I think everybody is going a little overboard about how historic this election with Obama is. The guy hasn't even started his term yet officially. He hasn't done anything, except get elected. So all of the commemorative coins, being able to buy his acceptance speech on DVD, and all the news media about how historic this all is has really been getting on my nerves. I recognize that the first black president is historic in and of itself, but let the guy prove that he's worth all of this media hype before he goes down in the history books as this amazing person. When he finally does something worthwhile, maybe I'll begin applauding this "historic" occasion, but as of right now, I'm pretty skeptical. Especially with FOCA on the table. I think the only thing historic about that is that it shows his complete lack of character. But then again, in American politics, having lack of character is nothing new...
7 comments:
I think of it historic in terms of the fact that
a) he is the first African-American to be elected
b) he will be the first president to simultaneously deal with a serious economic recession and two foreign wars at the same time
c) his election really does mean a lot to people
But I agree with you. He hasn't actually done anything yet, yet the comparisons to Lincoln abound.
Also, I am curious why you consider Obama as lacking character. I didn't vote for him and I profoundly disagree with much of his ideas, but I think he has tremendous character.
I guess he doesn't seem to me to have very many morals really. To me, morality defines character. They are very inter-related in my book. He claims to worship God and to hold some religious ideals, but he stands for some things I am deeply against, and that is where he shows lack of character. I read an article about how they are raising their girls, and some of the things they allow in that household are mind-boggling to me (like having no rules about how much clothing covers their girls), I don't think little innocent girls should be allowed to have such freedom.
I realize this is from a very naive, probably judgmental, LDS perspective, but I still think there are some morals that should be held as morals by the public regardless of religious affiliation, like the killing of the unborn, like the stance on gay marriage. Some things are just FUNDAMENTALLY wrong, and it gravely bothers me that this nation leans so liberally toward the left end of these issues.
It is a testament to me of the last days, and I am very sad to see the choice the nation has made as a representation of our people. It really does mean that the majority of Americans probably don't believe in God as they should and don't have the morals they should have. That's what I believe. Narrow-minded, probably, but I'm just one of those people who only sees things as good or bad, not really in the middle.
AMEN Jenna, Thanks for writing things they way I feel, that I never seem to be able to get out in words
Jenna, thanks for explaining what you mean. I think that I define morals differently than you do.
I found your blog from a random search. I like what I have read so far and must say I agree with you on the Obama issue. Im not too thrilled to have him as president. I just hope he can live up to what these people are expecting of him.
Khourt, I read some of your blog, and what you wrote last Sept 9 about sex education I am totally in alignment with. Very astute.
Post a Comment