:48 AMI listened to it on the radio last night in the car and in my room while I cleaned up. I can never bear to watch SotU addresses. The clapping after every paragraph irks me too much.
I say leave Mars to countries with budget surpluses. (Do such countries exist?)
The bit where he endorsed the idea of a constitutional ammendment prohibiting same-sex marriage...that had me a little scared...I don't think an ammendment is the way to go, unless it guarantees civil unions as a sort of compensation. Although with Vermont allowing unions and Massachussets (sp?) ruling in favor of them, it definitely needs a major definitive answer...grrr...can't the Supreme court just rule on it or something? :P
Wow. I'm in a "..." mood today. Lessee: some of the stuff on Iraq was good. Also, which section was booing when he talked about maybe making the tax cuts non-permanant?
And Afghanistan has a consitution as of this month? Wha? When did this happen? Dang. I really should know this. More importantly, do those in power (officially in unofficially) give a **** about this new constitution?
And while we're on politics, Kerry and Edwards: what think you? Andrew Sullivan predicted that if the two of them keep getting in the top 3 in caucuses, the Dems might ask them to run together. An interesting thought.
Posted by: Regina at January 21, 2004 7:38 AMMore Andrew Sullivan. You link me to Slate, I link you to TNR; it's all good. (I don't read TNR, but that's where the article was, sooo...Also, there's a link good critique of the marriage initiative thing under it.)
Really, I'm drowning in liberal criticism of Bush. I need to find Marechal and get him to expound the virtues of the Republican party to me so I can honestly say I gave both sides a hearing. ;)
Posted by: Regina at January 21, 2004 8:01 AMArgh. Stupid non-linking Movable Type:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=fisking&s=sullivan012104
I'll shut up now. Really.
Posted by: Regina at January 21, 2004 8:02 AMYou people just love making me read, don't you? I read that thing over on your blog regi (took fricking ages while watching television at the same time...was definately worth it though), this on your blog, and the link. The only thing I haven't read yet, is the link regi just got up for us... I'll have to do that later ;)
Posted by: toasty at January 21, 2004 11:20 AMWhat I'm doing in AN100 right now is reading about marriage and sex. I'll tell you what, we're the only country that has to put up with all the conservative bullshit about it. Just what I read last night makes me wonder where the hell our society went wrong. But that's sort of off-topic.
I didn't watch or listen to the SOTUA because, well, I could give a fuck. Yes, GW, you're running the country into the ground. I don't really care about the excuses you've got or how you plan to improve the process in the future. The ends are the same.
And I'm spent.
Posted by: Whir at January 21, 2004 11:47 AMSo you know, Marechal's been blasting Bush as being too liberal lately. Spending too much and the like. He's sort of angry.
Running Sullivan commentary:
I'm not sure if the points he thinks the president scored are actually as good as he thinks they are, since nobody I know actually suggested criminal trials, but. Though it does bring up one of those little conversations from Braveheart, along the lines of:
Edward II: "I would do what I would do to any common criminal. Have the local magistrate arrest him."
Longshanks: *whack* "Wallace has already KILLED the magistrate."
He IS right, though. There's not a lot of forward thought in that speech.
Too, it looks like EVERYONE is going to pick up on the "It's the lack of job growth, stupid." idea and run with it. Which is good. Bush deserves beatings for that.
And whatever his spending plan is seems to be beyond both Sullivan and myself and everyone else for that matter. If he's trying to please somebody, he's failing horribly.
"But, more profound, the president revealed his deep suspicion of human freedom."
Heh. I hadn't thought of it that way, but I like it. I like it.
Posted by: Dwip at January 21, 2004 12:34 PMNow to reply to you directly.
Kerry and Edwards. What I see happening is that if Edwards does well enough, and I think he will, they'll make him the VP nominee of whoever ends up being the Presidential nominee. So I could see Kerry/Edwards. The ticket's sort of attractive - older/younger, North/South, etc, etc. Fits in with Dean, too. Probably Clark.
We'll see come election day, I suppose.
Afghanistan has a constitution. I'd find you the article, but I'm short of time. In any case, we're still militarily weak over there last I checked.
My one consolation with a Marriage Amendment is that no matter what it is, its chances of passing are pretty small. Or else I'd be even more worried than I actually am.
And as to "Just what I read last night makes me wonder where the hell our society went wrong."
Take a look at the Second Great Awakening, the birth of evangelical Christianity, and the death of Enlightenment values in about the 1820s sometime. That particular thread has been running through our society ever since, much to our detriment. Which is sort of odd, considering that evangelical Christians elsewhere, say Latin America, have done some amazingly radical things.
I'd go on, but it's time for class.
Posted by: Dwip at January 21, 2004 12:44 PMThis http://www.socialistworker.org/OtherImages/2004Budget.gif
is interesting. To say the least.
Posted by: toasty at January 21, 2004 12:58 PMSadly, I'm not surprised. I went to the UN once, and they have a graph up somewhere where it shows how much money they'd need to solve or at least nearly solve many of the world's problems. The total cost is less than the total military expenditures of every country in the world.
We should take a Tonto trip to the UN or something, since we have people in so many countries. ;)
And I'd like to say something about evangelical Christians, seeing as how I am one, but I can't think of anything coherent. My history exam has sapped my coherence. We can debate that on AIM once I recover. :)
Posted by: Regina at January 21, 2004 1:42 PMYou could have a crusade targeting AIM? And convert people to msn? Yes, that is good. That is very good.
On the problem solving thing, yeah, I also heard about that, though I've never seen it.
Either way, I can't see why there's such a need for that much money being directed towards the military. The only plausible threat would be terrorists (which is plausible), but since when do you fight terrorists with, say, stealth bombers?
Posted by: toasty at January 21, 2004 2:57 PMI see that no one cares about my opinions. That's fine. You'll be against the wall with all the rest when I'm king.
Posted by: Whir at January 22, 2004 11:56 AMYou say that like I didn't just spend an entire blog post saying almost what you did.
Posted by: Dwip at January 22, 2004 12:36 PMWhat in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ is President W Bush doing? Our Constitution! Our Party! Our Republic! Aaaarrrrrggggghhhhh!
Posted by: Disgruntled Conservative at January 22, 2004 8:25 PM