Obama’s second inaugural

Between the 20th of January 2013 to the 21st, I actually got very little sleep. I was interested in the second inauguration of President Obama to see how that went. What he would have to say as he begins his last term in office. Outside of his “choke” on the second “official” swearing in to his office, he did not disappoint, his inaugural address did not disappoint. But the “news team” on ABC sounded much like the lighter side of Fox News. They may have recognized that 21 January 2013 happened to be a conjunction of two anniversaries. The “Emancipation Proclamation” of Abraham Lincoln. One hundred years later, the “I have a dream” speech by Martin Luther King, Jr. But the date of importance, all that it might just prove to be significant to a minority President of the United States; apparently, that would be lost on them. Instead, they were simply prepared to cast political aspersions on the man, and demonstrate their general ignorance in other ways. No less than George Will himself.

One of the ignorant commentaries I picked up on, was when they were describing the mural on the inside of the Capitol Dome. George Washington in heaven, wearing a purple “dress.” Uh, I don’t guess they can tell the difference between men’s robes or togas and women’s clothing. Further, Obama officially had only a day, MLK Day, to start his second term, and talking heads on this news team were already trying to undermine his presidency. It says a great deal about people who don’t pay attention to the fact that the news media seems to be just as riddled with bigotry as anything else in society, that the “lame stream media” must be “in the tank” for Obama.

George Will, among others didn’t like Obama’s reference to Mitt Romney’s hoof in mouth moment regarding a nation of takers. And regarded Obama as apologetically “liberal” when it came to discussions of Medicare, Social Security, and other “entitlement” programs designed to help the vulnerable. Nor did he much like the use of the word “collective.” Outside of the Soviet system of the “collective farm” where peasants in Soviet Russia continue to work on property that was never theirs to begin with—they are still basically serfs—”collective” in this American society is far more open-ended with far wider applications than could ever be possible in a dictatorial society. Didn’t we “collectively” in the Revolutionary War beat back and win against the well-trained British Army? Yeah, because no one individual ever did it on his, or her, own. How about, it took a “collective” effort to draft the U.S. Constitution? Absolutely! That is exactly what the founding fathers created, a political system where we could indeed, of “our” free will, come together on a collective basis, and make a new governing principle possible. But as for the so-called “conservative” argument about those “entitlement programs,” you could about call any of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution an “entitlement program” because of what they offer to all who are U.S. Citizens. Which is why, in recent years, it is possible for the NRA to simply go off the deep end whenever too easily accessible weapons can be and are used in mass murder situations, inclusive of Sandy Hook Elementary School. The gun nuts are “entitled” to their toys via the second amendment. So, this as an example, Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show” has it about right when “conservatives” want to call something an “entitlement.” That is, if it helps someone else, and “I” have to pay for it. How about “our” (collectively) paying for what “he” gets?

I had to miss the parade as I did want to get out and do a recycling walk, pick up some coupon eggs at Super One while the weather was still conducive to my doing just that. But the night of Obama’s (second) official swearing in, inaugural address, luncheon, and return to the White House; Jon Stewart had “Senior Black Correspondent” Larry Wilmore(?) on his show. Not so much about Obama as how the Republicans wanted to invoke MLK to “oppose the abortion of black babies.” In King’s lifetime, they only referred to him as a “communist.” Which only goes to argue that there is only one real reason that “black babies” are useful in GOP political ideology, when they serve as a useful tool for a “moral” opposition to something or other. But don’t let one grow up to be a … Civil Rights Leader, or … President of the United States. Wilmore went on to disclose how the gun nuts on “Gun Appreciation Day,” were just as happy to invoke that “Commie” King as supportive of their individual rights to their toys. Wilmore had me in stitches over how King had actually died. “Diabetes?” No, uhmm. Yeah, actually, it was a gun that was used to kill him! I particularly think that Martin Luther King would be appalled that his enemies would want to politically invoke him for much of anything decades after his death. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me, and beyond ugly as a useful word to describe it.

Since yesterday, I have pretty much thought through what I want to state for the record. It seems to me that there is only one way to describe “takers” in this society: to grab what you can of what is freely offered without a word of thanks, nor afterwards, any appreciation of what you have. “Takers” are not specific to party or faction. It is true of anyone. This is exactly what riles me about American politics today. It doesn’t matter what side you take, you are about “taking.” All political contentions that exist in this country, whether it involves our government, institutions, etc.; “taking” is the operative word and action. The reaction is that “we” don’t want to be “taken from.” This is childish. At this time, I’d like to remind this society of “takers,” Jesus Christ only said, “A house divided against itself can not stand.” Obama’s biggest effort of his final term in office, is what he really did say in his inaugural speech: we really can’t be that way any more if we as a nation wish to have a future. The GOP rivals, inclusive of George Will were too busy being “takers” to listen.

When President Barack H. Obama laid his hand on two bibles: Abraham Lincoln’s, the author of the “Emancipation Proclamation,” he said a fervent “thank you” to this historical figure that his late dad born in Kenya never had to face the threat of western slavery in his lifetime. The conjunction of history that included the Martin Luther King, “I have a dream” speech. Therefore, his bible was included too. Only because of MLK could Obama become President. President Barack H. Obama, unlike the spoiled children he has been forced to deal with, does appreciate what he was given. The entire inaugural event was a pageantry of appreciation for what had come before him. Under the circumstances, if Obama is “unabashedly liberal” for expressing that foundational appreciation for what made his presidency possible, so be it. Or, it just may be that his God has a room reserved for him up in heaven; because here on Earth, he is the far better Christian man. I am glad he is still our president for the next four years.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 105 other followers

%d bloggers like this: