| |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
January
24, 2005 I thought it was foolish to spend 40 million dollars on it (the private donations, per estimates), but then I think that a couple of billion dollars are spent foolishly every day, starting with buying lottery tickets, tobacco products, and alcohol products and going from there to sports tickets, most video games, tapes, and disks, and a lot of other stuff. But I defend the right of people to spend their money foolishly, and am not hypocritical enough to condemn just one kind of foolish spending. I thought it was stupid to spend that other $20 or $30 or whatever-million dollars on security and parade equipment and units and everything else - and am more vocal on that kind of “Stupid Government Trick” because that isn’t private money, it is money taken out of the pocketbooks of 300 million Americans (directly or indirectly), and besides, I’m an old soldier and think Presidential inaugurations should be like change-of-command ceremonies, except more stripped down. (The best inauguration we had in the last century was President Johnson’s first, on board the plane going to DC with the body of a dead president in the cargo hold. Short, simple, and as painless as possible.) But I know the folly of trying to fight some battles - even if that had been Michael Badnarik (or Ron Paul or even Harry Browne) up there on Thursday, I doubt the government cost would have been any less than half of what Bush’s Second cost - too much tradition, too much “circus” and too many clowns.) Anyway, I haven’t listened to, or read, any commentary about the inauguration or the inauguration speech, except one by accident (it was by a conservative, and it was negative). I’m sure my readers have - but even so, go to that website and read the speech. Try to read it without George W’s semi-Texas drawl or high-school delivery, without a picture of his earnest face with the big ears and the three women of the family around him - as though it was a speech from ancient history or from an essay contest that you were reading. Then continue reading my commentary. The complete text of the Inauguration Speech can be read here. Done? It’s not a bad speech, is it? If you ignore WHO and concentrate on what is stated (written), it’s not bad, is it? Oh, we nit-pick it, we can argue over why THIS word instead of THAT word was chosen, over whether he should have emphasized one point or another. But it’s not a bad speech, and actually, I will even stick my neck out and say it is a pretty good one. Great? Well, I’m hardly qualified to judge what is or is not a great inauguration speech, certainly. But it sure beats a lot of the ones I’ve heard or read over the years. I don’t think it will quite match the Professional Historians of America top ten list, though. The content is good - I dare say (except for the exclusion of the “laundry list” so beloved of all libertarian candidates for president that “On inauguration day I will order the disestablishment of….”) it is a speech that could be read, at least 98% of its 2000 words, by a libertarian president. It is full of good thoughts about freedom and liberty, and the critical roles these play in human lives and history. It is a call to not give up, and to not slide back, in our age-old battles against tyranny, and the dangers of surrendering freedom. There aren’t many specifics, but again, neither do most inauguration speeches - they are not a “State of the Union” report, and not the Queen’s Message: not some kind of legislative agenda or declaration of war. So why will I find that roughly (1) 47.5 percent of the population (that is, of the population that pays attention at all to governmental matters and politics) will condemn this speech with various reasons, that (2) 47.5 percent will praise this speech (also for various reasons) and that about (3) 5% of us will try to make some sense of it? Because those are about the percentages of the “concerned” population that (1) hate Bush to a great or greater degree, (2) like or love Bush to a great or greater degree, and (3) either don’t have an opinion or don’t have an opinion that can be stated by checking boxes on a poll webpage. If you hate Bush, you will almost certainly hate this speech. If you love Bush, you will almost certainly love (or at least like) this speech (however picky you may get). If you try to go beyond a knee-jerk reaction (or at least try to), you’ll be scratching your head over the commentary everyone is gushing out. Some
specific reasons to hate/love Bush and this speech: These reasons will
automatically, I think, work BOTH ways: Regardless, most people on either side will not really study the words and the thoughts - unfortunately, that includes the key leaders in the Administration and the President himself. Just as Lincoln and Reagan seemed unable to realize the hypocrisy of their actions when compared to their stirring words, so it is with George W. Bush. He talks a wonderful policy, but he will (based on his actions so far) enslave us all in the name of liberty - a fate that would not be unique to this time and place: look at 18th Century France, early 20th Century Russia, or a dozen other civilizations and societies. I am convinced it is not merely a matter of “interpretation” or semantics - it is a fundamental flaw in worldview, one which affects most Christians as well as most non-religious people: the idea that government exists to do good, that people are perfectable this side of Heaven, that man is master of his own fate.
|
Communica- TSA busybodies tweak federal code to give their snooping privacy Is "Stop-Loss" Of Troops Enslavement? Free State Wyoming’s First Jamboree A Success Do We See A National ID Coming? A Baker’s Dozen Tips to Preventing Home-Invasions- Cop killing continues · can this be allowed to go on?
| |||||||||||||
 |
Submit
Feedback
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
