The World According to Nick
Politics, News, Photography, and Triathlons... What don't I talk about?
Friday, August 29, 2008
<< What Was That Noise I Just Heard? Little Known Fact: Sarah Palin's Pheromones Are a Controlled Substance >>
Random Observations About Obama's Speech

I thought I was going to make it through the entire Democratic Convention, and actually not have to watch any of it.  I was already sick and tired of signing onto Twitter every morning, only to see a deluge of "live tweets" from some of my Twitter friends about what they watched the night before.  Isn't that what blogs are for?  I really don't get the purpose of conventions any more.  Today's conventions are nothing like the ones of years past.  To quote the lady in my life... "they're pep rallies".  Exactly.  Nothing is decided at a convention any more.  Remember when nobody knew who Reagan's Vice President choice was going to be because he hadn't decided until half way through the convention?  OK... I don't remember that (I was like 2 for God's sake)... but I'm sure some of you are old enough to.  Even the platform is pretty well all nailed down before hand these days.  So, I had decided I was going to avoid as much of the pep rally as possible... well... until I got a phone call last night.

"What do you mean you're not going to watch it?  I would have figured you of all people would.  If nothing else, it will provide good blogging material."  Damn her... she knows me too well.  Sigh.  So we watched it together... with beer... because if I'm going to watch a political convention... there better be alcohol involved.

The video before the speech was exactly what you'd expect.  Young boy who grew up in hard times makes good.  I don't say this to mock him.  It's a good story.  And to be honest, all the "where was he born?" and "he's a Muslim" talk around the blogosphere has driven me nuts.  But a video like that isn't going to make me vote for him.  And then the speech began.

I know there was a lot of talk before hand regarding the backdrop for his speech.  There were some who said it looked like Greek columns and he was preaching from Mt. Olympus.  Then there were those who said it was meant to look like the Lincoln Memorial, in honor of the anniversary of Dr. King's "I have a dream" speech.  I think it looked like the White House... and that he was meant to look like he was walking out of the Oval Office to give a speech on the grass.  The backdrop had windows... the Lincoln Memorial doesn't have windows.  Now then... is that good marketing, or will it come off as presumptuous like his campaign seal did?  Who knows.

What followed was just about what I was expecting.  It was all pretty standard Democratic platform and rhetoric, but delivered very, very well.  Obama is an incredibly powerful speaker... no doubt.  But the content... well... it was standard platform and rhetoric.  Not that I was expecting much different... this was the Democratic convention after all.  But there were some lines in particular that got me:

"I will go through the federal budget line by line.":  I hate to break it to you Barack, but that would essentially take you 4 years, just to go over the first year's budget... so what you're telling us is that you're not running for President, but United States Accounting Clerk.  Have fun with that.

On the American Promise:  It felt to me like he gave lip service to "freedom".  He barely mentioned the word once, and it seemed to be missing to me... missing in all things that government will do for you whether you want it or not.  The reality is, even when he talked about how government action is not enough, he still listed off a half dozen things that we need to do to accomplish what he thinks is important.  And I kept thinking... how will that be enforced?  What laws does he envision to make us be more energy responsible, or make parents turn off the television.  Or does he simply "hope for change"?

On the 2nd Amendment and AK-47's:  This was one of many straw mans that he threw out rapid fire like a machine gun... oh wait... bad analogy.  Seeing as how the most important 2nd Amendment case decided recently was regarding hand guns, which are a much more reasonable type of weapon to allow the ordinary citizen, I found that line to be particularly galling.

On homosexuals visiting their partners in hospitals:  Another straw man... and I'm in favor of gay marriage.  When Republicans push for a "Protection of Visiting Hours" act, then you can complain about that.  Until then, don't pretend like you can bridge the divide with this issue.

On energy independence: I nearly screamed when I heard that phrase yet again (especially after it being uttered constantly Wed. Night).  For another good take on why its total bullshit, read Megan.

On providing every child with a "world class education":  Remember when Democrats complained that No-Child Left Behind was a terrible law that took control away from school districts and teachers?  Yeah... so do I.  He said he'll recruit new teachers... but since the Federal government doesn't actually run a school district... I don't know where they'll work.

"You’ll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves":  Perhaps the problem isn't that people don't have benefits as good as Congressmen, but rather that the benefits Congressmen have are too good!  Why are you giving yourself such great benefits at taxpayer expense, when so many taxpayers can't afford the same?  You should be the last to receive those benefits, not the first... that is if you really believe what you preach.

The rest of his speech was really just a laundry list of things that government can solve.  Or as Jesse Walker put it:

Government cannot solve all our problems. Just the ones involving energy, education, work, the weather, cities, the countryside, sick children, sick mothers, joblessness, hopelessness, and frightening foreigners who do not live in Iraq. Now if you'll all look under your seats, every one of you is going home with a new car!

And that was the strange part about the entire thing.  The first part of the speech concentrated on how he was able to come from hard times, and get to this awesome position.  He talked about all the sacrifices that his mother made for him so that he could go to a good college.  The only government assistance I heard about during that entire time was a few food stamps and some government loans.  Then he complained about how nobody is able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.  He disparaged the ownership society and the Republicans push for personal responsibility, but then said at the end how government can't solve all your problems and you have to take personal responsibility.  The speech felt strangely bi-polar.

And of course, there was the fact that he promised to do all these specific things... which Presidents aren't allowed to do!  McCain will do the same thing, and it drives me nuts.  People need to understand this... Presidents don't write laws... Congress does!  Presidents can veto a law, and they enforce the laws that pass.  You can ask Congress to do those things, but you can't do them youself.  Some may say that its a minor quibble... but I think it's more.  We need to remind the populace about where the power used to lie in this country, and where it should lie again... with the branch of government that is representative of the population.  We elect a President, not a King.

And then it was over...

"Is that country music?"  What the hell?  Country music?  Really?

What was interesting about watching the news coverage immediately after the speech, was that they gave clips of the absolutely worst part of the speech, when he went after Bush and McCain.  That's when he seemed the most bitter, and the most out of character.  And this is from someone who can't stand George Bush any more, and who won't vote for John McCain.

# Posted at 8:58 AM by Nick  |  Comment Feed Link 6 Comments  |  No Trackbacks

 Add to del.icio.us |  Digg this Post | Filed Under: Current Events | Politics

Friday, August 29, 2008 1:07:23 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Man. Take a valium.

Anyway.. I followed the links to the Popular Science article on the Manhattan Project for energy that you, if I am not mistaken, oppose - pretty violently. Again.. valium man it works.

The thing is that government can do things. Now I am going to oversimplify and I am not going to validate my numbers but I remember all the crap and complaining about the recycling campaigns as the kicked off in the 1990's. My sister-in-law's comments stick with me. I believe she snarked how much she enjoyed washing her trash before throwing it away.

Articles were written about how recyclables were collected and then just thrown away. (I think one was written last year.)

But last year the County of Waukesha gained $6.3M from recycling.

Some things need a huge investment before they make money. (like FOX news). And there may not be a Murdoc to champion a promising alternative energy. So there is a place in government even though it is "more complex than rocket science".
Vic
Friday, August 29, 2008 1:50:35 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
And on the AK-47 thing.

I remember a couple of years ago on 60 minutes that people were buying 50 caliber.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/06/60minutes/main665257.shtml

Now I understand that you could knock down a 747 with a 22 if the Force is with you like attacking a Death Star with a Mellinium Fighter but an pretty average marksman with a 50 caliber would have a shot (good pun?) at bringing one down.

So I asked the local NRA guy whether we might want restrict ownership on these things after hearing the 60 Minutes. He said they were way too fun to be illegal.

I just don't think our founding fathers were thinking we needed a 50 caliber when they were talking about the 2nd amendment.

So Barack used the AK-47 because everyone uses the AK-47. It is the ubiquitous dangerous gun.
Vic
Friday, August 29, 2008 5:33:05 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Nick,

You are becoming quite the cynic. And Vic, I have to disagree on the intent of the founding fathers on the 2nd amendment. During the revolutionary war the founding fathers were arming themselves with muskets, which were comparable to the weapons the British soldiers were equipped with. Doesn't that translate to M16's and AK47's today?
Ben
Friday, August 29, 2008 8:47:39 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Well you are taking the approach the weapons have changed. I am taking the approach that the things we kill with weapons have not changed.

Now I know my NRA friend is joking when he stops by my office to say that he is heading home to polish his guns because the voices in his head told him to do it but I have to say that I am not thrilled with the idea that he could have a 50 calibar in his home. He may not be joking about those voices afterall.
Vic
Friday, August 29, 2008 11:23:37 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
[I] don't think our founding fathers were thinking we needed a 50 caliber when they were talking about the 2nd amendment.


Fully automatic weapons and 50 cals were EXACTLY what the founders were contemplating. They wanted every citizen to have access to military-grade weapons because "every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American." Trent Coxe.

Fifty cals are required for the citizen militia because as Coxe states: "The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.

The second amendment is about hunting' but it ain't about hunting ducks and deer. It's about tyrant hunting. The second amendment was intended from the beginning to be about heavily armed citizens staring down trained, regular troops of the standing army because those citizens had the same or better guns than the soldiers.

The ninth amendment protects my right to self defense and the instrumentality of self-defense (hand guns, knives, mace, etc.)

The second amendment, as stated in US v Miller protects, military weapons; specifically weapons where the "weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment."

So, yes, .50 cals and full autos are well within the court's definition weapons covered and protected by the second amendment.
Monday, September 01, 2008 11:27:27 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
John,

Since you didn't address it ...

Is it okay for my NRA friend to own a .50 cals if he really is hearing voices. Let's go with this hypothetical. He is undiagnosed, buys a .50 cal and then is diagnosed as being a danger to himself and others. And let's add in that he refuses to take recommended medication that stops the voices. Should he still be able to own his weapon? Just wondering how much we can endanger the public before the 2nd Amendment no longer applies.

Vic
Comments are closed.


© Copyright 2012 Nick Schweitzer
Powered By newtelligence dasBlog 1.9.7067.0
Theme Based on Design By maystar