White Men on Parade

As I write this post, I'm watching the President give his fourth State of the Union address before Congress. Following, in no particular order, are my impressions of this event:

1. Watching Junior at his podium flanked by Fat Cat Cheney and a bulldog-like Hastert, it occures to me that the beltway culture they so loudly decry has, in actuality, been fertile ground for white men, just like them, who comprise the power elite. They just look so entitled sitting up there. Although not all State of the Union messages were delivered personally (Woodrow Wilson was the first modern President to present a verbal address; previous to that, the last verbal address was given by Thomas Jefferson), since the founding of our republic the image has remained the same: a parade of white, christian males as president, flanked by yet other white, christian males as Vice President and Speaker of the House. Hell, it's not MORNING in America; in some ways, it's still 1789! For some history of the State of the Union, check out this link: http://hnn.us/articles/1233.html

2. When will we have a President with the political guts to just submit a written State of the Union, and forego the insipid spectacle that has come to characterize the State of the Union? The President barely utters 50 words before his party stands to applaud loudly. It's childish and it doesn't even make good theatre. Honestly, purple fingers? Emotional hugs to loud and sustained applause? Even to those who claim this stuff is exciting, it has--read closely here--NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STATE OF OUR UNION.

3. Cheney looks bored. And mean.

4. Hastert looks mad.

5. The Republican attempt to dismember Social Security is a vicious smoke-screen. There may be funding problems over the horizon--the President should be well acquainted with these, as he has led this country to budgetary irresponsibility from the day he was appointed by the Supreme Court--but make no mistake, the assault on Social Security is no timid slap at the American worker. It is a full frontal assault that must not succeed. There already exist a host of ways that workers with means can save funds for retirement. There are IRAs, 401(k)s and other deferred arrangements, savings accounts, stock plans and more. But Social Security is the one last hope--last "safety net" if you will--of the American worker. Social Security is not, and should not become, just another program for those who are already able to sock away money. It is a pensioners program for the aged who, without it, would not be able to survive. It is a program for the surviving children of dead parents who, without it, could neither eat nor have shelter. If the program has grown extravagant over the years, then trim it back. But we must retain this compact between the people and their government that no American fall into penury on account of old age or loss of a loved one on whom they once depended.

6. I feel Bill Frist would be about the worst possible person to invite to a party--except, perhaps, the Republican Party.

7. The President's gratuitous attack on the righs of gays and lesbians to marry shows he lacks the reputed compassion of Jesus, whom he claims to much admire. And did I miss something? I heard him talk about the danger of same-gender marriages, but I'm not sure I heard the part about the danger of North Korean nuclear proliferation. Or, come to think of it, the danger of U. S. shipping ports or chemical facilities being vulnerably unprotected. Or about the inexcusable fact of 46 million Americans being uninsured in this richest of all lands. Surely those points must have been in there somewhere; I'll have to check the transcript.

8. Laura Bush always looks very beautiful in "Bush Blue".

9. Was Orin Hatch sleeping at one point during the speech? Or just praying? No matter. Both were inappropriate then and there.

10. Have either lawsuits or jury awards suddenly exploded exponentially? Have doctors suddenly become just that much more careless? Somehow I doubt it. Yet the President again mentioned that high medical malpractice costs are impacting the availability of good healthcare by driving doctors out of certain specialties. I find this to be interesting. If there has been no vast increase either in the number of lawsuits, the amount of jury awards or the overall carelessness of physicians, then to what must we attribute the truly exponential increase in malpractice insurance rates? I suggest it is the result of collusion between insurance companies who seek--in a manner learned well from our President--to preciptate a crisis, and then beat their breasts about its severity. I am here calling for a Congressional inquiry into this matter, and legislation to control the steep increase in medical malpractice insurance rates.