The Union's State...I think

So how many of you deadbeats actually watched the State of the Union Address? ... I thought so :) I'll admit, I didn't watch the first time around; I was too busy watching Sky Captain, BUT I caught a repeat late last night. I'm not a big fan of the Address. In principle, I think it's great, but I'd really prefer the President to just sit down at his desk with some cameras and give his speech rather than watch Congress do the stand up, sit down, fight fight fight routine after every good soundbite (which happens once every 22 seconds it seems). I want to hear what the President has to say - no more, no less. I don't know about the rest of you, but I could really do without the partisan cheers and boos and standing and sitting; the scowls of Chappaquidick and Nancy Pelosi; and the look of orgasmic glee from Rick Santorum at the sound of marriage legislation. I understand the importance of addressing Congress with this speech but in my world, they would sit there silently (gagged and tied down) rather than engage in braindead aerobic exercise. The cameras would focus on the President (and the Grumpy Old Men sitting behind him) and occasionally on the individuals that the President chooses to recognize during his speech (clapping is permitted for them).

Addresses set the tone as well as the agenda for an administration's term and in 2002, we were given the "axis of evil" and the drumbeats of war. We all know what followed. This time, the domestic agenda (primarily Social Security) was the focus. The speech wasn't a blueprint for reform, nor was it expected to be, as I understand. Plans and changes were never espoused but the President gave us explanations, reassurances, options, and the news that SS is on a crash course to bankruptcy. This revelation elicited some boos from the crowd, but why? If I'm not mistaken, President Clinton said similar things in his 1999 Address and no one uttered a sound. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the system will begin paying out more than it takes in around 2020 and be bankrupt by 2042. I took bankrupt to mean that it'll be unable to continue in its desired form, not totally bereft of funds. So basically when we all retire (except for you, kindly older readers), we're toast. At least the AARP crowd is okay. I'm also somewhat impressed - the President nailed his colours to the mast on this one... The chances of reform hinge on his ability to change the political landscape to make Democratic opposition unsustainable. Fat chance.

In addition to the domestic matters, the President promised a more diplomatic America; he stressed soft power, hinted at multilateralism, and reiterated that the rhetoric of his inaugural hymn of praise to liberty was not just windy aspiration but a guide to our foreign policy. Highlights and goals as the President saw them:

• Iraqi election - We did a great job
• North Korea - Negotiating with Asian powers to dismantle its nuclear program
• Iran - European-led diplomacy but the Iranians should try fighting some tyranny as well
• Palestine-Israel conflict = two-state resolution is within reach + $350m to support Palestinian reform (it seemed only Senator Biden liked that one)
• The EU and UN - They aren't so bad.. hmm
• Saudi Arabia & Egypt need to show the way toward democracy in the Middle East... or else?

Confirmation of a tilt from unilateralism? Possibly. It was tough (though sometimes idealistic) rhetoric. But it sounded good if it can all come to pass. Another plus is that this is the first time the President sounded like the leader of the free world from beginning to end and wasn't standing in the middle of ground zero.. but maybe we should thank his speech writer for that. I'm no political pundit by any means, but as a random person with dual citizenship and an unusual place in the world, I was pleased.

** It's very possible that I made this post simply so I could do something with the above picture... Sorry. **