Did anyone watch the messiah address the nation last night? I did. I also has someone tell me that NPR was too right of center for them. About the former, what are your thoughts? Is any of it based in reality? Does anything he had to say reflect an appropriate coarse of action for the future? If I had to summarize, I would say that the entire thing was a big whine interrupted with pictures of a smiling young Barack. Why were there no pictures of the drug enhanced, belligerent Barack? They would have gone nicely with all the America bashing that was insinuated through the examples of people that have fallen on hard times. Fight the power, man.
I’m left wondering just what it was that people saw in this country that would make them volunteer to sacrifice their lives for it. What about this country made our grandparents forgo immediate gratification for the sake of investing in the future and the “yoke” of obligation? I’m pretty sure there were people without medicine and jobs in every one of the previous generations. What really needs to be looked at is how these issues were addressed in the past. And, they were addressed. Was government the answer? Was regulation the answer? Was legislating equality or the left’s morality the answer? Here, I have to say that it is so hypocritical of him to even imply that we should do anything. He and his party have been at the helm of the movement insisting that morality should and cannot be legislated (or even modeled by anyone they deem conservative). What on earth do his propositions compelling we his humble servants to hope and hope for change and a better world imply? They imply that there is a standard of good out there somewhere. They also imply that we are obligated to achieve it or submit to it at the risk of rebelling against said good or falling short of said standard. Sounds an awful lot like a morality to me albeit one dictated by him.
I am left with this thought which is possibly the most disconcerting of all. I say this not out of overt condemnation of what he had to say. Perhaps I just need it explained better, but what does anything he had to say mean? He spoke of believing in the Constitution. He called us to act responsibly. He said he would give a tax cut to everyone earning under $200,000. He said he was going to help small business. He said he was going to not only bring back jobs, but jobs that can’t be outsourced. All of these things are either contradictory to what he has said in the recent past or uses of terms which he deplores used mainly by the right.
For a short explanation before work here, take the word ‘responsibility.’ I’m struck by a Democrat telling me to take or act responsibly. Are they not the ones telling me that I should have perfect freedom and liberty? Are they not the ones telling me to do as I please? Are they not the most virulent attackers of any sort of coherence to history or tradition that I might act responsibly toward? Are they not the ones encouraging lawsuits that reward irresponsible behavior, or so that I don’t use that term in its own defense, assigning the burden where historically it has not belonged? This is just another example of the atomistic or myopic thinking of the left. How can one act responsibly without recognizing their obligation or standard by which an act can be deemed responsible? Or, maybe it is just another example of the left wanting to define the rules of the game all the time. I mean, how can an action be responsible if there is no corresponding obligation. Wait, there is more. How can one act responsibly if they don’t know remotely what this obligation is before taking the action? So, here where I am left out to sea is that Obama and Co. have done their best to eliminate the traditional consequences of actions leaving me wondering just what these consequences are now and what they will be in the future. I guess he will tell me when we get there.
Again, he seems like a nice guy. I just don’t know why he is so angry. Perhaps it is because his mother got him up at 4am.