Let Him Be

Recently Paul McCartney visited the White House to accept an award and play for the First Family. As usual, Conservatives found a way to spin that into complaints about taxes and big government. Jane Gilvary of JOTUS seemed to have a problem with McCartney's joke about former president George W. Bush's intelligence and how Obama responded.

Even if McCartney did offend the current President, Obama acted the only way he could. It is not his job to call out his guest of honour, especially in such an occasion. Did you honestly expect the President to embarrass Sir Paul McCartney? There is no way to rectify such a situation, so the President was forced to accept the artist's comments.

Also, Gilvary thinks that Obama admires McCartney because neither of them were born in the United States. That logic is severely flawed in two ways: Obama was born in the United States, and foreigners don't necessarily sympathize. Especially coming from a grown adult, claiming that Obama was born outside the United States is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. Oh by the way, the Tea Party also told me that McCartney was born in Kenya. Second, strangers don't connect based on what they are not, they connect through common trait.

Obama admires McCartney because he was a prominent member of the most famous band in history. End of story. And as far as the "Taxman" goes, taxes have not gone up for 95% of families under Obama.

Gilvary also tries to provide a British equivalent, which is as flawed as her argument. If Michael Jackson were to be knighted by Queen Elizabeth, he would need a time machine to travel to the late 1500's. I think you mean Queen Elizabeth II. Good thing the Bulletin didn't publish this one.

Gilvary cites Bush's education as a strong point. The fact is, Bush gained admission into Harvard and Yale not because of his brilliance, but because his family attended there. The Universities wanted his family's money. There is no shortage of "Bushisms" that expose why society would view him as stupid. So when McCartney makes a joke about his intelligence, don't get defensive claiming how smart he is. An MBA from Harvard means nothing if he didn't earn it, like a non-celebrity student would. Besides, he is fortunate enough getting to serve as President after not being elected.

Even more egregious than Sir McCartney getting the prestigious Gershwin Prize because of illicit drug use is having George Bush elected to the prestigious President of the United States position after illicit drug use. Oh wait ... he didn't actually win.

We the People

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - Preamble to the United States Constitution

The Constitution. The Supreme Law of the Land. Sometimes I wonder, is the America today the same as the Founding Fathers pictured it to be. Sure they could never have predicted the technologies of today, but would they have wanted this country to be ruled by the rich, the corporations, and mainly by one religious denomination?

It greatly upsets me when people claim the Constitution to be something it is not. It is not a protector of capitalism or free enterprise. Also, in no place does it prevent socialism. So when Jane Gilvary claims President Obama has " trampled and spat upon our Constitution" after socializing medicine, what is she trying to say?

Well, this only supports the hypocrisy Gilvary lives by. Claiming socialized medicine is against the Constitution is not an opinion or interpretation of the document, it completely contradicts what the Constitution states. When the Founding Fathers included "promote the general welfare" of the Union, I don't think they meant "promote the general welfare for only the middle and upper classes". They meant We the people, all of us, every single one of us. In fact, if any of them were alive today, they might denounce even Obama's plan. Obama's plan is barely socialistic, and a one plan system would be a better way to promote the general welfare.

Also, she is a close follower of Jesus and his teachings. Bible Quote Time:
"Jesus looked at him and loved him. 'One thing you lack,' he said. 'Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." - Mark 10:21
Jesus is obviously preached socialism and was anti-capitalist. So when you declare Obama is unjustly spreading the wealth, then go to Church and praise Jesus, you are engaging in some serious hypocrisy.

Gilvary also finds it important that Obama throws out first pitches in baseball like a little girl. I don't know how this makes him a bad president, but she seems to laud George W. Bush for his pitches. Too bad he was one of the worst Presidents in recent history. Also, Obama can ball. Like LeCarKobe Durant.

Lastly, Gilvary satirizes Joe Biden for claiming Health Care Reform is "a big fucking deal". I could make fun of Sarah Palin right here, but that would be too easy.

Dear Jane

Jane Gilvary recently expressed inconspicuous disgust towards President Obama. This comes as no surprise to anybody. He is holding a "Summit on Entrepreneurship", which is intended to instill entrepreneurial ideals into attendees. But the main source of controversy is that all attendees must be Muslim.

Seems pretty harmless to me, but to Gilvary this comes as an outrage to her Fox News/ Teabagger ideals. She claims these ideas should not be spread to people that blew up financial centres in New York on September 11, 2001. I wouldn't want to give these people education either, but there is a flaw in her logic. Gilvary seems to assume that all Muslims are terrorists, just like all Christians are Aryan-supremacists, right? If she wants to see all Muslims as Osama bin Laden, why can't Muslims see her as Adolf Hitler?

Secondly, Gilvary seems to be stuck on this notion that Islam is not a religion of peace. While this isn't entirely false, she needs to take a look at her own religion. While Jesus may preach peace, Christianity is by no means a peaceful religion. Just like how the majority of Muslims are peaceful, so are the majority of Christians. But no one can refute the violence of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, persecution by other sects of Christians during the reformation and counter-reformation, the colonial conquests, and the African slave trade.

Christians insist on spreading their religion by forcing others to convert. If I may, I will use the signature "Gilvary Bible quote".

"And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled." (Luke 14:23)

Meanwhile, the Qu'ran states:

"There is no compulsion in religion." ( 2:256 )

It shouldn't take a rocket-scientist, or an 11th grade AP English teacher to realize that Christians are the ones that ruthlessly spread their religion, not Muslims. But then again, this women did likely vote for the Bush's, a family which has great business interests and friendship with another notorious family, the bin Laden's.

State of Disunion

As President Obama presented his idealistic speech last night, I was wondering how the Republicans would respond. Aside from my observations of Republicans refusing to applaud, which they have the right to, I decided I would carefully analyze the Republican response. It is always interesting to compare and contrast the interests of the two parties.



If you chose to take advantage of the embedded video above, you probably noticed some peculiarities in the presentation. I understand that making a minority response is one of the toughest things to do in politics, but some things felt awkward.

First, Gov. McDonnell (R-VA) who gave the response, is no orator. His emotional appeal falls well short of what President Obama is able to achieve. Now I didn't expect Brutus to revive himself in the form of Gov. McDonnell, but the contrast in oratorical abilities between Obama and McDonnell is vast.

Did anyone else notice the racial make-up of the two attendees right behind the Governor? A black woman to the left, and an Asian man to the right, each appearing directly behind McDonnell and their faces were in full view for the majority of the speech. Now I'm not a racist nor do I profile others, but those individuals were unequivocally placed there to enhance the GOP's image. Now I did some research, and Wikipedia reports that Virginia is 72.4% white, which is quite diverse when compared to many regions of the country. While I do believe in moderate political correctness, this is excessive. The GOP is trying to expand its reach to new groups, but merely seeing someone of your race will not influence you enough to change your values. However, the attempt was futile in that it can be seen clearly that all but a few of the attendees were white when the camera panned out.

After I noted the unusual racial makeup behind the Governor, I realized the applause was lackluster. It almost seems that the audience was paid to clap. They insisted on clapping after every point, as if they were having a contest with the audience in Washington. I don't know about the attendees in Richmond last night, but I clap when a point valid, not because I am trying to outdo my opponent in a competition.

Lastly, the size of the Virginia House of Delegates is tiny compared to the one on Capitol Hill. Not that I am suggesting it should be rebuilt, but it just can't compare. I love the Greco-Roman architecture all throughout Virginia, but maybe the GOP could have requested that the cameras don't pan all the way out.

Regardless of the realistic limitations, the Republicans took many interesting risks. But the overall theme of this attempt can be summarized in one word: pathetic.

I'm out for dead Prime-Ministers to represent me

"From Ottawa to Washington
Politics are disconnected
Senators serving personal interests
Like the practices of East Berlin


Obama in the Oval Office
Harper on Parliament Hill
Shaking hands, kissing babies
But their policies are ill"

As I thought about how dissatisfied I was with politicians, I created the rhyme above. Whether you are Pro-Harper or Pro-Obama, conservative or liberal, sane or insane (respectively),  you have to have some sort of dissatisfaction with politics. While we elect politicians to represent our viewpoints, we are left to wonder whose side they are on.

I decided to read Obama's Audacity of Hope. Fine, I had to read it, and it provided insight into political life. Obama claims he and his fellow politicians work hard. But how can I trust his claim?

I would like to think the President of the most powerful country in the world is right. I hope his assertion that the money that taxpayers pay to politicians is well worth it. But I cannot help but doubt. Health care has been in proposal for a significant time now, and only recently was it passed. Moreover, many liberals have indicated this bill is far from perfect.

Until Obama turns our great continent into one of socialism, I'm out for dead Prime-Ministers to represent me.