--Written for the paper.
Tom, I don't have a headline!
Let's call it:

BUSH IS BAD


On January 20, 2004, the President took stage, rather podium, for the first State of the Union Address of 2004. Just as every President before him, President Bush came toting promises, proposals, and congressional brown nosing: "members of congress can take pride in the great works of compassion and reform." Yes, our President is a sagacious mind, highlighting the most pressing social issues affecting the country: Iraq, healthcare, education, faith based institutions, oh yes, and same sex-marriage; you know, the most imperative issues. Yet, his patriotic dribble did not cloud my bullshit radar as easily as others. Quite aptly, on the night of January 20^th, the President and his State of the Union address were one growing oxymoron, where one day he can campaign the rights of Israeli’s, and fully back their claims to fight, but close almost every speech with “God,” “God’s,” and “God bless.”

Yet, of all the ill faded words and promises this man has come to represent, this State of the Union came, as I quote Tom Temprano, “as a direct slap in the face.” This State of the Union was wholly degrading on two fronts: it was the complete exploitation of American fears in regard to Terrorism, and there was the proposed legalization of bigotry that is to be codified in the US constitution.

Don’t believe me? Seem a bit ironic? Just keep reading.

To begin, it is essential one understands why the President elaborates so entirely about healthcare, education, same-sex marriage, and faith based institutions; why, after two years of war mongering, it finally appears he has taken an interest in other, equally pressings issues. The answer is simple: his flippant spending has pushed his support away. The Republicans, not all, but a small majority--enough to scare him--have gradually spent their support in other arenas and have become increasingly more intolerant of such spending and of a President who treats BILLIONS like dollar bills (thanks again to Tom). In order to rally support for his reelection in this, a speech so near to it, he must resort to supporting the most fundamental of Republican ideas: schools good, homosexuals bad. The man cannot even force himself to SAY the word homosexual which truly is the saddest part of it all. What better way to rally full support than by falling back upon old campaign promises? Truly brilliant; great job, senior presidente.

Blindly, those who watched the address and had no prior knowledge of the political escapades leading up to the event, will easily be blindsided by his words.

None of them are trained to read between the lines, and for that they will pay great repercussions to our economy, military, and living standards due to apathy. None of them see how the President is only exploiting the inherent fears of Americans, a stigma only compounded daily by the news at 5, 6, and 10, CNN, Newspapers, and hearse speared about their neighborhood by their 62 year old grandpa. Do a little survey. Ask: “What is bad for America?” Terrorism! “Who is bad for America?” Al Queda! “How should we rid the country of this problem?” War!

Very subtle, meticulous propaganda, headlines, and “Breaking news Alerts” that highlight “shootings in Iraq, shootings that are broadcasted directly into American homes, have caused society to quiver in fear from terrorism.

To detour American focus from the deteriorating state of the country, he elaborates about his “Jobs of the 21^st Century” proposal, Medicare, seniors, “23 millions dollars for school that want to use drug testing as a tool to save children’s lives,” and “$300 million” that will “bring local and faith based groups together with federal agencies (violating separation of church and state) in an attempt to “transition” prisoners to society, all for the purpose of fulfilling the expected requirements of the presidency. Yet, one thing he did not count on was the Anti-Bush Movement (yes, a movement) that originated at the moment of his inauguration, and that the same sentiment is growing. It grows amongst the younger crowds and wise-minded adults who aren’t as easily bought by big business, republican fodder.

Yet, as repulsive as that is, the most disgusting of our Presidents’ political escapades is his before mentioned proposal of legalized bigotry.

Still don’t believe it? Keep reading.

In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act that classifies marriage between a man and a woman, and expressly defined that no state may redefine marriage for any other state. In all, though the principal seemingly undermines the true essence of “freedom for all,” the highest of American, Democratic traits, this bill stays constitutionally in line by allowing states, NOT the federal government, the opportunity to define marriage as they wish.

So, wherein lies the problem? This is exactly what the President had to say: “I believe we should respect individuals…activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard.” Obviously, the man is very confused, because the voice of the people HAS BEEN heard. In our Judicial system, the people elect representatives that pass the laws. It is completely ASININE for the President to appear to be so vehemently opposed to this process, one of which has been practices for nearly 200 years -- the system of law in the United States. Where was such ardent disapproval of codified legislation found when measures of equal misfortune were being passed, measures regarding living wage and the environment? What the President has experienced in regard to the legislation of Same-Sex marriage in different states is the American Judicial system. What place has he to impede upon the granted powers of congress? The senate and the house of representatives hold the power to pass laws for this exact reason, that no despot may hold the presidency and define laws of the country to their own leisure; America does not work in that fashion. Fortunately, for the rest of the country with endowed civil conscience, the powers to pass and make laws will remain with congress, NOT with the President.

The president then has the AUDACITY to say, “If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process,” backing his support for a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage entirely.

Let me repeat that.

In effect, what the President hopes to achieve is a constitutional ban on Gay marriage, an AMENDEMENT in the United States constitution, a document that states EXPLICITELY it is to “establish justice” and “secure the Blessings of Liberty” -- how very paradoxical. If the United States Congress were to pass this “Anti-Gay Marriage” amendement, its existence in the constitution would wholly undermine and negate every principle that the constitution was founded on.

Here is the most vexing element of this entire game. The Hate Crime Bill passed in 1998 by President Clinton, after the death of Matthew Sheppard, classifies homosexuals as equal in “protection from hate,” as stated by President Clinton himself.

So, on one hand, the government has created a document that specifically notes that homosexuals are guaranteed the same safety as “other” Americans, in essence, making them equal and codifying this equality in a document, yet the amendment very vaguely proposed by President Bush completely denies homosexuals of the before mentioned rights and protection.

So, in essence, what we have, transcribed in the constitution, the most holy of democratic documents, is an amendment that codifies, and above all else, LEGALIZES bigotry and discrimination towards any seeking same-sex marriage.

Under what premise is this constitutional at all? The most alerting phrase is his use of the word “arbitrary” which of course adds to the amalgam of paradoxical ethics of this State of the Union. He refutes the integrity of the “activist” judges as “arbitrarily (that which means based upon individual judgment) inflicting their personal beliefs upon an entire state, when the president is doing THE SAME EXACT THING. Instead, the President is attempting to ARBITRARILY enforce his Christian morals upon the entire country. He naively assumes that his morals reflect that of general decency which is a HORRIBLE association. Who is to say whose morals are “correct?” NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association, an association that deems it acceptable to have sex with young boys, is BOUND to have morals that starkly contrast those of another. In such situations, it is human decency that transcends personal beliefs, one of the prominent ideals used at the inception of the United States Constitution. True, the Founding Fathers were predominantly Christian, and would most likely denounce homosexuals, but fortunately for human rights, the founding fathers were not the sole rulers of the country. Together, they formed documents that created freedom and justice for all, and these ideals were crafted around the concept that rights were “self-evident..that all men are created equal,” and that such rights were “certain [and] unalienable.” The United States did not elect the President so that he can become our Christian despot. We elected him under the supposition that he would defend the human and civil rights of all, as he promised in his oath of office.

Amongst the most vexing paradoxes this blundering fool has come to spout is his sudden compassion and intensity that he carries for high morals. His “Healthy Forrest Initiative,” originally hatched to thin forests in the event of fires, was turned to logging profit. In effect, all it did was destroy forests for timber to sell to the logging industries. Juxtapose this to his ardent homophobia (yes, homophobia, he can barely bring himself to say the word “homosexual”) and Anti-Same-Sex dribble, and it’s increasingly more difficult to see where his true morals lie. Is he on a holy crusade, or is he a puppet for big business? It is easy to blanket your political reforms under a religious guise, a game our President knows how to play very well.

Go give yourself a cookie if you have stayed with me this long.

The upcoming election is monumental for civil rights and the state of the country. Who is elected to office will speak volumes of our society. If fresh bait is elected, America has taken the time and initiative to look into issues themselves. Yet, if President Bush remains, (and this, in mine and Tom’s “honest, and albeit highly biased opinion”) it will become completely evident that we live amongst a society of dotes, easily persuaded by words on a teleprompter; words the President knows we want to hear.

This month’s State of the Union address, on par with the monthly rounds, passed with minimal rebuttal and scarce attention. Highlighted only by the political “in” groups and the pseudo-”in” groups, America seems to be taking the short path of ignorance that will lead straight to the re-election of a war mongering bigot. Congratulations, America!