Steaming mad about the state of our union

Today, I'm steaming. That dang address. That dang man.

Conservatives like to tout some basic principles. Two I keep hearing in the primary campaigns:

National security. Fiscal responsibility.

Which, I have to say, just about makes steam come out of my ears.

Because, look: I'm a mommy of 2 little kids, trying to make on a solidly middle class salary. So two things that matter to me:

National security. Fiscal responsibility.

First: I am a lioness when it comes to those kids, as fiercely protective as if I were wandering around the jungle. So I worry about our fragile national "peace." A lot. I think we need to do everything we possibly can to make our country safe and secure. Bad people want to hurt us -- want to hurt MY KIDS -- and I want to stop them.

But W and his cronies have made one unholy mess of our national security. When he stands up there and waxes on about terrorism and surge and WMDs and Iraq and Iran, I have to stop myself from SCREAMING AT THE TELEVISION.

I was barely conscious of the Cold War, but I do remember being relieved when the Wall came down and we eased our fingers back from the nuclear hair trigger a bit. And then: relative peace.

But we kept on pouring money into the Pentagon as if the USSR was still massing its warheads in Cuba. Because we were in that groove: money for missile defense, money for the huge arsenal of nuclear weapons, money for no-bid contracts for Raytheon and Halliburton and Boeing. Money for obsolete threats, money for defense contractors, crazy crazy money, to keep on building up a huge military industrial complex -- because it had an engine all its own. Just like Eisenhower predicted. And because we sorta took our eyes off the ball, right? Took our big ole military machine for granted, figured it was keeping us safe...

And then something awful happened, and we were attacked, and our people fell out of buildings, and planes fell out of the sky, and I was terrified for my newborn infant in those months after 9/11.

So I wanted our government to marshal its forces and make us more secure from these new, very real, very crazy people who wanted to hurt me and my kids. And I figured: we would take stock of the new world, and take all that crazy money, and pour it into things that would actually make us safe.

So many people have great ideas about this new world. We could address the root causes of terrorism and poverty with things like economic aid, state-building assistance, diplomacy, language training. We could address our own faults with things like alternative energy research (so we're not crazy dependent on foreign oil). We could address our status in the world with things like aid to starving children, troops to help stop genocide.

We have billions upon billions to spend on these things! We could build a new world! We could enhance our moral standing! We could give healthcare to our kids, rebuild our crumbling bridges...

Ack! What did we do instead? We took that big military stick, and bashed people over the head with it. Are these even the people who hurt us in the first place? NO!

We dropped bombs on a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11. We did it, and then found out we had wrong intelligence. We did it, and killed thousands of innocents in the process. We did it, and then found out we had made a mess of a country, and had to stay indefinitely to pick up the pieces. We did it, and killed thousands of our own men and women. We did it, and poured billions and billions of dollars into it -- and found out there's no way to end it. We did it, and angered our friends AND enemies; created a training ground for terrorists (as well as a new reason for them to be); and messed up a whole region of the world.

We did it, and I am more frightened now than I was before we did it.

THIS is national security? This is stupidity.

Okay, phew, second: You can rail on all you want about the size of government and welfare and domestic programs... but the truth, at the end of the day, is that, far and away, the biggest problem with our federal budget is the OUTSIZED OUTDATED CRAZY Pentagon budget. It accounts for OVER HALF of our discretionary budget. If you rein that sucker in, you've got billions and billions to spend on things that ACTUALLY MAKE US SAFER. Actual national security.

And that Pentagon budget? It doesn't even include the wars! We pay for those with whopping crazy supplemental budget. Or the veterans! Another budget line altogether. Or international programs!

We waste billions every day! Look at the war! $720 million a day!  A DAY.

I shop at Goodwill, I buy bruised fruit, I turn the heat way down... because I don't like to waste money. But I've already sent $20,000 to this war. On top of all my other taxes! I have a pretty accommodating attitude about taxes, they keep our society functioning, but I don't want to pay for this endless, pointless, deadly war.

Fiscal responsibility. Not. National security. Not.

Instead, we're more insecure, more unstable, and very much poorer.

See? Steaming mad.

We could do this so much better. We have the means, the money, the energy, the moral compass.

But we have been wasting it all: we're fiscally irresponsible and nationally endangered.

THAT"S the state of our union.

Comments

[Sayre Sheldon]

From WAND's president emerita Sayre Sheldon:

I did watch last night and found nothing new or unexpected--just the same old "closed delusional system" he lives in.

But why does everyone have to clap and carry on so? It's as if they're all trapped in the same "we're the most powerful nation on earth" fantasy he believes in and therefore we can afford to put up with a really bad president and still be the greatest.

I woke up humming an old song: "It's only a paper moon" Each verse starts with something like "It's a Barnum and Bailey world--just as phoney as it can be" and the refrain is "But it wouldn't be make-believe--if you believed in me" which I changed to "If I believed in you!" So enough of make-believe, let's get on with the real things that need to be done.

[Susan Shaer]

If you look at someone's grocery list, you can get an idea if they are a vegetarian, a vegan or a meat-eater. Sometimes, you might even be able to tell what they are going to make for dinner that night. Otherwise, it's just an glimpse - with lots of holes - into that person's eating habits.
That's what the state of the union address was to me. A speech with lots of holes. It was a grocery list, and I have little idea from it what the president really thinks or cares about.
He jumped from issue to issue, repeating bromides, and emphasizing very little. If I were from another country, I would have no idea what the state of the union was. I live here, and I don't know!
We have an environment run amok with storms and changing weather patterns. We have thousands of people out of work, and out of their homes. The numbers of those without health insurance is staggering - millions more than when he took office.
And the price tag for the war in Iraq makes me sick. Yes, he mentioned our veterans, but cuts their services and changes the regulations that could assist them.
He mentioned the war in Afghanistan, but not that we had all but given up on that war and catching Osama bin Laden in favor of attacking Iraq.
I'm just tired of it. I have to say that I think everyone should be a member of WAND. At least we can know that everyday our membership is doing something to change things.
Ok, I feel better now.

[Marie Rietmann]

My favorite part by far was hearing the words "Madame Speaker"...

My least favorite was hearing the words "American troops are shifting from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and, eventually, to a protective overwatch mission."

Protective overwatch mission. I can only shudder at the extent of this euphemism...

[Kate Cloud]

I watched it but I couldn't focus on it. Something about the cadence of his delivery repels my mind.

Here's the letter I sent to the Boston Globe this morning:

Regarding "Bush asserts authority to bypass defense act" (page A1, Jan. 30):
Thanks for another reminder that the US Constitution is in shreds. A war based on lies, warrantless wiretapping, the outing of an undercover agent, signing statements that disavow any responsibility to obey the laws, yada, yada - all these high crimes and misdemeanors beg the question: why doesn't Congress act to impeach? More specifically, what are the Democrats protecting by refusing to honor their oath to uphold the Constitution and hold the perps accountable? Perhaps part of the answer lies in the last sentence of the article, which states that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have said they will issue signing statements if elected. As Daniel Ellsberg (remember him?) said recently, the coup has already happened. We now have an imperial Presidency.

[Demetria]

Oh dear. What a disappointment to read Susan Shaer's comment about her favorite part was Madame Speaker. What has Pelosi done for the country? She was put into office to stop the war. Her party has voted lock step with Bush to continue the war. I can't find anything favorite in the part of Pelosi as speaker because she is a woman. She has actually lowered us.

[Steven Handwerker]

How can we as Americans accept such deceit and placation and manipulation for 7 years?

[Eleanor Manire-Gatti]

I am beside myself as our president and Congressional leaders ignore the poor and working class. No increased food stamps or unemployment in the emergency bill to restart our economy. Perpetual war in Iraq. Our leaders have forgotten the sacred words of the world's spiritual leaders. "Hatred never cease by hatred but by love alone is healed."

[Amanda Formica]

How can he talk about cutting wasteful and bloated programs when the most wasteful of all is his creation of a war in Iraq?
Why is everyone so surprised about the number of "terrorists" in Iraq? So many of them are regular men (and women) who have to feed their families, who cannot find other sources of income, and who are simultaneously threatened by the US forces and insurgent forces who are, by the way, fighting in a power vacuum. It's about time that Congress faces the fact that we need to start pulling troops sooner than later, because the impossible project of planning a whole nation single handedly has never worked, it won't work this time, and there's no use in saving the issue until we have a Democrat in office. It's time to apologize and ask for help.

How can Bush threaten Iran like that? It was the US that froze their economy and still holds it in suspended animation, it is the US that has the most nuclear weapons and refuses to disarm even a little for diplomacy's sake (the world and our future's sake aside!), it was the US that funded the Iran-Iraq war, and it is the US that upholds sanctions against Iran.

Who is really causing the trouble?

(And talk about national security! Some real environmental policy would be national security. Funding the rebuilding of New Orleans so that the levees wouldn't be exactly the same as they were before Katrina (which they are) would be security. Electric cars and wind and solar energy would be security. These free trade agreements that fuel the race to the bottom for workers in the US and abroad while lining the pockets of exploitive multinationals and encouraging more illegal immigration, are not good for economic or food security, nor do they alleviate poverty.)

Also, to agree with Marie, I still like Madame Speaker.