Just last week we had the traditional "Let's Stand and Clap at Everything the President Says" speech, a.k.a. "The State of the Union". Unlike the other talking heads on FOX, MSNBC, CNN, etc., I'm not going to give you my opinions on the particular things the President said. I can't. I didn't watch the speech. I had no intention of watching it. And no, I'm not an Obama-basher (okay, maybe I am, but not at the moment); I didn't watch them even when G.W. Bush was giving them. I have only caught pieces of the speech given by different Presidents over the years, only because they seem to take over every network channel during them (I love you, Netflix!)
The reason I don't watch it is because the founding fathers of our country did not intend it that way:
Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says, "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;"
(Side note: What the hell is it with the capitalized words in the middle of that thing?)
As it states, the President is supposed to give Congress information of the state of the union, along with recommendations. George Washington delivered the first before a joint session of Congress in 1790. Thomas Jefferson thought it too similar to a speech that the King of England would give and stopped the practice (you know, not presidential, but monarchical). From that time on, it was given as a written report to Congress - read by a clerk. I think it was read out loud by a clerk because Xerox hadn't given us the copier yet.
Woodrow Wilson was the first to give the report orally to Congress since Jefferson stopped it. Most Presidents have given the report in writing; Jimmy Carter was the last to do this. Calvin Coolidge gave the report (now a "speech") on radio for the first time in 1923. And, since most Presidents like to outdo each other (how many Presidential Libraries do we need, anyway?), Harry S. Truman gave it for the first time on television in 1947.
Here's where I think it has gone astray. No longer is the State of the Union a report given to CONGRESS, but a political speech in front of the American people. As Congress now stands up and applauds every time the President takes a breath, you can almost hear Thomas Jefferson saying, "I told you so!"
The speech is stupid for another reason: why, oh why, would you have the majority of your government officials in one building at one time? There are all kinds of methodologies put in place to make sure that not everyone is in attendance, but still! Why would one risk it? Hasn't anyone seen "Mars Attacks" or "Independence Day"?!?
All kidding aside, there are plenty of opportunities during the year for the President to address the American people. This should NOT be one of them. Instead of a serious report, it is an opportunity for grandstanding and occasional abuse (of the other Branches). Go back to giving it in writing. Hell, even email it!
Nothing is worse than watching the State of the Union. Outside of the rebuttals that follow, that is.
© Emittravel 2015
Showing posts with label speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label speech. Show all posts
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Sunday, January 27, 2013
The Wrong Amendment
Due to the recent tragedy in an elementary school, where a psycho went on a murder spree, the conversation all over has been to implement some form of gun control. People have been either vigorously supporting or voraciously condemning the NRA, and screaming for the elimination of so-called "assault weapons". Everyone has become a constitutional scholar when it comes to interpreting the 2nd Amendment - telling us what the founding fathers did and did not mean when they wrote it.
Understand, as the 2nd Amendment stands, we have the (God-given) right to "bear arms". It doesn't say "muskets", or "rifles", or any specific type of "arms". Many of the founding fathers were men of science, so I'm pretty sure they believed in the advancement of all technologies that further scientific investigation would bring. So, ANY law that puts ANY restriction WHATSOVER on what constitutes "arms", is a direct infringement on that right, and therefore unconstitutional.
The argument to the above is often the 1st Amendment, where laws have been written that create boundaries around what constitutes speech and the freedoms that come with it. You can't slander someone (unless, of course, you are a politician - in or out of an election year) and you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. What constitutes "arms" in the 2nd Amendment therefore deserve the same type of boundaries. There is a major difference though: unlike the words that come out of our mouths, many of the types of weapons that are up for being abolished are ALREADY in the hands of criminals. Making them illegal only disarms law-abiding citizens. The criminals won't care - that is why they are criminals.
Let's look at this from a different perspective. Who do we really want to keep weapons from? The mentally ill. Think about it: every mass shooting that has taken place was perpetrated by someone who was mentally ill. You can't open fire on kindergartners and be in your right mind. So, mentally ill + gun = death of innocents. Maybe we are attacking this from the wrong angle. What designates someone as mentally ill? Someone with "wrong" ideas concerning reality (by reality I mean that which allows for the social framework to hold together). Where does someone get these wrong ideas? From the things they hear and the things they read.
What is needed is not the expropriation of the 2nd Amendment, but the elimination of the 1st.
Let's get rid of "free speech". Don't let people like me have a platform to share ideas that might disrupt the mainstream. Let the elite, those in our government determine what can be said, what can be printed, and what thoughts can be shared in film and games. After all, since they represent us, and we elected them, surely they would best know what would be appropriate. And once that has become entrenched into our culture, no more mental illness. No more mental illness, no more worry about "assault weapons".
There. Problem solved.
(The above was meant as sarcasm.)
© Emittravel 2013
Understand, as the 2nd Amendment stands, we have the (God-given) right to "bear arms". It doesn't say "muskets", or "rifles", or any specific type of "arms". Many of the founding fathers were men of science, so I'm pretty sure they believed in the advancement of all technologies that further scientific investigation would bring. So, ANY law that puts ANY restriction WHATSOVER on what constitutes "arms", is a direct infringement on that right, and therefore unconstitutional.
The argument to the above is often the 1st Amendment, where laws have been written that create boundaries around what constitutes speech and the freedoms that come with it. You can't slander someone (unless, of course, you are a politician - in or out of an election year) and you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. What constitutes "arms" in the 2nd Amendment therefore deserve the same type of boundaries. There is a major difference though: unlike the words that come out of our mouths, many of the types of weapons that are up for being abolished are ALREADY in the hands of criminals. Making them illegal only disarms law-abiding citizens. The criminals won't care - that is why they are criminals.
Let's look at this from a different perspective. Who do we really want to keep weapons from? The mentally ill. Think about it: every mass shooting that has taken place was perpetrated by someone who was mentally ill. You can't open fire on kindergartners and be in your right mind. So, mentally ill + gun = death of innocents. Maybe we are attacking this from the wrong angle. What designates someone as mentally ill? Someone with "wrong" ideas concerning reality (by reality I mean that which allows for the social framework to hold together). Where does someone get these wrong ideas? From the things they hear and the things they read.
What is needed is not the expropriation of the 2nd Amendment, but the elimination of the 1st.
Let's get rid of "free speech". Don't let people like me have a platform to share ideas that might disrupt the mainstream. Let the elite, those in our government determine what can be said, what can be printed, and what thoughts can be shared in film and games. After all, since they represent us, and we elected them, surely they would best know what would be appropriate. And once that has become entrenched into our culture, no more mental illness. No more mental illness, no more worry about "assault weapons".
There. Problem solved.
(The above was meant as sarcasm.)
© Emittravel 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)