State of the Union and Bad Nuts

January 28, 2010

- See all 34 of my articles

Welcome to the second edition of my rant that appears here once a month on The Soap Boxers. My first post was on Christmas Eve and now this my second is on my 32nd birthday. So Happy Birthday to me and let us move on to the main topic of this months rant, The State of the Union.

Now I am not one for taking too much out of speeches like this and would rather just see the results of what is said happen, but last night’s address was a quite telling and interesting one. For one if one were just to glance upon it and not have any knowledge that the President was a Democrat, the tone of most of the speech was more conservative in nature. Remorse for deficit spending, praising cutting taxes, planned cuts in further taxes, and freezes in spending. Wow this is that socialism all the teabaggers have been all up in arms about? Anyways, let’s break down a few components addressed on the night.

Bank Bailouts:

I think this was a big populist piece of the speech that needed to be said and in the end really made the Republican party look by their reaction on the surface what they really are loud mouthed, hypocritical corporate tools. Bailouts were bad, needed to be done, most of the money has been returned and the rest is in the works to be returned through charging the banks a fee is the topic from the speech in a nutshell. It was the last part I am referring to that appeared on the surface to paint the Party of No for what they really are and not the populist voice they are trying to use.

The right side of the aisle sat in silenced with grumbling faces and muttering to each other as the President stated that the rest of the money would be returned through charging the banks a fee. It was one of many points on the evening where the President put the opposite party on notice on the night.

SCOTUS Decision:

The one almost “You Lie” moment of tonight’s speech came as the President addressed last week’s decision in the Supreme Court that allows Corporations no restrictions upon advertising for or against or donation to candidates for office.

When the President stated that this decision was wrong and opened the gates to corporate interests both domestic and foreign to control our electoral process, Justice Alito was seen shaking his head and mouthing that is not true. With all do respect to Justice Alito it is entirely true. The decision allows corporations to no loner have restrictions on the amount of money they can spend for a candidate for office and they are also allowed to run their own ads for or against a candidate any time they wish. Thus turning our elected officials into nothing more than corporate prostitutes.

Now I am not naive, corporate interests have dominated Washington and local elected offices as well for many many years and that was not going to end regardless. However this decision basically means corporations can basically buy their own candidates to run for office that will run solely on putting their interests first and the actual interests of their constituents last. Welcome to the Corporate States of America in 2010. Now the President did state that he wanted to see Congress address this, but honestly without a change in the makeup of the court I don’t see anything being able to stick with the wording of the majority opinion in this case.

“Politics as Usual”:

One moment I really enjoyed was when the President talked about even in light of recent election of the 41st no vote on everything the Democrats still had one of their highest majorities in congress in decades and basically told them to grow a pair and get things done for the American people. Then on the other hand told the Republicans if they want to sit there and block and delay ever single thing that comes before Congress then they need to own up to it themselves and they are the sole reason that nothing is getting done.

Bipartisanship is a two way street, not where one party completely stands their ground while the other makes every concession they can just to continue to have the other side say, well that is not good enough still. Should be interesting to see how this unfolds by the midterm elections. Will the Democrats actually gain the muster to just bear down and things done on their own? Hopefully so. Will the Republicans decide that their actions of doing nothing be seen in that light finally and decide to actually do the job of elected office and actually doing something? Probably not, but I can always hope.

Job Creation:

I would have liked to seen a more laid out point of job creation. It was a nice start in what was laid out, but the approximate 30 million jobs to be created is just a minor repair to the damage that has been done, but then again it is only the forecast for the upcoming year.  [Editor’s note: I’m verifying the 30 million figure with Angry Squirrel]

Student Loans:

Being a person paying off student loans it was a nice thing to hear about increasing Pell Grants, creating further tax credits and also the provision to forgive student loan debt after a certain period of time.

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell:

I wish it would have been done as promised in the first year in office, but better late than never guess. I’ll believe it when I actually see it, but the repeal of this insane and useless policy will be a great day when it comes. A recent report from NPR stating that 1/3 of women in the U.S. Military are raped while in the military is just one of the many more things threatening to the morale and discipline of the armed forces then the sexual preference of your fellow officer.

Well those are just a few of the points I will touch on from the speech, all in all it was a nice speech with some actual meat to it in proposals. Might not be entirely memorable down the line but for his first State of the Union address it was done well.

Now for a monthly tradition to start for my posts, The “Bad Nuts of the Month”. Our trained squirrels are busy each month figuring out the good ones from the bad, and the worst three nuts will be placed on display here before they go where where all the bad nuts go, down the garbage chute.

Bad Nut #1: Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh on the Haiti Earthquake

The evangelical christians’ equivalent to the Pope and El Rushbo the Cracker Drug Addict were really off base on the disaster in Haiti. Robertson stated that the Haitians got what they deserved and this was some sort of wrath for a deal they supposedly made with the devil to gain their independence from France long ago. Rush on the other hand stated that people should not give a dime or a minute of their time to help the Haitian people as it would only be playing into Obama’s hands in garnering respect form the light and dark skinned blacks in this country.

Then again nothing out of either of these two guys mouths really shocks me, but they are a couple of the worst nuts of the month. Rush would also make the list for his comments about Obama attacking Jews because he is going after the banks comments, but there is no need to list the same person more than once on the list.

Bad Nut #2: James O’Keefe and Friends

I guess the joke’s on James O’Keefe, the officials in Mary Landrieu’s offices were not gullible to believe he was actually a phone repairman as the idiots at the ACORN offices were to fall for him actually being a pimp. Now after entering the offices on Federal property under false pretenses to perform a felony O’Keefe and his buddies are now going to be facing some mandatory federal prison time.

Bad Nut #3: South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer.

One of the frontrunners for the Republican nomination in the next gubernatorial race in the state as well, Bauer stated that aid to the needy should be cut for some very interesting reasons. Me paraphrasing it does not do the idiocy of the man justice so I’ll just put the quotes from him on this issue in full context.

“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better. You see, for the first time in the history of this country, we’ve got more people voting for a living than we do working for a living.”

He then goes on to rant about requiring parents to take drug tests and if they don’t pass then their children don’t deserve anything from the state at all because of that and that parents should be required to attend every PTO meeting or school event or you shouldn’t receive any benefits and that we should take away the huge monetary draw public assistance is (LMAO) by reducing benefits the more children you have.

3 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. kosmo
    Jan 28, 2010 @ 13:45:09

    I’m a bit disturbed by Rush’s comment. I have never been to Haiti, bu friends of mine have. The sad fact is that the population there struggles through a level of povery that few Americans will face. I’m not trying to minimize the problems faced by the poor in the US – but it’s a whole different ballgame. It would be unfortunate to turn this into a political football.

    As for Robertson, that quote was just crazy, but if you had to pick a evangelist to say it, he’s be the one, based on past performance. I wouldn’t mind being next in line behind him at the pearly gates. I suspect that Peter might have an interesting chat with him.

    For those who might see Haiti as a place that is a world away … Miami is 710 miles from Port-Au-Prince. Miami is 739 miles from Baton Rouge, Louisiana and 1178 miles from Portland, Maine, just to provide some perspective.


  2. Squeaky
    Jan 28, 2010 @ 15:22:51

    Wow, you are an angry squirrel. What the hell do you eat for breakfast?

    I have to say that I didn’t enjoy the SOTU address much. I felt like it was another Obama Ra Ra speech and was very adversarial. One of Obama’s campaign promises was to lead from the middle of the aisle, to be more transparent, etc. Well as you said in your article,

    “It was one of many points on the evening where the President put the opposite party on notice on the night.”

    I’ll give BO transparency on that one. He came out and said what he meant and was not behind closed doors. He’s nowhere near the middle of the aisle though. He’s still pushing healthcare, he’s still spending like a mad man, he’s still adding fees (because he can’t call them taxes) which will undoubtedly trickle down to the people. He’s still “putting the conservatives on notice” as you say and not working to blur those party lines. When will it stop?

    BTW, I have a nomination for Nut #4 Danny Glover. He actually had the lack of sense to blame the Hatian earthquake on global warming. Is it possible that the global warming has left the state of Iowa and focused all its efforts on Danny Glover’s mind? That would explain the cold and ice there and it would explain why Danny Glover is talking like he has lost his mind.


  3. Tiberius Kane
    Feb 03, 2010 @ 09:23:25

    The Angry Squirrel is definitly angry but 0bama is an ignorant squirrel. I’ll use the recent Supreme Court ruling as an example.

    Anybody who’s read the Supreme Court’s ruling on Campaign Finance Reform of 2002 knows 0bama’s portrayal of the decision is “simply not true”. The court ruled against legislation that restricted expenditures for free speech. The fact is that the previous Supreme Court rulings affirmed that corporations have personhood and Constitutional rights. Limiting anyones rights by forbiding expenditures is a violation of our First Amendment rights.

    The court also acknowledged any corporation can form a PAC and subvert Campaign Finance Reform of 2002. So what purpose does it serve to abridge our First Amendment rights? Campaign Finance Reform of 2002 serves no good purpose. If anything, by creating PAC’s it hides the true identity of the source of the money and speech.

    The court did not strike down any legislation limiting contributions to a campaign. Corporations and individuals are limited in what they can contribute to a campaign. This door has not been flung wide open as 0bama said it was.

    It’s disturbing that our president and his wife, who are lawyers, know so little about law.


Leave a Reply