The State of the Union

I've asked myself this question before, but perhaps this year even more vigorously I asked myself "What the hell is the point of this thing?" I mean, seriously, what's the point? We get to see the Bush rhetoric played out continuously over an hour and a half instead of in it's usual presentation, 30 second sound bytes, and let me say that in this situation less is more. Much, much more. Over the past 7 years Bush has proven that he can lie with the brashness of Nixon or Agnew and though he is not so convincing as those pioneers of deception under the glare of the public eye, the fact that he can stand in front of Congress and the American people and lie for nearly 90 straight minutes is nearly mind boggling. And those little smirks he gives when he says something and people stand up and cheer, like he feels inside that he's just done something really amazing, man, it makes me want to punch him right in the mouth.

So, let's wade through some of this shit storm, shall we? My opinions in parenthesis....

For the full transcript click here.

"...history will record that amid our differences we acted with purpose, and together we showed the world the power and resilience of American self-government." (Just a gigantic load right here. Really, history will look back on 8 years of terrible foreign policy in which we wasted trillions of dollars on needless military ventures and tax cuts for the rich while slashing domestic programs, ruining the economy and destroying the worth of the dollar and call that the power and resilience of American self-government? Future historians must be stupid.)

"As Americans, we believe in the power of individuals to determine their destiny and shape the course of history. We believe that the most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens." (Which is why we must be able to wiretap anyone, at any time, for any reason. We don't want to lose those pearls of wisdom! That's also why we need to expand government programs and oversight, because even though the people have all the wisdom, we need to tell them when and where and how they can use it.)

"As we meet tonight, our economy is undergoing a period of uncertainty. America's added jobs for a record 52 straight months. But jobs are now growing at a slower pace. Wages are up, but so are prices for food and gas. Exports are rising, but the housing market has declined." (I'd really like to see how that 52 week statistic was reached, because it can't be true. The manipulation of the "official" unemployment rate and the rate of "adding jobs" in our country is ridiculous. Also, perhaps he doesn't realize that while wages are up, that doesn't do jack shit if the value of the dollar is down. Calling this a period of uncertainty is like looking off the deck of the Titanic, seeing an iceberg and saying "Is that an iceberg we're headed for? Hmmmm, uncertain.")

"At kitchen tables across our country, there is a concern about our economic future. In the long run, Americans can be confident about our economic growth, but in the short run, we can all see that that growth is slowing." (In the long run? IN THE LONG RUN? What does this mean, that if we bottom out there will be no where to go but up, eventually? Looking to the future and claiming that we can somehow come out of what looks to be a long-term recession at full strength would be comical if it wasn't so outrageous.)

"We have other work to do on taxes. Unless Congress acts, most of the tax relief we've delivered over the past seven years will be taken away. Some in Washington argue that letting tax relief expire is not a tax increase. (It isn't.) Try explaining that to 116 million American taxpayers who will see their taxes rise by an average of $1,800. (How many of those 116 million people do you really think would see that type of increase? It seems to me that corporations that got huge tax breaks would be the ones who really felt it, while those who got $300 checks a few years back would pretty much be in the same place where they are now. Doesn't it seem like he just took the total amount of tax cuts given then divided that equally between the corporations and private citizens alike to come out with an inflated average? Yes, it does, and I imagine that's likely the truth. Also, he has the gall to push military spending at the SAME TIME that he's pushing permanent tax cuts? What the hell is going on here?)

"Members of the Congress should know, if any bill -- raises taxes reach -- reaches my desk, I will veto it." (First of all, well done on that sentence. Second, I imagine this just means we'll have to "find more money" to continue funding the war by cutting domestic programs and borrowing from other countries rather than by doing it the American way, which would be to levy higher taxes on the citizens.)

"Just as we trust Americans with their own money, we need to earn their trust by spending their tax dollars wisely." (No joke needed here.)

"Next week, I'll send you a budget that terminates or substantially reduces 151 wasteful or bloated programs, totaling more than $18 billion. The budget that I'll submit will keep America on track for a surplus in 2012." (Surplus? What's a surplus? Oh wait, I seem to remember hearing about that word 7 years ago after Clinton left the Whitehouse. Good to hear that Bush has a plan to bring that back 12 years after he was elected. Also, guess what Bush does to roust money? Cuts domestic programs! And I'm sure he'll do so with no bias or outside influence whatsoever.)

"The people's trust in their government is undermined by congressional earmarks, special interest projects that are often snuck in at the last minute, without discussion or debate. committee reports that never even come to a vote. Unfortunately, neither goal was met. So, this time, if you send me an appropriations bill that does not cut the number and cost of earmarks in half, I'll send it back to you with my veto." (Earmarks undermine the trust of the people, so let's only use half as many from now on.)

"We share a common goal: making health care more affordable and accessible for all Americans." (But I offer no alternatives on how to reduce the cost of health care or how to reduce dependence on or the scope of insurance companies.)

"Six years ago, we came together to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, and today no one can deny its results." (Is a joke needed here? It seems like, not. Standardized testing for all!!!)

"Members of Congress, the No Child Left Behind Act is a bipartisan achievement. It is succeeding." (Just like "The Surge" is succeeding. See, we can manipulate certain statistics to make things look like we want them to look, even if in practice the facts do not back us up!)

"On trade, we must trust American workers to compete with anyone in the world and empower them by opening up new markets overseas." (Even though we've closed tons of markets to American exports by shipping manufacturing and development jobs off to other countries, we'll try to open new markets for the crappy products we make and export today. I mean, don't people in Russia want Ford trucks? What's that, Ford no longer produces the majority of their vehicles in America? Whoops!)

"At the same time, we're pursuing opportunities to open up new markets by passing free trade agreements. I thank the Congress for approving a good agreement with Peru. And now I ask you to approve agreements with Colombia and Panama and South Korea." ("Free trade," one of the biggest misnomers in the American language.)

"Trade brings better jobs and better choices and better prices. Yet, for some Americans, trade can mean losing a job. And the federal government has a responsibility to help." ("Which is why I will demand that all American companies stop outsourcing and produce their products in the United States!" Hmmm, I guess they forgot to include that sentence.)

"To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology. Our security, our prosperity and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil. consumption over the next decade, and you responded. Together, we should take the next steps. Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions." ("However, I do not advocate caps on automobile emissions and I will not move to force Oil companies to use their record profits to re-invest in eco-friendly technology. One of my solutions to the problem, though, is this great new energy source...drum roll please...Coal!")

"On matters of justice, we must trust in the wisdom of our founders and empower judges who understand that the Constitution means what it says. I've submitted judicial nominees who will rule by the letter of the law, not the whim of the gavel. Many of these nominees are being unfairly delayed. They are worthy of confirmation, and the Senate should give each of them a prompt up-or-down vote." (Is this a fucking stand-up comedy act or what?)

"And tonight I'm pleased to announce that, in April, we will host this year's North American Summit of Canada, Mexico, and the United States in the great city of New Orleans." ("There aren't many darkies there anymore so don't worry about being mugged!")

"We all know the painful choices ahead if American stays on this path: massive tax increases, sudden and drastic cuts in benefits, and crippling deficits." (Haven't these things happened already? I also love the fact that one of the options on the table to improve the standing of these programs IS NOT to decrease out of control military spending. Nope, that wouldn't solve any problems now would it?)

"The other pressing challenge is immigration. America needs to secure our borders. And, with your help, my administration is taking steps to do so. We're increasing work site enforcement, deploying fences and advanced technologies to stop illegal crossings." ("I won't stop companies from hiring illegal immigrants at ridiculously low wages, but I will spend billions of dollars trying to keep illegals from crossing the border!")

"Yet building a prosperous future for our citizens also depends on confronting enemies abroad and advancing liberty in troubled regions of the world." (It's always worked before! Like in...ummm...line?")

"Our foreign policy is based on a clear premise: We trust that people, when given the chance, will choose a future of freedom and peace." ("Which includes doing everything they can to further the international interests of American corporations. If they aren't willing to do that, well, they're just god dammed terrorists anyway.")

"In the last seven years, we have witnessed stirring moments in the history of liberty. We've seen citizens in Georgia and Ukraine stand up for their right to free and fair elections." (With basically no help from us.) "We've seen people in Lebanon take to the streets to demand their independence." (Though we would not recognize parts their democratically elected government.) "We've seen Afghans emerge from the tyranny of the Taliban (Who we helped arm and rise to power, and whom we were happy to have governing Afghanistan before they decided not to allow an oil pipeline through their country) and choose a new president and a new parliament." (Many of whom were American puppets and former oil company executives.)


"The advance of liberty is opposed by terrorists and extremists -- evil men who despise freedom, despise America and aim to subject millions to their violent rule." (The word you were looking for here was EMPIRE not LIBERTY. If we did not have an extensive military presence on every continent and in nearly every industrialized country and region, perhaps we would not be viewed as a power hunger EMPIRE looking to impose on those weaker than us.)

"We are engaged in the defining ideological struggle of the 21st century. The terrorists oppose every principle of humanity and decency that we hold dear." (Like, you know, they want freedom and stuff!)

"Yet, in this war on terror, there is one thing we and our enemies agree on. In the long run, men and women who are free to determine their own destinies will reject terror and refuse to live in tyranny." ("Much like they have done here in America! Wait, why did it get so quiet all of a sudden?")

"And that is why, for the security of America and the peace of the world, we are spreading the hope of freedom." ("You know, by killing all those innocent people. That's the best way to spread our message of freedom! Remember, we can take your lives, but we can never take, your FREEDOM!")

"Thanks to the courage of these military and civilian personnel, a nation that was once a safe haven for al Qaeda is now a young democracy where boys and girls are going to school. New roads and hospitals are being built. And people are looking to the future with new hope." ("And remember, we never financially supported authoritarian regimes there! At least...ummm...not since like early 2001.")

"One year ago, our enemies were succeeding in their efforts to plunge Iraq into chaos, so we reviewed our strategy and changed course. We launched a surge of American forces into Iraq. We gave our troops a new mission: Work with the Iraqi forces to protect the Iraqi people, pursue the enemy in his strongholds, and deny the terrorists sanctuary anywhere in the country. The Iraqi people quickly realized that something dramatic had happened." (Oh, so THAT'S why more people died in Iraq in 2007 than in any other year...because the surge is working!)


"And tonight, in this hallowed chamber with the American people as our witness, we make you a solemn pledge: In the fight ahead, you will have all you need to protect our nation." ("Protect our nation from...Ummm...A poor country that was never a threat to us!")

"A free Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe haven." (One they never had in Iraq before the war.) A free Iraq will show millions across the Middle East that a future of liberty is possible. (As long as they are willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.) A free Iraq will be a friend of America, a partner in fighting terror and a source of stability in a dangerous part of the world.
("Because they will not be allowed freedom if they do not support America!")


"Iran is funding and training militia groups in Iraq, supporting Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, and backing Hamas' efforts to undermine peace in the Holy Land." ("I give no solid evidence for this because there is none.")

"Tehran is also developing ballistic missiles of increasing range and continues to develop its capability to enrich uranium, which could be used to create a nuclear weapon." ("Recent intelligence revelations be damned!")

"But above all, know this: America will confront those who threaten our troops; (Or those who are just there because that's where they live) we will stand by our allies; (Israel) and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf. (Oil.)

"Congress must ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted. Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America." ("Even if they violated our civil rights!")


"We support freedom in countries from Cuba and Zimbabwe to Belarus and Burma." (Though we will not lift trade embargoes to encourage it!)

"America is leading the fight against global hunger. Today, more than half the world's food aid comes from the United States." (Though we ignore the fact that starving people in America die in the streets every day.)

"And I call on you to double our initial commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS by approving an additional $30 billion over the next five years." (Did you know that some very smart people believe that the HIV/AIDS link is false? I don't disagree with helping Africa battle their AIDS problem, but from recent research it sounds like we may be going about it the wrong way.)

"And so long as we continue to trust the people, our nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure and the state of our union will remain strong." ("Just like we're doing right now!")

What a fucking pantload. Oh, and by the way...68 total applause breaks throughout the speech. WHAT IS THE POINT?

Electronic Voting Machines

How can people have confidence in these things at all? It has been proven that they can be hacked without a trace, they do not log votes reliably and they are already causing problems in the primaries. Questionable results in the New Hampshire primary led Dennis Kucinich to request a hand recount, which is now under way. By now we should all be familiar with the controversy regarding the questionable results of the 2004 Presidential election which had a lot to do with electronic voting machines, among other things. And yet, we as a society really have done nothing over the last 4 years to correct the problem. Many people I'm sure have simply decided that it's too much work, and that no matter what they do they cannot make a difference. That mindset of course benefits nobody but those in power and those in control of the voting machines, and in essence it is not true anyway. This is a nationwide issue and if people nationwide had stood up and demanded a verifiable, transparent voting process (can you believe that we, the greatest "democracy" in the world, would even need to consider such action?) it could have been achieved by now. Instead though, we face another election that will be wrought with controversy, almost no matter who wins in the end. And no matter who wins, We The People suffer yet another huge loss, this one to our confidence in the integrity of the voting system.

Oh, the Presidential Possibilities!

I really feel sorry for our nation when I see an election being conducted as this one is. The Republican candidates are downright horrible and their best shot at the presidency may be John McCain. Well that's great. On the Democratic side unless John Edwards makes a late charge (and it's not like he's a stupendous choice) or there is some sort of surprise candidate pulled out by either side, our next president is likely going to be Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, Mike Huckabee or McCain. Clinton is just another in a long line of insiders who has likely already agreed to scratch the backs of those who contributed so much in to her campaign and promotion, and do we really want the same 2 families to be in the White House for what could amount to 24 years if she is re-elected in 2012? And what next, Jeb Bush in 2016? Obama is the least nauseating of the Big 4, but he just seems like rhetoric to me. He is a charming guy but when he speaks about change I don't really believe him. And that goes for anyone who is for the continuation of the occupation of Iraq and willing to go in to Iran or Pakistan. McCain already lost a primary to the worst president in history and though I do agree with his thoughts on torture (no) and stem cells (yes) and as much of a "maverick" as he is, I can't say I agree much with his voting record (hint: it's pretty much the same as the rest of the super conservative hawkish republicans). And Huckabee? Please, no.

Can't we as a country come up with one "front runner" who could really be a great President? I think the only two sane selections this year would be Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, but though Paul does still have a 1 in a million shot, they are both mere afterthoughts in the minds of America, seeing through the slanted eye of the corporate media. If either Paul or Kucinich got even 1/2 the media exposure of say Clinton, Obama or Huckabee, they would be right in the thick of the running for their parties nomination. Instead though, we have these weak candidates that don't seem to be anything more than a re-hashing of past failures shoved down our throats by every major media outlet. And people fall for it! What are they thinking? Are they thinking at all? Can they think? I don't understand it myself. The problem is that these candidates are mercilessly pushed on us while they all sell themselves and cut each other down, and I guess I can see how that might be confusing to some people; who are stupid. Perhaps stupid isn't the word. Perhaps ignorant would be more appropriate, but perceived "ignorance" to the problem begs the question: Can you indeed plead ignorance when the resources of enlightenment are at your very finger tips and you neglect them? Not asking the right questions and not really wanting to know the answers are indications of something much more severe even than stupidity.

Every "major" candidate is running on a platform of the continuation of interventionist foreign policy. Why? Do we sit back and ask ourselves why all the "major" candidates are wholeheartedly supporting the biggest burden on the American tax payer? Do we ask ourselves why those who become the "major" candidates are those who got the most airplay on media sources owned by the same conglomerates who will make money financing our Empire building and upkeep? For after all, you cannot have a standing army and certainly not over 820 military installations spread throughout 39 countries (or more) without somebody footing the bill and somebody else cashing a check for the armaments. That, my friends, is big business. It is also the single biggest drain on our income, with taxpayer money going to fund every one of those bases, every troop on them and every one of their weapons. That all came out of our pockets. And what's worse is that we pay the government to pay the conglomerates to manufacture the weapons, and they (the conglomerates) then re-invest that money in to pushing their next wave of war-happy pawns on us through their huge media stake. Just imagine how much money has been poured in to this juggernaut in the last 60 years. Imagine the fact that our yearly "defense" budget is greater than the next 25 countries behind us COMBINED. We have paid hard-earned money for the lives of hundreds of thousands since World War II and yet we continue to support those who promote this expensive and grisly proposition of interventionism and empire. And we come again to that thing worse than ignorance of the system. That thing is acquiescence to the system.

Will a great President will emerge to lead America out of the dark age that seems inevitable? Is it even possible considering the way we allow our elections to be run? I believe that a tremendous leader could emerge one day with clear ideas and a plan that can unite our country again and perhaps at last start to right this great ship, but it won't be this year; and it won't be until those who are ignorant turn off the path to acquiescence and decide they've had enough. Whoever you are, wherever you are, we need you. And soon.

Ron Paul Surprises in Iowa

Even as much as I have supported Ron Paul I was surprised that he pulled 10% of the vote in the Iowa caucus. I guess I never thought much about a projection for what he would do, but even as a Paul advocate I don't think I would have guessed 10%. Even better, Fred Thompson and John "The Maverick" McCain were tied for 3rd with 13 percent, putting Paul squarely in position to vault them over the caucus season. This was an extremely strong showing and proved that the internet/word of mouth sensation is real. Just 5 months ago Paul was nowhere to be found on the national polling map. Three months ago he garnered just 3% of the votes and now he has risen in to the the top 4 of the first caucus. Not surprisingly, Giuliani pulled in a weak 3%. Oh, but don't forget, he "didn't concentrate on Iowa." Come on, for a guy who was a "frontrunner" polling at 32 percent 3 months ago to get almost no support in the first primary really should spell the end for him.

Ok, no more talk about Giuliani. I don't ever want to have to think about that guy again and I'd love to be able to start that right now. How's about that Paul though, huh? I think this should be called a huge victory for him and his chances of jumping in to the top 3 and fighting it out with Huckabee and Romney are now closer than I imagined they would be at this point. People are probably going to compare this to Howard Dean winning 18% of the vote in the '04 Iowa caucus but I don't think it's the same thing. Kerry and Edwards were the clear favorites and most smart people believed the only thing that could beat Bush was some form of Kerry/Edwards ticket. I myself was a Kucinich-backer back then.

In this current Republican race there are no clear favorites, nobody who is really galvanizing the voters yet. Giuliani's (whoops) tumble over the last few months is clear evidence of that. The same thing could happen to Romney and Huckabee. Thompson and McCain are no threat for the nomination and Giuliani apparently isn't either any more. The Paul campaign has the money to stick with this for the long haul, proven by the fact that Paul's campaign contributions rivaled those of Barack Obama (kinda sounds 'Osama') and Hilary Clinton over the last quarter of the year. This is great news as guys like Thompson and McCain won't be able to stay in the race without multiple substantial victories; Huckabee has already spent a lot of money on straw polls and gimmicky commercials but he still cannot claim a strong position atop the Republican heap and Romney? Well ladies and gentlemen, Mitt Romney is not going to win the election or even the nomination, though he has spent a ton of money to finish high in a couple of caucuses and that's all I have to say about that.

I believe that this is just the beginning of a very strong run for Paul. All the right things have happened so far from the meteoric rise in national public polls to the fund raising to the weak opposition. Paul has the money, the ideas and the solid support base to change this race around and if people continue to open their eyes and ears to the man, I believe that he'll find himself on top of the heap. And now after the Iowa caucus, I believe it a little more, even.

Ron Paul on Meet the Press (Russert doesn't seem to understand the concept of whether something is constitutional or not, but it's still a solid watch):