![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
State of the Union.
I will go ahead and do a post on this, I think, before I go to bed.
Obama said a lot of things in his speech tonight, good and bad, strong and weak. But I will try to focus this on the overall feel of the speech first. I think something that was readily appreciative was the fact that there was a lot of humor and sarcasm in that speech-- which I think is actually a good thing. Obama's personality has little to do with how he'll lead this country, but it has a lot to do with knowing that our president isn't a robot or maybe he does feel my frustration as an average citizen, even if his hands are effectively tied by Congress.
I think the best move was calling Republicans out on their bullshit. Blaming the deficit on him? Not fair. Being a party of "no" isn't helping this country at all, and they needed to be told somewhere that would have a reasonably large audience. The SOTU was the perfect place to do this because for how long Obama has the stage, the American audience doesn't get the Republican spin, whether or not they're watching Faux or CNN (which, by the by, CNN? There was booing. Stop trying to paint the Republicans as saints here). And it was equally right to call the Democrats out on their bullshit as well.
Obama's entire point, aside from the actual policy changes-- was bootstraps. I know everyone hates hearing that phrase, but bootstraps are what's made this country great. And I'm not talking about everyone has to support themselves by themselves, otherwise it's un-American. I'm talking about tying up your bootstraps and changing things. That's what the phrase has always meant to me, and that that particular characteristic has been changed into something negative and dis-empowering for the people who can't support themselves or get the care they need for various reasons... That's a crime to me.
And so I was really glad for the end of Obama's speech, saying he will not quit, and that we as Americans should not be afraid to enact change, to do what's right. That is what I think of, when I think of bootstraps. It's getting down and dirty to do the right thing.
With that said, I'll outline my thoughts on the policies he mentioned:
10,000 tax cut for college is something I approve of, even if it comes too late for me. This sort of thing will help the families like mine-- the ones who make too much to qualify for most financial assistance, but too little to realistically pay the amount that FAFSA thinks we should be able to pay. Debt forgiveness, and basing loan repayments at 10% of total income is also awesome, and I think that making it easier for those less fortunate to go to college and get degrees is a good idea.
I think more should be done on primary and secondary education, though. American colleges still have very few peers, so we need to bring our public schools up to that level.
Nuclear energy is a must have, imho. Most of the country's energy consumption doesn't come from cars, like most people think, but from electricity, among other things. Nuclear power would vastly reduce this cost, and put the American people less at the mercy of rising oil costs.
Offshore drilling and clean coal? Not so much.
I like that Obama has explicitly set a date for complete withdrawal from Iraq. I wish that the same could be done for Afghanistan, however. But this may be an issue for SOTU-11. I also like that he's decided to cut down on our nuclear stockpile.
Repealing of DADT is something I, and quite a few other military members, can get behind, so go fuck yourself, McCain. Your reasoning for opposing the repeal? "This successful policy has been in effect for over fifteen years, and it is well understood and predominantly supported by our military at all levels. We have the best trained, best equipped, and most professional force in the history of our country, and the men and women in uniform are performing heroically in two wars. At a time when our Armed Forces are fighting and sacrificing on the battlefield, now is not the time to abandon the policy." Hmmm. One of these things is not like the other.
If Obama sticks to his veto threats, I'll be pleased. But I also worry that this will mean nothing gets accomplished as Congress won't do the logical thing and retool these bills until they're what they should be. So, that threat... could be a double edged sword. We'll see what the future holds on that one.
Healthcare reform hasn't been forgotten-- and I hope that it gets stronger. I'm not pleased with the bill as it is now, because while it does guarantee coverage for those Americans, it doesn't actually fix the problem. It frustrates me how Congress blatantly ignores with wishes of 62% of the American population that wants a public option.
Helping veterans is ALWAYS A+. I agree with![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
chicanery on this, and that is all I really have to say about it.
I know the spending freeze is going to be unpopular, but... I can see his reasoning for doing it, just like I could see the reasoning when McCain proposed it on his campaign. America has run itself into debt, though I also feel the debt has been slightly exaggerated as well. I hope Obama does follow through on higher taxes on the rich. I think it's been thoroughly proven that the Trickle Down theory DOES NOT WORK and these people not paying taxes doesn't somehow make that money transfer into the hands of the working class.
I have opinions. You should read them and argue with me.
Obama said a lot of things in his speech tonight, good and bad, strong and weak. But I will try to focus this on the overall feel of the speech first. I think something that was readily appreciative was the fact that there was a lot of humor and sarcasm in that speech-- which I think is actually a good thing. Obama's personality has little to do with how he'll lead this country, but it has a lot to do with knowing that our president isn't a robot or maybe he does feel my frustration as an average citizen, even if his hands are effectively tied by Congress.
I think the best move was calling Republicans out on their bullshit. Blaming the deficit on him? Not fair. Being a party of "no" isn't helping this country at all, and they needed to be told somewhere that would have a reasonably large audience. The SOTU was the perfect place to do this because for how long Obama has the stage, the American audience doesn't get the Republican spin, whether or not they're watching Faux or CNN (which, by the by, CNN? There was booing. Stop trying to paint the Republicans as saints here). And it was equally right to call the Democrats out on their bullshit as well.
Obama's entire point, aside from the actual policy changes-- was bootstraps. I know everyone hates hearing that phrase, but bootstraps are what's made this country great. And I'm not talking about everyone has to support themselves by themselves, otherwise it's un-American. I'm talking about tying up your bootstraps and changing things. That's what the phrase has always meant to me, and that that particular characteristic has been changed into something negative and dis-empowering for the people who can't support themselves or get the care they need for various reasons... That's a crime to me.
And so I was really glad for the end of Obama's speech, saying he will not quit, and that we as Americans should not be afraid to enact change, to do what's right. That is what I think of, when I think of bootstraps. It's getting down and dirty to do the right thing.
With that said, I'll outline my thoughts on the policies he mentioned:
10,000 tax cut for college is something I approve of, even if it comes too late for me. This sort of thing will help the families like mine-- the ones who make too much to qualify for most financial assistance, but too little to realistically pay the amount that FAFSA thinks we should be able to pay. Debt forgiveness, and basing loan repayments at 10% of total income is also awesome, and I think that making it easier for those less fortunate to go to college and get degrees is a good idea.
I think more should be done on primary and secondary education, though. American colleges still have very few peers, so we need to bring our public schools up to that level.
Nuclear energy is a must have, imho. Most of the country's energy consumption doesn't come from cars, like most people think, but from electricity, among other things. Nuclear power would vastly reduce this cost, and put the American people less at the mercy of rising oil costs.
Offshore drilling and clean coal? Not so much.
I like that Obama has explicitly set a date for complete withdrawal from Iraq. I wish that the same could be done for Afghanistan, however. But this may be an issue for SOTU-11. I also like that he's decided to cut down on our nuclear stockpile.
Repealing of DADT is something I, and quite a few other military members, can get behind, so go fuck yourself, McCain. Your reasoning for opposing the repeal? "This successful policy has been in effect for over fifteen years, and it is well understood and predominantly supported by our military at all levels. We have the best trained, best equipped, and most professional force in the history of our country, and the men and women in uniform are performing heroically in two wars. At a time when our Armed Forces are fighting and sacrificing on the battlefield, now is not the time to abandon the policy." Hmmm. One of these things is not like the other.
If Obama sticks to his veto threats, I'll be pleased. But I also worry that this will mean nothing gets accomplished as Congress won't do the logical thing and retool these bills until they're what they should be. So, that threat... could be a double edged sword. We'll see what the future holds on that one.
Healthcare reform hasn't been forgotten-- and I hope that it gets stronger. I'm not pleased with the bill as it is now, because while it does guarantee coverage for those Americans, it doesn't actually fix the problem. It frustrates me how Congress blatantly ignores with wishes of 62% of the American population that wants a public option.
Helping veterans is ALWAYS A+. I agree with
chicanery on this, and that is all I really have to say about it.I know the spending freeze is going to be unpopular, but... I can see his reasoning for doing it, just like I could see the reasoning when McCain proposed it on his campaign. America has run itself into debt, though I also feel the debt has been slightly exaggerated as well. I hope Obama does follow through on higher taxes on the rich. I think it's been thoroughly proven that the Trickle Down theory DOES NOT WORK and these people not paying taxes doesn't somehow make that money transfer into the hands of the working class.
I have opinions. You should read them and argue with me.
no subject
We can't just disregard the idea that while we try to figure out what's going on with the radioactive waste, it continues to build up. We can't just keep sticking it in the middle of the desert in Nevada forever. While, yes, perhaps, it can be developed, it needs time and we can't just keep making the problem worse while we wait for it to get developed. On the other hand, wind/tidal/solar energy is realistic and immediate - a lot of southern california gets their energy from windmills in the desert. Recently European countries have been pushing for giant windmills out at see, the British have a tidal power system under a bridge. It's not like the other sources are amorphous and not real, but that they are safer. Ultimately safety needs to be a big priority when weighing these decisions. And you bring up the development, which is an interesting point since it has been an issue for many years - what happened at Chernobyl was in the 80s, and we still haven't come up with an answer despite knowing for all that time an answer is necessary.
no subject
And an answer for what? I'm pretty sure they've determined what happened at Chernobyl.
The other energy sources also have their cons-- wind energy can't possibly, reliably, fuel all parts of the United States, solar power is out of the question for Alaska or the Pacific Northwest. Developing a system to take care of the radioactive waste could be made a top priority, since it would take time to put a nuclear power system in place anyway, as the current infrastructure does not allow for immediate adoption. It's not impossible and it shouldn't be thrown out of hand for sensationalized risks.
no subject
no subject
Chernobyl was a modified sub reactor in a tin shack, basically, with no proper containment and safety systems which could actually be turned off by the workers. Which was what happened. It was not at the same level of sophisitication as even the plants built in the US in the sixties and seventies.
We have the technology for decontamination plants that would cut down enormously on the radioactive waste, as well as other nuclear options like thorium... which haven't been investigated due to the exact attitude you're displaying here.
We have the technology to vastly reduce our carbon input with nuclear power right now. The other technologies aren't even close to a point where they could support us at our current rate of energy use, not to mention that wind farms make massive tracts of land unfriendly to local wildlife, and solar panels need a huge amount of space and have huge energy costs in their very construction.
Do you think our planet can afford us screwing around using oil and coal for much longer?
no subject
You bring up my attitude stopping the idea of decontamination, but how is that any different than your attitude towards non-nuclear sources?
Tidal and wind technologies can be employed in the ocean. Solar panels and wind turbines can be put in deserts, not just places people would want to not be taken up. It works just fine in Southern California as is already.
I'm not suggesting we should stay around using oil and coal, in fact, I am all for fixing the problem with our energy I just don't think we should do irreversible damage that would hurt the planet for thousands of years while we play around with the technology. The half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.47 billion years and that of uranium-235 is 704 million years. Thorium on the other hand, 232Th with a half-life of 14.05 billion years, 230Th with a half-life of 75,380 years, 229Th with a half-life of 7340 years, and 228Th with a half-life of 1.92 years. While the final isotope is a short half life It is the by product of Uranium Decay. Which means Uranium would have to be used to get it, rather defeating the point.
no subject
That's a straw man; you're putting words in my mouth. All I said about non-nuclear sources was that they're problematic and cannot support our full energy load as they are right now, and probably won't be able to for years.
Covering large amounts of land or ocean with any of these technologies is going to be bad for the local wildlife, even if it's an ecosystem that humans don't feel bad about disturbing. I don't think we should consign desert biomes to significant meddling when we don't have to, just because there's nothing cute and fluffy in them that we'd feel guilty for messing with.
The radioactive products with the longest half-lives are also the ones that are emitting radioactivity at the slowest rate, which means they're not going to give off their full energy load rapidly and can probably be safely contained till we have the technology to deal with them. Thorium produces much less radioactive material. It uses and produces much less uranium, and its reaction can actually consume some of the waste we're currently storing now. It will not continue reacting if humans onsite fuck up.
We're dribbling and drabbling more and more radiation into our environment now; coal as mined has a lot of little bits of radioactive elements in it, which are dumped into our air when the coal is burned completely unmonitored. With our current level of sophistication, I think the risks are justified and can be largely compensated for.