State of the Union
FYI, I have been so busy recently that I haven't been able to get on the computer for a few weeks. I keep sitting down to write snippets of this and get pulled away again...
I suppose I feel obligated to make a post about the state of the union last night, especially since I haven't posted in awhile. I didn't stay up to watch the whole thing; I went to bed with the comfortimg assumption that I would wake up to a highly critical summary from NPR.
I do have a few comments of my own, however.
I think the President's description of terrorists was a little extreme. I don't personally know any terrorists, but do they really live to kill? Does their religion center around voilence and killing? Is something so objectionable the soul of their being? Are they evil at their inner core? I must say that I will stick with Anne Frank's wise statement of, "...I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are still good at heart." So let's see...Anne Frank was able to overcome and forgive the Nazis...versus us today. We can't overcome predjudice for these "terrorists"?
Secondly, I am happy that the President recognized global warming as a problem. However, he didn't really propose that we actually do anything. It's all nice to sit here and talk, but I'd really liked to have seen him go plant a tree or something. In the middle of January.
Hmm...When I first sat down to write this, I had a lot more ideas than these...Oh yes, I was outraged at the thought of sending more soldiers to Iraq...as most of the Senate is now...(Can he take a hint?) However, I think the President also said a lot of nothing. Yup. There was something about taxes...and immigrants...oh...what was the phrase he used...something about not condining illegal immigrants but not persecuting them. An oxymoron? Maybe. Nothing? Of course.
I do not think he mispronounced "nuclear," which was a definite plus.
I'm out of memories for the time being. Thank you for your time (or not).
I suppose I feel obligated to make a post about the state of the union last night, especially since I haven't posted in awhile. I didn't stay up to watch the whole thing; I went to bed with the comfortimg assumption that I would wake up to a highly critical summary from NPR.
I do have a few comments of my own, however.
I think the President's description of terrorists was a little extreme. I don't personally know any terrorists, but do they really live to kill? Does their religion center around voilence and killing? Is something so objectionable the soul of their being? Are they evil at their inner core? I must say that I will stick with Anne Frank's wise statement of, "...I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are still good at heart." So let's see...Anne Frank was able to overcome and forgive the Nazis...versus us today. We can't overcome predjudice for these "terrorists"?
Secondly, I am happy that the President recognized global warming as a problem. However, he didn't really propose that we actually do anything. It's all nice to sit here and talk, but I'd really liked to have seen him go plant a tree or something. In the middle of January.
Hmm...When I first sat down to write this, I had a lot more ideas than these...Oh yes, I was outraged at the thought of sending more soldiers to Iraq...as most of the Senate is now...(Can he take a hint?) However, I think the President also said a lot of nothing. Yup. There was something about taxes...and immigrants...oh...what was the phrase he used...something about not condining illegal immigrants but not persecuting them. An oxymoron? Maybe. Nothing? Of course.
I do not think he mispronounced "nuclear," which was a definite plus.
I'm out of memories for the time being. Thank you for your time (or not).
Labels: environmental concerns, politics
posted by EDavis at 13:06
2 Comments:
Er, okay. One, I absolutely agree with you about terrorists/Muslims/Islam [no ethnic profiling intended]. But I must correct you on a few counts. One, he never actually, straightly admitted that global warming was an apparent problem (which crushed my environmentally-concious little heart) and instead used 'qualifying' words, such as 'could', 'would', 'should', which leave the situation very open. I would know, from Policy debate in Iowa. Anywho, he did mispronounce 'nuclear'...I say we "nuik him!" Kidding. I am a pacifist, sort of, and environmentally-sound. Egad.
Must you end every post with "egad"? Ah well, it doesn't bother me. No nukes please.
Post a Comment
<< Home