| |
State of the Union Address (text & video via whitehouse.gov)
by Rattle at 10:29 am EST, Jan 21, 2004 |
Here are some thoughts on the State of The Union Address.. This might surprise some, but I was very happy to see attention drawn to the Patriot Act right off the bat. This is a big issue, and (duh) we know Bush would like it to get "renewed", that's not shocking. However, I would have certainly been _very_ angry if it wasn't mentioned. As far as "The Union" is concerned, this is a pretty big issue, and it lies dead ahead. This may have been a very good time for that reminder to get pounded into most of America.. It is very important that it occured within that first 15 minutes when people are still likely to be paying attention and tuned in. It came at a great point too. The opening was basically "We kick ass", "We work hard", "We have accomplished much", and "Our service people rock".. Then we had the "We have faced serious challenges", "Our enemies are everywhere", and of course "We must follow through". Then, the Patriot Act comes up.. No time was wasted. That made me happy, and the use of the word "renewed" is so much nicer then something like "confirmed".. I'm of the opinion that anything done with it should have another sunset clause. Another four years. Because of the gravity of the issue, I see no reason why we shouldn't be forced to revisit it, over and over if necessary. Intelligence and law enforcement are always going to have issues involving search/surveillance powers. They are necessary to confront new asymmetric threats, which we are still learning how to combat.. They are also highly effected by advances and changes in technology, something we can't accurately predict. The rules governing these powers will likely change over time if they are to be both effective and safe guard rights. No one disagrees with the idea that there should be accountability, oversight, yadda, yadda.. However, ideas about the specifics are lacking and will likely remain absent when the bill expires. Any powers that exist for any extended period of time, are likely to find themselves abused at some point, even if they are not being abused right now. That flaw is one of power and human nature, not of law.. We could also come up with something that is completely ineffective. Fears need to be addressed. Right or not, some people don't trust government. That should be seen as a built in defense mechanism of freedom and liberty, not a problem or a lack of patriotism. Another expire date is an easy way to keep people from screaming bloody murder. At least nothing would have gotten worse, been "lost", or become hopeless. Clearing up a policy such as this would actually help Bush greatly in his re-election bid, if handled correctly. The dems seem to either be pandering to their far left by tossing around the word "repeal" (not going to happen), or pandering to the moderates by saying nothing hence getting nothing wrong. Neither of these approaches are going to work if Bush decides to lead on the i... [ Read More (0.1k in body) ] |
| |
RE: State of the Union Address
by Elonka at 1:54 pm EST, Jan 21, 2004 |
Rattle wrote:
] Here are some thoughts on the State of The Union Address..
] I watched it live too... My own initial thoughts: - I agreed with his views on Iraq and that the world is a better place without Saddam. I'm also glad that he talked about the proof of weapons programs in Iraq -- it seems that many people only want the smoking gun of an actual weapons cache to justify the war. In my mind though, it's enough to show that Saddam was systematically hiding things from UN inspectors, maintaining WMD programs in secret, and intimidating scientists from telling the truth. Those facts, in combination with a *wide* variety of other factors, justified the war for me. - I laughed at the unexpected applause when Bush said that the Patriot Act expires next year. :) - When he said, "We have broken the Baathist regime," one of the people I was watching the speech with was convinced that Bush had stumbled and said, "We have broken the Baptist regime." ;) I guess we hear what we want to hear! :) - I'm glad he named an actual date for Iraqi sovereignty, of June. Though I think it's a very ambitious timetable! - I was surprised that he didn't mention anything about Mars or anything to do with the space program. The Rover landing was an astonishing accomplishment for America, and for the world. It would have been an easy applause-getter, and also is something that has positive world attention on us. So I'm baffled why it got left out. Maybe the speechwriters were worried that people were upset with his recent proposal to send a manned mission to Mars, and so to avoid any negative associations there, they just didn't mention the Rovers at all. I guess it's also possible that if he brought up Mars, he'd also have to talk about the Shuttle disaster... I dunno. - The idea of promoting sexual abstinence among young people just sounds absurd to me. Stricter societies than ours have tried to enforce abstinence, with little success. - My most intense "He said *what*???" moment: I was horrified when Bush talked about marriage and used the term "activist judges." ACTIVIST judges? Like someone just came out of a 60s street protest, put down their megaphone and placard, and took a seat on the bench by accident? I was mightily offended by that comment -- he was implying that the judicial branch of government has too much power and needs to be reined in. If he wants to propose a constitutional amendment, fine. But to take a slam at the judicial branch like that, as though they were making whimsical decisions, was out of line. Anyway, those are my own thoughts, Elonka :) |
|
| | |
RE: State of the Union Address
by Rattle at 2:29 pm EST, Jan 21, 2004 |
Elonka wrote:
] I watched it live too... My own initial thoughts: I didn't watch it live.. :) I saw the first 30 minutes via Tivo, got pulled away from it, and then caught rest a few hours later via whitehouse.gov. ] - I laughed at the unexpected applause when Bush said that
] the Patriot Act expires next year. :) Did you gasp after the unexpected applause after his next line? "The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule." That was grade-a creepy, although I'm sure not intended the way many took it. ] - The idea of promoting sexual abstinence among young people
] just sounds absurd to me. Stricter societies than ours have
] tried to enforce abstinence, with little success. I agree completely. I think "asinine" is the best word I can summon to describe the Bush stance on this. |
|
| | | |
RE: State of the Union Address
by Decius at 8:54 pm EST, Jan 21, 2004 |
Rattle wrote:
] Did you gasp after the unexpected applause after his next
] line? "The terrorist threat will not expire on that
] schedule." That was grade-a creepy, although I'm sure not
] intended the way many took it. Agreed. That was whack. I guess they wanted to respond to the democrats, but they ended up literally saying they supported the terrorists. Dems 2, Reps 0 on that one. |
|
| | |
RE: State of the Union Address
by Decius at 8:53 pm EST, Jan 21, 2004 |
Elonka wrote:
] - I was surprised that he didn't mention anything about Mars
] or anything to do with the space program. Its not polling well. Apparently 68% of Americans are opposed to his Moon/Mars plan, unfortunately. I kind of like the idea. However the space program is expensive, people have seen a lot of failed missions, and they don't have perspective on why its important. Its easy to sell competition with the russians. Its harder to sell futurism. |
|
| | |
RE: State of the Union Address
by Acidus at 9:42 pm EST, Jan 22, 2004 |
Elonka wrote:
] - My most intense "He said *what*???" moment: I was horrified
] when Bush talked about marriage and used the term "activist
] judges." ACTIVIST judges? Like someone just came out of a
] 60s street protest, put down their megaphone and placard, and
] took a seat on the bench by accident? I was mightily offended
] by that comment -- he was implying that the judicial branch of
] government has too much power and needs to be reined in. If
] he wants to propose a constitutional amendment, fine. But to
] take a slam at the judicial branch like that, as though they
] were making whimsical decisions, was out of line. There is a prof at Georgia Tech who has this page a day calendar of Bush quotes. One was in response to the question a reporter posed about the Patriot Act. Bush said "Its the job of the Judical Branch to make the laws and the Executive Branch to interpret them" Yes, this is the man we have running our country. |
|
Civil Unions: Your alternate union
by Acidus at 11:47 am EST, Feb 6, 2004 |
] A strong America must also value the institution of
] marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we
] take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental,
] enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has
] already taken a stand on this issue by passing the
] Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President
] Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law
] as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one
] state may not redefine marriage for other states.
]
] Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage
] by court order, without regard for the will of the people
] and their elected representatives. On an issue of such
] great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If
] judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the
] people, the only alternative left to the people would be
] the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the
] sanctity of marriage. (Applause.)
]
] The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the
] way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines
] marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity
] and value in God's sight. (Applause.) How can people keep a straight face when talking about denying gays the right to use the word marriage because we have to preseve the "sanctity" or "moral tradition" of the word, while we live in a country where over half of all of these "moral traditions" end in divorce? |
| |
RE: Civil Unions: Your alternate union
by k at 12:26 pm EST, Feb 6, 2004 |
Acidus wrote:
] How can people keep a straight face when talking about denying
] gays the right to use the word marriage because we have to
] preseve the "sanctity" or "moral tradition" of the word,
] while we live in a country where over half of all of these
] "moral traditions" end in divorce? i think it's a stupid debate too. on the one hand, I could care less what it's called, if the rights conveyed are the same. People have been charging this issue with 'separate but equal' verbiage which muddies the point. In the previous context, separate but equal meant literally, physically separate... separate washrooms, drinking fountains, seating areas, etc. In this context, it's a matter of how your status is recorded at the county clerks office. Normal humans will continue to say marriage, if only because it's simpler and more economical to say, so the semantics of it become minimally invasive. the main argument against it in my opinion is that if the terms "married" and "united" (or whatever) become distinct, then it raises privacy concerns. checking "united" flags you as gay. Not that it isn't public record anyhow, but i see potential for abuse which would be avoided if the terms weren't split. I guess you could mandate that forms have only one checkbox for "married/united"... i dunno. in the final analysis, yeah, i'd side with acidus... it's a fricking word, and it means "two people who love each other enough to commit for their lives (ha!) to supporting each other and their family" as far as i'm concerned. the semantics of gender are retarded. that being said, i'd rather see people get the rights under the term "civil union" than to not get them at all over what I see as a silly semantic argument. But i'm not gay, so my "silly semantic argument" could be someone else's "critical issue". |
|
|
|
