I watched the State of the Union address last night on C-SPAN.com. (The Better Half and I moved our TV over the holidays so young visitors could watch cartoons on the same floor as the rest of the family, and can't be bothered to move it back and reconnect our cable. This has serves us relatively well, other than that I have now missed TWO AWARDS SHOWS!!! A solution must be found before the Oscars... but I digress.) It was a little unusual to watch a political speech and not be told what to think afterward.
Frankly, I liked it. Do I think it will make any lasting changes? No, not really. But I think it was good that Obama took the time to explain some unpopular decisions he made, and it helped me remember a bit why I liked him in the first place.
There were various things I particularly liked. I was glad to hear the word "nuclear" with regard to our energy needs. As a smart person I know (to whom I may or may not be related) has made plain to me over time, if one wants to eliminate fossil fuels from our energy grid, the only other realistic choice is nuclear power. ("Freeze in the dark" is probably politically unworkable.) All the rest of our power options sound nice, but simply will not power our nation. Building more plants would boost both our energy independence and create more jobs.
I was glad to hear the President call last week's Supreme Court decision what it was -- bad. Likewise, I was glad to see him offer blunt criticisms to both parties. To the Democrats, he offered the admonishment to do their jobs and stop being such pansies. (I'm gay... I can say that.) To the GOP (with an appropriate degree of incredulity in his voice), he said that if they're going to filibuster every single piece of legislation before them, they'd better be willing to come up with better ideas for policy. ("Lower taxes and less spending" is not a jobs package. "Suffer" is not a health care plan. Etc.) I was glad to be rid of some of the sugar coating.
And, of course, I was glad to hear Obama discuss the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. About time, Mr. President. I might consider giving your party money again if it happens, though.
As for the jobs package he described, it all made sense to me. I don't know if it will work, and I think his fortunes (and those of his party) depend on those unemployment numbers more than anything else. Here's hoping his plan is effective.
Posts
Winner Stuck for the Drinks
-
$1.75 in 1913 dollars is about $55.80 in 2024 dollars.
The post Winner Stuck for the Drinks appeared first on Ordinary Times.
6 hours ago
Oh how I hate to sound like GJ, but what Mr. President is offering us in his latest round of BS is DADT. Wonderful we can now unashamedly die for the country that does not give us full and equal rights. We (my better half and myself) are veterans of that distant war called Vietnam. We served with distinction and one of us is a metal holder hint, it's not me). The real and only thing that matters is the repeal of DOMA. I wonder when this guy will get his priorities correct. Wall Street, the only sector of the economy showing ANY recover gets a wet blanket thrown onto it..... some great move. We have seen our portfolio looooose over 3K this past week and today I see the market down over 100 points today. He made a big deal of the jobs package and high speed rail..... that is already in the pipeline. God I am sounding like GJ, I need help[!
ReplyDeleteMy friend, I must respectfully disagree. While I fully agree that DOMA needs to be repealed, and that it should be part of his agenda, repeal of DADT is not BS. It is a meaningful change, and I think the President deserves credit for pursuing it.
ReplyDeleteAnd don't forget, building more nukes would help reduce the squillion dollars we send to the despotic governments in the MidEast each year. Not only do we help our balance of trade, not only do we keep those jobs here, but we woud reduce the influence of perhaps the most homophobic, misogynistic, and backward regimes in the world (NoKo excepted). What's not to like?
ReplyDeleteDan, DODT is not what I consider "Meaningful". It is crumbs from the table. This is from someone who spent four years of my young life in the military, (and during wartime). I served with distinction and was never once confronted by my superiors even though they suspected I was not straight. (Saving this story for a very interesting dinner tale). If President Obama wanted meaningful change, he could have ended DADT with a stroke of his pen as Harry Truman did to end racial separation. DOMA takes away rights our fellow Americans have and take for granted while leaving us holding the bag. That is over 1106 laws we gay families are not entitled to. When we compare that to DADT it pales in comparison. DADT merely gives us the opportunity to serve and die for the country (as we have been able since the revolution) that abuses us, takes our money and does not give us full civil rights. Yea my friend some reward. I don't mean to be bitter but when you have lived as long as me and see what little we have been given you will then perhaps see my point. (Hopefully when you reach my age our quest for full civil rights will be all over). I for one am tired of the BS, hate and lies. The stinging loss we suffered at the hands of the Yes on 1 haters makes me even more vocal and it should serve as a wake up call to all of us that were affected by that vote. (As a black man in SF yelled the night of Harvey Milk's march, "Where is our rage"? Yes we have come a long way since the days of J. Edgar Hoover and his pals Roy Cohn and Joe McCarthy who wanted the FBI to track down every Homosexual and place them of a list. But we have not been given full and equal rights. Brown's win in MA has scared the shit out of the WH. They are now poll driven and are throwing crumbs to their supporters who are abandoning the sinking ship.
ReplyDeleteUJ is right. The fact that President Smirk didn't announce an executive order ending DADT (as he did for the deficit commission) means that he isn't serious and he wants political cover before he'll lift a finger. Of course, this was his stance before MA, so I doubt this is a reaction.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry, DADT will end right after GITMO is closed on Obama's watch. Hide and watch.
gj, (cross posted) he said it in the SOTU. It ain't something he muttered under his breath in response at a press conference. Tell me one time, ever, any Republican President has come out in favor of any gay rights at a SOTU. It isn't something he can back down from, I can promise, win or lose in November right after the elections it is gone. As to Gitmo, do you really want it open? For God's sake it is a blight on the reputation of America and, incidentally, will totally screw us over when the Castro brothers die. Do you really think any liberalizing forces there will be happy that the US lodges the worst terrorists in the world on their territory, it is gonna make it down right impossible for there to be any co-ordination with them. But, obviously, you don't care the Cuban tyrants will use Gitmo to continue their repression by stoking anti-American sentiment. I had no idea you loved Castro or the Communists there so.
ReplyDeleteShip the lot to Johnston atoll in the South Pacific. It is US territory, uninhabited (except for US military personell) and about as far away from the rest of the world as can be (trust me, in 6 months everyone will forget about them)
As to your 3rd point, wtf are you talking about? That law had zero to do with the Supreme court case. Right now, because of the ruling, any company can spend unlimited amounts of money on advertising for or against candidates without contributing a dime to any political campaign or committee. Of course it can be any company, American or Foreign owned, since foreign owned companies register in the US they are entitled to the exact same rights as American owned ones.
Damn dude, this is econ 101.
I am sorry, but you are too damn easy since you simply have no ability of analysis.
And Uncle Jim, repealing DADT would be meaningful in precisely the same way that Truman's repeal was meaningful. If you think what Truman did wasn't, then I respectfully disagree. I understand you want leaps, sometimes you have to take steps.
charo
Charo, One law given as a token to my community does not in any way equal the 1106 laws that apply to you and not us. I don't want crumbs from the table, I demand a seat at the table. It is not that I am ungrateful, I am just tired of waiting. I have been in a relationship for 40 years and it does not mean squat to my government. A government that I defended during wartime. The same can be said of my partner. Also, we are both retired from the Government yet we do not have the same rights and benefits nor survivor benefits as you would have. Easy to sit on the side of those who have and judge we that have not. I know what your feelings and good intentions are, but I am just sick of the excuses. Unfortunately, I fear I will not live long enough to see my family recognised for what it is, a loving committed relationship that is no different behind our front door than that of any other family door in America. I think I am (as well as everyone else) worn out on this subject....Amen :)
ReplyDeletecharo, so what? Scary-smart said a lot of things he'll back down from in the STFU speech. He said nuclear, he said borders, he mocked the Supremes, he said offshore drilling, he said all kinds of stuff. And none of it means a thing, just like his campaign promises, because that's just how he does it.
ReplyDeleteAnd it was such a clear call to arms that the Democrats are confused about the path ahead. Because Scary-smart is a total eff-up at actually doing the hard work of governing. So get in line to be dissappointed along with the rest of us.
Oh, forgot, the campaign law... why is it that foreign corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money behind closed doors to lobby Congress and the President, but it is just outrageous if the spend money in the open to speak to the public? Is it because Congress and the President are just so much better than the rest of us that we needn't worry about their unimpeachable ethics? Kill the damn lobbyist industry and then get back to me about how ads are ruining the purity of our elections.
ReplyDeleteuncle jim, I don't think it should be called crumbs. While I am in complete agreement as to the validity of gay Marriage, it is also a special category of rights not part of every Americans basic rights. Single people also don't have a seat at the table, nor do people who believe in plural marriages (I am not advocating for plural marriages, just mentioning they exist). I have always been in favor of separating the institution of Marriage (as a religious custom) and basic contract law that should be available to everyone, to enjoy all the same rights and benefits as people whose only qualification now seems to be that they have sex (in Mass. either gay or straight). People are living longer and single longer than ever before. Two single, non sexual best friends (and lets face it among adults this is far more enduring than many marriages) also have no options. But that, I suppose, is an argument for a later date.
ReplyDeleteI also don't mean to sound rude, but if you and your spouse are retired, why don't you move to Mass.? I know you feel you shouldn't have to, but people move for a lot of reasons, and this seems to be a pretty compelling one. Basically, if I could I know I would because I would have no desire to support the policies of a state that won't accord me these rights.
charo
nice job completely avoiding the whole issue of Gitmo, just pretend I didn't say it so that makes it go away, right? So I guess you do love Castro after all.
ReplyDeleteOf course I am bothered by lobbyists, but they have to register and they could not spend unlimited amounts to influence legislators, do I have to freaking quote you? "Congress to pass a law prohibiting foreign nationals and corporations from contributing money or anything of value to political campaigns or committees." Which, as you point out, they did. Lobbyists can only influence by material support to a campaign. (Gifts have to be listed, which is what brought down Jack Abramoff and all the scummy Repukes who sleazed along with him) You simply can't prevent Lobbyists from meeting with Congressmen, but now the Supreme court has given them a whole new way to influence, before they were limited in the amount they could contribute directly, now they are unlimited to how much they can contribute indirectly (and tell me the campaign and lobbyist won't co-ordinate messages). Why are you stupid not to even have a consistent message from one day to the next?
As to Obama, I suggest you go back to High School civics class and learn how Bills are done and passed. If Republicans didn't get lucky that Kennedy got a tumor and died, Obama would be signing that bill probably this week. It is pathetic the Republicans have to rely on death to barely eke out enough Senators to sustain a filibuster.
gj, your nickname should be commentator scary stupid.
charo
GITMO? Sorry I missed it, but yes, keep GITMO open. No question about it. And if Cuban officials get all itchy about it, we can renegotiate the lease.
ReplyDelete"You simply can't prevent loggyists from meeting with [officials]" Sure you can. If we can limit speech about political campaigns, we can limit speech when in contact with Congress, including banning everything but soverign foreign contact. Either you believe in Free Speech and the 1st, or you do not. Apparently you do not believe in Free Speech and the 1st.
wtf? how can you limit American citizens meeting with their congressman? OK, tell me the wording of this law, this I gotta hear. In case you didn't realize it, Lobbyists are people too, real live human beings. Corporations are not. Do you even know the First amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Do you see the part about petition the government for a redress of grievances? And do you see anywhere in the first amendment that these rights are given to Corporations? The Press, yes, but Corporations? This case says that Corporations are essentially people too, which is why it is so ridiculous. So come on scary-stupid, write the law that prevents citizens from petitioning government just because they are registered lobbyists? This I gotta hear.
ReplyDeleteAnd as to Gitmo "Itchy" did you say "Itchy"
How the hell would you feel if a foreign government having basing rights, which ostensibly is for mutual protection, used that base as a toilet for the worlds worst criminals?
Can you really imagine a simple "renegotiation" would suffice? You are infected by Palinsanity if you do. The Castro brothers are on their last legs, we better get a move on to make sure that when the revolution for Liberty comes we are not treating their country like a toilet. You truly are a Castro loving Commie tyrant. You should be ashamed of yourself, but the concept of shame is beyond scary-stupid. The solution is blindingly obvious. Bury them on Johnston atoll
charo
charo
First, to be clear, you should read it as "banning all contact with anyone but American citizens and legal immigrants, and representatives of soverign governments." Wouldn't want any furriners influencing our Government officials, right? I regret any misunderstanding of the original wording.
ReplyDeleteSecond, corporations are legal entities that are essentially equivalent to people, with rights and responsibilities. For example, corporations can be convicted of criminal offenses and human rights violations, they must pay taxes, they can own property and enter into contracts. In US law, a corporation is treated as person unless the law explicitly specifies otherwise. Look it up, I'll wait.
Third, let me get this straight. We should put GITMO in our own country, not in an area where we have leased space for a military base, because the future owners of the leased space might be offended if we actually use the space as a military base? Is that about it?
Charo, You are basically correct. BUT did not the same thing apply to blacks in the 1950's living in Mississippi? They were told to move north.... until that is.... the civil rights laws were enacted. I should not have to give up my beautiful home, friends and family and move because people believe in special rights when it is in fact basic human rights. And DADT is crumbs no matter what else is said. BFD.... Gays will be allowed to fight and die the same as almost every other country, what a privilege.
ReplyDeleteGuys, I'm sure you know the Hawaii House (45 Ds, 6 Rs) just decided to deep-six a civil union law. Here's the WaPo... "State House leaders said a narrow majority of representatives would have voted for civil unions, but they decided to indefinitely postpone a decision on whether to grant gay and lesbian couples the same rights and benefits the state provides to married couples." So they had the votes, but they decided to sell you out, ahh, avoid controvery. From the WaPo cite '"You can call me a coward, but we are all not cowards. We'll make our tough decisions as we go ahead," Democratic Speaker of the House Calvin Say said he told civil union backers. "But members were concerned, and that was my role as the speaker to make that determination and decision to do what we did today."'
ReplyDeleteTell me again what is the difference between the Democratic Party and its enlightened ethics compared to the knuckledragging Neanderthals in the Republican Party? Is it that one won't even pass civil union laws, and the other has an elephant as a mascot?
Of course we should house military prisoners either in our own country, or an ally with their express permission. I am in favor of Gitmo being used as a military base, but not as a military prison because the end of the regime is drawing close. Honestly, can you tell me one compelling reason why we should not be prepared for the coming transition/possible civil war in Cuba? Do you really want American soldiers to have to worry about watching over these Middle Eastern terrorists while a potential war rages a few yards away? Neither you or I have any idea what will transpire when both Castros die.
ReplyDeleteCome gj, give me one reason why, other than sheer cowardice on Republican parts, that these terrorists can't be held on American territory (and as I said, Johnston atoll is a perfect place).
Corporations are not people, they can't vote, they can't be put in prison, they can't drive, etc. they are legal entities that can be restricted in hundreds of ways far differently than people so don't be stupid. They are entirely the creation of the state (unlike people) and the state retains power to define what a corporation is (or are you saying the state doesn't have that right?) Every corporation's existence flows from the charter granted to it by the state. A corporation is not treated as a person, and if we wanted to, we can abolish corporations tomorrow and put in its place proprietorships, or partnerships. For heaven's sake, look up Corporation in the dictionary. Do you even know what it is to charter a corporation, and why it is necessary? Really, this is too stupid for even commentor scary-stupid.
And, of course, there is nothing now that prevents Foreign owned Corporations from spending as much as they want on electioneering as they want to. Foreign owned companies need only hire one American citizen to lobby for them to meet with Congressmen, so whatever ban scary stupid is talking about is beyond me.
charo
Re: detailing military prisoners, why must we seek permission to imprison anyone on our own military bases? And one reason? Sure, because loonies like you would instantly start an uproar to grant these baddies every American legal right that you or I have were they to be held on American soil. No thank you, we have had enough of the "We'll prosecute them after they kill thousands" and "ooooh, we can't possibly question them without a lawyer's advice" civilian-law model for fighting terrorists.
ReplyDeleteI haven't said corporations are people, but that they are legal entities essentially equivalent to people, and indeed they are.
And all it takes is for a foreign owned company to hire one American citizen and they can spend as much wining and dining Congress as they please. Oh, wait, they don't even need to hire an American citizen to do that. So, charo, why is free speech in public so problematic when furriners can cozy up to Congress in secret?
Corporations are not N-O-T legal entities essentially equivalent to people. What planet are you from that corporations can vote, or go to jail, or drive a car, or get married? Corporations are not people, so why the hell would you want them treated that way? It is insane. The supreme court decision was a disaster, plain and simple, and when teachers unions are able to spend unlimited amounts of money to seat school councils, (or do you really think they won't) don't come whining to me. This decision is bad for everyone, except special interests.
ReplyDeleteAs to military bases, the US managed to hold untol thousands of Japanese and German prisoners of war, I didn't see them getting their hands held. Obviously, you got no faith in America. And what "every legal right" are you referring to? They are enemy combatants that can be legally held as long as the war is ongoing, which looks like it might be a long time. I don't recall anyone advocating German POW's to be released during WW2.
And you still avoid the central point, which is that their being at GITMO specifically is a disaster, both potential and right now. Why do you hate American soldiers so much for? I see you avoid again and again the issue of Post Castro instability because you know it has you utterly blown away, so like a chickshit you avoid it. If revolution comes to pass and one American soldier dies because they are too busy looking after these terrorists instead of defending themselves, it will be on your head. Use your damn imagination for once instead of channeling Palinsanity all the time. (Dear Sarah, who art in heaven and earth) Pathetic.
I have no idea what the hell you are talking about when you mention furriners. Are you talking about Cheney's oil taskforce wherein he met with international oil execs in secret? why would you think I am in favor of that? What the hell have you been smoking?
And uncle jim, if you are still around, I actually wish blacks had left the south, right now their votes are essentially lost, think of their impact in Northern and Western states.
charo
One last flog at the deceased equine...
ReplyDeleteYes, charo, I'm talking about Darth Cheney's secret taskforce. That is a great example of what I'm talking about; it is bad government, bad for the public, and breeds corruption. Why would any electorate ever permit leaders to meet in secret with foreign corporations about the public's business, apart from military considerations? Heck, why should we permit leaders to meet in secret with anyone, apart from military considerations? I don't trust the GOP at all, and I trust the Dems even less.
Charo. One last swipe. Blacks and their vote? Give me a break! 72% (exit poll numbers) from CA on Prop 8 showed they don't want Gays to have the right to marriage. Let's talk about one Black Man, President Obama and what he has done for Gays and DADT..... NOTHING. Obama can change this discriminatory act with a stroke of his pen. Instead he chooses not to thereby legitimizing these discriminatory practices. Obama and the Dems have finally sealed their fate with the Left and Gay constituents of their Party. Obama and most of the Senate and House members have never served a day in the military. In addition, many of them, especially Obama, have directly benefited from civil rights legislation. Now these hypocrites tell the Gay American service people and veterans they need to "study" the DADT issue. Lincoln didn't "study" discriminatory acts against Black Americans. Had Lincoln done the same and handed the ball to Congress and the military, it's doubtful Blacks, especially Obama, would enjoy the same civil rights that all Americans share, except Gay service people. Disgraceful. Remember, Lincoln ended slavery with a stroke of his pen, Truman ended segregation in the Armed Forces with a stroke of his pen and Obama can stick the pen where the sun does not shine. DADT was crumbs but at least it could have been a step.
ReplyDeleteDADT is federal law, Obama can't overturn it with a stroke of his pen. Check out US Code Title 10 Subtitle G Section 654.
ReplyDeleteIt is a Federal Law you schmuck. Try, for once, to learn something about how American Law and Government works. At most the military can overlook openly gay members, they can't overturn law.
charo