What SOTUS thingie?
Bookworm on Jan 25 2007 at 10:32 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
There may be some of you wondering why I was completely silent about the President’s State of the Union Speech. I was silent because I missed it. It was a very busy day, and I forgot to set TiVo to record it. By the time I got the kids to bed, the whole thing was over. Then, when I started checking my email and the internet for other people’s reactions, I discovered (a) they loved it; (b) they hated it; and (c) Nancy Pelosi set a world blinking record.
I have to admit that I’m never a fan of these speeches anyway. I know that, in theory, they set a tone, but the fact is that the responses to them are so predictable, it’s clear that content is almost irrelevant. The opposing party always hates the speech, and makes calculated decisions about when to give lukewarm applause and when to sleep (or blink). The supporting party in the chamber always applauds wildly and stands up a lot, while the partisans at the keyboards either bemoan the President’s leadership failures or laud well-turned phrases.
I always think that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The President can talk, but let’s set what actually happens.
And that’s why I didn’t blog about the speech.
Email This Post To A Friend
9 Responses to “What SOTUS thingie?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“I always think that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The President can talk, but let’s set what actually happens.”
Amen!
Have you seen this one, Bookworm? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/24/opinion/24newman.html?ex=1327294800&en=0fd2fdec7eb63ea8&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
I had. It’s nice Newman to say the President isn’t quite as bad as Hitler, Stalin or Nero. I can’t decide if that’s damning him with faint praise, or praising him with faint damns.
Hey forgive the blinking .If I was Pelosi ,they would still be scraping MY JAW off the floor !!
If you were Pelosi you’d be in jail, for raising the minimum wage everywhere except in American Samoa, where your constituent Del Monte (of which you happen to be a large stockholder, if you’re Pelosi) just happens to have a large tuna processing operation.
The Most Ethical Congress in history, remember that JJ.
I have an ansewr to the NYT link. But it isn’t in my own words, but the words of another. Well said, in my view.
Comment below written by: Chomps
In the name of full disclosure, I am not an American (though pro-American) and not military. I support the war in Iraq and the larger war against jihad. But I have come to see that the West is beyond hope in a long-term sense. Our people are not interested in defending democracy or opposing tyranny. The rights of minorities and women and dissidents are merely contextual conveniences to be championed if it helps to further one’s politics. Our society glamorizes and applauds those who would destroy our way of life. So be it.
I feel that eventually it will come down to two choices:
The first is to embrace a global regime of Shariah/socialism. I think it might be worth living during a period of sliding into the new dark ages just to see humanity get exactly what it wants and choke on it for a couple generations.
The other is to come to the realization that republics eventually end. The Roman empire could not match the growth of the Roman republic but it did preserve the culture for much longer than the republic would have been able to given the constant asaults from others. Perhaps it is time to bring your troops home across the Rubicon, militarize the nation, launch unrepentant attacks against every nation which violates the global peace or restricts the new global empire either openly (Iran) or in secret (Saudi Arabia). Cuba, Venezuela, Sudan, Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea… there is quite a “to do” list but since there would be no obligation to go in and stabilize these nations, just to destabilize them as punishment for destabilizing their regions, it could be done systematically, patiently and with minimal or no ground forces. China and Russia could be given a chance to keep to themselves for the near term. And yes, it would not be a very nice time to live through; like the Soviet Union without the socialist induced poverty. But if people in the West have lost their faith in democracy and freedom, we should not expect to enjoy it ourselves.
Given these two options I would go for the empire. Both options mean loss of democracy but the Sharia/socialism involves more loss of freedom and no prosperity as well. Democracy can be regained in centuries time but the social, scientific and technological stagnation which Sharia/socialism would bring would take far longer to fix. I suspect that the people of the West will accept either option and adapt to it quite quickly since we have no spine.
Posted by: Chomps | Jan 25, 2007 1:08:05 PM
Link here
If you listen to the SOTUS, you get probably the only clear statement of policies and goals from the Administration that you will get before the media goes to work to distort and dissemble about what was said. Unfortunately, the SOTUS takes place only over a matter of minutes, the distortion takes place over the course of years.
I wholly agree, Lemieux. The current media forms its own distinct class, almost another political party, one not only protected by the First Amendment but with an elevated and insular view of their own function and its importance.
“the Current Media” Zhombre is what is known as a “Praetorian Guard”.