Okay, as threatened, here are some comments about Pres. Bush's Inaugural Speech.
To save some room, I'm only going to deal with two key points that struck me as something I'd like to address. If you would like to view the entire speech, you may do so by following the link I provided to the NY Times (You have to have a registered screen name to view it, if you don't have one or don't wish to register, I suggest using Bugmenot.com to access the page.) or do a news search with your favourite search engine to locate a copy for yourself.
Following is clipped from the text of President George W. Bush's inaugural address, as recorded by The New York Times:
At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen together. For a half a century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders. After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical. And then there came a day of fire.
We have seen our vulnerability and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder, violence will gather and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.
Bush avoided using the term 9/11, but sill mentioned it. I don't think he was very comfortable using 9/11 because of the images that are associated with it. I don't blame him to much, I wouldn't want to either. I am, however, disappointed that he never used the word "Iraq" at any time. What does this mean? Is he still reeling from finding no WMDs or is it something else? In fact, I can't think of anywhere that he did mention the troops over seas, but I might be wrong.
In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act and the G.I. Bill of Rights. And now we will extend this vision by reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time. To give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools and build an ownership society. We will widen the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance preparing our people for the challenges of life in a free society. By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal.
This gives me some pause. I'm not sure the idea of taking Social Security and placing it into the hands of the public is such a good idea. I mean, I know lots of elderly people who lost large amounts of money with 401K plans that were supposed to help them in their retirement. Yes, Social Security is a burden on those my age, we are having to pay in to cover our parent's withdrawls. And the vicious circle will continue with our children. But there has got to be a better way of saving this system. To play the market, you might as well go to Las Vegas and drop your entire back account into the slots or wager it on the dog races. Time will be the only measure we can use on this part of his plans for the next four years.
May God bless you, and may He watch over the United States of America.
Yes, and may our President Be Blessed and Be Whole over the next four years. Not all of us are happy he is in there again, but we could have done worse (shudders at the thought of some of the canidates from the past),
In closing, I may not always agree with President Bush, but I will support his actions as long as they don't infringe on my rights.... but that's another topic.