Boobies and Speeches
Whenever I post anything about politics I usually get about two dozen or so hate/angry e-mails within the first 24-hours. In addition, I also get at least twenty or so condescending, "Let me explain to you why you're wrong, little girl" e-mails, too. It's enough to keep me from making blog posts on this topic most of the time. Besides, this isn't a political blog, it's an erotica blog. But occasionally there are exceptions.
Tonight was one of them.
At around 8:30pm I was at work, hating my life for not being able to get out of work on this, the night of our president's first address to a joint-session of Congress. I knew that the first thing I would do when I got home was watch it, but still, not watching it live would suck. So an idea struck me: why not ask the shift-manager if we could turn down the annoying music for once and turn the TV's (that usually only show sports games or ESPN on mute) to one of the major networks?
For a variety of reasons, I have some pull with him. But he was skeptical. I finally convinced him by pointing out that our clientele are mostly blue-collar men who are depressed as hell about the state of the economy. I promised him that Obama would cheer them up. He decided (almost at the last minute) to do it.
The result was the most surreal sight I've ever seen. The smoke-filled dark club I work at became a totally different place at 9pm (EST) when the DJ announced we'd be watching "our president's State of the Union speech" (it wasn't an official SOTU, but whatever). For the next hour or so there was no music, no dancing. Everyone in the bar, probably about three dozen people including the girls, gave their undivided attention to our 44th president and his address.
It was something else. Not only the speech, which was amazing, but the customers' reaction to it. Also, the dancers' (including me) reaction to it. There were tears, there were bursts of applause, and immediately following the speech's end the room erupted in a chant of "OBAMA! OBAMA!".
I live in a place that has been devastated by this recession. President Obama's optimistic, bold, and empathic speech resonated well, here. Hell, I spent the speech on the lap of a man who told me at its start that he had voted for McCain. At the end he was shaking his head and saying, "Goddamn, this guy can do it. He can do it." He sounded in awe. Imagine a dark room full of half-naked women and blue-collar men watching the speech like it was the Superbowl of Superbowls and you'll get sort of close to understanding how weird the sight was... sigh!
Anyway, as soon as the speech was over the music began again and our DJ for the night (btw? He's the only DJ there who I *hate* with a passion!!!) called me to the stage and everything became normal at work again. But for that one hour or so my little club was this like... argh, I don't have the words! It's like, it became this place where suddenly tits and ass weren't the end all, be all, you know? People cared more about President Obama's words than my tits! That's a good thing.
Oh, and in case you're wondering, I still made out pretty well, money-wise. After the speech was over, people were happy. Happy people tip more. After the speech was over, people felt more confident. Confident people spend more. :)
I do have a lingering concern that the shift manager might get into trouble for putting that speech on the monitors, though... I know for a *fact* that his boss would not have approved. Hopefully no alcohol revenues were lost during that. Eh. Business has been so bad lately that I doubt he'd notice, though, unless he looked at the hourly receipts... shrugs.
Even if some of us get in trouble for that, though, I think it was a wonderful experience, and well worth any "punishment" (short of being fired) down the road.
How cool is it that we have a president who can garner more attention that naked tits?! Pretty darn cool, if you ask me. :P
-shannon-
Labels: politics, stuff about me
posted by Shannon at 1:45 AM
12 Comments:
Sounds like an interesting night at work.
I thought it was a very strong speech, and the president did a good job of reaffirming the values that he articulated during the campaign. I'm doubtful about the usefulness of historical analogies, but last night I felt the way I imagine a radio listener might have during one of F.D.R.'s fireside chats. Affirmed. Reassured. Invigorated. Confident. And hopeful.
All that said, I might have enjoyed the speech more if Shannon had been sitting in my lap.
I'm afraid this is going to be one of those, "this is why you're wrong, little girl" posts. If all it took were pretty speeches and thinking good thoughts, we'd be golden.
Look at what he's done instead. We're looking at trillion dollar deficits in the future. Do you really think they have this money just lying around? No, they don't. Everyone will be feeling the pinch from that down the road. I give it about a year before you start seeing the effects. Who's going to suffer the most? The very blue collar people that make up your clientele. Remember how much prices went up last year, this will be worse.
The worst part about that, is that they're not even saving the best in the business there. They're bailing out the losers and idiots who caused this mess in the first place. That money is as good as wasted. So now we're on the hook for trillions, with nothing to show for it.
Have you, by chance, noticed all the preparations being made to suppress domestic discontent? Everyone from the military to federal agencies to some states like Arizona are getting into the act. These people know their plans are going to fail and they're getting ready to react when people get mad enough to do something about it.
What can I say? Found this while strolling asstr.org. Yes, sounds like a different sort of night. But more of a positive "different".
Have to admit I found darkscrivener a bit of a fool...maybe off his meds. When Shrub(Bush) came in, deficit was at 5 trillion. When he left, it was over 11 trillion. And what do we have to show for it: a war for oil in Iraq, a bogus war on terror (and screwed up getting bin Laden), an abused and shredded Constitution, torture, piss poor credibility with the rest of the world, an economy ripped by the discredited hallucination of deregulation, Republicrat managed bailout for the bankers and not the banks with absolutely no oversight of the skunks, a bailout for the bogus mortgage lenders who knowingly floated bogus mortgages, dirtier air, dirtier water, people in the Gulf coast still not able to return to their homes, eight years of "reverse socialism" where the pockets of the workers were picked by the rich, and so much more. The only thing Bush did well was to make Nixon, Hoover and Harding look good.
I caught the speech. It was good. Not perfect. And this is not to say that Obama is a perfect president out the gate. Like every president before him, he will have to grow into the job. There many things he could do that would be much more dynamic and far-reaching towards pulling this country back from the brink, but you have to start somewhere.
And as for suppressing the people, this is not new. Many of the mechanisms have been in place since the Kennedy era, with vast improvements made by Nixon and Shrub.
Just to put a view on it, I used to teach history, and can I have lived through it with both eyes open.
As a foreigner, one from the "Old Europe", I might miss lots of the facts needed to contribute objectively to this discussion. All I felt while being in the US right now is so much of relieve and optimism that things might change under Obama. No question, he has the most fucked up job on this planet right now, and I wouldn't want to switch with him ... but there is only thing which could lead you Americans (and indeed anyone, also in other countries) out of this mess: Optimism, cooperation and start doing things for the future (and don't burn money in wars and for manager bonuses). And I don't see anyone except for Obama who would even dare to try this. And that's why he should have all the support (and none of the pessimism) from the whole nation.
And I agree: I envy the lucky guy who had Shannon sitting on his lap for the speech ;-)
Sorry darkscrivener, unless you can point to the reason why those huge deficits made sense for invading Iraq you just need to admit that you're opposed to it because he's not on "your team". The cost of the bail-out is roughly equal to the costs of three of Mega-bases they started building in Iraq, or the cost of being there for 14-16 months. If you weren't making the same BS argument about the mega-bases and the same BS argument about being in Iraq in the first place, then you don't get to suddenly start worrying about deficit spending now.
As for suppressing dissent, what do they have in mind - "Free Speech Zones"? How about warrantless domestic wiretapping? How about empowering the National Guard to act as civilian police and shoot looters on site during domestic emergencies? They're not doing any of those things or anything close to them, and if you didn't cry foul over those, you're back to the same hypocrisy as before. What happened to all those "stand behind your president" jingoists from the last eight years? I never thought I would miss that empty-headed hollow patriotism before, but I do.
Yes I can say it was a very moving speech. But then listening to the financial news on it made some points. Still vague, still costly, and still not much being done about banking/housing.
Course that republican guy after was funny. And that Monorail from Disney to Las Vegas? Aweeeesomeee.
Also Stephen Colbert eps was win.
Deficit spending is deficit spending, no matter the reason. Why do you assume that I support Bush because I don't support Obama. JJ, IIRC I never said that I supported deficit spending for the invasion of Iraq, you just assumed that. And you know what they say about assumptions.
Again, I never said I supported the Patriot Act, which I might add passed with overwhelming support in Congress. Which doesn't make it any less stupid. As stupid as Bush's policies were at least he wasn't looking at sending in the Guard to supress discontent in American cities.
Good old, please don't take this the wrong way, but Europe is the last place that needs to tell us how to run things. We need more than talk about hope and optimism. What we need are leaders who are grounded in reality and willing to let things run their course so that we may get back on track sooner. What we have now are a bunch of neo-Progressives, who want to save the world, no matter how many lives they destroy.
Mark, you're tirade against Bush can also be said about Obama. His bailout is just more of the same thing that Congress did last fall. Shredding the Constitution? Where in that document does it explicitly say that the government can take over the financial companies, housing companies or anything the government has done over last century? We haven't had a constitution in at least that long.
You may have taught history, but one thing I get from talking to kids today is how ignorant they are of any historical events. Good job. Oh wait, you were a teacher, union to the core. Thanks for getting our jobs shipped overseas.
Bush? Bah! Obama? DOUBLE-Bah! Bush was only "mostly stupid"; I'm afraid that Obama has "stupid" pegged perfectly. Obama is Jimmy Carter redux, only without the quasi-pious insincerity.
Deficits? Obama has proposed more deficit in his FIRST year than Bush's eight. Massive deficit spending didn't work for FDR, and didn't work for the Japanese in the 1990's. It won't work this time, either.
And just because Obama is the "Un-Bush", don't expect the jihadis to join in the kumbaya; either BarryO will continue the Bushie-GWOT, or the USofA can expect another WTC-squared attack - probably with Iranian nukes.
Don't get me wrong; this last election was between Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dumber. Obama is a fresh face, and can read a Teleprompt-R very well. (Too bad he's such a doofus when it breaks!) But it's going to take a lot more than a fresh face and a good delivery to fix what's wrong with America.
Especially since most of what's wrong with America has a D after their names!
To darkscrivener:
While I share your concerns about deficit spending, please review our current situation: nobody has money to spend; there is a surplus of supply that must either be sold or treated as a loss; a loss would cause a plunge in stock values, the drying of whatever little credit may still be open to that business, and increased unemployment. Clearly the problem is that demand has dropped drastically below supply; the only solution is to (artificially) increase demand to help reach a more normal level. Who will supply this money? The banks that still have money aren't lending; consumers aren't spending. The only entity left is government. And yes, eventually we will feel the pinch from this: the only way to pay for this spending now is higher taxes later. However, it will not primarily be the blue-collar workers feeling this, as much of the "increase" will come from allowing Bush's blatantly irresponsible tax cuts for the incredibly wealthy to expire. Not spending now is, to borrow from the British, penny-wise, pound-foolish. Yes, our federal balance books would look a little nicer, at the cost of a crippled national economy for years to come. Instead, we are opting for large deficits now to be paid off over the next (many) years by the saved productivity of our economy. It is a rational, intelligent, forward-thinking choice the likes of which have not been seen in Washington in many, many years (around 9, to be precise).
The next point is your complete misreading of our Constitution. Nowhere in it does it say that government can only perform the specifically enumerated duties; in fact, its power includes the ability "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper" to do their job. Furthermore it tasks the government to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare"
As to your paranoid feelings that President Obama is going to be "suppressing discontent" with the military, please review the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. s 1385) which specifically bars the federal uniformed forces from exercising law enforcement, etc. within the states. Please rest assured, there is no plot to create a military dictatorship within the United States.
To Techreader:
The American people have heard your claims and determined that they are without merit. Your attitude has no place on this blog or indeed in any civil discussion. Away with you.
To Shannon:
(and sorry for addressing you last)
Yes indeed, the fact that our president is more interesting than naked breasts is a sign of progress; perhaps our nation is maturing (if only somewhat). One can always hope
David, good to hear from someone who knows at least a little about what's going on out there.
You make some good points but you miss a couple of rather large issues. First you have to understand how the government is paying for all of the bailouts, because there really isn't trillions of dollars in new taxes and there surely isn't trillions of dollars laying around in the Treasury. They accomplish this by selling the debt to foreigners. Luckily for us, they're still buying. A side effect of monetizing that debt is the increase in the supply of money. That has the undesired effect of raising all prices. We haven't felt it yet, but we will. And that, my friend will affect those who make less money and live on the margin.
Second, the government is basically rewarding the losers who brought the economy to this state. Rather than let them face the music, our supposed representatives let themselves be bought, shamed and told stories about how the end was nigh. Rather than allow these bad decisions to be liquidated and the remnant good assets flow into more capable hands, the government is short circuiting the problem and allowing the very people who got us into this mess to stay in business.
Third, your argument assumes that deficit spending is a path to increased wealth. If you look at whatever nation at whatever timed used deficit spending, you find that the end result has always been war. Something has to keep the people's attention away from the problems at home and countless leaders have reached for the "short victorious war" solution for centuries. The only true sustainable way to wealth is through saving and investing. Look at how well Japan did after WW II due to their saving habits. They went from literally nothing to the tiger of Asia in two decades.
In addition, you're talking about taxing the one group who have the resources to start new businesses. I don't believe the government is a good employer, you see I used to work for my state government and it's not really about the work, it's about politics. Think high school cliques writ large and you'll have an idea of what it's like to work in a government bureaucracy.
Our current crisis is due entirely to the government intervening through the Fed and laws like the Community Reinvestment Act. What we need is less intrusion, not more.
As for the Posse Comitatus act, I am familiar with it. I am also familiar with our leaders' propensity to ignore law and custom when it suits their needs. Our previous President was notorious for violating Constitutional and customary limits on his power. But why not? Every President since Lincoln has done it. FDR was fighting what amounted to a shooting war while we were still neutral. No declaration of war from Congress, the vast majority of Americans were against a war in Europe, but he did it anyway. Laws in this day and age are not worth the paper they are written on and I wouldn't expect them to save us. The military itself is another matter. The real question is what would happen were they given an order to suppress domestic discontent. They are a volunteer army after all.
Second, it's really disingenuous to quote from the preamble of the Constitution. The Constitution exists to tell the government what it can and cannot do. Their job is to provide for national defense and protect people's property, not loot it.
Let's have a gentleman's wager between us, what do you say? The average price of bread is about $2.79. If the price a year from know is lower, you're entitled to an abject apology from me. Should the price be higher, I'd ask that you question some of your base assumptions about government intervention in the economy.
As for your dismissal of Teachreader, surely you must realize that only half of the population voted last November and of that only half supported Obama. At most, only 25% of the population chose him. Now as a practical matter even though he only has the support of a quarter of the population, he must be careful that his policies don't antagonize the majority of the population. Let's face it, he may act like he has a mandate, but in reality it's pretty thin.
By the way, I brought up the price of bread for a reason. History shows that when people are no longer able to afford bread, they revolt soon after. Current Federal policy will cause the price of bread to rise. Each dollar we make will purchase less and less over the coming year. The larger the deficit, they less your dollar will purchase.
all i can say is "you go girl, good job!"
Post a Comment
<< Home