Obama and the future of hopefully, a socially responsible United States of America.

Recently i posted a link on facebook detailing how i find Obama to be a good leader, orator and a role model. As quickly as i posted the link, a friend of mine staunchly disagreed, after which sending me a message detailing on why he disagreed.

Though i do not disagree with all his point, i deemed it fit that i sent a reply to his points, to set the record straight and to share with him my POV that i feel quite deeply about.

Change and daring to take risks and be different

It is the cornerstone of my philosophy in life. My philosophy for my 15th JCRC. As a leader myself, i can share his vision, see his ideas and celebrate in his victory. Because being a leader, one often makes difficult choices, not necessarily the most popular, but it has to be the most effective.

DO not care whether his policies will eventually work, whether will he bomb out like GWB, or whether will he be just another empty vessel. That his track record as a social activist, a Senator and as a Law Undergrad, a social organiser speak for itself.

I am not here to debate on his personality nor his track record. I'm here to speak about what makes him so different from the rest.

No doubt he is charisamatic. But listen from his first speech to the last at his inauguration. He is consistent, heartfelt and deeply internalized. He does nto waver, nor does he show flippancy in his points. He is confident, certain and most importantly, daring enough to speak out against the status quo and effect change.

People do not really subscribe to his policies, i do not believe so, but they subscribe to him as a leader, as someone who gives hope, provides assurance and shows a resolute in himself. People subscribe to him for the fact that he does not hide behind bountiful coffers, or uses shields.

***

Before i go off tangent, i would just like to touch on my friend's post. In a way, i was rather angered that his tone was condescending, promtping me to "read the newspapers" much akin to telling me that i am just one of the few people in the crowd who support Obama based upon popular appeal. I do not. I read his reports, i watch his speeches, i compare it with McCain's and i do my due dilligence to read up on him. I do not simply go waving the Obama flag just because it seems like the popular and hip choice. No i do not.

I subscribe to his idealogies on change, on the need to reform America socially, on the need to give more back to the people who have suffered, the need to make healthcare, education and social services easily accessible and not be restraint because of social status or strata. Maybe i will post my friend's message here for comparison. I always enjoy a good debate, a good sharing of ideas.

Maybe we might all learn something from these. :)

****

"read todays NEws paper.
HE supports abortion, in my terms, TATS MURDER !
Bush impose measures to prevent abortion but he removed them .
TATS MURDER !! boy.

his govt say abortion is to prevent econ n suffering from worsting.. but who is he to decide if he has the rite to induce or support muder !!

next, taking troops out of iraq., for the benifit of US ppl.
however u are leave the iraqis to die all over again,

he is doing alot of e ppl of us. however. the world doest belong onli to us.

he needs to consider the world w his actions ...

econ wise., he's helping the US economy,. however by slashing jobs worldwide., the US wl become richer but the rest poorer.

HE is being very self centered.
Read the news and have your own views boy. dont just listen to propagande

SPEECHS are Drafted to SOund nice n bluff ppl."

To which my reply was (it is a little wordy, but i feel i made my point across)

"Hmm, probably i can understand where you are coming from. However, reading news is one thing, listening to speeches is another. Before this extends itself to a political debate, let me clarify that i pay tribute to the way he orates, his vision and tenacity in his voice. Yes policies differ, policies change, some good, some bad, some in between. But the difference is filled up by the man.

Lest we forget, he is inheriting a government faced with a tattered economy, brought unto the world by the corporate bigwigs of USA, supported by the previous government. A country never so disillusioned since the Vietnam war. A society so divided in economic, educational and health stratas.

Republican governments tend to lean towards the vision of "Corporate America" where money comes first and everything else, as a consequence of having increased coffers. True, bush implemented means and measure to stem out abortion. But look where it has brought the US society to. High incedence of child born out of wedlock, social strain when the very crucial aspects of healthcare and education, the two very important fundamentals of society, is in tatters. Proper education is not accessible to the lower strungs of society and healthcare at an all time high. Is it responsible to bring in a child when the very elements of support is not made available to see this child through a proper growth? That he be resigned to growing up in the ghettos? That even the healthcare industry is concerned with profits and accounts statement, thence the high fees and low accesibility, just to cough up enough coffers to send their executives on spa trips and big year-end bonuses? Is it socially responsible? Of course they wouldn't want abortion. To eliminate abortion is eliminating a potential cash cow of theirs.

I do not see how the slashing of jobs (in other words, in-sourcing the outsourced jobs) will make the US richer relative to other nations. Under the republican flag, government policies like tax breaks for major US corporations have spurned an era of profit-driven growth. One based on greed and social manipulation. To increase their coffers, they reduce costs by outsourcing their jobs. It is through these that the US has grown richer also, but not via sharing the profits with the workers whom they once relied on, but via the sweat-shops in china and telcom centers in India. They are growing rich at the expense of their very own citizens. But look where it has brought the American society to. High unemployment, high incedence of social vices. Taxation even in a recession.

The world needs a strong and stable US economy (social and jobs) to balance the world economy. We cannot deny that all economies of the world are inexplicably, linked to the state of the US. Simply put, before they can solve the problems of other nations. They should solve their own first. How can we expect them to create jobs for foreigners when they themselves do not have any of their own? Its like our own PAP giving away jobs to foreigners in spite of the locals.

I do not say i support all of Obama's policies, but i subscribe to his idea of a Socially responsible America, a "Social America". Iraq was never a meant to be a legitimate war. It was founded on weak principles and supported by dubious documents. What the Bush administration has done for the past 6-8 years in Iraq has been to yes, weed out the terrorist elements and make the middle-east a safer place. Though the war was well-fought, the post-war efforts are questionable. I do not expect Obama to pull out of Iraq totally and like Japan after WW2 and Korea after the Korean conflict, require a certain degree of presence. But to send in more troops when they should be building up the economy, infrastructure and political structure of Iraq should not be the priority. That is important and that is crucial. Perhaps this is one point we can both agree on. :) With regards to Afghanistan, his deployment of additional troops is to beef up the area where more concern should be paid to. The real hotbed of such terrorist ideals.

In this time and age, nobody expects the US to be a charity. They have their own set of problems to settle and mitigate. To step into the affairs of the world when their very foundation is rotten by the past 2 terms of greed, social bigotry and economic manipulation, is purely irresponsible, hypocritical and definitely uncalled for.

I've seen what are drafted speeches and what comes from the heart. I have done speeches, addressed a crowd. Under such circumstances a drafted speech cannot hold. Under such intense pressure, to really excel in such public oratory requires well-thought out points, points that are internalized within him and is consistent with what he has been saying. I've been following Obama's speeches as well as John McCain's, ive read their reports and read the news articles. And he has been consistent.

As i mentioned, i pay tribute to him in this video because of the confidence, tenacity and vision he shares with his citizens when speaking. Not since JFK and to some extent Bill Clinton has America seen such a confident leader, who cares for his people first and foremost, before everything else, before greed and profits. Money can be replaced and is quantifiable, but vision and the sheer gut of trying to be bigger than the nitpicks of politics, to focus on the task at hand. Requires great courage and vision.

Its time we see America rebuild itself from the fatigue of close to 8 years of war, where the death toll has increased and economically, Corporate America has single-handedly dealt to the world, its worst financial crisis since the 1929 Great Depression. We need a strong and stable US society for it to function as the peace-keeper of the world, the counter-balance and the motivating force for developing and developed countries.

His actions to rectify the rotten undergrowths of America will eventually benefit the world. Right now, we are eroding the last major superpower of the world to appease and pacify critics and cynics. Tell me, is that being responsible to not only themselves, but to the world?

:)"

***

Though i will not say that i am correct and is a obama-fanatic. I want to reiterate that i subscribe to his idea of being socially responsible, to solve the countries' own problems before they seek to meddle with others. Drawing parallel to Singapore, in a way we are rather similar to Obama's ideas as Singapore has all along been a socially responsible country. If you are sick, you are at least guaranteed basic healthcare from our medisave, education is compulsory for all children, at least till Primary level and our standards of living is good if not better than most developing or developed nations.

Probably out jobs can be given more to locals =P

***

He promptly replied me back a few hours later with this (also in response to my brother who somewhat jacked me...hahah)

"well said.... Mr alex...
hold judgement over his policies except 1.... the 1 where even the pope disagrees on... abortion....

Pope Benedict spoke of the church's teaching 'on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death.' That is an expression often used by the pope when expressing opposition to abortion.

Pope Benedict said all Catholics - especially legislators, jurists and political leaders - should work to create 'a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development,' the Vatican said.

On his fourth day in office last month, Obama ended a ban on funds for international groups that perform abortions or provide information on the option - a sharp policy change from former President George W. Bush's Republican administration"

No doubt, abortion is something that Obama is not going to restrict. But lets be fair. USA is not a Catholic state. It is a cosmopolitan country where Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Taoist, Hindus, Catholics, Protestants, atheists live. They are not like the Vatican or Israel or Middle East countries.

Politics and Religion should not mix. Policies should benefit the greater good, the society at large. Obama is not openly advocating Abortion, his policies reflect his vision of a socially responsible America, whereby the right is given to women to exercise choice to abort or not to abort. If the mother is financially, physically, emotionally or mentally incapable of raising the child, instead of leaving it to foster care or worst, forcing to raise the child, in a worse scenario, in one of poverty, disease and social instability, is it being responsible at all?

Obama once said that we should not be nitpicking at whether to abort or not to abort, but rather, can the society support and how can the society support unwed mothers. By opening an avenue for them to exercise their choice, not under advocation or otherwise, we allow leeway for society to relieve itself of the social strain that single mums, who find themselves jobless, barely even able to support themselves and burden with a child they simply cannot afford to upbring. Do we subject this children then to a life in the Ghettos, or orphanages? Yes, it sounds macabre and many people will probably not agree with me on this. But look at the big picture. Pre-marital sex can be educated. How a child lives its days, cannot be controlled, society holds the control. I hope people get my drift.

If we have a society that is responsible, one that has good healthcare and good pre/post-natal faciliities and these facilities are made available easily to these unwed mothers, that children born out of wedlock receives the same educational and growth opportunities as legitiate children, i believe even if the option of abortion presents itself to these mothers, many will be willing to take up the challenge and not abort.

Don't you agree that this is better and more responsible than bringing in a child you cannot afford to have, but have to and as a result, subject it to a lifetime of suffering, Just because you have no choice? That sounds more like social engineering to me!

Labels: General, Obama

Alan gagged and reeled at 11:03 PM
  0 people shizzled my nizzle
..:: Semper Paratus, Sine Mora ::..