State of the Union Address, Part III
“There are fewer abortions in America than at any point in the last three decades, and the number of children born to teenage mothers has been falling for a dozen years in a row."
"These gains are evidence of a quiet transformation, a revolution of conscience in which a rising generation is finding that a life of personal responsibility is a life of fulfillment. Government has played a role. Wise policies such as welfare reform, drug education and support for abstinence and adoption have made a difference in the character of our country. And everyone here tonight, Democrat and Republican, has a right to be proud of this record."
"Yet many Americans, especially parents, still have deep concerns about the direction of our culture and the health of our most basic institutions. They are concerned about unethical conduct by public officials and discouraged by activist courts that try to redefine marriage. They worry about children in our society, who need direction and love; and about fellow citizens still displaced by natural disaster; and about suffering caused by treatable disease.”
Abortions are down. That is good news. However, the infant mortality is still inexcusably high. In 2002 the US had 7.00 deaths/ 1,000 births. That ranks the US 36th, behind such developed countries as Cuba and Taiwan. The infant mortality rate is even higher for minorities, with African Americans having had 14.1 deaths/ 1,000 births in 2000 (I was unable to find the 2002 statistics). Why don’t these numbers outrage the religious right and “protect-the-sanctity-of-life” folks? Infant mortality is a good measure of the health and well being of a population. More attention should be paid to this instead of only discussing abortions.
http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_Infant_Mortality_Rate_aall.htm
www.cdc.gov
“Yet the destination of history is determined by human action, and every great movement of history comes to a point of choosing. Lincoln could have accepted peace at the cost of disunity and continued slavery. Martin Luther King could have stopped at Birmingham or at Selma and achieved only half a victory over segregation. The United States could have accepted the permanent division of Europe and been complicit in the oppression of others.”
I cannot believe President Bush has the audacity to mention his name in the same breath as these great leaders. Abraham Lincoln abhorred the inhumane practice of slavery and out of necessity engaged in a war to save the Union. Martin Luther King marched for civil rights and the end to oppression against minorities, 100 years after the Civil War was supposed have really made, “ever man created equal.” President Bush has violated civil liberties, waged an unjust war by lying to the world and divided the country into ultra conservative moralists and liberal activists who erode at good and morality. President Bush is not a leader like Lincoln or King. He is not a person of the moral integrity of those two men. He is not in the same stratosphere as those men as far as intellect and thoughtfulness are concerned. President Bush is a simplistic, narrow-minded ideologue, which will do anything, including lie, to advance an agenda that is not encompassing and good for everyone, but rather limited to a select number of extreme conservatives who desire nothing more than power and prestige.
President Bush didn’t tell any outrageous lies this year. However, his entire address was entrenched with contradictory statements (when compared to his actions) about freedom and honoring the soldiers who have perished in the Iraqi war, inaccurate statements about health care and vague definitions on how to “advance freedom” and secure “peace.”
Thank God, the American public only has to hear two more of these outrageous speeches by President George W. Bush.
"These gains are evidence of a quiet transformation, a revolution of conscience in which a rising generation is finding that a life of personal responsibility is a life of fulfillment. Government has played a role. Wise policies such as welfare reform, drug education and support for abstinence and adoption have made a difference in the character of our country. And everyone here tonight, Democrat and Republican, has a right to be proud of this record."
"Yet many Americans, especially parents, still have deep concerns about the direction of our culture and the health of our most basic institutions. They are concerned about unethical conduct by public officials and discouraged by activist courts that try to redefine marriage. They worry about children in our society, who need direction and love; and about fellow citizens still displaced by natural disaster; and about suffering caused by treatable disease.”
Abortions are down. That is good news. However, the infant mortality is still inexcusably high. In 2002 the US had 7.00 deaths/ 1,000 births. That ranks the US 36th, behind such developed countries as Cuba and Taiwan. The infant mortality rate is even higher for minorities, with African Americans having had 14.1 deaths/ 1,000 births in 2000 (I was unable to find the 2002 statistics). Why don’t these numbers outrage the religious right and “protect-the-sanctity-of-life” folks? Infant mortality is a good measure of the health and well being of a population. More attention should be paid to this instead of only discussing abortions.
http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_Infant_Mortality_Rate_aall.htm
www.cdc.gov
“Yet the destination of history is determined by human action, and every great movement of history comes to a point of choosing. Lincoln could have accepted peace at the cost of disunity and continued slavery. Martin Luther King could have stopped at Birmingham or at Selma and achieved only half a victory over segregation. The United States could have accepted the permanent division of Europe and been complicit in the oppression of others.”
I cannot believe President Bush has the audacity to mention his name in the same breath as these great leaders. Abraham Lincoln abhorred the inhumane practice of slavery and out of necessity engaged in a war to save the Union. Martin Luther King marched for civil rights and the end to oppression against minorities, 100 years after the Civil War was supposed have really made, “ever man created equal.” President Bush has violated civil liberties, waged an unjust war by lying to the world and divided the country into ultra conservative moralists and liberal activists who erode at good and morality. President Bush is not a leader like Lincoln or King. He is not a person of the moral integrity of those two men. He is not in the same stratosphere as those men as far as intellect and thoughtfulness are concerned. President Bush is a simplistic, narrow-minded ideologue, which will do anything, including lie, to advance an agenda that is not encompassing and good for everyone, but rather limited to a select number of extreme conservatives who desire nothing more than power and prestige.
President Bush didn’t tell any outrageous lies this year. However, his entire address was entrenched with contradictory statements (when compared to his actions) about freedom and honoring the soldiers who have perished in the Iraqi war, inaccurate statements about health care and vague definitions on how to “advance freedom” and secure “peace.”
Thank God, the American public only has to hear two more of these outrageous speeches by President George W. Bush.
posted by az at 10:43 PM
6 Comments:
"...divided the country into ultra conservative moralists and liberal activists who erode at good and morality."
When did this happen? I think the foundations were in place before Bush was in office but he has definitely cemented them in concrete and hasn't seen the big picture.
Do you think a hundred years from now people will look back at this era and think "how can a populace get to this point?" This isn't something that just springs up from one presidency. Have we been electing the wrong leaders for the past twenty to thirty years? When did things erode down into just two factions? So who do we elect now? There's no way that to appease both sides by electing either. The more i watch politics, the more i believe that until we WAKE UP and elect someone who's not so damn one sided, we will continue sinking. That's why i refuse to vote Republican or Democrat.
Left and Right.
It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
oh no, i agree completely with you about that being in place before bush. but, i also think he exacerbated the issue. he said he was a uniter, but has done little for that. it has been right and left for several years. i should have been more clear. good point.
there should be a third party, or someone who doesn't just toe the line of a particular party. i like mccain, b/c he doesn't blanketly believe everything republicans say. i like the governor romney of massachusetts who is also a republican who isn't afaird to deviate on issues.
so i agree, it will get worse before it gets better and it this dichotomy was in place long before bush. i just think he has made it worse.
I did't watch the state of the union or read about it because I know what the state of the union is...it's shit, and I don't care to hear a collectivist like bush, or any other politician attempt to tell me otherwise.
I won't vote republican or democrat either. Neither one of them is going to make a difference. john kerry's record on civil liberties is just as awful as bush's. under a democratic administration we would be in the same situation we are now in. Only superficial changes would have been made. our money would just be going to different special interest groups. That's why we have such a divided nation...people are trying to vote themselves priviledges and power through politics. This is only possible because politicians have more power than they should. the usual solution to problems like this is more government...more control...more regulation. That only makes things worse. The problem needs to be stopped at the source. power needs to be taken away from politicians and given back to the citizens. get the money out of politics by limiting the priviledge granting power of polititians, like the constitution once did to some extant.
i don't even know where i am going with this. it will never happen. things are still great for us now, but they won't won't be for long. it seems to be a trend...societies are doing well...then their governments start to grow...and eventually it grows so large it destroys the nation. It's happening here right now. it's sad and annoying.
I did't watch the state of the union or read about it because I know what the state of the union is...it's shit, and I don't care to hear a collectivist like bush, or any other politician attempt to tell me otherwise.
I won't vote republican or democrat either. Neither one of them is going to make a difference. john kerry's record on civil liberties is just as awful as bush's. under a democratic administration we would be in the same situation we are now in. Only superficial changes would have been made. our money would just be going to different special interest groups. That's why we have such a divided nation...people are trying to vote themselves priviledges and power through politics. This is only possible because politicians have more power than they should. the usual solution to problems like this is more government...more control...more regulation. That only makes things worse. The problem needs to be stopped at the source. power needs to be taken away from politicians and given back to the citizens. get the money out of politics by limiting the priviledge granting power of polititians, like the constitution once did to some extant.
i don't even know where i am going with this. it will never happen. things are still great for us now, but they won't won't be for long. it seems to be a trend...societies are doing well...then their governments start to grow...and eventually it grows so large it destroys the nation. It's happening here right now. it's sad and annoying.
you can remove one of my duplicate comments if yuo like....in fact you can remove both of them if you want to. sorry...i dont know how to operate internets.
i agree. get the money out of politics. and politicians are getting more powerful, i.e. wire-taps without warrants.
very good point about people trying to vote themselves into priviledges. i'm not sure things would be any better under kerry either.
i don't think government regulation isn't necessarily bad, but people do need to have more power.
Post a Comment
<< Home