 |
| 2.07.2006 |
| State of the Union: what the hell was he talking about? |
The President's State of the Union address is always game for picking apart. So here's my take on the SotU 2006.
Below are snippets from Bush's State of the Union, taken from the transcript at WhiteHouse.gov
Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal -- we seek the end of tyranny in our world. Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of America depends on it. On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction. Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror. Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer -- so we will act boldly in freedom's cause.
This reads to me: Fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em here. Great strategy, really. IF THERE WAS ANY POSED THREAT. It's kinda like saying "Well, that man over there could possibly injure me in the future, so I should kill him now to end any chance he might have to hurt me in the future." Like, WHAT? What kind of logic is that? So, by imposing our will upon people that's supposed to make us safer? If someone came up to me and started telling me what to do, I personally would be more inclined to hurt them. "You'll thank me later." Um, yeah. Maybe the rest of the world is getting along fine without us. And even if they aren't, is it our place to tell them there's a better way to solve things? Reminds me of mothers --- "Don't tell me how to raise my children!"
In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders. If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores. There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat. By allowing radical Islam to work its will -- by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself -- we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals, or even in our own courage. But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil.
Intelligence versus honor. Sure, retreat is never particularly manly or honorable, but staying in a war for no reason is probably not the smartest move. 'There is no peace in retreat'. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? So is there peace in slaying thousands of innocents? That makes so much sense. 'By allowing radical Islam to work its will' --- y'know what, I think that right now, radical Christianity poses more of a threat to the American way of life than radical Islam ever will. And you would not be "signaling that you no longer believe in your own ideals". You will simply have not won once. Don't be a sore loser. Accept you can't always have your way.
America rejects the false comfort of isolationism. We are the nation that saved liberty in Europe, and liberated death camps, and helped raise up democracies, and faced down an evil empire. Once again, we accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed and move this world toward peace. We remain on the offensive against terror networks. We have killed or captured many of their leaders -- and for the others, their day will come.
....could you get more full of yourself, honestly? Right, I forgot, the solar system revolves around the stability and heroicism of the United States. Because we're always the heroes, the white knights. By the way, if we don't like your leadership, we'll cut their nuts off. See how they like terrorizing the center of the universe then.
We're on the offensive in Iraq, with a clear plan for victory. First, we're helping Iraqis build an inclusive government, so that old resentments will be eased and the insurgency will be marginalized.
VICTORY. AGAINST. WHAT?! Will someone PLEASE tell me what we're fighting against? I don't think anyone knows. At least invent some enemy that we're fighting against, honestly. Obviously the plan isn't so clear. And why MUST we help the Iraqis? Did they ask for our help? No. We just kinda went over there and kicked their door in and said "Ummm, yeah. We don't like what you're doing. So we're gonna take over and you're gonna LIKE IT."
Our work in Iraq is difficult because our enemy is brutal. But that brutality has not stopped the dramatic progress of a new democracy.
*stabby mcstabstab* Will someone please tell me who and/or what the enemy is? Or is supposed to be? I'm writing a letter.
I am confident in our plan for victory; I am confident in the will of the Iraqi people; I am confident in the skill and spirit of our military. Fellow citizens, we are in this fight to win, and we are winning.
*rips out hair* What are we fighting to win? WHAT?! WHAT?!
The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home. As we make progress on the ground, and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels
Read: They come home when I say they come home. So shut up plzkthx.
Members of Congress, however we feel about the decisions and debates of the past, our nation has only one option: We must keep our word, defeat our enemies, and stand behind the American military in this vital mission.
*death* What....enemies...are you .. talking .... about?...
The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people.
The same is true of the United States, a nation now held hostage by a small idiotic elite that is isolating and repressing its people.
Tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.
Read: We'll give you a couple more years before we invade you, too.
So to prevent another attack –- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed. The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.
There's a difference though: you abused it. Yes, the federal courts approved the use of that authority. You went behind everyone's backs like a little sneakface. "The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks." It's also put the entire country on edge and brought censorship to a whole new level. From now on, I'm going to say "May the president be assassinated" as opposed to "goodbye, Janice" when I'm hanging up the phone. I wonder if I can say that on my blog? =X
In a dynamic world economy, we are seeing new competitors, like China and India, and this creates uncertainty, which makes it easier to feed people's fears.
Read: WE WILL NOT BE SECOND TO COMMIES
In the last five years, the tax relief you passed has left $880 billion in the hands of American workers, investors, small businesses, and families -- and they have used it to help produce more than four years of uninterrupted economic growth.
Babe, we're in trillions of dollars debt. This is not the time to be giving away money. I don't know your definition of 'economic growth', but I'm pretty sure most people don't think it's increasing the deficit.
Because America needs more than a temporary expansion, we need more than temporary tax relief. I urge the Congress to act responsibly, and make the tax cuts permanent.
*whines* Clinton...please slap some sense into this man...
Keeping America competitive requires us to open more markets for all that Americans make and grow. One out of every five factory jobs in America is related to global trade, and we want people everywhere to buy American. With open markets and a level playing field, no one can out-produce or out-compete the American worker.
Which is exactly why everyone and their mother are outsourcing to India and China for cheap labor. Because nobody can out-produce or out-compete the American worker. And we want everyone to buy American, except for ourselves. Keep buying Chinese, America!
Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security -- (applause)
I just wanted to point out those were the Democrats clapping.
And to keep America competitive, one commitment is necessary above all: We must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity.
Read: WE WILL NOT BE SECOND TO COMMIES
America is a great force for freedom and prosperity. Yet our greatness is not measured in power or luxuries, but by who we are and how we treat one another. So we strive to be a compassionate, decent, hopeful society.
A compassionate, decent, hopeful, powerful society who lives in luxury. :rolls eyes:
A hopeful society depends on courts that deliver equal justice under the law. The Supreme Court now has two superb new members -- new members on its bench: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito.
...*cries* I'll talk about them later...
Human life is a gift from our Creator -- and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale.
Thank you, Jesus. I didn't realize you looked so much like George Bush.
In New Orleans and in other places, many of our fellow citizens have felt excluded from the promise of our country.
Because you fucked up.
This State of the Union business wears me out.
x |
posted by Ianthe. @ 11:36 PM  |
|
|
|
| 2.05.2006 |
| Our once-sensible neighbors to the north |
First of all, I would like to apologize for not updating in ... half a year! Ouch, has it really been that long? I'll make a point to update more.
Anyway, I'm sure you're aware of the results of the Canadian elections. Someone in America might say, well, it's Canada! Why should we be particularly concerned about their leadership?
You very well might not be. However, Canada has always been the older, wiser, more sensible and liberal older (yet younger) sibling to the United States. They achieved independence without war, and in more modern times have become one of the first countries to legalize same-sex marriage and support the Kyoto Protocol. These actions make Canada a great role model for progressive politics (despite the fact that our government refuses to listen to anybody).
But Canada has voted, and they have voted in conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Harper's relationship with George Bush reminds me somewhat of a little brother who wants to be just like his older brother; so he copies everything that he does in hopes that he can become the spitting image of his older brother. It's kinda like that.
According to StephenHarperSaid.ca, "Stephen Harper’s No. 1 priority is to reduce taxes until they are lower than those in the United States." This doesn't make any sense to me. At all. Isn't Canada renowned for its free health care? How do you plan to continue to support one of the best things Canada has to offer while slashing taxes? We complain about rising taxes, but in the end, we all know that we need to pay them to support government programs, which in turn support us.
Harper says some things that concern me. One such quote from him reveals his views on the impoverished: “In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don’t feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don’t feel bad about it themselves, as long as they’re receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.” So, basically he doesn't care about the impoverished because they're lazy, and clearly the unemployed simply don't want jobs.
I know I'm jumping around a lot here, but it's 4am and I'm just trying to get some ideas out.
So I've been reading the electoral platform documents on Conservative.ca. I've been very drawn to gay rights and issues lately, so I skipped right on down to 'Giving MPs a free vote on marriage'. It reads:
"The Liberal legislation abolishing the traditional definition of marriage passed only on a whipped cabinet vote. We believe that Parliament alone, based on a completely free vote, should be able to determine the definition of marriage." Fabulous. So apparently the first time it didn't count. So you thought you got same-sex marriage? I don't think you guys were sober when you voted on that. So let me first appoint all my conservative friends and then we'll ask them what they want. And it'll be a completely unbiased and free vote.
Canada, Canada. I can only imagine the destruction Stephen Harper, George Bush, and Tony Blair combined will bring upon the earth. Harper could single-handedly undo the Canadian progressive politics I so admired.
Stephen Harper: Heads I win, tails you lose.
|
| posted by Ianthe. @ 2:51 AM |
|
|
|
Tears Shall Drown The Wind |
|
| |
|
|
