Obama needs a new speech writer...

Film buffs and fans of the deliciously cheesy but addictive Independence Day with Will Smith will remember that inspiring monologue by Bill Pullman, playing the American President, as he beckoned his audience to sign up to die in the fight against annihilation by the big blue aliens. It moved me.

Remember the scene? One starry night as the survivors from the last alien attack huddled together in a makeshift refugee camp, devastated, demoralized and with no hope for tomorrow, they had no will to live. President Bill, with his sleeves rolled up like the cute guy next door, climbs onto the wing of a dust crop aircraft whose pilot is surely destined for posthumous greatness. He grabs a loudspeaker. It crackles unexpectedly. He has their attention. He speaks. The nation is at war, the world is war, the human race is about to be made extinct. Could there be a worse fate than that?

He thought not and they agreed. They were inspired. They were scared but they stood their ground. They fought for their homes, their planet, for their children and for life. It was beautiful.

Evidently Barack agrees. Or, perhaps his speech writer does for every speech that I now hear him make he seems to be stuck in that perpetual tone of our-American-family-needs-to-huddle-to-fight-big-bad-old-men-in-pyjamas-for-life-or-death. Some one flicked that switch and it broke, call the handyman coz they can’t turn it off.

I couldn’t hear out all of Obama’s last speech on Afghanistan announcing the troops being pulled back because it had a bad effect on me. So I thought I would read it instead. It had a bad effect on my IPad. I’m now typing this on my mac.

Forget content or rationale for going into Afghanistan or leaving it. I’m not discussing that (for now) - lets just talk about the rhetoric. Not the what, but the how of his speech…

It begins with a reference to Pearl Harbour, addresses his “fellow Americans” who belong to the “American family” and closes with “May God bless our troops.  And may God bless the United States of America.”. Also worth quoting is “Like generations before, we must embrace America’s singular role in the course of human events.  But we must be as pragmatic as we are passionate; as strategic as we are resolute.  When threatened, we must respond with force –- but when that force can be targeted, we need not deploy large armies overseas.  When innocents are being slaughtered and global security endangered, we don’t have to choose between standing idly by or acting on our own.”

Perhaps I am out of touch with what the average American wants to hear but is amazes me to consider there are people who buy into this stuff. I admit, when Obama became president, I was happy. There was a part of me along with the Nobel Prize committee that saw hope. But I was stupid. The world is not a better place. I had unreasonable expectations of his presidency and that’s not his fault but speeches like this are.

I happened to be in NY when I caught the airing of that Oprah episode where she met up with the Obamas. The leader of free world and a nation at multiple wars with an economy going bust was hanging out on a couch for a TV chat show. Fine. It wasn’t just any chat show. It was the in-kind payment to Oprah in return for endorsing the Black man over the white woman. How can that use of his time be acceptable?

Despite its flaws and high share of buffoons, the UK government gives me so much more of a sense of reality. Perhaps it is to do with the size of the country which keeps the White House so separated from regular people. A few days demonstration outside Westminster is all it takes to highlight an issue in London. Write to your MP or MEP and they will write back. The UK government does hear from people and there is some sense of feedback.

But that’s not all. The US government as an institution is built above the people. Every element of it and how it represents itself exudes superiority with a tag that says “precious”. And who really is in control? Comparing it even to the defunct leadership of Brown there was even then that sense that the government works for the people (even if my taxes say otherwise).  

Those of us who have ever watched the West Wing, love it. I only saw part of the first series and I get the attraction. But that’s on TV, not reality. Perhaps his fellow Americans have watched so much reality TV that they can’t quite tell the difference any more…

Read the speech here

_________

Unfortunately the situation has not improved...but he sure looks good as he says it!

SOTU 2012:

Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those 50 stars and those 13 stripes. No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together. This nation is great because we worked as a team. This nation is great because we get each other’s backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we are joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, and our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

The waterboarding issue and torture – live and let live.

George W. Bush provided yet another example to fortify his image as an under thinking cowboy with his response to the question verifying why his administration permitted the use of the waterboarding technique on held suspects. “Because the lawyers said it was legal.”

Let’s do what he didn’t and break down the moral argument.

Question: Should torture be an acceptable means to an end?

Broadly considering torture, we have to assess the concept and the administration of it separately. What makes this debate perplexing to me is that each perspective leads to a different conclusion.

I compare this issue to the one surrounding the use of the death sentence. Applying torture or sentencing someone to death is violating their right to live. One living being does not have to right to take away another living being’s right to life. And then there is a big but.

But when an individual has himself (or herself) violated someone else’s right and existence, they can no longer uphold their own. Hence on moral grounds, the concept of sentencing a murderer to death or torturing one of the 9/11 conspirators is morally justified.

For anyone who has watched The life of David Gale the unavoidable issue of administering this accurately relates to the correct identification of guilt. Sentencing the wrong man to death or torturing a suspect who in fact has no information (nor intent of harm) can’t be undone.

The label of torture includes a vast range of actions. Some of these actions are legally permissible on grounds of being less painful or arguably not causing permanent damage. For the greater good of saving a vast number of lives of good citizens, the mild torture approach is thus rendered valid with a legal stamp.

The question of how to guarantee that the innocent is not victimised is still unaddressed.

The logistics of executing these techniques further undermine why it is legal in any way despite the moral justification. Over the years numerous pictures, anecdotes, videos have been captured and publicised that illustrate how the use of torture is being abused or misused by military personnel, for example.

Which individuals are actually authorised to exercise torture?

Which organisation or individuals can guarantee that the guilty rather then innocent are at the receiving end of it?

And who is confirming that in fact only certain set of torture practices are being administered any way?

No one.

There is no guarantee. Just excuses.

Governments are afraid to make the moral argument for why torture should in concept be permissible under the correct circumstances. Surprisingly, this part of the discussion has never surfaced. The focus remains on simply what type of torture routines are practiced and whether any incidents are in breach of stated guidelines.

It is shocking to my mind that the entire subject of torture is thus entirely mistreated and inadequately addressed with the moral issue being sidelined. Hence even though I condone the moral argument in some situations the fact that it is entirely neglected in the reasoning presented by administering authorities undermines their entire practice even if it is targeting the individuals who are guilty.

American Absurdity

Now I remember that fairly recent feeling when the US of Bush came to an end and Obama emerged victorious as a beacon of hope. A non-white President for hypocritically narrow minded Americans! Yipee! And I did feel great about it. I felt hopeful that the world's problems would all come to a miraculously smooth end because finally a smart and sensible man of the people, with a sense of reality was leading the front.

Jeez, I was such an idiot.

While floods ravage Pakistan, the Euro's existence comes under threat, Israel and Palestine continue their conflict, Americans living a comfortable, safe, sane life indulged in an absurdly inane discussion about the "mosque on ground zero". But you know what, silly as that was, it's easy to let go off those absurd analogies and accusations because people are people and we do dumb things all the time. What I really couldn't understand or accept however, is why wise old President Obama jumped right into the middle of this debate? Perhaps if he had said his short, sharp impactful statement to end this dribble I would have applauded his decisive authority. But no. Barack did what Barack does (as we have now realised) - avoid making a decision, President Barack, that is. Hmmmm. So the results led to the worst case scenario -  a stupid debate over a non issue based on ignorant ideas that was lent credibility by the most important guy on the planet.

Part II - "Mr. Obama was expected to visit the Golden Temple in Amritsar, India, next month, but there were questions about how he would cover his head. Sikh tradition requires that men tie a piece of cloth on their heads before the spiritual centre. The president who is Christian, has fought the perception that he is Muslim. Sikhs are regularly mistaken for Muslim." (NY Times, online, Oct 22 2010)

And so now, he ain't going.

Well, really, on a scale of 1-10 of dumbness where 10 is the sole of my shoe with a hole in it, this has got to be a gzillion. Let's remind ourselves that India is a secular country and Obama was meant to be a non-partisan politician who promised to bind together fractitious society and here is avoiding a Sikh temple which was built on the foundation of uniting disparity in the community led by religious differences (Americans - wiki up "irony" please) and is engraved with writings in 3 different langauges to this purpose - hindi (for hindus), gurumukhi (for sikhs) and urdu (for muslims). President Barack Obama and dumb sidekicks have decided to avoid this monument because he doesn't want a photograph of himself with a handkerchief on his head. Let's also ponder on how it is that amongst all his advisors, there is not one who could point out to him that this "sikh" tradition is in fact one that requires ALL visitors (any gender, age, religion or nationality) to simply cover their head (and one that is adopted all over India generally in any religious or spiritual setting, irrelevant to which religion). Maybe someone should mention to him that a baseball cap would work pretty well since all that is needed is for everyone to cover their heads - the manner in which their head is covered, is not of concern. Unless, he isn't supposed to be seen to endorse baseball over any other widely loved sport in America...

It frustrates me and baffles me that a person of this stature is so poorly guided in such a simple circumstance and perhaps indicates he has lost all touch with reality to not be able to navigate yet another non issue. This poor show of judgement doesn't hold very well when considering this administration's ability to resolve the numerous overwhelmingly mighty issues they are currently battling against. But hey, at least no one will think Obama is a muslim, phew!