Big Beef Bonanza!

I did not catch our head honcho's speech on television last night, though I read the entire transcript of it last night. I agree that it was impressive, maybe for different reasons than people who support the administration, but I wish I'd seen it on TV so I could see how it took two hours to deliver it. I love the way the man speaks, pausing every few syllables or so. It's funny how, on the campaign trail back in 2000 and whatnot, he seemed so goofy, so insecure - yet now he stands up straighter and doesn't make the same pronunciation slip ups he used to.

Yet, the general reaction from the fairly large number of people in offices I visited today is ho-hum. A few crazies (my mom, for example) think that The Guvna's going to get us all killed or something, but on the average it seems people are sort of indifferent to Bush and his administration after the address. Public reactions in newspapers seem to be sort of moderate (and I actually checked some other than the Times). I enjoy listening to Bush speak, regardless of my opinions, and while I think his first SOTU address was better, this one was also very good. Where it fell short, I think, is how he delivered our case against Iraq. Again, I wish I'd seen it on TV so I could've heard the verbal conveyance, but the end read sort of like a kindergarten book with the repetetive paragraphs. It would've been better to have listed all of the problems and then said that Iraq has neither complied with or explained away any of them.

As for war, I think February 5th (when the U.N. will convene to review the UNSCOM stuff, I believe) should be the point where we take matters into our own hands if the world won't help us. I would rather have their help, but like Caniprokis has said, we can't wait forever. I think you could classify me as ultra-liberal or extreme-leftist or whatever, but like Stone said, do we wait for the smoking launchpad with the missile aimed at Israel or England or us? People have this vision of war today as being similar to war from the Vietnam and earlier war eras: hundreds of thousands of casualties, civilian deaths, total chaos, and so on. Here: There were a total of 148 U.S. battle deaths during the Gulf War, 145 nonbattle deaths, and 467 wounded in action. Which means that we lost, even proportionately, an incredibly small amount of people, and this was a little over ten years ago. 293 people total. Here's a little fact for ya - the two Boeing 767's that crashed into the WTC towers could hold all 293 of those people between the two of them with room to spare for 117 more people. Anti-war organizations claim that the Iraqi innocent death total during the Gulf War was somewhere between 2,500 to 3,000. I'm sure those figures are exaggerated, but we'll use them anyway: approximately the same number of innocent people were killed during the WTC attack. I don't even know how many people one Iraqi SCUD missile could kill, but I'm pretty sure it's a lot more than 3,293 Americans/Israelis/Africans/Britons/Frenchies/whatever. The chances are that our war with Iraq will produce fewer domestic casualties and fewer innocent deaths. We are over ten years more intelligent and prepared than we were during Desert Storm. I think my fellow liberals should take the time to do some fucking research on the matter like I did and realize that the potential loss of American and Allied lives, coupled with the importance of keeping the other innocent Iraqis protected from their shitty dictator, far outweighs any other objections. Even from a humanist point of view, this is the only logical choice.

But now it's time for me to stop sounding like a "hawk", the term they break out during times of war. Time to get back into left field.

I haven't had a lot of time to analyze the President's speech, so more will be on the way at a later date, but I do have one bone to pick with our leader at the moment. "I have sent you Clear Skies legislation that mandates a 70-percent cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years." If I remember correctly, our home state of Connecticut is one of nine or so states SUING the federal government for easing restrictions on the Clean Air act! How can you mandate a 70-percent cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years when they are no longer required to buy equipment that reduces pollution? If you don't care about the environment, fine, enjoy living in your climate-controlled dome out of an Asimov book, whatever. Did these easings of restrictions not occur? If not, then that's good, my point is silly and we can move on.

So yeah, I will be checking out Mr. Bush's math and reporting back to you on that, because something looks fishy there. I promise to have some really radical stuff to say about it to counter my tough war stance. =)

Have a good night, y'all.

Knaa'mean?