Obama's State of the Union Address

When the State of the Union comes around, the nation (perhaps the world) listens. However, this blog, may I remind you, is about not taking things for face value.

So what do you think - is there something more to what Obama says in the speech? What about what he doesn't?

It was quite clear to anyone (actually) listening that foreign policy wasn't a huge focus. Of course, with approximately 90,000 troops in Afghanistan, it would be impossible for Obama to get away with not mentioning the war at all. But did anyone else notice he made sure to mention the bare minimum? He did not address what military strategy we currently have - perhaps its because the counterinsurgency (COIN) mission is failing? Instead, he talks vaguely about our end goal to extinguish the al Qaeda threat and prevent Taliban takeover. I equate this to saying we're going to stop nuclear war, and we're getting closer to stopping nuclear war, without explaining how. Lack of details highlighted a lack of clear focus in Afghanistan in my opinion. (If the debacle over what strategy we should employ in Afghanistan interests you, post in the comments and I'll redirect you to some very compelling articles).

All things said, Obama glossed over some critical issues to avoid talking about a losing war. There are other examples, such as Obama's lack of specific policy on immigration. He did not mention the Dream Act once. This may be better considering the Tuscon shootings - one policy that wasn't even the most popular won't be a solution at this point. Certainly, whether its good or not, it at least showed how Obama does not have any specific legislation planned for the near future.

I'll stop here as to not overwhelm you, but please post in the comments things you noticed that weren't entirely explicit/intentional in his speech. I'll be sure to respond. :]

Click here for a transcript of the speech provided by NPR.
Click here for a video of the speech provided by Youtube.

"Exposing Nuclear Phallacies" - A Book Review

Wow. What a book.

I'm sure I've surprised most of you that my first book review isn't an advocate for Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. Although I reference the blog Freakonomics on the New York Times in almost all of my posts, I have yet to read the book. (As of now it's on the top of my "To Do List" for spring break).

Regardless, let us not have that distract us from my winter break reading: Exposing Nuclear Phallacies edited by Diana E. Russell.

This book is not light reading or for the close minded. Although some chapters are more successful than others, each will make you reconsider how you view international politics and the nuclear weapon. As the title might suggest, a large majority of this book explores the relationship patriarchy has with modern warfare.

My only history with true feminist theory or even social movements have been strictly through debate (probably suiting that my debate coach originally recommended the book) and even I've followed it fairly well. I would consider one of its strengths to be the utilization of different authors and the variety of studies contributed; together, they allow more well versed readers to still be intrigued and more novice readers to be able to pick and choose what's the easiest way for them to dip their toes into this vast literature base.

With that said, here are some chapters to watch out for (check it out even if you don't have the attention span or time to read the entire book)-

Chapter6: Naming the Cultural Forces that Push Us Toward War by Charlene Spretnak;
-My recommendation as a good starting chapter for beginners. Spretnak includes a lot of historical references to patriarchal societies and the consequential emerging violence. I was slightly turned off by what I thought was a oversimplification of multiple factors, however, it provides a good basis for what many feminist authors will claim.

Chapter 8: Ideologies of Madness by Susan Griffin;
-My personal favorite. I'm looking into buying a copy of this (currently borrowed) book just for this chapter. Griffin explores the atomic bomb, the very point where we discover there was a continuum between matter and energy instead of a separation. She argues our drive to find a way to separate matter from energy, instead of unifying humanity, created a dualism that created 'the enemy'. In my opinion, Griffin provides the most innovative and developed explanation for current politics. Readers of any experience will find something intriguing in this chapter.

Chapter 22: Only Justice Can Stop a Curse by Alice Walker
-Very short, but very powerful. This is not a complicated set of pages but delivers more emotions than most 200page novels can accomplish. Walker does a brilliant job of continuing the book's satire tones while coming to a conclusion. If anyone has trouble understanding 'why they should care', I implore you to take the 5minutes to read this chapter.


How many of you have considered the 'intrinsic' ties methodologies of patriarchy and war have in common? Maybe it's time to start.
The nuclear weapon has never seemed more complex and simpler...