(no subject)
Ok, Amanda took care of most of this for me. Still, I feel like I ought to have some content one of these days. I hate to start with a diatribe against the state of American politics, but sometimes I can’t quite help myself. Consequently, I’ll comment here instead of putting them all in her journal:
• Did anyone else feel like this particular speech sounded rushed and unrehearsed? I appeared that Bush was tripping over his own tongue in an effort to get the speech out before Americans could get bored and go on about our lives. Suggestion: cut down on the ovations, and you wouldn’t have to be in such a hurry. Also, the elaborate entrance and incessant signing of autographs tends to lose people’s attention.
• To be fair, though, I do agree with the same criticism regarding the Democratic response. Additionally, I felt that the Virginia governor may have alienated many people of the country by implying that his state holds all the answers for a better United States. He also came across as a bit slippery, as though the future of the country were so much snake oil for sale.
• With respect to balance: for a President who does not appear to care about the negative image we have with the rest of the world, Bush sure spent a lot of time telling us that the state of our union was dependent upon events in other nations. I really want to be proud to be an American, but he’s making it difficult.
• Amanda’s right that most of the country isn’t as worried by the wire-tapping issue as are students at liberal colleges. The problem is that we all see it as a limited measure leading towards preventing further terrorist attacks. We will be severely challenged when the program advances into monitoring all conversations for information about illicit romances and stolen lipstick from J. C. Pennys.
• It’s difficult to listen to the President tout programs that are well-known failures (or are at least struggling). As much as we would like to love the “No Child Left Behind” Act, I understand that it was a) the Democrats’ idea first, and b) so severely under-funded that it is punishing poor schools without providing them with the resources necessary to improve their curriculum. Vouchers are not a universal solution either.
• Are the people of this country really fooled by token gestures of kindness and affection? Although I recognize and appreciate the sacrifices these people have made, why must the President always invite a symbolic family who has been the victim of a terrible tragedy? What do you have to do to be the set of grieving relatives that represent all of those who have lost soldiers in this war? Give us some credit: we know about the lives lost. Either read out all the names, or (better yet) offer us some solutions for stopping the bloodshed.
Finally,
• I couldn’t help but notice that the women appeared to be dressed rather more colorfully than last year. I think it might be the influence of the lone woman in red on one side of the chamber last year. The world would probably be a better place if more of the men had deemed it necessary to wear bright pink.
• Did anyone else feel like this particular speech sounded rushed and unrehearsed? I appeared that Bush was tripping over his own tongue in an effort to get the speech out before Americans could get bored and go on about our lives. Suggestion: cut down on the ovations, and you wouldn’t have to be in such a hurry. Also, the elaborate entrance and incessant signing of autographs tends to lose people’s attention.
• To be fair, though, I do agree with the same criticism regarding the Democratic response. Additionally, I felt that the Virginia governor may have alienated many people of the country by implying that his state holds all the answers for a better United States. He also came across as a bit slippery, as though the future of the country were so much snake oil for sale.
• With respect to balance: for a President who does not appear to care about the negative image we have with the rest of the world, Bush sure spent a lot of time telling us that the state of our union was dependent upon events in other nations. I really want to be proud to be an American, but he’s making it difficult.
• Amanda’s right that most of the country isn’t as worried by the wire-tapping issue as are students at liberal colleges. The problem is that we all see it as a limited measure leading towards preventing further terrorist attacks. We will be severely challenged when the program advances into monitoring all conversations for information about illicit romances and stolen lipstick from J. C. Pennys.
• It’s difficult to listen to the President tout programs that are well-known failures (or are at least struggling). As much as we would like to love the “No Child Left Behind” Act, I understand that it was a) the Democrats’ idea first, and b) so severely under-funded that it is punishing poor schools without providing them with the resources necessary to improve their curriculum. Vouchers are not a universal solution either.
• Are the people of this country really fooled by token gestures of kindness and affection? Although I recognize and appreciate the sacrifices these people have made, why must the President always invite a symbolic family who has been the victim of a terrible tragedy? What do you have to do to be the set of grieving relatives that represent all of those who have lost soldiers in this war? Give us some credit: we know about the lives lost. Either read out all the names, or (better yet) offer us some solutions for stopping the bloodshed.
Finally,
• I couldn’t help but notice that the women appeared to be dressed rather more colorfully than last year. I think it might be the influence of the lone woman in red on one side of the chamber last year. The world would probably be a better place if more of the men had deemed it necessary to wear bright pink.