Reaction to the State of the Union Address

The Speech:
Tonight, President George Bush delivered the first State of the Union address of his second term. No one can deny that the most moving moment of the speech was when an Iraqi human rights worker and the mother of a fallen marine embraced on the world stage. The pain that these two women have endured, and the courage that they displayed, was touching. However, Mr. Bush's words were far from as inspiring. Yet again, he promised relief to the United States' dependence on foreign oil, but he continues to pander to large oil corporations, as exhibited through his push for the Iraq war. He also pledged to clean and protect the environment again. However, his administration has loosened restrictions on the amounts that corporations are allowed to pollute. He talked about a "culture of life" referring in part to his anti-abortion stance, and in the same paragraph defended his past judicial selections and qualified his future Supreme Court nominations by claiming that he would appoint judges that upheld the law and were not "activist," despite their disregard for law, particularly on the issue of abortion. In addition, he promised that one person's life would not be sacrificed for another's under his administration. He deemed this human dignity. He was referring to the ethical use of stem cells for research towards curing diseases, but the contradiction with asking men and women to die in Iraq and Afghanistan to keep others safe and his statement seems clear.

The time for buzzwords such as, freedom, liberty, and democracy has past. The election in Iraq was a positive step, but the more important question is not how many voted, but whom they voted for. I doubt the American government will allow an anti-American government to control Iraq. But will the government be so pro-American as to lose credibility with the Iraqi people and be thrown out of power like the Iranian Shah 25 years ago? In the end, a real threat to the security of the United States may take control of Iraq if these next few elections do not truly reflect the will of the Iraqi people. Mr. Bush lauded the fact that the United States does not force its form of government on other nations, whereas our "enemies" want to coerce the world into a repressive version of government. Many of us already see the ridiculousness in his statement. However, Mr. Bush is a man of clarity, so he'd be damned if he didn't get the chance to show the hypocrisy of his statement himself. (This is America, the home of rugged individualism, isn't it?) Mr. Bush then claimed that he would spread democracy to the rest of the world. The world, in this case, doesn't seem to be given much of a choice.

Mr. Bush denigrated Hip Hop culture, specifically black men, during the "urban" part of his speech. He talked as if gang violence was the major problem in American cities. He stated that he would work to create institutions to teach black men to stay away from violence and to respect women. I imagine Talib Kweli would argue that those in the Hip Hop culture "are no more misogynist or violent than the society we are born into." Mr. Bush then appointed Ms. Bush the Black Czar, to run his new proposal.

There have been fears that the United States would invade Iran and Syria before Mr. Bush's term concludes. Mr. Bush said nothing to silence these fears. He specifically called out both countries and demanded democracy become the only form of government in the region. It now becomes every American's duty to fight any potential military excursion that the United States may pursue. Those who have died in the United States military are generally considered heroes because they have given their lives for the country. As I am reminded of the mother of the marine honored tonight, I say this: I would rather they were alive.


Democratic Response:
I must say that I was very disappointed with Senator Harry Reid from Nevada. On behalf of the Democratic Party, he advocated an economic policy of global competition. He claimed that the United States would win. For some reason, poverty in the world doesn't seem like a game to me. Do we win if modern slavery continues to exist in Thailand, in many places in Africa such as Mauritania, and elsewhere? Do we win if one billion children go hungry tonight? Mr. Reid specifically named two countries: China and India. He claimed that "they" were taking jobs away from Americans that deserved them more. Do we win if billions of people in China and India go unemployed, but there are a few more computer-programming jobs in the United States? Instead of attempting to solve the problem of poverty, the Democrats are playing games with people's lives.

I was more impressed with Congressperson Nancy Pelosi. She discussed national security. I have always believed the way to improve national security is through helping those in the world community anyway possible, instead of using our military might. If the United States had no military, we would be safer.


Some Semantics:
When will Mr. Bush learn that the word he is looking for is nuclear and not nucular? While I was a counselor, a ten year old boy said nucular, and we corrected him. He didn't make the same mistake again.

Mr. Bush chose the British way to say the word "rather." He said it this way twice. I wonder if it was a conscious slight against Dan Rather after the so-called "memogate." (Do people realize that Watergate has a "gate" on it because that's the name of the hotel? Enough with the "gate" already).

Mr. Bush used alliteration an awful lot, particularly emphasizing the letter "p". What's he trying to tell us?

The left side of Mr. Bush's face has appeared to droop down since before the third presidential debate. Some sources say that Mr. Bush could have had a stroke last fall.