areas of sinister control

USA

Sooner or later, the American people will accept Obama’s many invitations to war.

It’s interesting viewing politics in the USA from afar.  As a world citizen, I was afraid when George W Bush was in power but feel rather more relaxed now that it’s Obama.  It hasn’t escaped my attention that there are some sectors of the US population who don’t quite feel that way.  I’m guessing most of them are white and have guns, but I have absolutely no evidence to back this up, so I’ll retract that comment.

Glancing through a list of some of the terrible things Obama is accused of doing to the USA is fascinating.  Areas of sinister control levelled against him include: school dinners, medical care, gun possession, car ownership and smoking.  Some (I kid you not) claim they are being pushed towards civil war.  Let’s consider why.

1. school dinners – Obama seems to have introduced a policy to ensure that in schools, where parents send their children to be educated and cared for, the food provided is healthy.  Imagine that in a country with something of an obesity problem!

2. medical care – so, one of the richest countries in the world is the only developed nation not to provide universal medical care.  This is really confusing for anyone who’s been, well, anywhere else in the world.  Are there people in the USA who can’t afford healthcare?  Lots.  Imagine the audacity of a politician trying to do something about that situation!

3. gun possession – I’ve already blogged at length on this.  As I understand it, people will still be able to play with guns, just not really big and powerful ones and maybe a bit more paperwork will be involved.  Imagine the state trying to regulate lethal weapons in a country with high homicide rates!

4. car ownership – I’m guessing this will have an environmental slant … quick Google … it seems he wants oil free cars.  Seriously, are people objecting to technological advances that aim to reduce environmental impact?

5. smoking – okay, I can’t find much on this.  The general thrust seems to be that smoking cigarettes is being discouraged (em, it’s a health risk).  Apparently, this is inconsistent with decriminalising marijuana … which he doesn’t seem to be doing.  So I’m lost as to why this was mentioned at all.

I have to be honest, I don’t follow it all those closely, so any corrections are welcomed.  I also haven’t mentioned the continuation of Guantanamo or the use of drone strikes, both of which I find chilling and immoral.  But I don’t see how any of this, in a democratic country, could lead anyone to conclude that violent action is necessary.  Why can’t they wait till the next election and vote for someone else?

(And please don’t post any long rambles about a document drawn up some 200 years ago.  It’s not worthy of mindless cult worship – it served a purpose but, even if he were to rip it to pieces, it’s clearly out of date!!!)

Advertisements