Thoughts as I watched:
I have RealPlayer fired up, streaming from the House Chamber; Hastert & Cheney are announcing who gets to escort the President into the chamber. It's 5:59, California time (my time stamps may be a bit off, if there's streaming lag). Let's see how this goes, shall we?
6:00 -- Mrs. Bush has been seated; diplomatic corps is coming in.
6:02 -- the Supreme Court justices come in -- looks like Alito got confirmed just in time to get his ticket. (Actually, the picture isn't good enough for me to be sure, but since he's been sworn in, I would presume it's him.)
6:06 -- While waiting, I remember that I had a dream last night that had Dick Cheney in it. Strangely, he was accompanying my family on a San Diego vacation, for no apparent reason. We were getting ready to head to Petco Park for a San Diego Padres triple-header, if one can imagine such a thing. The rest of us were dressed sensibly for an afternoon and evening at the ball park, but Cheney was in a suit and tie. I remember trying to decide if I should avoid any political discussion, if I should try to engage him in some kind of constructive discourse (expressing my disagreements as politely as possible) -- or say what I REALLY think.
6:08 -- Cheney is saved from my wrath by the Sergent-at-Arms: here comes the President.
6:11 -- I wonder what's in the large envelopes he just handed to Cheney and Hastert at the podium? Copies of the speech? Autographed head shots? Hmmm.
6:12:40 -- Speech starts with a tribute to Corretta Scott King. Standing ovation. Predictable, but certainly approrpriate.
6:14 -- Nearly two minutes in before he says the State of the Union is "strong."
6:16 -- First mention of September 11th.
6:18 -- Osama bin Laden actually gets mentioned. (Iraq mentioned a few phrases later...)
6:25 -- On the whole, I agree with what he says we have to do in Iraq. I'm annoyed at his complaining about "defeatism" on the part of some critics. And, I don't entirely share his rosy outlook on how things are going. But I have to admit that the question of "what we do now" is only slightly releated to the question of whether we should have gone into Iraq in the first place.
This doesn't mean, however, that we should consider that question completely moot. Analyzing how that decision was made is, IMHO, important as a guide to future decisions. (Whether you think it was correct or not.)
6:35 -- Here comes the domestic surveilance -- excuse me, TERRORIST surveilance defense.
6:36 -- Interesting that they focused for a moment on the Supreme Court justices as Bush talked about this. I presume the Court members normally try to remain as impassive as they looked there.
6:37 -- What's the sudden attack on isolationism? I mean, yeah, I agree, isolationism is an out-of-date policy, but didn't we settle that around 1941? Is anyone really preaching it now?
6:40 -- I expect to hear a lot of debunking (or disputing, if you prefer) of his job and economic growth numbers tomorrow. For me, I don't have the numbers on tap, but I wonder if people besides me will note the dissonance between "make my tax cuts permanent" and "cut the deficit in half." (You mean the deficit we didn't have before your tax cuts...?)
I suppose linking "earmark reform" with the line-item veto was inevitible.
6:44 -- OK, that's interesting. I think the Dems just got up an applauded the failure of his Social Security proposal last year. (And good for them.)
The notion of a bi-partisan commission to work on entitlement reform is a good one; I just don't believe, under the current government, will truly be bi-partisan. (Maybe next year.)
6:46 -- "Affordable health care" gets a good round of applause. Claiming that we are meeting the needs of the poor and elderly does not.
6:48 -- Two minutes on health care? Nothing about the savings accounts the commentators have been talking about? Maybe he'll go back to it.
6:50 -- The energy proposals sound good, if they're really followed up. Thirty years later than they should be (and I don't blame Bush or the Republicans entirely for that), and not drastic enough, in my opinion -- but it we really do it, a good start.
6:52 -- I'd love to hear Bush actually explain the concept of "nanotechnology."
6:54 -- "In recent years, America has become a more hopeful nation." Wow, is that counter to my personal experience. The 1990's was a great time of optimism; the time between the end of the Cold War and 9/11, I think, will be looked back on as one of the happiest times in our country's history, when we had nothing better to worry about than the President's sex life. The 21st century, by contrast, has pretty much sucked so far.
6:56 -- Ah, yes, there's Alito. I wonder if O'Connor has a seat somewhere? Hmmmm...they're showing the ovation...if she's in the crowd I can't see it.
Meantime, here comes the social agenda. Abortion (has it really gone down during his presidency? I've heard the opposite), gay marriage (obliquely referred to), now human cloning...
7:03 -- "May God Bless America." Speech over, about 51 minutes. Pretty generic, no particularly bold initiatives. A relatively lackluster ovation at the end, I think. (Well, his popularity rating is pretty low.)
On the whole, not much one can disagree with on the surface. The devil is in the details and the follow-up. Speaking personally, I have little confidence in either, based on experience with this President. Now let's see what the Democratic response is...
7:11 -- Parlimentary details handled, joint session adjourned by Hastert.
7:17 -- Democratic response starts, Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia. He too starts with Corretta Scott King.
7:20 -- Already tired of him saying "There's a better way." (Even if he is right.)
7:21 -- He mentions the Medicare drug benefit fiasco; I don't think I heard anything about THAT from the President.
7:25 -- Did they glue this guy's left eyebrow on too high?
7:27 -- "God Bless the United States of America." Finished. Short, largely accurate (I think), but not forceful enough. And Kaine doesn't impress me very much as a speaker. I would have liked to have heard more numbers and hard facts; it's what the opposition does best, whoever it is.
Now it's time for the spin doctors...and time for me to go play "City of Heroes" or something.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Friday, December 09, 2005
The War on Christmas
In 1960, while my mother was pregnant with me, her minister (Baptist, I think) announced one Sunday morning that since John F. Kennedy was Catholic, voting for him was a sin. My mom, bless her, not normally one to make any kind of a scene, rose from her pew that moment, left the church and never went back. Though she remained personally religious for the rest of her life, my brother and I were raised in a completely secular manner, though we did spend a couple weeks in Bible School one summer; the sum total of what I recall from it being a little ditty called "Choo-Choo, the Bible Train is Coming Down the Track." (That's also approximately 70 percent of the lyrics.)
Nonetheless, we, like everyone else I knew, celebrated Christmas every year, in the typical suburban American manner: getting up early Christmas morning, examining the loot left by Santa and sent by relatives, seeking out neighborhood friends to deliver the traditional greeting -- "What'd you get?" -- and later eating the second of two annual Turkey dinners, having devoured the last of the Thanksgiving leftovers scant days before.
So when I hear from conservative commentators out there, upset that businesses and governmental bodies are saying "Happy Holidays!" instead of "Merry Christmas!" and implying that doing so is somehow an attack on Christianity -- I get confused. My instinct is to wonder what they think the current celebration of Christmas has to do with Christianity, anyway.
Oh, sure, supposedly we're celebrating the birth of Jesus -- even though no one thinks he was actually born on December 25th, or even close to it. Sure, many of the traditional carols tell the story of the Nativity, and we're all familiar with such icons as the Star of Bethleham and the Three Wise Men. But we're also celebrating the New Year, and a tradition of a festival of the winter solstice that long predates the rise of Christianity -- not to mention a gift-giving frenzy without which our retail economy would probably collapse.
So what difference does the terminology make? I called the holiday Christmas, wished people a Merry Christmas, found my presents under a Christmas tree, liked looking at Christmas lights, sang Christmas carols and ate Christmas cookies -- but none of that made me a Christian. Frankly, given the main use to which our culture puts the season -- to urge consumers to an orgy of spending, most of it on non-necessities -- I would think the devout would be happy to see businesses moving away from associating such activities with Jesus Christ.
No, that's not what's going on here. This is nothing more than some conservative activists once again attempting to build an us-versus-them, godly-versus-secular, good-versus-evil mentality amongst the genuinely faithful. They've taken a few legitimate concerns about seperation of church and state (say, government-sponsored Nativity scenes) and talked it up into an all-out "War on Christmas" -- meaning, of course, a war on Christianity. Come on. Do they really think the board of directors of Wal-Mart, deciding to put "Happy Holidays" in their ads, is doing so to alienate Christians?
Frankly, I think if the Christians really want to keep the meaning of their holiday about Jesus and His message, the best thing they could do would be to move Christmas to another part of the year, away from the New Year/Solstice/Gift-giving and general revelry festival. Pick another day to represent the birth of the Lord, and make that the day to go to church and reflect on one's faith. And let the current "holiday season" stay the generic time of peace on earth, goodwill toward men...and "What'd you get?"
Nonetheless, we, like everyone else I knew, celebrated Christmas every year, in the typical suburban American manner: getting up early Christmas morning, examining the loot left by Santa and sent by relatives, seeking out neighborhood friends to deliver the traditional greeting -- "What'd you get?" -- and later eating the second of two annual Turkey dinners, having devoured the last of the Thanksgiving leftovers scant days before.
So when I hear from conservative commentators out there, upset that businesses and governmental bodies are saying "Happy Holidays!" instead of "Merry Christmas!" and implying that doing so is somehow an attack on Christianity -- I get confused. My instinct is to wonder what they think the current celebration of Christmas has to do with Christianity, anyway.
Oh, sure, supposedly we're celebrating the birth of Jesus -- even though no one thinks he was actually born on December 25th, or even close to it. Sure, many of the traditional carols tell the story of the Nativity, and we're all familiar with such icons as the Star of Bethleham and the Three Wise Men. But we're also celebrating the New Year, and a tradition of a festival of the winter solstice that long predates the rise of Christianity -- not to mention a gift-giving frenzy without which our retail economy would probably collapse.
So what difference does the terminology make? I called the holiday Christmas, wished people a Merry Christmas, found my presents under a Christmas tree, liked looking at Christmas lights, sang Christmas carols and ate Christmas cookies -- but none of that made me a Christian. Frankly, given the main use to which our culture puts the season -- to urge consumers to an orgy of spending, most of it on non-necessities -- I would think the devout would be happy to see businesses moving away from associating such activities with Jesus Christ.
No, that's not what's going on here. This is nothing more than some conservative activists once again attempting to build an us-versus-them, godly-versus-secular, good-versus-evil mentality amongst the genuinely faithful. They've taken a few legitimate concerns about seperation of church and state (say, government-sponsored Nativity scenes) and talked it up into an all-out "War on Christmas" -- meaning, of course, a war on Christianity. Come on. Do they really think the board of directors of Wal-Mart, deciding to put "Happy Holidays" in their ads, is doing so to alienate Christians?
Frankly, I think if the Christians really want to keep the meaning of their holiday about Jesus and His message, the best thing they could do would be to move Christmas to another part of the year, away from the New Year/Solstice/Gift-giving and general revelry festival. Pick another day to represent the birth of the Lord, and make that the day to go to church and reflect on one's faith. And let the current "holiday season" stay the generic time of peace on earth, goodwill toward men...and "What'd you get?"
Thursday, October 27, 2005
A prediction.
I've been neglecting the blog lately, but I wanted to sneak in today to record a long-term political prediction:
Remember the name of Nathaniel Fick. Someday you're going to be hearing it again.
Remember the name of Nathaniel Fick. Someday you're going to be hearing it again.
Friday, September 09, 2005
OK, It's Official: I Really Hate George W. Bush
OK. I've never been a fan of George W. Bush.
I have disagreed with the Bush administration on most of its policies. I have been disgusted at its willingness to put the interests of the richest Americans ahead of the long-term national welfare. I have been outraged at the lies and dissembling it has offered as explanations for many of its actions. I have been appalled at the incompetence it has applied to such tasks as rebuilding Iraq or responding to this hurricane. I have shaken my head and sighed at the way it values loyalty and cronyism over competence and integrity.
But starting today, I really, actively hate the man.
Here's why. Ever hear of the Davis-Beacon Act of 1931?
"The Davis-Bacon Act, as amended, requires that each contract over $2,000 to which the United States or the District of Columbia is a party for the construction, alteration, or repair of public buildings or public works shall contain a clause setting forth the minimum wages to be paid to various classes of laborers and mechanics employed under the contract. Under the provisions of the Act, contractors or their subcontractors are to pay workers employed directly upon the site of the work no less than the locally prevailing wages and fringe benefits paid on projects of a similar character."
(From: http://www.dol.gov/esa/programs/dbra/whatdbra.htm)
On Thursday, by executive order, Bush suspended the Act with regards to reconstruction contracts in the areas stricken by Hurricane Katrina.
The White House isn't exactly trumpeting this action. I'm sure if asked, they would maintain that it will help keep the costs of reconstruction under control and speed up the recovery process.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
Here we have a situation where hundreds of thousands of people have lost their homes and practically everything they have. So many businesses were damaged or destroyed that unemployment is certain to surge in the short term. This hurricane hit mainly in areas that were already among the poorest in the nation, and now untold thousands have no idea what the future may hold.
The one possible cause for optimism is that clearly the clean-up and rebuilding of the stricken areas is something that's going to require thousands of people, of all levels of skill: from professional engineers and architects, to skilled carpenters, bricklayers, equipment operators, and so forth, down to entry-level unskilled labor.
Now the President is going to let the companies our government is hiring with our money pay these people -- meaning the ones at the low end, of course; I'm not so worried that the engineers will be starving -- poverty-level wages as they strive to re-create infrastructure and housing in the area of the worst natural disaster in the nation's history. (The "prevailing wage" in the area has been cited as around $9/hour for these kinds of entry-level construction jobs -- hardly an inflated wage.)
How much is that worth to you, Mr. President? How much is Haliburton going to kick into the Republican coffers for this favor? How much are their profits going to go up next year? Or do you expect that they'll pass those labor savings on to the taxpayers? Oh, please!
Never mind that wages for workers and the middle class have declined in real terms over the past few years, while wages in the upper brackets have skyrocketed (and their taxes have declined). Never mind that the purchasing power of the minimum wage is the second-lowest it's been since 1955, and the lowest against the average wage paid non-supervisory workers since 1949. Never mind that while gas prices soar to $3 a gallon and more, and we are continually warned of shortages in refining capacities and future price increases, the major oil companies are continuing to rake in record profits every quarter. I don't expect this administration to give a damn about any of that.
But this is just over the freaking top. First the administration completely screws up the reaction to the disaster; now they're preparing to directly screw the workers yet again. Did it even occur to him that well-paid recovery workers would be able to spend the money and create even more jobs in the stricken area? Did it maybe occur to him that it would just be the fair thing to do, rather than using the disaster as an excuse to take advantage of an already desperate populace?
Fuck you, Mr. President. I've held off saying that up to now out of respect for your office. But you don't deserve that respect. You have no compassion and no conscience. You are a liar, and a poor one. There may be little I can do about it but to vent about how I feel; thank God you haven't managed to take that right away yet.
I expect to see you in Hell, Mr. President. And I expect you to try to convince me you're surprised to be there. Because you haven't got an honest cell in your brain or body
I have disagreed with the Bush administration on most of its policies. I have been disgusted at its willingness to put the interests of the richest Americans ahead of the long-term national welfare. I have been outraged at the lies and dissembling it has offered as explanations for many of its actions. I have been appalled at the incompetence it has applied to such tasks as rebuilding Iraq or responding to this hurricane. I have shaken my head and sighed at the way it values loyalty and cronyism over competence and integrity.
But starting today, I really, actively hate the man.
Here's why. Ever hear of the Davis-Beacon Act of 1931?
"The Davis-Bacon Act, as amended, requires that each contract over $2,000 to which the United States or the District of Columbia is a party for the construction, alteration, or repair of public buildings or public works shall contain a clause setting forth the minimum wages to be paid to various classes of laborers and mechanics employed under the contract. Under the provisions of the Act, contractors or their subcontractors are to pay workers employed directly upon the site of the work no less than the locally prevailing wages and fringe benefits paid on projects of a similar character."
(From: http://www.dol.gov/esa/programs/dbra/whatdbra.htm)
On Thursday, by executive order, Bush suspended the Act with regards to reconstruction contracts in the areas stricken by Hurricane Katrina.
The White House isn't exactly trumpeting this action. I'm sure if asked, they would maintain that it will help keep the costs of reconstruction under control and speed up the recovery process.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
Here we have a situation where hundreds of thousands of people have lost their homes and practically everything they have. So many businesses were damaged or destroyed that unemployment is certain to surge in the short term. This hurricane hit mainly in areas that were already among the poorest in the nation, and now untold thousands have no idea what the future may hold.
The one possible cause for optimism is that clearly the clean-up and rebuilding of the stricken areas is something that's going to require thousands of people, of all levels of skill: from professional engineers and architects, to skilled carpenters, bricklayers, equipment operators, and so forth, down to entry-level unskilled labor.
Now the President is going to let the companies our government is hiring with our money pay these people -- meaning the ones at the low end, of course; I'm not so worried that the engineers will be starving -- poverty-level wages as they strive to re-create infrastructure and housing in the area of the worst natural disaster in the nation's history. (The "prevailing wage" in the area has been cited as around $9/hour for these kinds of entry-level construction jobs -- hardly an inflated wage.)
How much is that worth to you, Mr. President? How much is Haliburton going to kick into the Republican coffers for this favor? How much are their profits going to go up next year? Or do you expect that they'll pass those labor savings on to the taxpayers? Oh, please!
Never mind that wages for workers and the middle class have declined in real terms over the past few years, while wages in the upper brackets have skyrocketed (and their taxes have declined). Never mind that the purchasing power of the minimum wage is the second-lowest it's been since 1955, and the lowest against the average wage paid non-supervisory workers since 1949. Never mind that while gas prices soar to $3 a gallon and more, and we are continually warned of shortages in refining capacities and future price increases, the major oil companies are continuing to rake in record profits every quarter. I don't expect this administration to give a damn about any of that.
But this is just over the freaking top. First the administration completely screws up the reaction to the disaster; now they're preparing to directly screw the workers yet again. Did it even occur to him that well-paid recovery workers would be able to spend the money and create even more jobs in the stricken area? Did it maybe occur to him that it would just be the fair thing to do, rather than using the disaster as an excuse to take advantage of an already desperate populace?
Fuck you, Mr. President. I've held off saying that up to now out of respect for your office. But you don't deserve that respect. You have no compassion and no conscience. You are a liar, and a poor one. There may be little I can do about it but to vent about how I feel; thank God you haven't managed to take that right away yet.
I expect to see you in Hell, Mr. President. And I expect you to try to convince me you're surprised to be there. Because you haven't got an honest cell in your brain or body
Monday, August 01, 2005
Signs I'm Getting Old
(1) Greying at the temples (been going on for a couple of years now).
(2) New glasses: progressive vision (i.e., gradual bifocals).
(3) I actually want one of the new Mustangs...
With reference to number 3, you have to understand: I've never wanted a sports car before, of any description. Sure, I've wanted nice cars, cars I couldn't afford, etc. But if I could pick any car? Probably some nice, mid-size luxury sedan, with good zip and handling, sure, but also a nice ride and plenty of comforts. Cars I actually buy? I tend to prefer smaller cars with nice sharp turning. If I ever had wanted a sports car, I would probably have been much more attracted to something like an MR2 or a Porsche. A big, "muscle car" type? Never. Went to high school in the late 1970's and never once wanted a Trans-Am. The Mustang isn't quite in that category, but it's not really in the small-zippy one either.
But...the new Mustangs are so cool...true to the classic Mustang spirit from the 1960's, but up-to-date, too. (And deliberately softened a bit for us middle-age types who are probably actually buying most of them.)
Yep...definitely getting old. *sigh* Mind you, if I had the money, I probably still would talk myself out of buying one, on the grounds of fuel economy alone. But...well, maybe if I had a real short commute anyway....
(2) New glasses: progressive vision (i.e., gradual bifocals).
(3) I actually want one of the new Mustangs...
With reference to number 3, you have to understand: I've never wanted a sports car before, of any description. Sure, I've wanted nice cars, cars I couldn't afford, etc. But if I could pick any car? Probably some nice, mid-size luxury sedan, with good zip and handling, sure, but also a nice ride and plenty of comforts. Cars I actually buy? I tend to prefer smaller cars with nice sharp turning. If I ever had wanted a sports car, I would probably have been much more attracted to something like an MR2 or a Porsche. A big, "muscle car" type? Never. Went to high school in the late 1970's and never once wanted a Trans-Am. The Mustang isn't quite in that category, but it's not really in the small-zippy one either.
But...the new Mustangs are so cool...true to the classic Mustang spirit from the 1960's, but up-to-date, too. (And deliberately softened a bit for us middle-age types who are probably actually buying most of them.)
Yep...definitely getting old. *sigh* Mind you, if I had the money, I probably still would talk myself out of buying one, on the grounds of fuel economy alone. But...well, maybe if I had a real short commute anyway....