As someone who is a member/Brother is not just one but two fraternities/Greek organizations, my eyes open a little wider and ears perk up when I here something about hazing. Hazing is often viewed as a rite of passage in many Greek organizations for a new member to truly become a Brother or Sister. Hazing was probably the top reason that I didn't get fraternities too much thought the second semester of my freshmen year at Rutgers. Some of my friends were pledging and I didn't hear too many horror stories, but I am sure things were as they seemed. After some thought, the next semester I checked out a special interest fraternity called Phi Sigma Pi National Honors Fraternity. It was co-ed and hazing was extremely taboo. After eight weeks, I became a Brother and there was not one instance of hazing. My perspective on Greek organizations was greatly changing. The following year I was looking to expand my horizons and fulfill my college experience and rushed another fraternity; a social one. I went to Chi Psi Fraternity with more of an open mind and knowledge that thinks were different there than other organizations on campus. They also did not believe in hazing and only wanted people who were committed to putting in the necessary time.
Being part of two Greek Organizations, I have often become an outspoken supporter for Greek Life. But unfortunately there are times when it makes it tough to fight the stigmas. This week there was an incident involving hazing at an off campus apartment involving the African American sorority Sigma Gamma Rho. A pledge was beat with a wooden paddle so bad that scarred his flesh. She thought she was doing something normal and was told she wasn't being hazed by Sisters. These beatings took place over a week to point where she had blood clots and welts on her rear end. She went to the hospital and the issue was brought forward to the University. Six Sisters were arrested for hazing and beating at least three pledges between the 18th and the 25th of January. That number would be risen to seven pledges. The sorority was immediately suspended locally and nationally. Authorities found out that there was supposed to be another hazing incident, but the arrests prevented that. The pledges were first gathered on the 18th and told to wrap blue and gold tape around wooden paddles, which were a foot long and half a foot wide.
The organizations who believe in hazing preach unity and humbling pledges. But what about a loss of pride, self-respect, and individualism. These are all lost the moment you give into hazing. And just because you go through it, doesn't mean you have to continue it. Hazing is one thing when you spit on someone, make them get you a coffee, or run across campus in your underwear. However, when something like this happens to someone or even worse death; then hazing becomes out of hand and that much worst. I can probably go around both of my fraternities and ask you would still be there if there was hazing involved and I can almost guaranteed that everyone would not be there. I recommend downloading videos and looking up articles to see the dark side of hazing.
Hazing is what is wrong with Greek organizations and it makes "outsiders" want to judge them even more. An "outsider" sees Greek organizations as groups that haze, drink and party, and get by for four or maybe six years cause they are slackers. Well, in reality, most Greeks are some of the smartest and most talented individuals on campus. It would take me forever to tabulate how many service hours Greek organizations put in each semester and throughout the year. Occasional ribbing or jokes here and there in good taste are sometimes part of the pledge process, but at the end of the day can you truly respect and look someone in the eye the same way if they haze you. That to me is the difference between Greek organizations that succeed and those who fail. Look around. Those who do the right things are successful on campus and those who don't hang on until they do something like this and poof they are gone. The thing that sucks is often times you have some people who put in a lot of hard work and they graduate and some times people who inherit the fraternity or sorority makes changes that aren't for the better and erase the past overnight.
I recommend checking out Greek organizations if you aren't in one. If you suspect anything is fishy, get out and go elsewhere. There are many organizations who do things the right way and implore you to look at them and not organizations like Sigma Gamma Rho. Look at Congress, CEOs, and many other high up positions. You will find Greeks among who did things right and succeed. That is why I joined the organizations I did and proud of my decision. Especially since they were void of hazing.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
State of Our Union...Where We Stand
It is that time of the year when the president gives his annual address or state of the union. Now that the speech has been given what did President Obama say and where do we stand from a year ago and going towards next year.
As most presidents do, President Obama framed where we are today from where we were a year ago or years ago. He reiterated the type of pressing issues he was facing in January 2009: an economy affected by a recession, a financial system that needed the government's assistance to stay standing, two wars in the Middle East, and a growing national deficit among other issues.
As no one president can be a miracle worker. From a cursory look, things do not look much better. Unemployment is still near 10%. Businesses are finding it difficult to survive and home market is not improving. Working families who make up a vast majority of the population are struggling to get by. Clearly, Main Street" is not getting the same benefits of Wall Street.
That is where Obama began this speech on the issues: the economy. He reiterated the importance aiding the banks a year ago. Also, he looked to convey that it was an unpopular option to move forward with the bank bailout; but it had to be done. The bailout, no matter how unpopular, was need to stop any more bleeding. A year later, many will voice opposition against still because of the lack of official results we are seeing from it. Compared to a year ago, the markets look to be more stabilized. The next step to reign in Wall Street and their spending is a fee on the biggest banks and overall, financial reform.
Additionally, unemployment benefits for over 18 million Americans have been extended. Taxes were cut for 95% of working families. Taxes were cut for: small businesses, parents caring for children, first-time home buyers, and the millions who are paying for college. From that, more money has been spent on gas, food, and other necessities without having to charge anyone anything higher than they were originally spending. We see roughly 2 million workers who would otherwise be unemployed without the measures taken a year ago. They jobs cover the spectrum from city workers in schools, fire departments, and police stations to construction workers. If all goes to plan, there should be nearly as many jobs created a year from now.
As part of the next initiatives, President Obama would like to see a new jobs bill. This one centered around taking $30 billion from the Wall Street banks' payments and use it on community banks that would subsequently pass that money on to small businesses to aide their survival if necessary. Moreover, Obama wants to see a small business tax credit for small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. If we take lessons from the Great Depression we will also solve part of the unemployment and hiring problem. Our nation's infrastructure is constantly in need of refurbishing. While we are at, we are becoming a stronger nation that can dominate on the world stage. From the Recovery Act, we see people working on railroads and construction projects across the country.
After job creation and holding Wall Street, businesses, and banks accountable through financial reform, clean energy is of major importance. Through clean air plants and clean energy jobs, we will see better efficiency and a safer environment for future generations. There is a need for for opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. A continued investment in clean coal and overall an energy and climate bill that will make clean energy the best option for multiple reasons. Decades of dependence on foreign oil has handicapped us as a nation.
Next, the nation's children is our future and we must invest money and time in them. If schools are failing, they must be improved. Failure has been rewarded or allowed to continue; that must end. We must also target those schools that are succeeding and reward them. There must be as many schools as possible for youth; especially those in inner cities and other urban parts of the countries. There has to be attention given to elementary schools through universities and community colleges because a high school diploma does not mean the same thing it did 40 years ago. More money will be put into student loans. More money will be allocated for tax breaks for families with college students and allow for an increase in Pell Grants. As someone who has recently graduated, this next part is something that I especially like: one million students will be required to pay only 10% of their income on student loans and all of their debt will be eased out after 20 years or 10 years (if they take a career path that involves public service). If the money is there, it is wise to reward a nation of struggling graduates.
Next, the president turned to possibly the most talked about topic after jobs in the last year: health care. This issue and the problems that exist have spanned Democratic and Republican administrations. After two votes late last year, the legislation and health care reform is the closest it has ever been. With this legislation, pre-existing conditions will no longer stop someone from getting proper care. Insurer will finally be monitored from their abuses. Uninsured Americans as well as small businesses would have a chance to obtain affordable coverage. Alongside this, the first lady is tackling an epidemic in this country: obesity. This is especially dangerous amongst the younger generation and she is working to create healthier alternatives for children. Under this legislation, Americans who have insurance can keep it as well as their doctors. Costs and premiums would be lowered. And once implemented, it will allow for the deficit to decrease by possibly $1 trillion in two decades.
Continuing, President Obama turned to the national deficit. At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budge surplus of over $200 billion. Ten years later, the deficit was over $1 trillion with projections of reaching $8 trillion by the beginning of the next decade. How did we go from one extreme to the other? Mostly the result of not paying for two wars, two different tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. That was all bad enough before the recession hit and added $3 trillion to the hole. All of this was before January 2009. Unfortunately, in order to meet the demands of a year ago; the president had to add an additional $1 trillion to that deficit. In order to start to bring that figure down, there must be somewhat drastic measures. Starting in a year, there will be in place a government spending freeze for three years. This freeze will not involve defense spending, matters of national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. This would be the equivalent to a family having to cut out certain items of spending every week, month, and year. If families and businesses are doing it; why shouldn't the federal government do the same.
The president then turned to special interests and lobbyists. There must be a limit on their power on the federal government and President Obama has monitored that they are not on certain boards and commissions. He also referenced the recent Supreme Court decision that will allow corporations and special interests to spend freely on behalf or most likely against candidates. This decision on paper seems to enable free rights for CEOs of corporations, but it also enables those with the biggest pockets to influence an election the most; that shouldn't be the case. Alongside the same path, the president turned his attention to earmark reform. Earmarks, too, have become a problem in Congressional and Washington politics. The more the public knows from both sides; it will allow for a more transparent government.
The speech then turned towards national security. National security is fairly strong and we are achieving success in protecting our country. The gaps that exist; they are being addressed and fixed. In Afghanistan, the proper training and steps and being taken to ensure that the forces there can take over and lead a safe and terrorist-free country in the summer of 2011 when U.S. troops are expected to be completely out. At the same time, the necessary steps are taking place in Iraq so that we may leave there as well in a similar condition. Combat troops are expected to be out by the end of this summer. Working alongside the provincial government there, we are cleaning up the corruption and have a strong leadership in the country with a partner whom we can trust. While addressing those issues, attention is on nuclear weapons and a disarmament. The U.S. is working with Russia to renew a non-prolification agreement of two decades ago. Accordingly so, the U.S. is also giving proper sanctions to countries like North Korea and Iran, who continue to break foreign agreements.
Equality in this country has been a trying project that continues to this day. Hate crimes are punished. Equal pay law have been implemented and monitored. We will see early this year the removal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell in our military. The immigration system is certainly not ideal or close to it and immigration reform needs to be addresses as soon as possible. Our borders must be secure and laws enforced in order that our nation does not falter. We must at the same time value that this country has been built on immigrants for the last century and then some.
Our nation was built on tough decisions. Our nation was strengthened through wars, recessions, and setbacks. Our nation has progressed in terms of equality based on race, gender, religion, or age. President Obama knew that things were not going to be easy and setbacks during the last year tried his administration. The last year is behind us and we now have the coming year and decade to build off of last year's successes and failures so that in a year's time things will hopefully be better. In closing, he reached down to the depths of a JFK and called for us to start anew in order to allow for the necessary change to come as we move forward.
Looking back on the speech, President Obama covered all his bases. It didn't appease everyone, but that is impossible. It was not perfect. I heard a lot of good things from the past year and moving forward in 2010.
The bailout has not been perfect but there have been positive results. Money is slowly working its way into jobs and giving foundations to corporations and banks. It is hard to see it, but the bottom 95% have seen small tax cuts. As we move forward through this year, a new jobs bill is a top priority for Congress. Since we have helped the big corporations, it is only right that $30 billion is invested for small companies to stabilize themselves. At the same time, those small businesses that create jobs should be rewarded. Of those jobs, some should and could be clean energy jobs because the energy is also of need of addressing and it will aide with job creation. We must not let the recession slow us down as our countries facing the recession are working to dig themselves out. Wall Street and banks got us into this recession and major financial reform should also be a major incentive taken up by Congress in the first few months of this year. Our dependence on foreign oil is not healthy as is the potential safety hazards of oil rigs off shore. Thus we need to invest money and time in clean energy plants and off shore areas for developments. That alongside with an energy and climate bill will bring major change to what we have now.
Education is the foundation for our future. We need to reward schools that are doing the right things and punish the ones that are not. The more children succeeding the better. The money needs to be there for loans. The opportunities need to be there for community colleges. Health care reform as been a trying process this last year, but there are only a couple hurdles left to the biggest health care change and bill since Medicare in the 1960s. Our nation has gone from a surplus to a large deficit in ten years time and now we cannot stop spending completely. But we will have to monitor where money is spent the next ten years in hopes of elimating part of that deficit.
As a student of politics, I am very much aware that politics is a cycle of elections, But that should not be a handicap on creating major change. Both parties instead of moving closer have decided to move further apart then they already were. That type of behavior only hurts the country and gives a negative perception of politics. The president has attempted to work with the Republicans. His own party at times has hindered potential moves. At the same time, it would be foolish for them to give too much if they want to regain power.
Overall, the president gave the sense that he has learned from his mistakes of the last year and despite an election year ahead; we will see major legislation and change the first few months of this year. Health care reform looks very likely. Don't Ask, Don't Tell will be erased. Financial reform has potential. A jobs bill and unemployment extensions could happen. And possibly, energy or immigration may be addressed. These certainly are not the best of times. And from a year ago to today, things seem to be going in the right direction. Whether your political philosophy, you should see that much.
As most presidents do, President Obama framed where we are today from where we were a year ago or years ago. He reiterated the type of pressing issues he was facing in January 2009: an economy affected by a recession, a financial system that needed the government's assistance to stay standing, two wars in the Middle East, and a growing national deficit among other issues.
As no one president can be a miracle worker. From a cursory look, things do not look much better. Unemployment is still near 10%. Businesses are finding it difficult to survive and home market is not improving. Working families who make up a vast majority of the population are struggling to get by. Clearly, Main Street" is not getting the same benefits of Wall Street.
That is where Obama began this speech on the issues: the economy. He reiterated the importance aiding the banks a year ago. Also, he looked to convey that it was an unpopular option to move forward with the bank bailout; but it had to be done. The bailout, no matter how unpopular, was need to stop any more bleeding. A year later, many will voice opposition against still because of the lack of official results we are seeing from it. Compared to a year ago, the markets look to be more stabilized. The next step to reign in Wall Street and their spending is a fee on the biggest banks and overall, financial reform.
Additionally, unemployment benefits for over 18 million Americans have been extended. Taxes were cut for 95% of working families. Taxes were cut for: small businesses, parents caring for children, first-time home buyers, and the millions who are paying for college. From that, more money has been spent on gas, food, and other necessities without having to charge anyone anything higher than they were originally spending. We see roughly 2 million workers who would otherwise be unemployed without the measures taken a year ago. They jobs cover the spectrum from city workers in schools, fire departments, and police stations to construction workers. If all goes to plan, there should be nearly as many jobs created a year from now.
As part of the next initiatives, President Obama would like to see a new jobs bill. This one centered around taking $30 billion from the Wall Street banks' payments and use it on community banks that would subsequently pass that money on to small businesses to aide their survival if necessary. Moreover, Obama wants to see a small business tax credit for small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. If we take lessons from the Great Depression we will also solve part of the unemployment and hiring problem. Our nation's infrastructure is constantly in need of refurbishing. While we are at, we are becoming a stronger nation that can dominate on the world stage. From the Recovery Act, we see people working on railroads and construction projects across the country.
After job creation and holding Wall Street, businesses, and banks accountable through financial reform, clean energy is of major importance. Through clean air plants and clean energy jobs, we will see better efficiency and a safer environment for future generations. There is a need for for opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. A continued investment in clean coal and overall an energy and climate bill that will make clean energy the best option for multiple reasons. Decades of dependence on foreign oil has handicapped us as a nation.
Next, the nation's children is our future and we must invest money and time in them. If schools are failing, they must be improved. Failure has been rewarded or allowed to continue; that must end. We must also target those schools that are succeeding and reward them. There must be as many schools as possible for youth; especially those in inner cities and other urban parts of the countries. There has to be attention given to elementary schools through universities and community colleges because a high school diploma does not mean the same thing it did 40 years ago. More money will be put into student loans. More money will be allocated for tax breaks for families with college students and allow for an increase in Pell Grants. As someone who has recently graduated, this next part is something that I especially like: one million students will be required to pay only 10% of their income on student loans and all of their debt will be eased out after 20 years or 10 years (if they take a career path that involves public service). If the money is there, it is wise to reward a nation of struggling graduates.
Next, the president turned to possibly the most talked about topic after jobs in the last year: health care. This issue and the problems that exist have spanned Democratic and Republican administrations. After two votes late last year, the legislation and health care reform is the closest it has ever been. With this legislation, pre-existing conditions will no longer stop someone from getting proper care. Insurer will finally be monitored from their abuses. Uninsured Americans as well as small businesses would have a chance to obtain affordable coverage. Alongside this, the first lady is tackling an epidemic in this country: obesity. This is especially dangerous amongst the younger generation and she is working to create healthier alternatives for children. Under this legislation, Americans who have insurance can keep it as well as their doctors. Costs and premiums would be lowered. And once implemented, it will allow for the deficit to decrease by possibly $1 trillion in two decades.
Continuing, President Obama turned to the national deficit. At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budge surplus of over $200 billion. Ten years later, the deficit was over $1 trillion with projections of reaching $8 trillion by the beginning of the next decade. How did we go from one extreme to the other? Mostly the result of not paying for two wars, two different tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. That was all bad enough before the recession hit and added $3 trillion to the hole. All of this was before January 2009. Unfortunately, in order to meet the demands of a year ago; the president had to add an additional $1 trillion to that deficit. In order to start to bring that figure down, there must be somewhat drastic measures. Starting in a year, there will be in place a government spending freeze for three years. This freeze will not involve defense spending, matters of national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. This would be the equivalent to a family having to cut out certain items of spending every week, month, and year. If families and businesses are doing it; why shouldn't the federal government do the same.
The president then turned to special interests and lobbyists. There must be a limit on their power on the federal government and President Obama has monitored that they are not on certain boards and commissions. He also referenced the recent Supreme Court decision that will allow corporations and special interests to spend freely on behalf or most likely against candidates. This decision on paper seems to enable free rights for CEOs of corporations, but it also enables those with the biggest pockets to influence an election the most; that shouldn't be the case. Alongside the same path, the president turned his attention to earmark reform. Earmarks, too, have become a problem in Congressional and Washington politics. The more the public knows from both sides; it will allow for a more transparent government.
The speech then turned towards national security. National security is fairly strong and we are achieving success in protecting our country. The gaps that exist; they are being addressed and fixed. In Afghanistan, the proper training and steps and being taken to ensure that the forces there can take over and lead a safe and terrorist-free country in the summer of 2011 when U.S. troops are expected to be completely out. At the same time, the necessary steps are taking place in Iraq so that we may leave there as well in a similar condition. Combat troops are expected to be out by the end of this summer. Working alongside the provincial government there, we are cleaning up the corruption and have a strong leadership in the country with a partner whom we can trust. While addressing those issues, attention is on nuclear weapons and a disarmament. The U.S. is working with Russia to renew a non-prolification agreement of two decades ago. Accordingly so, the U.S. is also giving proper sanctions to countries like North Korea and Iran, who continue to break foreign agreements.
Equality in this country has been a trying project that continues to this day. Hate crimes are punished. Equal pay law have been implemented and monitored. We will see early this year the removal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell in our military. The immigration system is certainly not ideal or close to it and immigration reform needs to be addresses as soon as possible. Our borders must be secure and laws enforced in order that our nation does not falter. We must at the same time value that this country has been built on immigrants for the last century and then some.
Our nation was built on tough decisions. Our nation was strengthened through wars, recessions, and setbacks. Our nation has progressed in terms of equality based on race, gender, religion, or age. President Obama knew that things were not going to be easy and setbacks during the last year tried his administration. The last year is behind us and we now have the coming year and decade to build off of last year's successes and failures so that in a year's time things will hopefully be better. In closing, he reached down to the depths of a JFK and called for us to start anew in order to allow for the necessary change to come as we move forward.
Looking back on the speech, President Obama covered all his bases. It didn't appease everyone, but that is impossible. It was not perfect. I heard a lot of good things from the past year and moving forward in 2010.
The bailout has not been perfect but there have been positive results. Money is slowly working its way into jobs and giving foundations to corporations and banks. It is hard to see it, but the bottom 95% have seen small tax cuts. As we move forward through this year, a new jobs bill is a top priority for Congress. Since we have helped the big corporations, it is only right that $30 billion is invested for small companies to stabilize themselves. At the same time, those small businesses that create jobs should be rewarded. Of those jobs, some should and could be clean energy jobs because the energy is also of need of addressing and it will aide with job creation. We must not let the recession slow us down as our countries facing the recession are working to dig themselves out. Wall Street and banks got us into this recession and major financial reform should also be a major incentive taken up by Congress in the first few months of this year. Our dependence on foreign oil is not healthy as is the potential safety hazards of oil rigs off shore. Thus we need to invest money and time in clean energy plants and off shore areas for developments. That alongside with an energy and climate bill will bring major change to what we have now.
Education is the foundation for our future. We need to reward schools that are doing the right things and punish the ones that are not. The more children succeeding the better. The money needs to be there for loans. The opportunities need to be there for community colleges. Health care reform as been a trying process this last year, but there are only a couple hurdles left to the biggest health care change and bill since Medicare in the 1960s. Our nation has gone from a surplus to a large deficit in ten years time and now we cannot stop spending completely. But we will have to monitor where money is spent the next ten years in hopes of elimating part of that deficit.
As a student of politics, I am very much aware that politics is a cycle of elections, But that should not be a handicap on creating major change. Both parties instead of moving closer have decided to move further apart then they already were. That type of behavior only hurts the country and gives a negative perception of politics. The president has attempted to work with the Republicans. His own party at times has hindered potential moves. At the same time, it would be foolish for them to give too much if they want to regain power.
Overall, the president gave the sense that he has learned from his mistakes of the last year and despite an election year ahead; we will see major legislation and change the first few months of this year. Health care reform looks very likely. Don't Ask, Don't Tell will be erased. Financial reform has potential. A jobs bill and unemployment extensions could happen. And possibly, energy or immigration may be addressed. These certainly are not the best of times. And from a year ago to today, things seem to be going in the right direction. Whether your political philosophy, you should see that much.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The States of the Union
I am a firm believer that in order to judge the present and the future, we must first look to the past. With that said, the State of the Union is tomorrow. I will access this year's speech then, but before that; I will take you on a bit of history lesson through State of the Union speeches. From that first one in 1790 to the last one by President Obama a year ago; the State of the Union has given presidents the opportunity to lay out their agenda for the coming year and tell us where we stand on that day. Some have been during wars. Some have been during depressions and crises. And some have involved landmark decisions. They are what some historians look at as a basis for where we have come from and where some presidents might stand.
As with most things, why not start at the beginning. Looking at the State of the Union given by George Washington in 1790 we see multiple lines crossing as the nation was still building itself up. The Constitution was fresh and the Office of the President was still in its infancy. Part of Washington's speech sticks out to me. Washington said:
"To the security of a free constitution it contributes in various ways - by convincing those who are intrusted with the public administration that every valuable end of government is best answered by the enlightened confidence of the people, and by teaching the people themselves to know and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between burthens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness - cherishing the first, avoiding the last - and uniting a speedy but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the laws."
President Washington saw the importance of the Constitution and the nation as a whole as they were going through a time of uncertainty. Uncertainty forming a federal government. Uncertainty with powers across the Atlantic. And uncertainty of what challenges lay ahead. But no matter what is what President Washington and that Congress to be the standard bearers. They were the ones who would lay the bricks and mortar for future generations.
He then spoke near the end his second term in office with his last State of the Union and what he and others did and what lay ahead. He said:
"The situation in which I now stand for the last time, in the midst of the representatives of the people of the United States, naturally recalls the period when the administration of the present form of government commenced, and I can not omit the occasion to congratulate you and my country on the success of the experiment, nor to repeat my fervent supplications to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe and Sovereign Arbiter of Nations that His providential care may still be extended to the United States, that the virtue and happiness of the people may be preserved, and that the Government which they have instituted for the protection of their liberties may be perpetual."
And with that, we launched ahead with two more years of addresses. In 1803, Thomas Jefferson hints at the need to go after the area west of the Mississippi River (Louisiana Territory):
"Whilst the property and sovereignty of the Mississippi and its waters secure an independent outlet for the produce of the Western States and an uncontrolled navigation through their whole course, free from collision with other powers and the dangers to our peace from that source, the fertility of the country, its climate and extent, promise in due season important aids to our Treasury, an ample provision for our posterity, and a wide spread for the blessings of freedom and equal laws."
In 1814, James Madison had to bring Congress together and report on the tumultuous state of the country as a war was brewing with Great Britain. He laid it out as such:
"The American people will face it with the undaunted spirit which in their revolutionary struggle defeated his unrighteous projects. His threats and his barbarities, instead of dismay, will kindle in every bosom an indignation not be extinguished but in the disaster and expulsion of such cruel invaders."
It was the first time that a president had to come before the Congress and report on what would be an unstable nation in a time of war. A decade later James Monroe would lay the groundwork for the Monroe Doctrine:
"A precise knowledge of our relations with foreign powers as respects our negotiations and transactions with each is thought to be particularly necessary. Equally necessary is it that we should form a just estimate of our resources, revenue, and progress in every kind of improvement connected with the national prosperity and public defense. It is by rendering justice to other nations that we may expect it from them. It is by our ability to resent injuries and redress wrongs that we may avoid them."
In 1845, James Polk would come before Congress and lay out what in my opinion was one of the most fulfilled State of the Unions. President Polk laid out such things as acquiring the Texas territory and expanding on previous years of westward thoughts and expand the country to the Pacific Ocean. Some might have thought his speech to be lofty, but he spent one term attacking each thing to the about the fullest you could imagine.
In 1860, James Buchanan would speak to Congress in the aftermath of the Election of 1860 and the election of Abraham Lincoln. Throughout the 1850s, there was a growing divide between the North and the South and at its root was the institution of slavery. President Buchanan in his last State of the Union said:
"The Southern States, standing on the basis of the Constitution, have right to demand this act of justice from the States of the North. Should it be refused, then the Constitution, to which all the States are parties, will have been willfully violated by one portion of them in a provision essential to the domestic security and happiness of the remainder. In that event the injured States, after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union."
This type of language, for its worth, puts President Buchanan near the bottom of the list of presidents all-time. He did not want to anger the South, but only aided their opinions and views. And it would be President Lincoln the following year who would lay out the growing concerns and turmoil of a nation that was divided. No president up to that point nor since has had to deal with such a divided nation. Looking back Lincoln stated:
"A disloyal portion of the American people have during the whole year been engaged in an attempt to divide and destroy the Union. A nation which endures factious domestic division is exposed to disrespect abroad, and one party, if not both, is sure sooner or later to invoke foreign intervention."
Then he framed the current condition and braced the Congress for what lay ahead with:
"The last ray of hope for preserving the Union peaceably expired at the assault upon Fort Sumter, and a general review of what has occurred since may not be unprofitable. What was painfully uncertain then is much better defined and more distinct now, and the progress of events is plainly in the right direction. The insurgents confidently claimed a strong support from north of Mason and Dixon's line, and the friends of the Union were not free from apprehension on the point. This, however, was soon settled definitely, and on the right side. South of the line noble little Delaware led off right from the first. Maryland was made to seem against the Union. Our soldiers were assaulted, bridges were burned, and railroads torn up within her limits, and we were many days at one time without the ability to bring a single regiment over her soil to the capital. Now her bridges and railroads are repaired and open to the Government; she already gives seven regiments to the cause of the Union, and none to the enemy; and her people, at a regular election, have sustained the Union by a larger majority and a larger aggregate vote than they ever before gave to any candidate or any question. Kentucky, too, for some time in doubt, is now decidedly and, I think, unchangeably ranged on the side of the Union. Missouri is comparatively quiet, and, I believe, can not again be overrun by the insurrectionists. These three States of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri, neither of which would promise a single soldier at first, have now an aggregate of not less than 40,000 in the field for the Union, while of their citizens certainly not more than a third of that number, and they of doubtful whereabouts and doubtful existence, are in arms against us. After a somewhat bloody struggle of months, winter closes on the Union people of western Virginia, leaving them masters of their own country."
As the 20th century approached in 1898, William McKinley saw imperialistic opportunities ahead, but also another war on the horizon. It would a State of the Union given in 1898 that highlighted what lay ahead as the 1800s came to a close. McKinley stated:
"A review of the relation of the United States to other powers, always appropriate, is this year of primary importance in view of the momentous issues which have arisen, demanding in one instance the ultimate determination by arms and involving far-reaching consequences which will require the earnest attention of the Congress."
The Spanish-American War would occur and we would venture to the Far East as well as the Caribbean. McKinley's follower, Theodore Roosevelt, would take the reigns of the Presidency when President McKinley was assassinated. President Roosevelt would be in front of Congress three months later in December 1901. The words he said framed the growing threat that was rising with regard to being the president. President Roosevelt lays it out as such:
"Of the last seven elected Presidents, he is the third who has been murdered, and the bare recital of this fact is sufficient to justify grave alarm among all loyal American citizens. Moreover, the circumstances of this, the third assassination of an American President, have a peculiarly sinister significance. Both President Lincoln and President Garfield were killed by assassins of types unfortunately not uncommon in history; President Lincoln falling a victim to the terrible passions aroused by four years of civil war, and President Garfield to the revengeful vanity of a disappointed office-seeker. President McKinley was killed by an utterly depraved criminal belonging to that body of criminals who object to all governments, good and bad alike, who are against any form of popular liberty if it is guaranteed by even the most just and liberal laws, and who are as hostile to the upright exponent of a free people's sober will as to the tyrannical and irresponsible despot."
This might not be policy related, but it was an awareness that unfortunately took over a half a century later to fully be realized. He would open his State of the Union in 1905 with his perspective of what needed to be addressed in terms of social programs and protection. His insight would truly set many progressives measures of the 20th century on track. President Roosevelt stated:
"The people of this country continue to enjoy great prosperity. Undoubtedly there will be ebb and flow in such prosperity, and this ebb and flow will be felt more or less by all members of the community, both by the deserving and the undeserving. Against the wrath of the Lord the wisdom of man cannot avail; in time of flood or drought human ingenuity can but partially repair the disaster. A general failure of crops would hurt all of us. Again, if the folly of man mars the general well-being, then those who are innocent of the folly will have to pay part of the penalty incurred by those who are guilty of the folly. A panic brought on by the speculative folly of part of the business community would hurt the whole business community. But such stoppage of welfare, though it might be severe, would not be lasting. In the long run the one vital factor in the permanent prosperity of the country is the high individual character of the average American worker, the average American citizen, no matter whether his work be mental or manual, whether he be farmer or wage-worker, business man or professional man."
With the outbreak of the Great War or World War I, President Wilson would to return to Congress through much of his first term stating his intentions to stay out of the war, but early in his second term he was forced to bring America into the war. He would go before Congress in 1917 and state:
"From every point of view, therefore, it has seemed to be my duty to speak these declarations of purpose, to add these specific interpretations to what I took the liberty of saying to the Senate in January. Our entrance into the war has not altered our attitude towards the settlement that must come when it is over. When I said in January that the nations of the world were entitled not only to free pathways upon the sea but also to assured and unmolested access to those pathways I was thinking, and I am thinking now, not of the smaller and weaker nations alone, which need our countenance and support, but also of the great and powerful nations, and of our present enemies as well as our present associates in the war. I was thinking, and am thinking now, of Austria herself, among the rest, as well as of Serbia and of Poland. Justice and equality of rights can be had only at a great price. We are seeking permanent, not temporary, foundations for the peace of the world and must seek them candidly and fearlessly. As always, the right will prove to be the expedient."
Peace and a allied world was what President Wilson was hoping to achieve with a victory in World War I. Two years later, he would return to lay out what he viewed as a League of Nations. He outlined its purpose as such:
"The establishment of the principles regarding labor laid down in the covenant of the League of Nations offers us the way to industrial peace and conciliation. No other road lies open to us. Not to pursue this one is longer to invite enmities, bitterness, and antagonisms which in the end only lead to industrial and social disaster. The unwilling workman is not a profitable servant. An employee whose industrial life is hedged about by hard and unjust conditions, which he did not create and over which he has no control, lacks that fine spirit of enthusiasm and volunteer effort which are the necessary ingredients of a great producing entity. Let us be frank about this solemn matter. The evidences of world-wide unrest which manifest themselves in violence throughout the world bid us pause and consider the means to be found to stop the spread of this contagious thing before it saps the very vitality of the nation itself. Do we gain strength by withholding the remedy? Or is it not the business of statesmen to treat these manifestations of unrest which meet us on every hand as evidences of an economic disorder and to apply constructive remedies wherever necessary, being sure that in the application of the remedy we touch not the vital tissues of our industrial and economic life? There can be no recession of the tide of unrest until constructive instrumentalities are set up to stem that tide."
The League of Nations was a lofty goal as it would take working with the federal government in the United States as well as other nations. It was something almost unheard of, but certainly necessary after what World War I displayed and nations on the victorious side hoped to never have to enter war again if possible.
When Franklin Roosevelt came into office in 1933, he inherited a Great Depression from his predecessor and had a lot of work to do to hopefully get things on the right track. In his 1934 speech, he reinterated the purpose the New Deal and the programs related to it:
"I shall continue to regard it as my duty to use whatever means may be necessary to supplement State, local and private agencies for the relief of suffering caused by unemployment. With respect to this question, I have recognized the dangers inherent in the direct giving of relief and have sought the means to provide not mere relief, but the opportunity for useful and remunerative work. We shall, in the process of recovery, seek to move as rapidly as possible from direct relief to publicly supported work and from that to the rapid restoration of private employment."
While having to deal with the Great Depression is enough of a stress for a president to deal with, President Roosevelt saw an ongoing war in Europe breakout again and thus World War II became a growing concern. President Roosevelt looked to keep America out until an act of war occurred against the United States. That would happen on December 7th, 1941 at Pearl Harbor. In 1942, President Roosevelt addressed Congress with:
"Exactly one year ago today I said to this Congress: "When the dictators. . . are ready to make war upon us, they will not wait for an act of war on our part. . . . They—not we—will choose the time and the place and the method of their attack."
The time and place and aggressors were chosen and thus two things a president hopes to never have to rule and guide under: a depression and a war; were both primary concerns for the president.
In what would be his last address to Congress in 1945, President Roosevelt laid out the barometers of the ongoing war:
"This war must be waged—it is being waged—with the greatest and most persistent intensity. Everything we are and have is at stake. Everything we are and have will be given. American men, fighting far from home, have already won victories which the world will never forget."
He steady hand at the wheel kept Americans' spirits fairly high considering and defended all actions with an ends to justify the means.
With the election of John Kennedy in 1960, there was a sense of a new, fresh, and innovative frontier was ahead of us as a nation. President Kennedy stated his intentions in his first address to Congress in 1961 with:
"I speak today in an hour of national peril and national opportunity. Before my term has ended, we shall have to test anew whether a nation organized and governed such as ours can endure. The outcome is by no means certain. The answers are by no means clear. All of us together--this Administration, this Congress, this nation-must forge those answers."
The Cold War was waging, but as a nation America had so much promise from space to social programs to foreign relations; changes and progress was almost certain in President Kennedy's mind by the end of the decade. President Kennedy would not get to see those great accomplishments as he was assassinated in 1963. But his successor, Lyndon Johnson, would carry the torch for him. In his 1964 address to Congress he stated:
"Let us carry forward the plans and programs of John Fitzgerald Kennedy--not because of our sorrow or sympathy, but because they are right."
And the following year, he would lay out what would become the Great Society:
"And so tonight, now, in 1965, we begin a new quest for union. We seek the unity of man with the world that he has built--with the knowledge that can save or destroy him--with the cities which can stimulate or stifle him--with the wealth and the machines which can enrich or menace his spirit.'
'We seek to establish a harmony between man and society which will allow each of us to enlarge the meaning of his life and all of us to elevate the quality of our civilization. This is the search that we begin tonight."
Take a look at the agenda President Johnson laid out in the speech in 1965 and see where we are because of it over 40 years later:
A NATIONAL AGENDA
-I propose that we begin a program in education to ensure every American child the fullest development of his mind and skills.
-I propose that we begin a massive attack on crippling and killing diseases.
-I propose that we launch a national effort to make the American city a better and a more stimulating place to live.
-I propose that we increase the beauty of America and end the poisoning of our rivers and the air that we breathe.
-I propose that we carry out a new program to develop regions of our country that are now suffering from distress and depression.
-I propose that we make new efforts to control and prevent crime and delinquency.
-I propose that we eliminate every remaining obstacle to the right and the opportunity to vote.
-I propose that we honor and support the achievements of thought and the creations of art.
-I propose that we make an all-out campaign against waste and inefficiency.
Few State of the Union speeches have laid such lofty goals, but they would all be achieved.
Fittingly, I move to a president who looked to take a major step in the wake of the Great Society's accomplishments. When Bill Clinton came into office in 1993, he would look to get health care not just for the elderly (Medicare) but for all. However, before you walk you must trip and a hurdle of a Republican Congress following the 1994 midterm elections all but ended health care debate. President Clinton framed the debate that occurred during his first two years:
"Now, I still believe our country has got to move toward providing health security for every American family. But I know that last year, as the evidence indicates, we bit off more than we could chew. So I'm asking you that we work together. Let's do it step by step. Let's do whatever we have to do to get something done. Let's at least pass meaningful insurance reform so that no American risks losing coverage for facing skyrocketing prices, that nobody loses their coverage because they face high prices or unavailable insurance when they change jobs or lose a job or a family member gets sick."
President Clinton was aware of the steep hill ahead and it was almost of a sign his taking the foot off the gas a bit and as we see; we still do not have comprehensive health care. But another part of his speech stands out to me almost as much if not more:
"It has fallen to every generation since then to preserve that idea, the American idea, and to deepen and expand its meaning in new and different times: to Lincoln and to his Congress to preserve the Union and to end slavery; to Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson to restrain the abuses and excesses of the industrial revolution and to assert our leadership in the world; to Franklin Roosevelt to fight the failure and pain of the Great Depression and to win our country's great struggle against fascism; and to all our Presidents since to fight the cold war. Especially, I recall two who struggled to fight that cold war in partnership with Congresses where the majority was of a different party: to Harry Truman, who summoned us to unparalleled prosperity at home and who built the architecture of the cold war; and to Ronald Reagan, whom we wish well tonight and who exhorted us to carry on until the twilight struggle against communism was won."
I could not have said it better myself. It is the president who takes the mantle for a nation and takes the torch from the previous president. But more importantly it is the people who make up that nation who much take the torch from the past generations who have given and left us better than when they were our age and during their times.
In 2003, George W. Bush would go before Congress and lay out the necessity for going to war with Iraq despite the fact that we were already in Afghanistan. The new threat of terrorism was still fresh in many individuals mind when President Bush stated:
"The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal--Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups."
Shortly thereafter, the United States would enter Iraq and to this day we are still there nearly 7 years later.
To conclude I will merely mention President Obama's speech last year. He laid out several items to attack. Many of which are still being addressed. Health Care reform being one of the biggest items in his speech last year has continued to creep to the finish line and may finally come to be a reality in the coming months. Tomorrow night, President Obama will certainly build on last year's speech as much of what was in his speech is still pertinent today as the recession still rages on, two wars continue to draw much criticism and lack of support, a health care debate that has shown the lesser side of individuals, and so much more. Will we see an agenda laid out like previous State of the Union speeches and how will history stack up next to others.
I would like to think that it is not easy for a president to have to face the United States and in the media age, the American public. Often times when the president addresses the nation things are not ideal. Wars, depressions, recessions, crises, and disputes are the downside. But reforms, progress, change, and a vision to leave the country better for the next president are what certainly drive many holders of the office. The State of the Union was definitely the framers got right all those years ago and I look forward to speech every year.
As with most things, why not start at the beginning. Looking at the State of the Union given by George Washington in 1790 we see multiple lines crossing as the nation was still building itself up. The Constitution was fresh and the Office of the President was still in its infancy. Part of Washington's speech sticks out to me. Washington said:
"To the security of a free constitution it contributes in various ways - by convincing those who are intrusted with the public administration that every valuable end of government is best answered by the enlightened confidence of the people, and by teaching the people themselves to know and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between burthens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness - cherishing the first, avoiding the last - and uniting a speedy but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the laws."
President Washington saw the importance of the Constitution and the nation as a whole as they were going through a time of uncertainty. Uncertainty forming a federal government. Uncertainty with powers across the Atlantic. And uncertainty of what challenges lay ahead. But no matter what is what President Washington and that Congress to be the standard bearers. They were the ones who would lay the bricks and mortar for future generations.
He then spoke near the end his second term in office with his last State of the Union and what he and others did and what lay ahead. He said:
"The situation in which I now stand for the last time, in the midst of the representatives of the people of the United States, naturally recalls the period when the administration of the present form of government commenced, and I can not omit the occasion to congratulate you and my country on the success of the experiment, nor to repeat my fervent supplications to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe and Sovereign Arbiter of Nations that His providential care may still be extended to the United States, that the virtue and happiness of the people may be preserved, and that the Government which they have instituted for the protection of their liberties may be perpetual."
And with that, we launched ahead with two more years of addresses. In 1803, Thomas Jefferson hints at the need to go after the area west of the Mississippi River (Louisiana Territory):
"Whilst the property and sovereignty of the Mississippi and its waters secure an independent outlet for the produce of the Western States and an uncontrolled navigation through their whole course, free from collision with other powers and the dangers to our peace from that source, the fertility of the country, its climate and extent, promise in due season important aids to our Treasury, an ample provision for our posterity, and a wide spread for the blessings of freedom and equal laws."
In 1814, James Madison had to bring Congress together and report on the tumultuous state of the country as a war was brewing with Great Britain. He laid it out as such:
"The American people will face it with the undaunted spirit which in their revolutionary struggle defeated his unrighteous projects. His threats and his barbarities, instead of dismay, will kindle in every bosom an indignation not be extinguished but in the disaster and expulsion of such cruel invaders."
It was the first time that a president had to come before the Congress and report on what would be an unstable nation in a time of war. A decade later James Monroe would lay the groundwork for the Monroe Doctrine:
"A precise knowledge of our relations with foreign powers as respects our negotiations and transactions with each is thought to be particularly necessary. Equally necessary is it that we should form a just estimate of our resources, revenue, and progress in every kind of improvement connected with the national prosperity and public defense. It is by rendering justice to other nations that we may expect it from them. It is by our ability to resent injuries and redress wrongs that we may avoid them."
In 1845, James Polk would come before Congress and lay out what in my opinion was one of the most fulfilled State of the Unions. President Polk laid out such things as acquiring the Texas territory and expanding on previous years of westward thoughts and expand the country to the Pacific Ocean. Some might have thought his speech to be lofty, but he spent one term attacking each thing to the about the fullest you could imagine.
In 1860, James Buchanan would speak to Congress in the aftermath of the Election of 1860 and the election of Abraham Lincoln. Throughout the 1850s, there was a growing divide between the North and the South and at its root was the institution of slavery. President Buchanan in his last State of the Union said:
"The Southern States, standing on the basis of the Constitution, have right to demand this act of justice from the States of the North. Should it be refused, then the Constitution, to which all the States are parties, will have been willfully violated by one portion of them in a provision essential to the domestic security and happiness of the remainder. In that event the injured States, after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union."
This type of language, for its worth, puts President Buchanan near the bottom of the list of presidents all-time. He did not want to anger the South, but only aided their opinions and views. And it would be President Lincoln the following year who would lay out the growing concerns and turmoil of a nation that was divided. No president up to that point nor since has had to deal with such a divided nation. Looking back Lincoln stated:
"A disloyal portion of the American people have during the whole year been engaged in an attempt to divide and destroy the Union. A nation which endures factious domestic division is exposed to disrespect abroad, and one party, if not both, is sure sooner or later to invoke foreign intervention."
Then he framed the current condition and braced the Congress for what lay ahead with:
"The last ray of hope for preserving the Union peaceably expired at the assault upon Fort Sumter, and a general review of what has occurred since may not be unprofitable. What was painfully uncertain then is much better defined and more distinct now, and the progress of events is plainly in the right direction. The insurgents confidently claimed a strong support from north of Mason and Dixon's line, and the friends of the Union were not free from apprehension on the point. This, however, was soon settled definitely, and on the right side. South of the line noble little Delaware led off right from the first. Maryland was made to seem against the Union. Our soldiers were assaulted, bridges were burned, and railroads torn up within her limits, and we were many days at one time without the ability to bring a single regiment over her soil to the capital. Now her bridges and railroads are repaired and open to the Government; she already gives seven regiments to the cause of the Union, and none to the enemy; and her people, at a regular election, have sustained the Union by a larger majority and a larger aggregate vote than they ever before gave to any candidate or any question. Kentucky, too, for some time in doubt, is now decidedly and, I think, unchangeably ranged on the side of the Union. Missouri is comparatively quiet, and, I believe, can not again be overrun by the insurrectionists. These three States of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri, neither of which would promise a single soldier at first, have now an aggregate of not less than 40,000 in the field for the Union, while of their citizens certainly not more than a third of that number, and they of doubtful whereabouts and doubtful existence, are in arms against us. After a somewhat bloody struggle of months, winter closes on the Union people of western Virginia, leaving them masters of their own country."
As the 20th century approached in 1898, William McKinley saw imperialistic opportunities ahead, but also another war on the horizon. It would a State of the Union given in 1898 that highlighted what lay ahead as the 1800s came to a close. McKinley stated:
"A review of the relation of the United States to other powers, always appropriate, is this year of primary importance in view of the momentous issues which have arisen, demanding in one instance the ultimate determination by arms and involving far-reaching consequences which will require the earnest attention of the Congress."
The Spanish-American War would occur and we would venture to the Far East as well as the Caribbean. McKinley's follower, Theodore Roosevelt, would take the reigns of the Presidency when President McKinley was assassinated. President Roosevelt would be in front of Congress three months later in December 1901. The words he said framed the growing threat that was rising with regard to being the president. President Roosevelt lays it out as such:
"Of the last seven elected Presidents, he is the third who has been murdered, and the bare recital of this fact is sufficient to justify grave alarm among all loyal American citizens. Moreover, the circumstances of this, the third assassination of an American President, have a peculiarly sinister significance. Both President Lincoln and President Garfield were killed by assassins of types unfortunately not uncommon in history; President Lincoln falling a victim to the terrible passions aroused by four years of civil war, and President Garfield to the revengeful vanity of a disappointed office-seeker. President McKinley was killed by an utterly depraved criminal belonging to that body of criminals who object to all governments, good and bad alike, who are against any form of popular liberty if it is guaranteed by even the most just and liberal laws, and who are as hostile to the upright exponent of a free people's sober will as to the tyrannical and irresponsible despot."
This might not be policy related, but it was an awareness that unfortunately took over a half a century later to fully be realized. He would open his State of the Union in 1905 with his perspective of what needed to be addressed in terms of social programs and protection. His insight would truly set many progressives measures of the 20th century on track. President Roosevelt stated:
"The people of this country continue to enjoy great prosperity. Undoubtedly there will be ebb and flow in such prosperity, and this ebb and flow will be felt more or less by all members of the community, both by the deserving and the undeserving. Against the wrath of the Lord the wisdom of man cannot avail; in time of flood or drought human ingenuity can but partially repair the disaster. A general failure of crops would hurt all of us. Again, if the folly of man mars the general well-being, then those who are innocent of the folly will have to pay part of the penalty incurred by those who are guilty of the folly. A panic brought on by the speculative folly of part of the business community would hurt the whole business community. But such stoppage of welfare, though it might be severe, would not be lasting. In the long run the one vital factor in the permanent prosperity of the country is the high individual character of the average American worker, the average American citizen, no matter whether his work be mental or manual, whether he be farmer or wage-worker, business man or professional man."
With the outbreak of the Great War or World War I, President Wilson would to return to Congress through much of his first term stating his intentions to stay out of the war, but early in his second term he was forced to bring America into the war. He would go before Congress in 1917 and state:
"From every point of view, therefore, it has seemed to be my duty to speak these declarations of purpose, to add these specific interpretations to what I took the liberty of saying to the Senate in January. Our entrance into the war has not altered our attitude towards the settlement that must come when it is over. When I said in January that the nations of the world were entitled not only to free pathways upon the sea but also to assured and unmolested access to those pathways I was thinking, and I am thinking now, not of the smaller and weaker nations alone, which need our countenance and support, but also of the great and powerful nations, and of our present enemies as well as our present associates in the war. I was thinking, and am thinking now, of Austria herself, among the rest, as well as of Serbia and of Poland. Justice and equality of rights can be had only at a great price. We are seeking permanent, not temporary, foundations for the peace of the world and must seek them candidly and fearlessly. As always, the right will prove to be the expedient."
Peace and a allied world was what President Wilson was hoping to achieve with a victory in World War I. Two years later, he would return to lay out what he viewed as a League of Nations. He outlined its purpose as such:
"The establishment of the principles regarding labor laid down in the covenant of the League of Nations offers us the way to industrial peace and conciliation. No other road lies open to us. Not to pursue this one is longer to invite enmities, bitterness, and antagonisms which in the end only lead to industrial and social disaster. The unwilling workman is not a profitable servant. An employee whose industrial life is hedged about by hard and unjust conditions, which he did not create and over which he has no control, lacks that fine spirit of enthusiasm and volunteer effort which are the necessary ingredients of a great producing entity. Let us be frank about this solemn matter. The evidences of world-wide unrest which manifest themselves in violence throughout the world bid us pause and consider the means to be found to stop the spread of this contagious thing before it saps the very vitality of the nation itself. Do we gain strength by withholding the remedy? Or is it not the business of statesmen to treat these manifestations of unrest which meet us on every hand as evidences of an economic disorder and to apply constructive remedies wherever necessary, being sure that in the application of the remedy we touch not the vital tissues of our industrial and economic life? There can be no recession of the tide of unrest until constructive instrumentalities are set up to stem that tide."
The League of Nations was a lofty goal as it would take working with the federal government in the United States as well as other nations. It was something almost unheard of, but certainly necessary after what World War I displayed and nations on the victorious side hoped to never have to enter war again if possible.
When Franklin Roosevelt came into office in 1933, he inherited a Great Depression from his predecessor and had a lot of work to do to hopefully get things on the right track. In his 1934 speech, he reinterated the purpose the New Deal and the programs related to it:
"I shall continue to regard it as my duty to use whatever means may be necessary to supplement State, local and private agencies for the relief of suffering caused by unemployment. With respect to this question, I have recognized the dangers inherent in the direct giving of relief and have sought the means to provide not mere relief, but the opportunity for useful and remunerative work. We shall, in the process of recovery, seek to move as rapidly as possible from direct relief to publicly supported work and from that to the rapid restoration of private employment."
While having to deal with the Great Depression is enough of a stress for a president to deal with, President Roosevelt saw an ongoing war in Europe breakout again and thus World War II became a growing concern. President Roosevelt looked to keep America out until an act of war occurred against the United States. That would happen on December 7th, 1941 at Pearl Harbor. In 1942, President Roosevelt addressed Congress with:
"Exactly one year ago today I said to this Congress: "When the dictators. . . are ready to make war upon us, they will not wait for an act of war on our part. . . . They—not we—will choose the time and the place and the method of their attack."
The time and place and aggressors were chosen and thus two things a president hopes to never have to rule and guide under: a depression and a war; were both primary concerns for the president.
In what would be his last address to Congress in 1945, President Roosevelt laid out the barometers of the ongoing war:
"This war must be waged—it is being waged—with the greatest and most persistent intensity. Everything we are and have is at stake. Everything we are and have will be given. American men, fighting far from home, have already won victories which the world will never forget."
He steady hand at the wheel kept Americans' spirits fairly high considering and defended all actions with an ends to justify the means.
With the election of John Kennedy in 1960, there was a sense of a new, fresh, and innovative frontier was ahead of us as a nation. President Kennedy stated his intentions in his first address to Congress in 1961 with:
"I speak today in an hour of national peril and national opportunity. Before my term has ended, we shall have to test anew whether a nation organized and governed such as ours can endure. The outcome is by no means certain. The answers are by no means clear. All of us together--this Administration, this Congress, this nation-must forge those answers."
The Cold War was waging, but as a nation America had so much promise from space to social programs to foreign relations; changes and progress was almost certain in President Kennedy's mind by the end of the decade. President Kennedy would not get to see those great accomplishments as he was assassinated in 1963. But his successor, Lyndon Johnson, would carry the torch for him. In his 1964 address to Congress he stated:
"Let us carry forward the plans and programs of John Fitzgerald Kennedy--not because of our sorrow or sympathy, but because they are right."
And the following year, he would lay out what would become the Great Society:
"And so tonight, now, in 1965, we begin a new quest for union. We seek the unity of man with the world that he has built--with the knowledge that can save or destroy him--with the cities which can stimulate or stifle him--with the wealth and the machines which can enrich or menace his spirit.'
'We seek to establish a harmony between man and society which will allow each of us to enlarge the meaning of his life and all of us to elevate the quality of our civilization. This is the search that we begin tonight."
Take a look at the agenda President Johnson laid out in the speech in 1965 and see where we are because of it over 40 years later:
A NATIONAL AGENDA
-I propose that we begin a program in education to ensure every American child the fullest development of his mind and skills.
-I propose that we begin a massive attack on crippling and killing diseases.
-I propose that we launch a national effort to make the American city a better and a more stimulating place to live.
-I propose that we increase the beauty of America and end the poisoning of our rivers and the air that we breathe.
-I propose that we carry out a new program to develop regions of our country that are now suffering from distress and depression.
-I propose that we make new efforts to control and prevent crime and delinquency.
-I propose that we eliminate every remaining obstacle to the right and the opportunity to vote.
-I propose that we honor and support the achievements of thought and the creations of art.
-I propose that we make an all-out campaign against waste and inefficiency.
Few State of the Union speeches have laid such lofty goals, but they would all be achieved.
Fittingly, I move to a president who looked to take a major step in the wake of the Great Society's accomplishments. When Bill Clinton came into office in 1993, he would look to get health care not just for the elderly (Medicare) but for all. However, before you walk you must trip and a hurdle of a Republican Congress following the 1994 midterm elections all but ended health care debate. President Clinton framed the debate that occurred during his first two years:
"Now, I still believe our country has got to move toward providing health security for every American family. But I know that last year, as the evidence indicates, we bit off more than we could chew. So I'm asking you that we work together. Let's do it step by step. Let's do whatever we have to do to get something done. Let's at least pass meaningful insurance reform so that no American risks losing coverage for facing skyrocketing prices, that nobody loses their coverage because they face high prices or unavailable insurance when they change jobs or lose a job or a family member gets sick."
President Clinton was aware of the steep hill ahead and it was almost of a sign his taking the foot off the gas a bit and as we see; we still do not have comprehensive health care. But another part of his speech stands out to me almost as much if not more:
"It has fallen to every generation since then to preserve that idea, the American idea, and to deepen and expand its meaning in new and different times: to Lincoln and to his Congress to preserve the Union and to end slavery; to Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson to restrain the abuses and excesses of the industrial revolution and to assert our leadership in the world; to Franklin Roosevelt to fight the failure and pain of the Great Depression and to win our country's great struggle against fascism; and to all our Presidents since to fight the cold war. Especially, I recall two who struggled to fight that cold war in partnership with Congresses where the majority was of a different party: to Harry Truman, who summoned us to unparalleled prosperity at home and who built the architecture of the cold war; and to Ronald Reagan, whom we wish well tonight and who exhorted us to carry on until the twilight struggle against communism was won."
I could not have said it better myself. It is the president who takes the mantle for a nation and takes the torch from the previous president. But more importantly it is the people who make up that nation who much take the torch from the past generations who have given and left us better than when they were our age and during their times.
In 2003, George W. Bush would go before Congress and lay out the necessity for going to war with Iraq despite the fact that we were already in Afghanistan. The new threat of terrorism was still fresh in many individuals mind when President Bush stated:
"The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal--Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups."
Shortly thereafter, the United States would enter Iraq and to this day we are still there nearly 7 years later.
To conclude I will merely mention President Obama's speech last year. He laid out several items to attack. Many of which are still being addressed. Health Care reform being one of the biggest items in his speech last year has continued to creep to the finish line and may finally come to be a reality in the coming months. Tomorrow night, President Obama will certainly build on last year's speech as much of what was in his speech is still pertinent today as the recession still rages on, two wars continue to draw much criticism and lack of support, a health care debate that has shown the lesser side of individuals, and so much more. Will we see an agenda laid out like previous State of the Union speeches and how will history stack up next to others.
I would like to think that it is not easy for a president to have to face the United States and in the media age, the American public. Often times when the president addresses the nation things are not ideal. Wars, depressions, recessions, crises, and disputes are the downside. But reforms, progress, change, and a vision to leave the country better for the next president are what certainly drive many holders of the office. The State of the Union was definitely the framers got right all those years ago and I look forward to speech every year.
Monday, January 25, 2010
What Could You Live Without?
When I am not writing these blogs, I often find myself reading articles and such in various newspapers. One of my favorite things to read are the op-eds. There are several columnists who contribute great insight for me and I hope for others. One such is Nicholas Kristoff. I have copied the link as well as the column below. It truly is something to think about especially when times are tough.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/opinion/24kristof.html
It all began with a stop at a red light.
Kevin Salwen, a writer and entrepreneur in Atlanta, was driving his 14-year-old daughter, Hannah, back from a sleepover in 2006. While waiting at a traffic light, they saw a black Mercedes coupe on one side and a homeless man begging for food on the other.
“Dad, if that man had a less nice car, that man there could have a meal,” Hannah protested. The light changed and they drove on, but Hannah was too young to be reasonable. She pestered her parents about inequity, insisting that she wanted to do something.
“What do you want to do?” her mom responded. “Sell our house?”
Warning! Never suggest a grand gesture to an idealistic teenager. Hannah seized upon the idea of selling the luxurious family home and donating half the proceeds to charity, while using the other half to buy a more modest replacement home.
Eventually, that’s what the family did. The project — crazy, impetuous and utterly inspiring — is chronicled in a book by father and daughter scheduled to be published next month: “The Power of Half.” It’s a book that, frankly, I’d be nervous about leaving around where my own teenage kids might find it. An impressionable child reads this, and the next thing you know your whole family is out on the street.
At a time of enormous needs in Haiti and elsewhere, when so many Americans are trying to help Haitians by sending everything from text messages to shoes, the Salwens offer an example of a family that came together to make a difference — for themselves as much as the people they were trying to help. In a column a week ago, I described neurological evidence from brain scans that altruism lights up parts of the brain normally associated with more primal gratifications such as food and sex. The Salwens’ experience confirms the selfish pleasures of selflessness.
Mr. Salwen and his wife, Joan, had always assumed that their kids would be better off in a bigger house. But after they downsized, there was much less space to retreat to, so the family members spent more time around each other. A smaller house unexpectedly turned out to be a more family-friendly house.
“We essentially traded stuff for togetherness and connectedness,” Mr. Salwen told me, adding, “I can’t figure out why everybody wouldn’t want that deal.”
One reason for that togetherness was the complex process of deciding how to spend the money. The Salwens researched causes and charities, finally settling on the Hunger Project, a New York City-based international development organization that has a good record of tackling global poverty.
The Salwens pledged $800,000 to sponsor health, microfinancing, food and other programs for about 40 villages in Ghana. They traveled to Ghana with a Hunger Project executive, John Coonrod, who is an inspiration in his own right. Over the years, he and his wife donated so much back from their modest aid-worker salaries that they were among the top Hunger Project donors in New York.
The Salwens’ initiative hasn’t gone entirely smoothly. Hannah promptly won over her parents, but her younger brother, Joe, was (reassuringly) a red-blooded American boy to whom it wasn’t intuitively obvious that life would improve by moving into a smaller house and giving money to poor people. Outvoted and outmaneuvered, Joe gamely went along.
The Salwens also are troubled that some people are reacting negatively to their project, seeing them as sanctimonious showoffs. Or that people are protesting giving to Ghana when there are so many needy Americans.
Still, they have inspired some converts. The people who sold the Salwens their new home were so impressed that they committed $100,000 to the project. And one of Hannah’s closest friends, Blaise, pledged half of her baby-sitting savings to an environmental charity.
In writing the book, the Salwens say, the aim wasn’t actually to get people to sell their houses. They realize that few people are quite that nutty. Rather, the aim was to encourage people to step off the treadmill of accumulation, to define themselves by what they give as well as by what they possess.
“No one expects anyone to sell a house,” said Hannah, now a high school junior who hopes to become a nurse. “That’s kind of a ridiculous thing to do. For us, the house was just something we could live without. It was too big for us. Everyone has too much of something, whether it’s time, talent or treasure. Everyone does have their own half, you just have to find it.”
As for Kevin Salwen, he’s delighted by what has unfolded since that encounter at the red light.
“This is the most self-interested thing we have ever done,” he said. “I’m thrilled that we can help others. I’m blown away by how much it has helped us.”
No one would be expected to make such changes as the Salwens, but everyone could probably spare a few extra luxuries and assist people in this country and others countries like Haiti. I am someone who has lived my life thinking about others before myself often and when push come to shove everyone can give a few extra cents or few extra hours. The world would be a better place because of it. So, what could you live without? Something to think about.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/opinion/24kristof.html
It all began with a stop at a red light.
Kevin Salwen, a writer and entrepreneur in Atlanta, was driving his 14-year-old daughter, Hannah, back from a sleepover in 2006. While waiting at a traffic light, they saw a black Mercedes coupe on one side and a homeless man begging for food on the other.
“Dad, if that man had a less nice car, that man there could have a meal,” Hannah protested. The light changed and they drove on, but Hannah was too young to be reasonable. She pestered her parents about inequity, insisting that she wanted to do something.
“What do you want to do?” her mom responded. “Sell our house?”
Warning! Never suggest a grand gesture to an idealistic teenager. Hannah seized upon the idea of selling the luxurious family home and donating half the proceeds to charity, while using the other half to buy a more modest replacement home.
Eventually, that’s what the family did. The project — crazy, impetuous and utterly inspiring — is chronicled in a book by father and daughter scheduled to be published next month: “The Power of Half.” It’s a book that, frankly, I’d be nervous about leaving around where my own teenage kids might find it. An impressionable child reads this, and the next thing you know your whole family is out on the street.
At a time of enormous needs in Haiti and elsewhere, when so many Americans are trying to help Haitians by sending everything from text messages to shoes, the Salwens offer an example of a family that came together to make a difference — for themselves as much as the people they were trying to help. In a column a week ago, I described neurological evidence from brain scans that altruism lights up parts of the brain normally associated with more primal gratifications such as food and sex. The Salwens’ experience confirms the selfish pleasures of selflessness.
Mr. Salwen and his wife, Joan, had always assumed that their kids would be better off in a bigger house. But after they downsized, there was much less space to retreat to, so the family members spent more time around each other. A smaller house unexpectedly turned out to be a more family-friendly house.
“We essentially traded stuff for togetherness and connectedness,” Mr. Salwen told me, adding, “I can’t figure out why everybody wouldn’t want that deal.”
One reason for that togetherness was the complex process of deciding how to spend the money. The Salwens researched causes and charities, finally settling on the Hunger Project, a New York City-based international development organization that has a good record of tackling global poverty.
The Salwens pledged $800,000 to sponsor health, microfinancing, food and other programs for about 40 villages in Ghana. They traveled to Ghana with a Hunger Project executive, John Coonrod, who is an inspiration in his own right. Over the years, he and his wife donated so much back from their modest aid-worker salaries that they were among the top Hunger Project donors in New York.
The Salwens’ initiative hasn’t gone entirely smoothly. Hannah promptly won over her parents, but her younger brother, Joe, was (reassuringly) a red-blooded American boy to whom it wasn’t intuitively obvious that life would improve by moving into a smaller house and giving money to poor people. Outvoted and outmaneuvered, Joe gamely went along.
The Salwens also are troubled that some people are reacting negatively to their project, seeing them as sanctimonious showoffs. Or that people are protesting giving to Ghana when there are so many needy Americans.
Still, they have inspired some converts. The people who sold the Salwens their new home were so impressed that they committed $100,000 to the project. And one of Hannah’s closest friends, Blaise, pledged half of her baby-sitting savings to an environmental charity.
In writing the book, the Salwens say, the aim wasn’t actually to get people to sell their houses. They realize that few people are quite that nutty. Rather, the aim was to encourage people to step off the treadmill of accumulation, to define themselves by what they give as well as by what they possess.
“No one expects anyone to sell a house,” said Hannah, now a high school junior who hopes to become a nurse. “That’s kind of a ridiculous thing to do. For us, the house was just something we could live without. It was too big for us. Everyone has too much of something, whether it’s time, talent or treasure. Everyone does have their own half, you just have to find it.”
As for Kevin Salwen, he’s delighted by what has unfolded since that encounter at the red light.
“This is the most self-interested thing we have ever done,” he said. “I’m thrilled that we can help others. I’m blown away by how much it has helped us.”
No one would be expected to make such changes as the Salwens, but everyone could probably spare a few extra luxuries and assist people in this country and others countries like Haiti. I am someone who has lived my life thinking about others before myself often and when push come to shove everyone can give a few extra cents or few extra hours. The world would be a better place because of it. So, what could you live without? Something to think about.
Friday, January 22, 2010
NFL Conference Championships Preview
The divisional weekend had a similar feel as the wildcard round. Most of the games weren't very close and they were more of statement games for the championship participants. After the Ravens ran over the Patriots, they got hit by a speed bump in the form of a stout Indianapolis defense. QB Peyton Manning worked his usual magic and did more than enough to secure another trip to the AFC title game. The Ravens' offense struggled most of the day getting going and beat themselves with turnovers and penalties. The Cardinals looked like they were going to dominate early against the Saints, but their big run for a touchdown was the first and last big play. It was all downhill for the Cardinals after that as QB Drew Brees and the lethal Saints offense took over. To make matters worse, the Saints' defense gave QB Kurt Warner several big blows and thus affected the Cardinals equally capable offense to the point where they had no answer to the Saints' scoring machine. The Vikings looked about as dominant against the Cowboys as QB Brett Favre had a field day along with WR Sidney Rice. The Cowboys and their defense looked unstoppable coming into the game and laid a big egg.
Similar to last week, the last game of the weekend delivered all the twists and turns that many were hoping from all the games. The Jets came in as the underdogs against a red hot Chargers team. This team seemed poised to finally get to the Super Bowl. The Jets' defense once again came up big with a few key plays that kept the game tight and allowed them to take the lead late and secure a trip to Indy for a shot at the Super Bowl. This team is riding a wave of confidence and a confident team is a dangerous team at this time of year.
My picks were 3-1 and overall I am 5-3. Now we turn to the conference championship games where the final 4 teams battle for those 2 exclusive spots and book their tickets for Miami.
AFC Championship Game
NY Jets at Colts: The seasoned QB vs the rookie QB. The Colts got to 14-0 before pulling their starters against the Jets in Week 16 and thus gave up on their pursuit of perfection. The Jets now have a chance to prove that they can beat the Colts best shot. QB Peyton Manning would love another chance to win a Super Bowl ring and add to his growing legacy. On the other hand, Rex Ryan has backed up much of his talk this year as the Jets have taken their coach's identity and CB Darrelle Revis has become one of the best shutdown corners. The battle will most likely revolt around Manning's success getting the ball to men not covered by Revis. The Colts have looked like a team on the AFC side that has had the championship in site since Week 1 while the Jets have had moments that they showed they were still a middle of the road team. Expect the Jets' defense to challenge Manning in the first half, but then he will figure out the defense and the Colts will be on their way back to Miami 3 years after their last trip. PICK: COLTS
NFC Championship Game
Vikings at Saints: For the first three months of the season, these two were the best in the NFC. Then they both fell into December swoons and look to be back on track after manhandling their divisional game opponents. With that all in mind, this one has the makings of shootout between QBs Brett Favre and Drew Brees. Thus it might come down to one big play by either defense that decides the game. It could be a pick 6 or a costly turnover late. The Saints' defense got to QB Kurt Warner last week and will look to target Favre this week. The Saints got to 13-0 before dropping the last 3 and Favre came back for this game and the potential next game. This one goes into the 30s on both sides and Favre leads the Vikings to South Beach. PICK: VIKINGS
This weekend will feature teams for the most part looked poised to be here a couple months ago. Could the Colts and Saints play themselves into a Super Bowl matchup despite the fact that neither is unbeaten anymore? Can Favre get back to the Super Bowl? Will the Jets ride their confidence all the way to Miami? We will certainly see. Let the playoffs continue and onto the Super Bowl for the winners.
Similar to last week, the last game of the weekend delivered all the twists and turns that many were hoping from all the games. The Jets came in as the underdogs against a red hot Chargers team. This team seemed poised to finally get to the Super Bowl. The Jets' defense once again came up big with a few key plays that kept the game tight and allowed them to take the lead late and secure a trip to Indy for a shot at the Super Bowl. This team is riding a wave of confidence and a confident team is a dangerous team at this time of year.
My picks were 3-1 and overall I am 5-3. Now we turn to the conference championship games where the final 4 teams battle for those 2 exclusive spots and book their tickets for Miami.
AFC Championship Game
NY Jets at Colts: The seasoned QB vs the rookie QB. The Colts got to 14-0 before pulling their starters against the Jets in Week 16 and thus gave up on their pursuit of perfection. The Jets now have a chance to prove that they can beat the Colts best shot. QB Peyton Manning would love another chance to win a Super Bowl ring and add to his growing legacy. On the other hand, Rex Ryan has backed up much of his talk this year as the Jets have taken their coach's identity and CB Darrelle Revis has become one of the best shutdown corners. The battle will most likely revolt around Manning's success getting the ball to men not covered by Revis. The Colts have looked like a team on the AFC side that has had the championship in site since Week 1 while the Jets have had moments that they showed they were still a middle of the road team. Expect the Jets' defense to challenge Manning in the first half, but then he will figure out the defense and the Colts will be on their way back to Miami 3 years after their last trip. PICK: COLTS
NFC Championship Game
Vikings at Saints: For the first three months of the season, these two were the best in the NFC. Then they both fell into December swoons and look to be back on track after manhandling their divisional game opponents. With that all in mind, this one has the makings of shootout between QBs Brett Favre and Drew Brees. Thus it might come down to one big play by either defense that decides the game. It could be a pick 6 or a costly turnover late. The Saints' defense got to QB Kurt Warner last week and will look to target Favre this week. The Saints got to 13-0 before dropping the last 3 and Favre came back for this game and the potential next game. This one goes into the 30s on both sides and Favre leads the Vikings to South Beach. PICK: VIKINGS
This weekend will feature teams for the most part looked poised to be here a couple months ago. Could the Colts and Saints play themselves into a Super Bowl matchup despite the fact that neither is unbeaten anymore? Can Favre get back to the Super Bowl? Will the Jets ride their confidence all the way to Miami? We will certainly see. Let the playoffs continue and onto the Super Bowl for the winners.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
A Brown-out in DC
What seemed unexpected six months ago became a reality the other day. Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown defeated Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. It was a big victory for the Republican Party as they got their "41st Senator", put a Republican in office in Massachusetts and the seat that the late Senator Ted Kennedy held, and gave themselves momentum against health care legislation and morale as they eye the 2010 midterm elections.
Whether it was Brown's effective campaign that might be compared to the rise of President Obama or the lack of campaigning by Coakley and her ineffective message; the victory can be viewed as an upset.
Without their supermajority, the Democrats in the U.S. Senate will certainly have to be prepared for the use of the filibuster by the Republicans to stall or in their hopes; kill the health care legislation. The loss of the 60 member supermajority will also lead many to believe that we will see reconciliation come up. There have been talks about the votes being calculated as well as putting Brown through a slow confirmation process. I doubt that will happen as it makes the most sense to appease the will of the voters and get the newest U.S. Senator squared away so that he can serve as he was elected to do. In all likelihood, he will certainly have his ears open to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, but also don't expect a Republican from Massachusetts to be a lock and step GOP member. He was rode to power by grassroots movements like the Tea Party and despite their leanings and mostly conservative philosophies and ideologies; they are not 100% GOP.
What also can be taken away from Brown's election is you cannot force voters to agree or follow what you say. Incumbents are going to be fighting an uphill climb this year and there were comments made by Coakley that most likely turned off a lot of Independents who voted for Brown. Comments such as this is the Democrats' seat or it is Ted Kennedy's seat. Brown commented in his victory speech that it is neither; it is the people's seat.
The health care legislation was certainly on a good size of the electorate who voted as well. Of interest is the fact that the state already has a form of the health care being poked and prodded in Congress. They may have cast a vote against the legislation or a vote saying that they do not care either way because they already are covered pretty good.
Brown's victory gives the state its first Republican U.S. Senator since 1972. Despite the efforts of both Presidents Obama and Clinton; they could not overcome the surge that Brown was getting as his campaign had picked up momentum over the last couple months. This surge could have lessen months ago if Coakley's campaign would have given Brown proper respect as serious candidate. Also working against Coakley was the fact that there was going to a low turnout compared to what we saw in November 2008. Voters barely vote in midterms and are even less inclined to vote in a special election.
According to polls, 44% of voters cited the top issue as the economy and jobs. That is not too surprising as that has been fairly consistently the top issue for the last 18 months to 2 years. Not too far behind, though, was health care with 38%. People concerned about the economy voted fairly evenly while those concerned about health care leaned towards Coakley.
What is definitely certain is the fact that Brown's election will shift things in Washington up a bit. The president along with Democratic leaders will need to come to an agreement on what steps will be taken in a timely manner or they see health care being finally passed become a little harder. Scott Brown will also give Mitch McConnell that 41st vote and allow their minority to filibuster or slow any bills they see fit in order for more of their demands to be met. But do not be surprised if Brown is like other New England Republicans Senator Olympia Snowe and Senator Susan Collins. The two Republican women from Maine have not always been the most loyal to conservatives and their party, but have held when it matters. Brown might find himself voting with Democrats if he sees it to be the proper decision.
The last thing that is certain is Democrats will be able to learn from this for November and see how much to the center they need to govern to ensure that they have more Independents in their corner than Republicans do. Those last points might have been the biggest difference in the "Brown-out" we saw this week.
Whether it was Brown's effective campaign that might be compared to the rise of President Obama or the lack of campaigning by Coakley and her ineffective message; the victory can be viewed as an upset.
Without their supermajority, the Democrats in the U.S. Senate will certainly have to be prepared for the use of the filibuster by the Republicans to stall or in their hopes; kill the health care legislation. The loss of the 60 member supermajority will also lead many to believe that we will see reconciliation come up. There have been talks about the votes being calculated as well as putting Brown through a slow confirmation process. I doubt that will happen as it makes the most sense to appease the will of the voters and get the newest U.S. Senator squared away so that he can serve as he was elected to do. In all likelihood, he will certainly have his ears open to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, but also don't expect a Republican from Massachusetts to be a lock and step GOP member. He was rode to power by grassroots movements like the Tea Party and despite their leanings and mostly conservative philosophies and ideologies; they are not 100% GOP.
What also can be taken away from Brown's election is you cannot force voters to agree or follow what you say. Incumbents are going to be fighting an uphill climb this year and there were comments made by Coakley that most likely turned off a lot of Independents who voted for Brown. Comments such as this is the Democrats' seat or it is Ted Kennedy's seat. Brown commented in his victory speech that it is neither; it is the people's seat.
The health care legislation was certainly on a good size of the electorate who voted as well. Of interest is the fact that the state already has a form of the health care being poked and prodded in Congress. They may have cast a vote against the legislation or a vote saying that they do not care either way because they already are covered pretty good.
Brown's victory gives the state its first Republican U.S. Senator since 1972. Despite the efforts of both Presidents Obama and Clinton; they could not overcome the surge that Brown was getting as his campaign had picked up momentum over the last couple months. This surge could have lessen months ago if Coakley's campaign would have given Brown proper respect as serious candidate. Also working against Coakley was the fact that there was going to a low turnout compared to what we saw in November 2008. Voters barely vote in midterms and are even less inclined to vote in a special election.
According to polls, 44% of voters cited the top issue as the economy and jobs. That is not too surprising as that has been fairly consistently the top issue for the last 18 months to 2 years. Not too far behind, though, was health care with 38%. People concerned about the economy voted fairly evenly while those concerned about health care leaned towards Coakley.
What is definitely certain is the fact that Brown's election will shift things in Washington up a bit. The president along with Democratic leaders will need to come to an agreement on what steps will be taken in a timely manner or they see health care being finally passed become a little harder. Scott Brown will also give Mitch McConnell that 41st vote and allow their minority to filibuster or slow any bills they see fit in order for more of their demands to be met. But do not be surprised if Brown is like other New England Republicans Senator Olympia Snowe and Senator Susan Collins. The two Republican women from Maine have not always been the most loyal to conservatives and their party, but have held when it matters. Brown might find himself voting with Democrats if he sees it to be the proper decision.
The last thing that is certain is Democrats will be able to learn from this for November and see how much to the center they need to govern to ensure that they have more Independents in their corner than Republicans do. Those last points might have been the biggest difference in the "Brown-out" we saw this week.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Obama: The First Year
The last year has been a challenge and roller-coaster ride for President Obama. He came in with a lot of promise and optimism. A year later, it is tough to say if the last year was a success or failure for the president.
Health care. Those might be the two words one might chose to sum up a lot of President Obama's first year. Health care expansion and the legislation has taken up much of the president's time and energy. He has been attacked by Republicans for "planning a government takeover". He has been attacked by liberal members of his party for "watering down the bill". And the whole will there or won't there be a public option has been a bigger back and forth then a game of championship chess.
The fact that the legislation is the grand package that some want speaks to what might be one point to take away from Obama's first year: he is laying the groundwork for objectives and promises to be completed this year and the rest of his term. Health care is only one major area that the president hopes to address in his second year. Financial regulation, cap and trade, and energy reform are also high on what the president hopes to accomplish by the end of year 2. The climate is a bit different than a year ago and adds additional challenges to getting these things done. Scott Brown's election and a growing energy from the Republican Party's base have the Democrats thinking about their decisions a little longer and thus affecting how successful Obama's agenda will be. He has struggled greatly dealing with a party that has made it difficult to work with and now with the filibuster proof supermajority in the U.S. Senate; things might get tricky.
The Obama White House has gone from "Yes We Can" in early 2009 to "Yes We Can...Maybe?" in early 2010. Obviously, it would have been foolish to think that the Democrats and Republicans would hold hands. The recession was not going to be solved in a year. Something as a big as health care for over 30 million people was not going to happen over night and the fact that it has taken much of the first year to get where we are at is not totally surprising.
Moreover, President Obama ran on being a different type of leader and reaching across the aisle. He wanted to break the bitter partisanship, but lo and behold things are as bad if not worse than they were 12 months ago. For Obama's part, he cannot be blamed for the actions of members of Congress. He has attempted to reach out to Republican leaders in both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives to only be shunned and told "no". He has reached out to Democratic leaders to be strong on getting his agenda through and work towards the middle to only see left members of his party fight for a public opinion or nothing and centrist members make demands for their votes.
The goodwill that swept Obama into office in November 2008 has also not stuck around after only a year. His election was a combination of a high voter turnout, an anti-Bush mood, and a sense of change was coming. The American electorate is fecal and when they don't see things changing overnight; they start to turn and get a little worried. Many of those independents who helped elect Obama are either uncertain if they still support or have found themselves leaning towards the Republicans. This is nothing new as independents find themselves in the middle and can go either way or not even vote. However, in today's unstable environment; people are even less comfortable sitting around and watching things unfold even if they require time. Let me remind everyone of something: it is only a year later. If you elected Obama in 2008 because of him and his campaign and what he planned or wanted to do; then be patient because last time I checked he has four years.
During much of the first half of his first year, Obama seemed to be trying to put too much on his plate. In the late part of the summer and early fall, we saw Obama begin to take steps to retake his agenda and especially health care back to get the argument back in a way that appealed to most voters senses.
However, despite his best efforts; the honeymoon is truly over and has been for a few months now. 51% of the electorate approve of President Obama at the end of his first year. The decrease in support is a combination of people not sure about the health care legislation, which includes the large amount that doesn't support it; the Republican message has been loud and strong and united and that has dented Obama and the Democrats; and the White House let the Democrats in Congress have too much power of their agenda and things have taken turns that Obama would not have liked. These plus grass root movements and a high unemployment rate have many wanting change, answers, and results yesterday; not today or tomorrow.
Hardly mentioned in Obama's struggles in 2009 and into 2010 is the fact that Republicans are the minority party and if they can stall long enough; they will prevent as many measures by the president as possible until the midterm elections later this year. Both houses of Congress are in the Republicans sight and have put their political ambitions above the greater good of the country. I will say that the party does have ideologies that don't match a lot of what Obama has attempted so in essence they are just doing what they would normally do. It just seems that there is too much talk and not enough action. Obama has wanted to do as much as possible to fix multiple problems in this country, but has been held back by falsies and a party that makes it hard to meet halfway.
That combined with tough decisions regarding the economy with bailouts and the second stimulus and the long drawn out health care legislation have all contributed the change in his ratings.
The decisions involving helping corporations, auto companies, and banks were unpopular, but those choices linked the recession and economy were not the only difficult issues he inherited. President Obama was handed two unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and an ongoing threat from al Qaeda and the Taliban. He has made his intention known that he would ideally like to see both wars drawn down and troops out by the end of his term. However, in order to get to that point; he made yet another unpopular decision in 2009: he decided to send 50,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. The Christmas Day terrorist threat has only made things that much worse and complicated for Obama. They prevented anything serious from happening, but the fact that he got on a plane to Detroit has many worried about the U.S. national security after one year with Obama at the helm.
Throughout 2008, candidate Obama was able to point to the Bush White House for many of the problems. A year in office, slowly more and more issues are being shaped by the Obama White House and the credit and blame will be directed towards him. Granted let's not just jump to assume that everything is his yet as he is still working on issues he inherited. His decisions on those issues are what people need to focus their energy on as he begins his second year. Some strategists on the Democratic side have pointed to some disappointments including the Scott Brown election as positive for Obama. The losses and struggles now will assist the president and his party find out what they are doing wrong to safeguard from bigger losses in terms of their legislation and especially the midterm elections.
Both parties have fought to move to the middle often in 2009 and it will up to the president to ensure that at least his party begins to work on being more moderate and towards the middle for nothing else than to appeal to voters. Many have looked at 2010 like 1994. Some things are very similar, but other things are very different. The one commonality and what Obama can learn as his first year comes to a close: politics is a game of electability and sometimes you need to proper strategy as to not put all your cards on the table at once. Obama has approached the health care legislation, in particular, with great care as the midterm election in 1994 were the beginning of the end for health care then and the same might happen if similar results occur this fall. President Clinton was able to regroup and move more towards the middle and got reelected while getting Republicans to vote on some of his items. The political environment is even tougher for Obama in 2010 then it was for Clinton, but the more Obama acts like candidate Obama then like President Obama the better the public will perceive him. At the same time he cannot jeopardize governing as effectively as possible to appease Republicans.
Obama will certainly look to finish off this ongoing health care legislation in the first couple months of his second year in order to at least tackle one if not two major items before the midterm elections. Energy and financial reform, previously mentioned, seem like the most sensible and financial reform is something that both sides agree needs to be changed. It could be an opportunity for Obama and Congress to fix some of their quarrels in 2009 and display decorum and create progress that they have struggled with agreeing on thus far.
So, after one year it is hard to say whether everything that Obama has put forward will work out. However, if health care can get through the final votes; we will see its beginning impact later this year. The stimulus is slowly working as unemployment has begun to improve. Granted it is at a snail's pace and the positive change is minuscule in terms of the whole picture. But people who are very impatient need to be as patient as possible. Jobs are being created. Jobs are also being lost. Yet there are signs that the jobs created will start to become higher than jobs lost.
President Obama stated last year in his first official address after being inaugurated that the tasks are daunting and it was not going to be easy. It certainly has not, but after one year much of what Obama began to work on and put in place in 2009 will reveal how effective they will be this year and in the coming years. If jobs are saved and the unemployment rate decreases. If health care is passed and we see positive results with people being covered and less insurance regulation (aka high premiums). Or if we see the state of Afghanistan and Iraq getting better. Then subsequently, Obama's approval rating should improve whether or not the opposition party or others try to smear his record. But on the flip side, if progress does not occur; Obama's approval ratings will continue to slip and his agenda then becomes at risk at being turned down.
Overall, I would give the president a B to a B+ considering what he had on his table and how he is working with an opposition party not willing to compromise and his own struggling at times to show similar unity as their counterparts. 2010 will be more vital to his success as he will be judged more highly as his term nears the half way point and he will need to show results.
Health care. Those might be the two words one might chose to sum up a lot of President Obama's first year. Health care expansion and the legislation has taken up much of the president's time and energy. He has been attacked by Republicans for "planning a government takeover". He has been attacked by liberal members of his party for "watering down the bill". And the whole will there or won't there be a public option has been a bigger back and forth then a game of championship chess.
The fact that the legislation is the grand package that some want speaks to what might be one point to take away from Obama's first year: he is laying the groundwork for objectives and promises to be completed this year and the rest of his term. Health care is only one major area that the president hopes to address in his second year. Financial regulation, cap and trade, and energy reform are also high on what the president hopes to accomplish by the end of year 2. The climate is a bit different than a year ago and adds additional challenges to getting these things done. Scott Brown's election and a growing energy from the Republican Party's base have the Democrats thinking about their decisions a little longer and thus affecting how successful Obama's agenda will be. He has struggled greatly dealing with a party that has made it difficult to work with and now with the filibuster proof supermajority in the U.S. Senate; things might get tricky.
The Obama White House has gone from "Yes We Can" in early 2009 to "Yes We Can...Maybe?" in early 2010. Obviously, it would have been foolish to think that the Democrats and Republicans would hold hands. The recession was not going to be solved in a year. Something as a big as health care for over 30 million people was not going to happen over night and the fact that it has taken much of the first year to get where we are at is not totally surprising.
Moreover, President Obama ran on being a different type of leader and reaching across the aisle. He wanted to break the bitter partisanship, but lo and behold things are as bad if not worse than they were 12 months ago. For Obama's part, he cannot be blamed for the actions of members of Congress. He has attempted to reach out to Republican leaders in both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives to only be shunned and told "no". He has reached out to Democratic leaders to be strong on getting his agenda through and work towards the middle to only see left members of his party fight for a public opinion or nothing and centrist members make demands for their votes.
The goodwill that swept Obama into office in November 2008 has also not stuck around after only a year. His election was a combination of a high voter turnout, an anti-Bush mood, and a sense of change was coming. The American electorate is fecal and when they don't see things changing overnight; they start to turn and get a little worried. Many of those independents who helped elect Obama are either uncertain if they still support or have found themselves leaning towards the Republicans. This is nothing new as independents find themselves in the middle and can go either way or not even vote. However, in today's unstable environment; people are even less comfortable sitting around and watching things unfold even if they require time. Let me remind everyone of something: it is only a year later. If you elected Obama in 2008 because of him and his campaign and what he planned or wanted to do; then be patient because last time I checked he has four years.
During much of the first half of his first year, Obama seemed to be trying to put too much on his plate. In the late part of the summer and early fall, we saw Obama begin to take steps to retake his agenda and especially health care back to get the argument back in a way that appealed to most voters senses.
However, despite his best efforts; the honeymoon is truly over and has been for a few months now. 51% of the electorate approve of President Obama at the end of his first year. The decrease in support is a combination of people not sure about the health care legislation, which includes the large amount that doesn't support it; the Republican message has been loud and strong and united and that has dented Obama and the Democrats; and the White House let the Democrats in Congress have too much power of their agenda and things have taken turns that Obama would not have liked. These plus grass root movements and a high unemployment rate have many wanting change, answers, and results yesterday; not today or tomorrow.
Hardly mentioned in Obama's struggles in 2009 and into 2010 is the fact that Republicans are the minority party and if they can stall long enough; they will prevent as many measures by the president as possible until the midterm elections later this year. Both houses of Congress are in the Republicans sight and have put their political ambitions above the greater good of the country. I will say that the party does have ideologies that don't match a lot of what Obama has attempted so in essence they are just doing what they would normally do. It just seems that there is too much talk and not enough action. Obama has wanted to do as much as possible to fix multiple problems in this country, but has been held back by falsies and a party that makes it hard to meet halfway.
That combined with tough decisions regarding the economy with bailouts and the second stimulus and the long drawn out health care legislation have all contributed the change in his ratings.
The decisions involving helping corporations, auto companies, and banks were unpopular, but those choices linked the recession and economy were not the only difficult issues he inherited. President Obama was handed two unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and an ongoing threat from al Qaeda and the Taliban. He has made his intention known that he would ideally like to see both wars drawn down and troops out by the end of his term. However, in order to get to that point; he made yet another unpopular decision in 2009: he decided to send 50,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. The Christmas Day terrorist threat has only made things that much worse and complicated for Obama. They prevented anything serious from happening, but the fact that he got on a plane to Detroit has many worried about the U.S. national security after one year with Obama at the helm.
Throughout 2008, candidate Obama was able to point to the Bush White House for many of the problems. A year in office, slowly more and more issues are being shaped by the Obama White House and the credit and blame will be directed towards him. Granted let's not just jump to assume that everything is his yet as he is still working on issues he inherited. His decisions on those issues are what people need to focus their energy on as he begins his second year. Some strategists on the Democratic side have pointed to some disappointments including the Scott Brown election as positive for Obama. The losses and struggles now will assist the president and his party find out what they are doing wrong to safeguard from bigger losses in terms of their legislation and especially the midterm elections.
Both parties have fought to move to the middle often in 2009 and it will up to the president to ensure that at least his party begins to work on being more moderate and towards the middle for nothing else than to appeal to voters. Many have looked at 2010 like 1994. Some things are very similar, but other things are very different. The one commonality and what Obama can learn as his first year comes to a close: politics is a game of electability and sometimes you need to proper strategy as to not put all your cards on the table at once. Obama has approached the health care legislation, in particular, with great care as the midterm election in 1994 were the beginning of the end for health care then and the same might happen if similar results occur this fall. President Clinton was able to regroup and move more towards the middle and got reelected while getting Republicans to vote on some of his items. The political environment is even tougher for Obama in 2010 then it was for Clinton, but the more Obama acts like candidate Obama then like President Obama the better the public will perceive him. At the same time he cannot jeopardize governing as effectively as possible to appease Republicans.
Obama will certainly look to finish off this ongoing health care legislation in the first couple months of his second year in order to at least tackle one if not two major items before the midterm elections. Energy and financial reform, previously mentioned, seem like the most sensible and financial reform is something that both sides agree needs to be changed. It could be an opportunity for Obama and Congress to fix some of their quarrels in 2009 and display decorum and create progress that they have struggled with agreeing on thus far.
So, after one year it is hard to say whether everything that Obama has put forward will work out. However, if health care can get through the final votes; we will see its beginning impact later this year. The stimulus is slowly working as unemployment has begun to improve. Granted it is at a snail's pace and the positive change is minuscule in terms of the whole picture. But people who are very impatient need to be as patient as possible. Jobs are being created. Jobs are also being lost. Yet there are signs that the jobs created will start to become higher than jobs lost.
President Obama stated last year in his first official address after being inaugurated that the tasks are daunting and it was not going to be easy. It certainly has not, but after one year much of what Obama began to work on and put in place in 2009 will reveal how effective they will be this year and in the coming years. If jobs are saved and the unemployment rate decreases. If health care is passed and we see positive results with people being covered and less insurance regulation (aka high premiums). Or if we see the state of Afghanistan and Iraq getting better. Then subsequently, Obama's approval rating should improve whether or not the opposition party or others try to smear his record. But on the flip side, if progress does not occur; Obama's approval ratings will continue to slip and his agenda then becomes at risk at being turned down.
Overall, I would give the president a B to a B+ considering what he had on his table and how he is working with an opposition party not willing to compromise and his own struggling at times to show similar unity as their counterparts. 2010 will be more vital to his success as he will be judged more highly as his term nears the half way point and he will need to show results.
Monday, January 18, 2010
MLK: More Like King
The third Monday in January traditionally has come to be known as the day we celebrate and honor the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. He was a key part of the civil rights movement and his leadership made serious gains for African Americans. Among other things, King led the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955 and led the March on Washington in 1963, where he gave his famous "I Have A Dream" speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. He was a pastor, a dignitary, and Nobel Peace Prize recipient. Before he could continue to make progress and change, he was gunned down and assassinated on April 4, 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee at the age of 39. It would be 18 years later that he would honored with a U.S. national holiday. Sound have come to view it as a day off from work or school or barely recognize the holiday. Not many individuals have days honoring them. Outside of mothers, fathers, and the men and women who have served and currently serve us in the Armed Forces; only presidents have received days of honor outside of King.
King began his journey in Atlanta, Georgia the son of a reverend. He would meet and marry Coretta Scott in 1953, have four children, and become a pastor in Montgomery, Alabama in 1954. King would travel in India and adopt the principles of non-violent activism utilized by Gandhi as he (Gandhi) went about looking to make social changes. That trip would strike him deeply and rev up his commitment to the need for civil rights progress.
In 1955, King was on a committee that oversaw the Birmingham African American community when a young black girl refused to give up her seat to a white man. Later that same year, the infamous incident involving Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus. That would spark the Montgomery Bus Boycott led by King. The boycott would last over a year. During which King was the subject of threats, but the boycott would pay off as racial segregation on all Montgomery public buses was eliminated. Using what he studied from Gandhi, King would embark in the coming years a strategy of utilizing nonviolent actions and protest against the Jim Crow South and their laws. Through this, King was hoping that exposure and media attention would follow and allow for more and more people to see the struggles occurring for equality.
In the spring of 1963, King and others would go to Birmingham, Alabama with the objective of ending the city's segregated civil and discriminatory economic policies. This campaign would last through most of the spring with King and citizens looking to provoke police to fill their jails to point of them being overflown. Police used what one would probably view as unnecessary force against several protesters. The end result: a major police figure lost his job and Jim Crow signs came down allowing for public places to be more open to blacks. That summer would be one of the moments that stands as one of King's crowning moments. King along with several civil rights organizations embarked on a March on Washington in August. It was another step in the long journey to get national attention on the injustices in the South for African Americans. By going to the nation's capital naturally you gain extra attention that you wouldn't get in Alabama. Unfortunately, President Kennedy was worried about the rally/march getting too out of hand and looked to tone it down a notch in order to keep alive the chance for major legislation. Some leaders who were a little less patient than King were not exactly happy with these developments. Regardless, on this poignant day King gave the "I Have a Dream" speech to one of the biggest crowds in the history of the nation's capital and several injustices were aired and it would be a contribute the success of civil rights legislation in the coming years. Most of what King was striving for would come to fruition in 1964 and 1965 with the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, respectively.
In 1965, King would continue to work for progress in civil rights. Alongside a few others, King planned a march from Selma to Montgomery and the state capitol. However on that March Sunday (the 7th), they were blocked off by a mob and the police who attacked the protesters. The actions that day would become known as "Bloody Sunday". This march was supposed to be prevented after King thought it through further, but he couldn't stop it from occurring. There would be a ceremonially march over the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma two days later and the actual march that was planned occurred later that month and King spoke again on the need for more change. King kept fighting for civil rights progress and was a major advocate for the war on poverty. He also became a major anti-Vietnam War figure. Not surprisingly, since King was a nonviolent supporter he would not favor a war; especially one that took money and resources away from the poor and others who could use it.
King's last stop and cause would be public works employees in Memphis, Tennessee. It was there on April 4, 1968 that the civil rights advocate and man who had done so much to reverse several injustices in the South was assassinated. An autopsy later showed that King's heart was much weaker than his age; most likely for over a decade of stress.
It is nearly 42 years since King's passing, but his memory has continued. He is as important now in death if not more than when he was alive. He made possible so many progressive measures for African Americans and civil rights in general. 30 years ago various measures began to be set in motion to honor King. His boyhood home along with several other buildings nearby and around the South that King had an impact at were designated national landmarks in 1980. In 1983, President Reagan signed a bill to create a federal holiday to honor King. It would first be observed in 1986. President George H.W. Bush in 1992 proclaimed the holiday to officially be observed on the third Monday in January. Early on and even after it became an official holiday, there was opposition to giving King a national holiday. Finally after 14 years, in 2000 all 50 states celebrated the national holiday. Additionally, there is a memorial in the works to be placed on the National Mall in Washington D.C. where he can take his rightful place among presidents and other important figures in our history.
Martin Luther King, Jr was more than just an ordinary man; he was an extraordinary figure who refused to expect no or allow for injustices to continue to occur. He knew that things were not going to be easy. He knew he would become a target by several individuals and groups who were against racial equality. He knew that he might not make it a stage in his life when he would be old and gray. But he knew that if his children and grandchildren and those like them were judged based on their character and not based on the color of their skin; then he had succeed. Before King, there were few men or women like him. And even 42 years later, there are few men or women who have accomplished even half of what King did. However, it is worth noting on the day we celebrate his life and all he did; that we need more like King. He chose to act pacifically for change. He was willing to take the proper steps and still get the results. Despite the landmark legislation of the 1960s, there is still work to be done. And we must have more young men and women step up to the place like that 26 year old King did in 1955. A world with more Kings in it would not be a bad thing at all.
King began his journey in Atlanta, Georgia the son of a reverend. He would meet and marry Coretta Scott in 1953, have four children, and become a pastor in Montgomery, Alabama in 1954. King would travel in India and adopt the principles of non-violent activism utilized by Gandhi as he (Gandhi) went about looking to make social changes. That trip would strike him deeply and rev up his commitment to the need for civil rights progress.
In 1955, King was on a committee that oversaw the Birmingham African American community when a young black girl refused to give up her seat to a white man. Later that same year, the infamous incident involving Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus. That would spark the Montgomery Bus Boycott led by King. The boycott would last over a year. During which King was the subject of threats, but the boycott would pay off as racial segregation on all Montgomery public buses was eliminated. Using what he studied from Gandhi, King would embark in the coming years a strategy of utilizing nonviolent actions and protest against the Jim Crow South and their laws. Through this, King was hoping that exposure and media attention would follow and allow for more and more people to see the struggles occurring for equality.
In the spring of 1963, King and others would go to Birmingham, Alabama with the objective of ending the city's segregated civil and discriminatory economic policies. This campaign would last through most of the spring with King and citizens looking to provoke police to fill their jails to point of them being overflown. Police used what one would probably view as unnecessary force against several protesters. The end result: a major police figure lost his job and Jim Crow signs came down allowing for public places to be more open to blacks. That summer would be one of the moments that stands as one of King's crowning moments. King along with several civil rights organizations embarked on a March on Washington in August. It was another step in the long journey to get national attention on the injustices in the South for African Americans. By going to the nation's capital naturally you gain extra attention that you wouldn't get in Alabama. Unfortunately, President Kennedy was worried about the rally/march getting too out of hand and looked to tone it down a notch in order to keep alive the chance for major legislation. Some leaders who were a little less patient than King were not exactly happy with these developments. Regardless, on this poignant day King gave the "I Have a Dream" speech to one of the biggest crowds in the history of the nation's capital and several injustices were aired and it would be a contribute the success of civil rights legislation in the coming years. Most of what King was striving for would come to fruition in 1964 and 1965 with the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, respectively.
In 1965, King would continue to work for progress in civil rights. Alongside a few others, King planned a march from Selma to Montgomery and the state capitol. However on that March Sunday (the 7th), they were blocked off by a mob and the police who attacked the protesters. The actions that day would become known as "Bloody Sunday". This march was supposed to be prevented after King thought it through further, but he couldn't stop it from occurring. There would be a ceremonially march over the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma two days later and the actual march that was planned occurred later that month and King spoke again on the need for more change. King kept fighting for civil rights progress and was a major advocate for the war on poverty. He also became a major anti-Vietnam War figure. Not surprisingly, since King was a nonviolent supporter he would not favor a war; especially one that took money and resources away from the poor and others who could use it.
King's last stop and cause would be public works employees in Memphis, Tennessee. It was there on April 4, 1968 that the civil rights advocate and man who had done so much to reverse several injustices in the South was assassinated. An autopsy later showed that King's heart was much weaker than his age; most likely for over a decade of stress.
It is nearly 42 years since King's passing, but his memory has continued. He is as important now in death if not more than when he was alive. He made possible so many progressive measures for African Americans and civil rights in general. 30 years ago various measures began to be set in motion to honor King. His boyhood home along with several other buildings nearby and around the South that King had an impact at were designated national landmarks in 1980. In 1983, President Reagan signed a bill to create a federal holiday to honor King. It would first be observed in 1986. President George H.W. Bush in 1992 proclaimed the holiday to officially be observed on the third Monday in January. Early on and even after it became an official holiday, there was opposition to giving King a national holiday. Finally after 14 years, in 2000 all 50 states celebrated the national holiday. Additionally, there is a memorial in the works to be placed on the National Mall in Washington D.C. where he can take his rightful place among presidents and other important figures in our history.
Martin Luther King, Jr was more than just an ordinary man; he was an extraordinary figure who refused to expect no or allow for injustices to continue to occur. He knew that things were not going to be easy. He knew he would become a target by several individuals and groups who were against racial equality. He knew that he might not make it a stage in his life when he would be old and gray. But he knew that if his children and grandchildren and those like them were judged based on their character and not based on the color of their skin; then he had succeed. Before King, there were few men or women like him. And even 42 years later, there are few men or women who have accomplished even half of what King did. However, it is worth noting on the day we celebrate his life and all he did; that we need more like King. He chose to act pacifically for change. He was willing to take the proper steps and still get the results. Despite the landmark legislation of the 1960s, there is still work to be done. And we must have more young men and women step up to the place like that 26 year old King did in 1955. A world with more Kings in it would not be a bad thing at all.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
A Mess in Massachusetts
On paper, Massachusetts looks like one of the most liberal and blue states in the United States. They have had Democratic members in the U.S. Senate and have had a lot more Democratic Representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives. And they have a Democratic Governor. So, when Senator Edward Kennedy passed away late last summer; many on the Democratic side of the aisle felt that the seat would be safe for them as they continued to fight for health care and other items on the President's agenda. However, things have not exactly gone as planned.
Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee, has struggled to gain traction and has at times hurt herself with her choice of words and execution of her campaign. That combined with his own surge from the Tea Party and his much better campaign execution, Scott Brown has emerged from unknown state representative to viable U.S. Senate candidate.
This will be the first true election since President Obama's term began that his agenda and political capital will be on the line. The Democratic U.S. Senate's filibuster proof super majority is also on the line in this election. The people of Massachusetts will decide if they want Coakley to continue to keep the agenda going ahead. Or they will decide if they want Brown to be the "41st Senator" and tell the Democratic controlled U.S. Senate that it has abused its power at times and there needs to be less than that super majority in that chamber. Browns' election could also have great affects on health care's future as we have seen the legislation struggle with a filibuster proof majority. So without it, there might be a stall in the legislation to the point where it begins to slowly die. Voters just might want to have the super majority cracked because they see one party rule as a bad thing.
What makes this special election and the major issue of health care expansion interesting is the fact that Massachusetts has a version for their state that would be applied across the United States. Under a Republican governor, Mitt Romney, four years ago a near universal health coverage was enacted. And for that reason, the residents of the state might not view the health care issue as high as many pollsters and politicos do. They also might not want the legislation because they have their care and could care less about the other states who do not. The plan that is being debated; after being passed in both Houses; might be unfavorable as well as there be adjustments to their taxes and see the expansion of health care as a negative thing.
Now what I see as the ultimate deciders might not be what is discussed by the mainstream or fringe on both sides of the political spectrum. That is the candidates and the fact that even though it is a national race; it is still a state race. Coakley, Massachusetts' Attorney General, was the front runner by a large margin late last summer. She decided to not be aggressive and assume that Scott Brown would not gain ground. But then we saw a growing backlash by many against the health care legislation and she slipped a little closer to Brown. She would also run certain ads that set some of the middle of the road voters off. This was one form of her tactical errors as she insulted some of the sports teams, which doesn't fly in Massachusetts, as well not coming off strong. She seemed more like a filler than an assertive leader despite a good record as the Attorney General. While this was happening, Scott Brown's name began to become more known and the grassroots organizations around him rose him up. And now we sit on the eve of the election and what seemed like a landslide is now too close to tell.
There are national issues on the minds of several voters going to the polls this Tuesday to elect the new U.S. Senator, but what matters to Massachusetts voters might not be exactly what matters to Connecticut or New York voters. The state has a shape up of mostly Democrats, but with incumbents getting a lot of the blame for whatever they see as broken and Coakley lackluster campaign; several independents and some Democrats might see Scott Brown as the better option.
Whatever happens on Tuesday, there was certainly a mess in Massachusetts for this special election. If Coakley wins, the Democrats will have dodged a bullet. If Coakley loses, the Democrats lose their supermajority and lose momentum for health care and give extra momentum to the Republicans as they are eying this election as a step towards taking back power in the fall. And either way, the Democratic Party will have to use this an example of what not to do in a major election like this. Their candidate is certainly strong enough; she just mismanaged her campaign and it might cost her and the party this Tuesday.
Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee, has struggled to gain traction and has at times hurt herself with her choice of words and execution of her campaign. That combined with his own surge from the Tea Party and his much better campaign execution, Scott Brown has emerged from unknown state representative to viable U.S. Senate candidate.
This will be the first true election since President Obama's term began that his agenda and political capital will be on the line. The Democratic U.S. Senate's filibuster proof super majority is also on the line in this election. The people of Massachusetts will decide if they want Coakley to continue to keep the agenda going ahead. Or they will decide if they want Brown to be the "41st Senator" and tell the Democratic controlled U.S. Senate that it has abused its power at times and there needs to be less than that super majority in that chamber. Browns' election could also have great affects on health care's future as we have seen the legislation struggle with a filibuster proof majority. So without it, there might be a stall in the legislation to the point where it begins to slowly die. Voters just might want to have the super majority cracked because they see one party rule as a bad thing.
What makes this special election and the major issue of health care expansion interesting is the fact that Massachusetts has a version for their state that would be applied across the United States. Under a Republican governor, Mitt Romney, four years ago a near universal health coverage was enacted. And for that reason, the residents of the state might not view the health care issue as high as many pollsters and politicos do. They also might not want the legislation because they have their care and could care less about the other states who do not. The plan that is being debated; after being passed in both Houses; might be unfavorable as well as there be adjustments to their taxes and see the expansion of health care as a negative thing.
Now what I see as the ultimate deciders might not be what is discussed by the mainstream or fringe on both sides of the political spectrum. That is the candidates and the fact that even though it is a national race; it is still a state race. Coakley, Massachusetts' Attorney General, was the front runner by a large margin late last summer. She decided to not be aggressive and assume that Scott Brown would not gain ground. But then we saw a growing backlash by many against the health care legislation and she slipped a little closer to Brown. She would also run certain ads that set some of the middle of the road voters off. This was one form of her tactical errors as she insulted some of the sports teams, which doesn't fly in Massachusetts, as well not coming off strong. She seemed more like a filler than an assertive leader despite a good record as the Attorney General. While this was happening, Scott Brown's name began to become more known and the grassroots organizations around him rose him up. And now we sit on the eve of the election and what seemed like a landslide is now too close to tell.
There are national issues on the minds of several voters going to the polls this Tuesday to elect the new U.S. Senator, but what matters to Massachusetts voters might not be exactly what matters to Connecticut or New York voters. The state has a shape up of mostly Democrats, but with incumbents getting a lot of the blame for whatever they see as broken and Coakley lackluster campaign; several independents and some Democrats might see Scott Brown as the better option.
Whatever happens on Tuesday, there was certainly a mess in Massachusetts for this special election. If Coakley wins, the Democrats will have dodged a bullet. If Coakley loses, the Democrats lose their supermajority and lose momentum for health care and give extra momentum to the Republicans as they are eying this election as a step towards taking back power in the fall. And either way, the Democratic Party will have to use this an example of what not to do in a major election like this. Their candidate is certainly strong enough; she just mismanaged her campaign and it might cost her and the party this Tuesday.
Friday, January 15, 2010
NFL Divisional Playoffs Preview
The wildcard weekend again was lacking a bit of that wild action. The first three games were relatively over by the second half or early part of the fourth quarter. The Jets showed that they had a rightful spot in the playoffs having little trouble beating the Bengals again. While the Eagles avoided being blanked again to the Cowboys, they couldn't get too more going this week as they fell again to a tough defense minded Dallas team. The Patriots got punched hard in the face from the first play when Ravens' HB Ray Rice ran an opening play run 83 yards to the endzone. The Ravens never looked back and made the Patriots look old and tired. For one of the few times under Bill Belichek, the Patriots looked unprepared and without an answer. The final game certainly made up for the lack of drama in the previous three games. QBs Aaron Rodgers and Kurt Warner traded touchdowns all day and shredded the defenses. The shootout was so close that the game needed overtime, which ironically ended on a big defensive play that led to the winning score for the Cardinals.
My picks were 2-2. Now we turn to the divisional round when the final 8 teams battle for 4 spots and inch closer to Miami.
AFC Divisional Game
Baltimore Ravens at Indianapolis Colts: The Ravens got past one potential Hall of Fame QB and now have the task of trying to get past another one. The Ravens are based around their run game and timely offense with a good defense while the Colts continue to be a quick strike offense with an under appreciated defense. Now is the time to see if that rest will pay off or hurt the Colts. Its an all or nothing mentality now for the Colts after they gave away the perfect season. If the defense stifles HB Ray Rice, it will be hard for the Ravens to win. If it becomes a QB vs QB battle, it could be over quick. Colts should prevail by at least one score. PICK: COLTS
NFC Divisional Game
Arizona Cardinals at New Orleans Saints: The Saints come in on three game losing streak and maybe the bye and rest could fix their problems. The Cardinals will need to have the same efficiency this week on offense and this one could be even more of a shootout. When both offenses are on, they could put up 40 easily. The defenses aren't especially strong, but we have seen more out of the Saints' defense this year with the addition of S Darren Sharper. Whichever defense puts better pressure on the other teams QB will win this one. I think the Saints played too good all year to throw it away in the divisional round. PICK: SAINTS
NFC Divisional Game
Dallas Cowboys at Minnesota Vikings: The Cowboys have looked extremely good the last month and will definitely make it tough on QB Brett Favre and the Vikings. Favre is 0-3 in the postseason against Dallas, but gets them at home, which will help. HB Adrian Peterson has been quiet in the last few games and Favre will need to make sure he avoids some of his potential errors and turnovers. I see this as a low scoring one with some 4th quarter magic from Favre. PICK: VIKINGS
AFC Divisional Game
NY Jets at San Diego Chargers: The Jets might be one of the biggest underdogs ever in this one. The Chargers always seem to be a team to watch in the postseason and let it slip away at the end of the year. This will certainly be a tough road test for QB Mark Sanchez as he returns to Southern California. The Chargers are riding an 11 game win streak and it is hard to see them letting this one slip away. The Jets' defense will keep it close until the end. But the Chargers will get just enough points to win. PICK: CHARGERS
This weekend features the best teams this year with a few wildcards. Wouldn't be surprised if an upset or two occurs. How will the Colts and the Saints look after some time off and a skid? Will the top 4 teams coast to the championship games or will we see a little bit more suspense this week? We shall see. Let the playoffs continue
My picks were 2-2. Now we turn to the divisional round when the final 8 teams battle for 4 spots and inch closer to Miami.
AFC Divisional Game
Baltimore Ravens at Indianapolis Colts: The Ravens got past one potential Hall of Fame QB and now have the task of trying to get past another one. The Ravens are based around their run game and timely offense with a good defense while the Colts continue to be a quick strike offense with an under appreciated defense. Now is the time to see if that rest will pay off or hurt the Colts. Its an all or nothing mentality now for the Colts after they gave away the perfect season. If the defense stifles HB Ray Rice, it will be hard for the Ravens to win. If it becomes a QB vs QB battle, it could be over quick. Colts should prevail by at least one score. PICK: COLTS
NFC Divisional Game
Arizona Cardinals at New Orleans Saints: The Saints come in on three game losing streak and maybe the bye and rest could fix their problems. The Cardinals will need to have the same efficiency this week on offense and this one could be even more of a shootout. When both offenses are on, they could put up 40 easily. The defenses aren't especially strong, but we have seen more out of the Saints' defense this year with the addition of S Darren Sharper. Whichever defense puts better pressure on the other teams QB will win this one. I think the Saints played too good all year to throw it away in the divisional round. PICK: SAINTS
NFC Divisional Game
Dallas Cowboys at Minnesota Vikings: The Cowboys have looked extremely good the last month and will definitely make it tough on QB Brett Favre and the Vikings. Favre is 0-3 in the postseason against Dallas, but gets them at home, which will help. HB Adrian Peterson has been quiet in the last few games and Favre will need to make sure he avoids some of his potential errors and turnovers. I see this as a low scoring one with some 4th quarter magic from Favre. PICK: VIKINGS
AFC Divisional Game
NY Jets at San Diego Chargers: The Jets might be one of the biggest underdogs ever in this one. The Chargers always seem to be a team to watch in the postseason and let it slip away at the end of the year. This will certainly be a tough road test for QB Mark Sanchez as he returns to Southern California. The Chargers are riding an 11 game win streak and it is hard to see them letting this one slip away. The Jets' defense will keep it close until the end. But the Chargers will get just enough points to win. PICK: CHARGERS
This weekend features the best teams this year with a few wildcards. Wouldn't be surprised if an upset or two occurs. How will the Colts and the Saints look after some time off and a skid? Will the top 4 teams coast to the championship games or will we see a little bit more suspense this week? We shall see. Let the playoffs continue
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Mikey Doesn't Like It
After last month's close call in Detroit, the threat of a terrorist attack is still alive in the wake of the Fort Hood shooting and past incidents since 9/11. However, when many think of terrorists code words things like Muslim, male, adult, and such come to mind. What about 8 year old, American born little boy? Well, Mikey Hicks, seems like an ordinary 8 year old boy from Clifton, New Jersey. But he is not viewed as such by the TSA. His mom would say that he is just another ordinary 8 year old boy. The only difference between him and boys his age is he is consistently subjected to heightened security procedures any time he boards a plane as he is viewed as a suspicious person. His only mistake is that Mikey Hicks shares the same name as Michael Hicks, an adult on the terrorist watch list.
Since he was 2 years old, Mikey Hicks has been subjected to being treated as if he was the actual Michael Hicks that airport security is truly trying to thoroughly inspect. Mrs. Hicks has dealt with the seemingly unnecessary treatment of her son for most of his life and especially this past year began to feel extremely annoyed with the way they were trying her innocent son as a criminal. The family had a bit of different experience the last time they went on vacation. Mikey were thoroughly frisked going and going back. A lot more than the man with an bomb in his underwear. Mikey's name is not one of the 2,500 (about 10% being American) on the "no-fly" list, but is on another list of 13,500 individuals who are inspected to a high extent at security screenings. A spokesman from the TSA recently stated that no children are on the no-fly or selectee lists, but did not clear up why Mikey's name is on the latter list. A draw back that was also mentioned was the fact that if someone shares a name with someone on the list they can also be targeted. A scan revealed that that there are 1,600 Michael Hicks. There are over 81,000 people filing grievances because they have been mistakenly targeted for sharing a name with the real suspect.
A Canadian man by the name of Mario Labbe had the same name an actual suspect and endured countless checks at security scan stations at airports. He had enough of the frustrations and changed his name to Francois Mario Labbe and the problem was solved. Others go as far as to misspell their names to avoid being mistaken for actual suspects. TSA is supposed to in the coming months go through data and cross reference names with birth dates and other relevant information to ensure people aren't targeted for sharing the same name as an actual suspect. The thing that should be glaring for this case is the fact that Mikey was born just before 9/11 occurred. Anyone on the list that was born around the same time or later should seriously not be as considered as Mikey is. The Hickes have to deal with extra hurdles that most don't and can continued to make traveling unpleasant as they are delayed getting on and might not even be by each other.
The experience has wore on the Hickes and the fact that it is taken as long as it has to clear up the error has only upset Mrs. Hicks. Mikey tries not to think about, but I'm sure he certainly doesn't like it. He would rather think about toys and not being frisked like a terrorist. Time will see how the program will fix these errors and if Mikey can finally clear his name and enjoy the art of traveling...like most kids should.
Since he was 2 years old, Mikey Hicks has been subjected to being treated as if he was the actual Michael Hicks that airport security is truly trying to thoroughly inspect. Mrs. Hicks has dealt with the seemingly unnecessary treatment of her son for most of his life and especially this past year began to feel extremely annoyed with the way they were trying her innocent son as a criminal. The family had a bit of different experience the last time they went on vacation. Mikey were thoroughly frisked going and going back. A lot more than the man with an bomb in his underwear. Mikey's name is not one of the 2,500 (about 10% being American) on the "no-fly" list, but is on another list of 13,500 individuals who are inspected to a high extent at security screenings. A spokesman from the TSA recently stated that no children are on the no-fly or selectee lists, but did not clear up why Mikey's name is on the latter list. A draw back that was also mentioned was the fact that if someone shares a name with someone on the list they can also be targeted. A scan revealed that that there are 1,600 Michael Hicks. There are over 81,000 people filing grievances because they have been mistakenly targeted for sharing a name with the real suspect.
A Canadian man by the name of Mario Labbe had the same name an actual suspect and endured countless checks at security scan stations at airports. He had enough of the frustrations and changed his name to Francois Mario Labbe and the problem was solved. Others go as far as to misspell their names to avoid being mistaken for actual suspects. TSA is supposed to in the coming months go through data and cross reference names with birth dates and other relevant information to ensure people aren't targeted for sharing the same name as an actual suspect. The thing that should be glaring for this case is the fact that Mikey was born just before 9/11 occurred. Anyone on the list that was born around the same time or later should seriously not be as considered as Mikey is. The Hickes have to deal with extra hurdles that most don't and can continued to make traveling unpleasant as they are delayed getting on and might not even be by each other.
The experience has wore on the Hickes and the fact that it is taken as long as it has to clear up the error has only upset Mrs. Hicks. Mikey tries not to think about, but I'm sure he certainly doesn't like it. He would rather think about toys and not being frisked like a terrorist. Time will see how the program will fix these errors and if Mikey can finally clear his name and enjoy the art of traveling...like most kids should.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
We are Citizens of the World
Yesterday, a magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck Haiti. This isn't the first time in the last ten years we have seen a major natural disaster affect an island country. It is hard to tell just yet the effect of the earthquake and how much damage will be done to the country and how many lives will be lost. The number of those dead will almost certain be in the high thousands. The earthquake struck the nation's capital city, Port-au-Prince, and moved west and east of the city. Americans and members of the United Nations were in the country at the time of the earthquake and as with earthquakes; there is fear of aftershocks among everyone on the ground. The number affected in the millions and cost of the damages could run into the billions. The United States is already gearing up to help with aid along with European and Central American nations. Several countries have already stated a fear of many of their officials in the country to be dead or at best missing. Unfortunately, also there are several people on the streets without homes, shelters, and money and thus they are turning to looting, rioting, and chaotic behavior.
It is times like this that we should tear down the walls that separate us as a country and taking it further; as a world's people. When these horrible incidents occur, it is an opportunity to show the good in people. Whether it be through monetary or resource donations or through helping and assisting with the rebuilding and rescue efforts. It allows us to put aside the hatreds of the world or the disagreements with our enemies in order to answer the call. When these type of events occur, we are truly citizens of the world. That should be what goes someone's mind during this time. We can take a break from political discussions or bickering for a day or two at least. Because this didn't just affect Haitians. It affected Americans and many other nations. This could have happened to many other countries, but a country like Haiti is so poor that it affects that much more. So, if you have $5 to spare; give it. If you have the time and want to help; go to Haiti. If you are religious in any way; pray. And last, but not least; be decent. There are times when something like this happens that the cynics out there find a reason to "kick someone when they are down".
In the week ahead, we will certainly learn more and see further developments that may or may not hurt or help the country. Let's hope that progress and rebuilding can occur speedily. And that the death total is not as bad as expected. It is time to turn out attention and efforts to lesser off ally to the south of us. Remember, beyond being Americans we are humans; that means this affects us and is linked to us in some way.
It is times like this that we should tear down the walls that separate us as a country and taking it further; as a world's people. When these horrible incidents occur, it is an opportunity to show the good in people. Whether it be through monetary or resource donations or through helping and assisting with the rebuilding and rescue efforts. It allows us to put aside the hatreds of the world or the disagreements with our enemies in order to answer the call. When these type of events occur, we are truly citizens of the world. That should be what goes someone's mind during this time. We can take a break from political discussions or bickering for a day or two at least. Because this didn't just affect Haitians. It affected Americans and many other nations. This could have happened to many other countries, but a country like Haiti is so poor that it affects that much more. So, if you have $5 to spare; give it. If you have the time and want to help; go to Haiti. If you are religious in any way; pray. And last, but not least; be decent. There are times when something like this happens that the cynics out there find a reason to "kick someone when they are down".
In the week ahead, we will certainly learn more and see further developments that may or may not hurt or help the country. Let's hope that progress and rebuilding can occur speedily. And that the death total is not as bad as expected. It is time to turn out attention and efforts to lesser off ally to the south of us. Remember, beyond being Americans we are humans; that means this affects us and is linked to us in some way.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Obama Might Not Be First...But He Is Not Worst
The first year of the Obama Presidency is nearing its close. With that in mind, I thought I would address some of the claims against President Obama. First off, I voted for then-Senator Obama in 2008 because he was breath of fresh air. Now despite many of “his claims” or campaign promises, Washington does not seem to be going in the right direction and possibly is even worse. But if you think that is President Obama’s fault and his entire fault, you are delirious. Both political parties are guilty of adding to the partisanship especially the Republican Party’s stalwart tow the same line philosophy and lack of moderate perspective.
But the thing that perturbs me the most is what the far right and die-hard conservatives say about President Obama’s place in the annuals of the Presidency. They call him “the worst President ever”. I would like to think that most of that is rhetoric for the purposes of energizing their base and find a way to give the President negative attention. I would be remiss to leave out the fact that many on the other side said similar things to a slightly (not much) lesser degree of President Bush. Bush’s story is finished and is being analyzed while Obama’s story is still in progress. But despite both presidents’ flaws, I doubt they can be called the worst. Obama has the chance to go down as one of the better presidents if he can return the economy to somewhere remotely close to where it was before the recession. And that does not even take into consideration many of items on his agenda that could be the second coming of the Great Society.
I may support most of what President Obama has outlined, but do not associate me with some Obama-head or any other term used to describe a 100% Obama supporter who see no flaws in him and his presidency. I also am not a liberal, but a realist and moderate. With all that said, many historians would agree with me that President James Buchanan would in ranked at the bottom of the lists of presidents and he not Obama should be vilified by critics. Something that happened 150 years ago is not really important to people today rightfully so, but at the same time today’s critics lack historical perspective, which I love providing.
James Buchanan was the nation’s 15th U.S. President from 1857-1861. He came to the White House after terms of office in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. He was also the Secretary of State under President James K. Polk. Slavery was a growing issue in the years leading up to his presidency especially how it pertained to the differences between the Northern states who opposed it and the Southern states who favored it. Buchanan did not want to take sides and his neutrality would only alleviate one of the worst events in our nation’s history: the U.S. Civil War.
The issue of slavery was put in the spotlight early in his term with the Dred Scott Case, where the Supreme Court ruled Congress had no constitutional power to exclude slavery in the territories. Buchanan did not want to take on the issue of slavery head on and preferred the Supreme Court handle the situation with legal decisions. His stance only further grew the South’s entitlement to slaves and slave property. Next, he favored the Lecompton Constitution with regard to Kansas and its admittance into the Union as a slave state. It would eventually get voted down after much dispute. Buchanan’s stance shows that clearly he favored slave owners’ rights and the institution of slavery. He battled with abolitionists and Northern groups. Some claimed that for a Northerner he sure had Southern principles and values. As the Election of 1860 approached, an impending secession by several Southern states seemed eminent. Sensing this he was warned to deploy several hundred federal troops to the states in question. Buchanan once again went against what was probably the right decision and took no action, which made it that much easier for the Southern states to enact their plan.
He lacked a backbone when it came to the issue and virtually said that the federal government could do nothing about the South and the South was open to do what they wanted despite some words by the President against seceding. He wanted representatives from the North and the South to solve the problem themselves and virtually let the South know that he had no real power over stopping them from leaving the Union. Then on December 20, 1860, South Carolina seceded from the Union followed by six other Southern states over the next two months. Because there were no federal officials and troops to protect the South from taking federal property in the South; they began to take over buildings and cities and formed their own country and called themselves the Confederate States of America. The South was taking steps along the way in early 1861 before Abraham Lincoln took over the presidency that would lead to their attack at Fort Sumner.
James Buchanan’s legacy is often forgotten as the man who followed him not only cleaned up the mess he made, but also went onto the guide the nation through the Civil War and become arguably the greatest U.S. President. And much of his success was due to the failures of Buchanan who is arguable the worst U.S. President we have had in our over 200 years of existence. Buchanan went against convention wisdom and refused to take proper action to avoid secession. That decision has stood the test of time and ranks as the worst mistake by a U.S. President. So, for all the people who want to jump to conclusions and say that President Obama is the worst president or will go down as the worst president; how about you open a history book and open to Chapter 15 of the U.S. Presidency chronology. Stopping spewing partisanship ideologies and use facts and evidence. It is what I try to live my life by and history should as hell teaches us a lot about today. That history gives us comparisons and contrasts and certainly anything that Obama has done in the last year doesn't rank anywhere near what Buchanan did to nation during his four years.
But the thing that perturbs me the most is what the far right and die-hard conservatives say about President Obama’s place in the annuals of the Presidency. They call him “the worst President ever”. I would like to think that most of that is rhetoric for the purposes of energizing their base and find a way to give the President negative attention. I would be remiss to leave out the fact that many on the other side said similar things to a slightly (not much) lesser degree of President Bush. Bush’s story is finished and is being analyzed while Obama’s story is still in progress. But despite both presidents’ flaws, I doubt they can be called the worst. Obama has the chance to go down as one of the better presidents if he can return the economy to somewhere remotely close to where it was before the recession. And that does not even take into consideration many of items on his agenda that could be the second coming of the Great Society.
I may support most of what President Obama has outlined, but do not associate me with some Obama-head or any other term used to describe a 100% Obama supporter who see no flaws in him and his presidency. I also am not a liberal, but a realist and moderate. With all that said, many historians would agree with me that President James Buchanan would in ranked at the bottom of the lists of presidents and he not Obama should be vilified by critics. Something that happened 150 years ago is not really important to people today rightfully so, but at the same time today’s critics lack historical perspective, which I love providing.
James Buchanan was the nation’s 15th U.S. President from 1857-1861. He came to the White House after terms of office in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. He was also the Secretary of State under President James K. Polk. Slavery was a growing issue in the years leading up to his presidency especially how it pertained to the differences between the Northern states who opposed it and the Southern states who favored it. Buchanan did not want to take sides and his neutrality would only alleviate one of the worst events in our nation’s history: the U.S. Civil War.
The issue of slavery was put in the spotlight early in his term with the Dred Scott Case, where the Supreme Court ruled Congress had no constitutional power to exclude slavery in the territories. Buchanan did not want to take on the issue of slavery head on and preferred the Supreme Court handle the situation with legal decisions. His stance only further grew the South’s entitlement to slaves and slave property. Next, he favored the Lecompton Constitution with regard to Kansas and its admittance into the Union as a slave state. It would eventually get voted down after much dispute. Buchanan’s stance shows that clearly he favored slave owners’ rights and the institution of slavery. He battled with abolitionists and Northern groups. Some claimed that for a Northerner he sure had Southern principles and values. As the Election of 1860 approached, an impending secession by several Southern states seemed eminent. Sensing this he was warned to deploy several hundred federal troops to the states in question. Buchanan once again went against what was probably the right decision and took no action, which made it that much easier for the Southern states to enact their plan.
He lacked a backbone when it came to the issue and virtually said that the federal government could do nothing about the South and the South was open to do what they wanted despite some words by the President against seceding. He wanted representatives from the North and the South to solve the problem themselves and virtually let the South know that he had no real power over stopping them from leaving the Union. Then on December 20, 1860, South Carolina seceded from the Union followed by six other Southern states over the next two months. Because there were no federal officials and troops to protect the South from taking federal property in the South; they began to take over buildings and cities and formed their own country and called themselves the Confederate States of America. The South was taking steps along the way in early 1861 before Abraham Lincoln took over the presidency that would lead to their attack at Fort Sumner.
James Buchanan’s legacy is often forgotten as the man who followed him not only cleaned up the mess he made, but also went onto the guide the nation through the Civil War and become arguably the greatest U.S. President. And much of his success was due to the failures of Buchanan who is arguable the worst U.S. President we have had in our over 200 years of existence. Buchanan went against convention wisdom and refused to take proper action to avoid secession. That decision has stood the test of time and ranks as the worst mistake by a U.S. President. So, for all the people who want to jump to conclusions and say that President Obama is the worst president or will go down as the worst president; how about you open a history book and open to Chapter 15 of the U.S. Presidency chronology. Stopping spewing partisanship ideologies and use facts and evidence. It is what I try to live my life by and history should as hell teaches us a lot about today. That history gives us comparisons and contrasts and certainly anything that Obama has done in the last year doesn't rank anywhere near what Buchanan did to nation during his four years.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Baseball on Steroids
Today, another chapter in the endless and evolving saga of steroids and baseball was written. One of the big names linked the performance enhancers admitted to taking steroids during the 1990s. Mark McGwire has been grilled, scrutinized, and been used as a test subject among Hall of Fame voters and players linked to steroids. Back in 1998, McGwire along with another alleged user, Sammy Sosa, captivated the baseball nation and the casual fan with their pursuit of the single season home run record. McGwire would hit 70 home runs that year and was viewed as a near God for bringing baseball back to the major spotlight it used to have. In a statement/interview today, he admitted to using steroids before the 1990 season, in 1993, and at different times throughout the decade including that record breaking season of 1998. For four years, McGwire has been denied entry into the Hall of Fame and most of the voters who have gone "No" on him are doing so because of what many suspected and thus confirmed today.
The thing that makes it toughest from any spectator's standpoint is several are unsure how many of McGwire's home runs and other achievements were accomplished through talent and hardwork. McGwire stated that he had good and bad years when he wasn't "juicing" and had good and bad years when he was. The 2005 House of Representatives hearing that featured McGwire along with other former players greatly hurt his him more. He has spent the last four years running away from questions about steroids. Part of his explanation sounded similar to other players linked the steroids like Andy Petitte. McGwire insisted that his sole purpose for taking steroids was mostly for health reasons to speed up recoveries and stay healthy throughout a long season. As evidence from his rookie season, McGwire certainly had power and could have certainly sent several long balls on the fences. I am not the biggest fan or supporter of steroid users, but there is one thing I know and McGwire mentioned it today; hitting a ball requires skill. The steroids will certainly enhance your abilities and strength, but they don't help your hand-eye coordination.
During the time that McGwire took steroids, many others were also linked the performance enhancers and thus for about 15 years baseball gave us the steroids era. Players like McGwire was pressured and they in turned pressured others to follow suit. However, it was all being wiped under the rug. Testing was non existent. Baseball was in a downward swing and then it was trying to reclaim its stature. McGwire is now in the spotlight more as the Cardinals' hitting coach. I don't take the blame off of players like McGwire, but we should respect those who have fessed up and are trying to move forward. At the same time, these players shouldn't be getting all the blame either. Commissioner Bud Selig and other officials over the last 20 years are just as guilty. They didn't enforce more testing and didn't "out" players when they knew they were "cheating baseball" and its fans.
For over ten years, baseball was on steroids and now in the last three years it has started to cure its problem and the more confessions we have the easier it will be to put the Steroids Era in the past.
The thing that makes it toughest from any spectator's standpoint is several are unsure how many of McGwire's home runs and other achievements were accomplished through talent and hardwork. McGwire stated that he had good and bad years when he wasn't "juicing" and had good and bad years when he was. The 2005 House of Representatives hearing that featured McGwire along with other former players greatly hurt his him more. He has spent the last four years running away from questions about steroids. Part of his explanation sounded similar to other players linked the steroids like Andy Petitte. McGwire insisted that his sole purpose for taking steroids was mostly for health reasons to speed up recoveries and stay healthy throughout a long season. As evidence from his rookie season, McGwire certainly had power and could have certainly sent several long balls on the fences. I am not the biggest fan or supporter of steroid users, but there is one thing I know and McGwire mentioned it today; hitting a ball requires skill. The steroids will certainly enhance your abilities and strength, but they don't help your hand-eye coordination.
During the time that McGwire took steroids, many others were also linked the performance enhancers and thus for about 15 years baseball gave us the steroids era. Players like McGwire was pressured and they in turned pressured others to follow suit. However, it was all being wiped under the rug. Testing was non existent. Baseball was in a downward swing and then it was trying to reclaim its stature. McGwire is now in the spotlight more as the Cardinals' hitting coach. I don't take the blame off of players like McGwire, but we should respect those who have fessed up and are trying to move forward. At the same time, these players shouldn't be getting all the blame either. Commissioner Bud Selig and other officials over the last 20 years are just as guilty. They didn't enforce more testing and didn't "out" players when they knew they were "cheating baseball" and its fans.
For over ten years, baseball was on steroids and now in the last three years it has started to cure its problem and the more confessions we have the easier it will be to put the Steroids Era in the past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
