I "promised" my lametinkings on the State of the Union and by golly I'ma gonna kiptoit.
In point form:
-I wasn't going to watch it but Skeptical Eye was having some fun with it so I played along. It's not like there was anything on TV and I had had a long day....damn cabinets at the daycare causing me a pointless headache. I digress.
-President Obama's essential message was "government is a warm gun, momma." I found it interesting how he went out of his way to point out how government was at the forefront of innovation pointing to the space program, GPS and the Internet. It did have the human resources to produce breakthrough ideas but the actual execution of it came from the private side of the equation. That is, the money collected to pay for the talent came from taxes and the equipment used was manufactured by private companies. No matter how you dice it, it begins with private sector will, money and innovation. All government can do is encourage, and sometimes coerce, private business into a certain direction since it doesn't make anything. Partnership I can go with. State as the point of origin? Less so.
-About spending. Mixed signals. There were good points but too many "on the other hands" to name here.
-He staked his claim to presidential immortality on innovation. His vision is to push America into the next phase of economic evolution. Notably the green economy.
- He used the phrase "it makes no sense" twice. One on making a point about taxes if memory serves me correctly and the other about the insanity of multiple bureaucracies. I liked his salmon joke. It actually made me laugh.
-I wholeheatedly agree with his position on teachers and calling for people to join their ranks. We don't have enough of them on the continent let alone America. He's absolutely right about the time has come that we celebrate a science fair winner as we do a Super Bowl champion. While we're at it, take the Kardashians and this Snooki gal off TV please. By the way, I had the Chicago Bears on my "bonus" grid. He said "Super Bowl." Damn, him.
-Obama talks a good game but can he sink a three at the buzzard? Union addresses are exactly that: General points wrapped in smooth talk. But I think he did a good job articulating his vision.
-On liberty. Here's the thing. Invoking into the imagination the concept of liberty and freedom will always work. It resonates. Maybe Americans (and Canadians) take freedom for granted but always remember about the dude listening on his shortwave radio trying to avoid state thugs to American leaders and its people committing itself to freedom. You can't quantify the impact that stuff has on people struggling abroad to find their proper voices. To them, they need someone to speak on their behalf and America is that voice.
-Michelle Bachmann's response. Standard stuff. Must they always reference the military to make a point about freedom and determination? I love a good military reference once in a while but it's become part of their lexicon. It'a a bit rich.
-About the military. I reckon to many Americans the Pentagon budget is too big. That cutting it and scaling it is necessary. My only adivce is once you start cutting don't let it slide indefinitely. If you, you end up in a situation like Canada. After WWII we had the third largest and modern army on the planet despite beginning the century as a tiny, colonial outpost with little independent authority. By 1945, we sat at the table of nations like a proud, growing, strong teenager about to enter adulthood. Then, by the 1960s, probably because we knew American military might was in the background, we began slashing our military budget to the point we have the smallest army in NATO only bigger than Iceland - which has no military.
We eradicated our historical memory with the military and with it its heritage only to live in a series of vignettes on commercials.
Good points all. Canada dropped its military to minimal because the US existed. Just as many other countries downsized theirs because the US had become the foremost military power and was seen as benign to most "free" nations. They reaped the reward of lower military spending which allowed them to plow that money into social services.
ReplyDeleteCanada, among many others, saw no reason to compete militarily with an ally. And, since America was the bulwark against communism (the biggest threat being the USSR), they had no real need to.
We didn't want to be the modern "Rome", I don't think. But that is where we ended up. Circumstances shape us more than we shape circumstances.
Are Americunts still seriously pretending we needed to combat communism?? Jesus fucking hell...
ReplyDeleteBret, in spite of your inability to understand history and your inane use of gratuitous and pointless insults... aw, never mind, you wouldn't understand.
ReplyDeleteWow, Bret. Now you have Dougie on your case to go along with me, Nikk and Radio Bloger.
ReplyDeleteI have to buy you a beer one day.
This is what happens when immaturity hits Cyberspace, a warning beacon, and an example of how not to comment.
ReplyDeleteOn Bret, it's often the way he comments, but in this case, I think he's right in his point (though not how he makes it). The whole communism threat during the cold war was blown way out of proportion (in terms of it's actual threat to our "way of life", not in its unfortunate consequences for those living under it) in order to sustain the military-industrial complex and the national security state in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteIt was a "threat." Soviet desires to expand communism was real. That much I learned in my Russian history class in university. We can't go back and say, "golly gee, we were a little to aggressive." When you're in it...it's a little tougher.
ReplyDeleteThe degree of that threat and its realistic ability to conquer North America is certainly debateable.
The way I see it is you have to be careful and mindful of it because it can infiltrate and topple you - you know - like how socialism coopted and ripped liberalism apart right from under our noses.
Terrorism is the new communism. You're more likely to die from a left-wing terrorist act than an Arab militant one. HOWEVER, it is Arab extremism that's actually declared a jihad against the West. All it takes is ONE attack as we saw in London, Madrid and NYC.
Walking that line between exaggeration and sober reflection is tough with stuff like this.
They think preventative measures are the way to go but as we've seen that comes at a cost.
I think Douglas is bang on with the mentality that set on the West after WWII. Europe's civilization had effectively come to an end and despite Canada's role in the war, it was too small to have a powerful impact while Australia was simply too far away and Japan was destroyed.
ReplyDeleteLeaving one country on the block: USA.
Europe did two things: One, it began to resurrect Charlemagne's vision of a united Europe (mostly to curb the coming American power)and repair its nations most notably through the welfare state.
Canada too decided to go the route of the socialist-ish state.
Why not? With all the money they were saving (and getting through the Marshall Plan) by not pouring it into the military since America was the biggest son of a bitch on the block, they felt they could shift that money into other areas.
If America didn't, I don't know if there would have been suck a social impulse.
To Western Europe's credit (and that includes more generally Canada), after two horrific wars, these people decided to put their money and effort into something other than huge armies, almost certain to be used if they existed. It helped to have an emerging superpower as a financial and military backer that could keep the Soviet Union at bay so the Europeans could actually carry out their own reforms.
ReplyDeleteI guess the question Canada might want to ask is this: "what does our nation need to do with the military?" and budget accordingly.
And we asked and did just that. In fact, PM Pearson converted our armed forces into a military focusing on peacekeeping.
ReplyDelete