Obama's Speech to Your Kids

President Obama has planned a special speech, directed specifically toward students, to be broadcast via the Internet to schools around the country.

As a prestigious blogger, I've been allowed an early preview of the speech, and I have to say, Obama is doing a wonderful job of reaching out to America's students. I saw the California version, which begins:

"Buenos dias, estudientes. Para Ingles, marque numero uno; para Espanol, marque dos."

(the sound of the "1" button).

"Good morning students. Yesterday, as you know, was Labor Day, a special holiday that we Americans celebrate in honor of the various labor unions that have made the American workplace a safe and happy place for some of your parents. The labor unions, as you know, are foundational to America's prosperity for without them, ALL of your parents would be forced to work consistently without any hope of long-term unemployment benefits. Instead, Americans all over this great land have the ability to stay home a good part of the year and live comfortably, thanks to the wonderful benefits that the labor unions have been able to extract from over-wealthy business owners.

"But I wanted to take a few moments to talk to you today about the importance of the public school system. As you know, we in the Democratic Party have made public education a priority. We have invested enormous amounts of money in your education, and we are committed to giving you the best education available in this country. And we listen to you: as you know, I ran for President last year on a platform of Change, and we are working to make the public education system even better.

"First, there are over 40 million children between the ages of 1 and 4 here in America who are not in a school. I firmly believe in education for everyone. That's why I have instructed congress to pass the "Private Helps Public" act of 2009, in which every dollar that a wealthy parent pays for tuition so that their child can attend a high-priced private school, they must donate a dollar to the "Private Helps Public" fund.

"And what will those funds be used for? You noticed that, as part of my "Change You Can Believe In" campaign, I made some promises to better the public education system. True to my word, this year, when you came back to school, things had changed. Now, EVERY student gets a free breakfast at school; EVERY student has access to either reduced price--or even free--lunches. The money we receive from the "Private Helps Public" program will go to support a student free dinner fund, so that every child in America receives three meals a day. That's the kind of change you can believe in: we here in Washington are committed to ensuring we provide you with everything you need.

"This, American students, is my great dream: a nation in which your government ensures you have three meals a day at no cost to you; that you have all the health care you need at no cost to you; that you have an apartment in which to live that costs no more than 1/4 your monthly net income; that you have a fuel efficient, new car.

"This is my dream for you. There are those who don't want you to have that dream, though. Look around you: the parents of some of your fellow students, sitting right there in that room, would like to strip away all of the positive changes we've made, and keep us from doing this great work. But it need not be that way. You have a voice; you have an untapped source of power greater than any America has ever seen (you have, after all, given the guy with the flyless, elastic waisted camoflauge pants a swirly three times already this year).

"Use that power! Be a force for change! Go to my website and give us your email address; we'll forward links to free flyers you can pass out in your neighborhood. And talk to your parents; educate them. And if they refuse to listen, get them hopelessly drunk this November the night before voting.

"Remember children: you are the America of tomorrow. Our hope lies in you--and so you MUST stay in public school and continue to believe in the change that we continue to bring. And soon, we will have the country we have envisioned.

"Thank you, and may America be blessed."

OK. So, I'm not a prestigious blogger, and I certainly haven't been given access to Obama's speech in advance, but I have a somewhat active imagination, and based on all the uproar, this is what I imagine it'll be like.

Maybe not...who knows.

Thing is, a few years ago, I wouldn't have cared, but as I age (and become, I think, a better parent), I realize how raw my children are. They're literally begging for someone to shape their beliefs and values. And, regardless how noble--or ignoble--our President's intentions, if we're not careful, this speech and others like it will do much to shape those raw, searching children, many of whom have no real force in their life to provide the value structure.

And those children, a few short years from now, will project those values by way of a vote in the voting booth.

Hitler had it right when he formed the Hitler Youth: shape them while they're young, and they'll never depart.

The question you have to ask yourself: is this the message that I want to influence my child's value system?

Sounds Familiar

President Obama, in his weekly radio address on Saturday, referenced a new White House study indicating that small businesses pay far more per employee for health insurance than big companies. The disparity, he said, is "unsustainable--it's unacceptable."

First, I would point our esteemed President to any reasonable dictionary, and ask that he look up "economies of scale". Dictionary.com had this to say:

The increase in efficiency of production as the number of goods being produced increases. Typically, a company that achieves economies of scale lowers the average cost per unit through increased production since fixed costs are shared over an increased number of goods.

It stands to reason that a company who is providing health insurance for 5,000 employees would pay less per employee than a company insuring 30 employees; the administrative cost per employee is much less for the larger company, and there's much lower average risk per employee with the larger group than there is with the smaller group.

So, of course the big company get's a better rate.

From Obama's Saturday radio address next week:

"My fellow Americans: I found out today that Wal-Mart and Costco get tires cheaper on a per tire basis than does your local mom-and-pop tire shop. That's unsustainable--and it's unacceptable! I pledge to force Wal-Mart and Costco to pay an extra fee for each and every tire they purchase, in order to subsidize your local mom-and-pop tire shop's purchases just to make it fair."

I'm reading a story about a guy who became famous preaching a similar message to his countrymen. He rose from nothing (like Mr. Obama), and lead something of a grassroots effort (again, like Mr. Obama), crying out loudly and eloquently for "change" (like--you got it--Mr. Obama). And he ultimately won power by demonizing the industrialists in his country, the "big businesses" who had "unfair advantages" over the little guy.

His name was Adolf Hitler.

A Change is Gonna Come

The political news sources (predominantly liberal) are abuzz with stories of President-elect Obama's apparent departure from the left. His cabinet picks are the latest point of ire; he's stacking his cabinet with moderate Democrats and throwbacks to the Bush administration (like Defense Secretary, Robert Gates).

And then there is his change of heart with respect to a number of crucial issues. He pledged during his campaign to increase taxes on American's making over $250,000; now he's decided that he'll merely let the current tax break expire in 2010. He pledged during his campaign to take on the oil companies, to tax their profits heavily; now he's indicated he won't implement that tax. He indicated during his campaign that he would begin, on his first day in office, to end the war in Iraq; he has now indicated that he will begin to work on a plan for a responsible withdrawal. And he's stacking his cabinet with folks who were openly supportive of the war--Democrats and Republicans alike.

It's a little interesting as a conservative libertarian; is Obama really having a change of heart? Is he tempering his extreme ideas under the realization that his actions have far reaching impact; a major change has the potential to cause our often delicate equilibrium to swing wildly out of control. Perhaps he's second guessing his commitments on the campaign trail. If that's the case, then I have to applaud him; he has more character than I'd given him credit for.

It takes some guts to step back and check yourself in the face of such vocal and vehement opposition (the left-wing bloggers are going crazy, chomping at the bit--I'm waiting to hear the calls for impeachment from his own supporters). But my biggest fear is that this pressure will cause Obama to cave (pressure from voices like John Aravosis over at Americablog.com--you'll remember him; he's the guy who was vociferously calling for a boycott of the State of Utah as well as all contributors to the Yes on 8 campaign here in California. He's a true American, as open-minded as they come, that John).

That can't happen. I don't guess that my reach is nearly as far as Mr. Aravosis' reach, but I have to do my part. Speak out, do your part to show your support for Obama's newfound caution, his new willingness to step back from the dogma we were all subject to during the campaign, and to think through the impact of his actions. His seeming determination to step cautiously, and seemingly, more moderately, than any of us could have hoped. Go to his website and voice your support for this new direction. He's got links there to a variety of methods to contact him; use them. Add a voice in the growing chorus of folks who are crying out in opposition to the bloggers like AmericaBlog and OpenLeft.

And send a link to this post to everyone in your address book. Edmund Burke said it best:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Don't be one of the folks who looks back sometime later in life knowing that you were one who did nothing. Speak out; do your part.

Non-Smoking

Reuters reported tonight that President elect Barack Obama says he won't be smoking in the White House.

Smoking? How come nobody told me that the guy was a smoker?

Or did they? Maybe I just wasn't listening. At any rate, that's kinda cheap feeling--that our President is a smoker. I don't really know how to explain how it makes me feel, but it's one of those embarrassing little details that you really, really hope that your friends overseas don't find out about.

I don't know. It amazes me that a bigger deal wasn't made of his smoking habit prior to the election. For some weird reason, I feel like if it had been more widely publicized, people would have thought twice about voting for him.

If for no other reason than the guy who is going to be the leader of the free World should be doing everything in his power to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

Imagine our President, four or five years down the road, showing up to a United Nations convention to speak about World Health, in a wheelchair, missing one lung (due to the lung cancer), and toting about an oxygen tank.

It'd make it kinda hard to take the guy serious, you know?

It's even MORE heinous that he was seen numerous time on the campaign trail CHEWING NICOTINE GUM!! (Read the gum story here).

Why'd we vote for this guy again?

Faces You Can Trust

I heard on the news yesterday that Republican presidential candidate John McCain made a very "conservative" remark at a campaign rally.

Fresh off his primary win in New Hampshire, he must have been feeling his oats when he said, as a example of "outrageous pork barrel" spending, that:

"A few years ago we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don't know if that's a paternity issue or a criminal issue."

I thought it was just cheeky enough to qualify McCain as a legitimate Presidential contender. That is, until I read a blurb at FactCheck.org that indicates that the bill that McCain refers to was a budgetary bill--that he voted FOR!

That settles it; he's DEFINITELY qualified to be President!

Now that's sad, isn't it? That we half-joke that if you're a liar (or at least a partial-truth teller) then you're qualified to be President of the United States? But then, perhaps that's not all that inaccurate. How would you define the word "politics"? I have a colleague who says that politics is (and I paraphrase): saying the things you need to say in order to get what you want. It fits. If McCain hopes to land the Presidential nomination, then he's going to have to mix in just the right amount of "fiscal conservatism"; it helps if it's laced with a little humor.

Speaking of politics, NewsWeek.com reported earlier this week that Hillary Clinton, while at an event in a coffee shop in Portsmouth N.H., was asked by an undecided woman voter, "How do you get out the door every day? I mean, as a woman, I know how hard it is to get out of the house and get ready. Who does your hair?" Hillary chuckled and cracked a few jokes. Then she paused, and in a breaking voice, eyes red, she began. "I just don't want to see us fall backward as a nation. I mean, this is very personal for me. Not just political. I see what's happening. We have to reverse it." She went on, as tears began to well in her eyes, to say that "some people think elections are a game: who's up or who's down. It's about our country. It's about our kid's future."

And with that, a new comeback kid was born. Hillary, still recovering from the severe blow dealt her in the Iowa primaries (third; behind Barack Obama and John Edwards), and facing a pre-election day poll that put her seven points behind Obama in the New Hampshire primary, was in desperate need of a boost. The pundits said it was her downfall, that a Presidential candidate was expected to be strong, resilient, able to face the stresses of the campaign trail, ever smiling, never faltering. The pundits were wrong.

Wednesday morning brought a brand-new day for Hillary, a day filled with hope and promise, as the day prior, voters had turned out in droves to support her, keeping her dream alive (at least for one more primary), and giving her the win in New Hampshire.

It gave me hope, for a moment, that voters in America are still compassionate enough to reward a Presidential candidate who isn't afraid to show some emotion, even in the face of stark criticism. In fact, my opinion of Hillary ratcheted up just a bit after hearing that she cried.

Until a day or two later, when I heard a quote by the Rev. Jesse Jackson Jr. He said, on MSNBC, that he was suspicious of her tears. "They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina," he said, "in light of other things Mrs. Clinton did not cry for."

I was floored. And I feel betrayed. Because she DIDN'T cry over Katrina (at least not publicly). I don't know that she cried over 9/11 in public. And she didn't, as I recall, cry in public over her husbands' dalliances while he held office.

But then, as the Rev. Jackson said, those instances didn't pose the enormous opportunity she seized last week at that coffee shop. So perhaps she wasn't being genuine. Or, perhaps the tears were for those dreams that tottered precariously on that edge of shattered.

And so I ask, are these our candidates? Is this the best we have to offer? I don't say that to degrade them--they're likely all very nice people. But you have to be suspicious of someone who wants the job so bad, that they'll calculate and manipulate, stretch and bend the truth, just to squeeze out a few extra, crucial votes.

One of these (or, one of the numerous others in the mix, most just like these), will be your next President, fellow Americans.

I think that, at this point, the best we can hope for is a vote-locked legislature that can't muster up enough votes in any direction to pass any law of any substance--good or bad. Dormancy and inaction are far safer than the damage a self-absorbed politician with no agenda other than to get his name in the history book might do.

As for me? I think that I'm going to write in Shawna for President. She has to deal with Lex and Gentry, and most of all, ME, every single day. She's not afraid of anything.

She'd do fine, too; especially since I think the Oval Office has a multi-line telephone system!