President Obama gave this year's "State of the Union" address last night, and Jeffrey and I watched it with a friend over homemade pizza. I felt a little disappointed after it was over, a feeling that can most likely be attributed to the fact that I've been watching "The West Wing" episodes for the last few months and the writer of that show, Aaron Sorkin, is a significantly better speech writer than President Obama's speech writers. When (fake) President Bartlet gives a speech on the show, your heart is moved. You feel his passion and his fervor, and you are moved to action. It's understandable that there would be a large gap between the "The West Wing" and the real west wing, but I would have loved to see some of the drama last night.
Don't get me wrong, there were times when the President spoke with passion, but there were also moments of argumentative remarks, sneaky accusations, and empty promises. I think it is inexcusable that the President would attack the Supreme Court judges during the State of the Union speech. Sitting in that room were nine of the most deliberate and wise minds of the time, and they were chastised in a speech the entire nation heard. Perhaps their latest decision was wrong--I don't claim to know the answers to the difficult problems they face daily, but I am convicted that President Obama had no right to punish them on such a public stage.
The President lost more points with me (and many other Americans) when he blamed former President Bush for the umpteenth time for the current state of the economy. Not only was it unbecoming for a man in his position to point fingers, it was simply rude. Especially coming on the coattails of his request to former President Bush to direct a long-term Haiti relief fund.
I must agree with Senator McCain on leaving the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuals in the military intact for the time being. Senator McCain said, "We have the best trained, best equipped, and most professional force in the history of our country, and the men and women in uniform are performing heroically in two wars. At a time when our Armed Forces are fighting and sacrificing on the battlefield, now is not the time to abandon the policy." In a time when we are already fighting so many battles, this is not the time to tackle a new front--although it must be done at some point.
Despite these negative samplings from the speech, good things were said last night. I applaud the initiative to work on schools, although I worry about the President's words here: "Now, this year, we've broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. And the idea here is simple: Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform -- reform that raises student achievement; inspires students to excel in math and science; and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to the inner city." I love that he wants to improve schools, and I completely agree with him that good education is the best anti-poverty program, but I wonder what he means by "we only reward success." Does this mean that our teachers will be paid only if they meet certain passing rates each year for their students? Will schools be financially punished for the number of dropouts? This may sound like a good idea at first glance, but could be catastrophic for our teachers. It takes time to turn an education system around, and starting by "only rewarding success" may lead to the closure of more schools than the improvement of any.
In the end, it's simply a speech. Many words were said last night, and even more will be said today in response to it. What remains to be seen is what action will become of it.
A penny for your thoughts--what did you think of the State of the Union? Scale from 1-10?
P. S. Is anyone else out there REALLY tired of hearing about "Main Street" and "Wall Street" this year?
No comments:
Post a Comment