I always advise young people to dream small dreams, because small dreams can be achieved, and once you achieve a small dream and a small success, it gives you confidence to go on to the next big step.
John H. Johnson
God Bless 8-Year-old Elizabeth Hughes!
National Anthem: "Gave Proof...." Great Crowd Assist!
If you haven't seen the latest viral video, this little sweetheart faces a technical glitch with her mike in the middle of singing our National Anthem. I love the fact that the girl keeps singing despite the glitch. The crowd (except one inappropriately amused woman) picks up shortly after the mike goes out.
Obama's Tuscon Speech: Additional Review Comments: Thumbs So-So
Yesterday's post, which included a "brief" segment on my take of the Obama speech, was a slight departure from my usual format (I usually start with a transcript of a speech in front on me). I'm being honest here, having heard the speech and reading and hearing the comments of others (e.g., here): I don't think it was a good speech. I'm speaking more as a writer and as an analyst. I think the speech from a technical standpoint was well-delivered (Obama has excellent oratorical skills), and I do think it was one of the better speeches he has delivered as President, but that's a fairly low bar, given so many objectionable speeches (e.g., overly partisan, self-serving, scapegoating, straw men, condescending or defensive rhetoric, Bush-bashing, attacks on the Supreme Court, etc.)
This speech came across to me as emotionally detached (i.e., just another speech), muddled, inaccessible or pointless at times, and overly familiar or unauthentic. For example, let's take his comments referencing murdered 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green to suggest that America must become the idealistic vision that Christina embraced, that the rhetoric had become abusive instead of healing, and hence America falls short. There are several obvious points. Obama seems to suggest that the nature of discourse, by not being "healing", causes America to fall short of its ideals. Based on what evidence? Precisely, why does he think America has fallen short, and why has tone (rather than political orientation) made a difference? Why is the worthiness of a 9-year-old's political ideals self-evident? Is he saying the bitterly personal political feuds which have existed since the Washington Administration makes for an inferior government? Is President Obama himself being a hypocrite? I mean, didn't he constantly interrupt and dispute Republicans at the half-day health care summit? Didn't he go on an international trip in his first months in office and apologize for past American "mistakes"? Hasn't he Bush-bashed at least dozens of times? Didn't he attack the Citizens United decision in last year's State of the Union address, to the raucous, intimidating applause of Democratic legislators around the Supreme Court box? What exactly has President Obama done to address the issue on his side of the aisle? Did he make any interim statement since the massacre asking progressives to cease and desist spurious attacks on Republicans?
In short, President Obama appears to suggest that the primary issue is process-oriented. Granted, a Rodney King "can we all just get along?" dialectic might win friends and influence people, but I question the unspoken assumption that legislators vote primarily on interpersonal versus ideological grounds. How has interpersonal dynamics for our Nobel Laureate President worked to resolve intractable Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Lebanon or Israeli-Palestinian peace issues?
I've seen at least one poll that reports nearly 60% of the American people do NOT believe that the Tuscon Massacre was related to partisan bickering. Why was he addressing partisan bickering at a memorial service for 6 murder victims? Wasn't he a day late and a dollar short?
Finally, talking about Christina loving to jump into rain puddles, President Obama was a little too familiar for my tastes. Granted, a number of Presidential speechwriters, including those for George Bush, have included similar anecdotes. I just don't like the practice, and I have made the same criticism of Bush (although my blog started during the last few months of the Bush Presidency and I may not have posted it). I thought it was appropriate to note why Christina was at the Giffords appearance, the fact that she had been elected to the student council and wanted to serve other people as a career goal. The fact that our nation lost such a gifted young lady is heartbreaking; she has been part of what makes America such a wonderful country.
Now, by and large, almost every conservative pundit I've heard, including Sean Hannity, has loved the speech, in particular the fact that it was balanced and unifying, rather than divisive. They have thought it was beautifully prepared, delivered and appropriate to the situation. (They may or may not agree with my take on the speech.) I would have written a different speech and delivered it differently.
What Would President Guillemette Have Said?
A fair question. Not to sound callous, but I'm not sure there would have been a Presidential visit in the first place. Make no mistake; what happened to Congresswoman Giffords and the rest of the victims was a tragedy, but the last thing I want to do is set a precedent or motivation for some fringe group or individual that are 535 Congressional targets (never mind federal judges), each of which would trigger mass media exposure, a Presidential visit, and temporary suspension of the people's business in DC. (There would have been a response, but a more low-key one; I also am reluctant to look like I'm trying to take political advantage of a tragedy.)
Now readers may think I'm trying to beg the question. Assuming I'm giving a speech, here are some of the main points:
- The address would have been at most 10 minutes long, well-structured, and to the point. It would be authentic--no second-hand anecdotes about the victims, however well-delivered. I would have insisted on decorum.
- I would have set realistic expectations about what a government can and can't do. Our country was founded on principles of liberty. Some individuals will abuse their personal liberty, affecting the life, liberty, property and/or pursuit of happiness of others. From the beginning, Americans have paid heavy prices to obtain and preserve their freedom. We will never surrender to the false security of autocracy.
- When individuals abuse their liberty, they will be held accountable. The Attorney General is committed to the vigorous, rigorous prosecution in pursuit of justice for the victims.
- What government does, it must do efficiently and effectively. In part, we depend on our fellow citizens to alert us to people whom threaten the unalienable rights of us all. We must be anticipatory in coordinating or integrating law enforcement and justice (with minimal intrusion on individual liberty). Reasonable regulation/access of weapons of mass murder or destruction to individuals at risk to themselves or others (e.g., hostile or intimidating attitude or behavior or mentally ill), over and beyond measures of self-defense, should be considered; we must be better at identifying and communicating prospective threats.
- America continues to transcend the imperfections of men; we have been, are, and will continue to be a great nation. However imperfect are our national policies, we are subject to the rule of law and must continue to work through the duly elected members of our democratic republic, and we will vigorously defend our nation against enemies, regardless of origin.
"Sarah Palin’s reality show will not be returning as she contemplates a possible run for president in 2012. When a candidate walks away from a reality show, that's when you know they're serious about being president of the United States." - Jay Leno
[Perhaps Omarosa is thinking of running for President, now that Donald Trump is considering it. I expect Sarah to host a number of one-off specials: "Sarah Palin's Iowa!", "Sarah Palin's New Hampshire!", "Sarah Palin's South Carolina!",... No doubt the opening track to each show will include Sarah doing a take on the infamous Howard Dean speech (with a twist on the scream): "Not only are we going to New Hampshire, Sean Hannity, we're going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York ... And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan, and then we're going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House! Oh de lay ee ay ee Oh de lay ee, oh de loh oo, oh de lay ee ay ee Ooh!"]
"A man held up a bank, demanding all the $20, $40, and $60 bills. Luckily, he left after the teller told him, 'All I have are $80s.'" - Conan O'Brien
[Nope. She just told him that the Fed was still in the process of printing $40 and $60 bills. He was like, "Man, that money isn't worth the paper it's printed on..."]
Musical Interlude: One-Hit Wonders/Instrumentals
The Rembrandts, "I'll Be There For You"
