POTUS's SOTU etc...

Last night's state of the Union speech evoked an unexpected reaction from me. Complete relief. I didn't really even pay that close attention to it. I just let it wash over me knowing it would be over in good time and the rest of my evening would progress unabated. In the past, I have watched these speeches, especially over the last eight years, paying great attention to the language, invective and detail of their delivery. This attention was mostly followed by some manifestation of anger. But not last night.

Simply put, the end is in sight. This final Bush state of the Union, with all of its flaccidity and ineloquence was the last we'll have to deal with. His executive abuse of power, plutocratic plunder/fortifying, national image damaging, amoral malfeasance and war mongering aside, what was most objectionable about Bush the man was that he is the antithesis of inspiring to me. A true leader leads in two chief ways; inspirational in words, ideas and example; and by the actions he takes with the power granted to him by the people and its government. It is surely no surprise that the Bourgeois Deviant take is he's been a colossal failure on both counts.

In water cooler discussions this a.m., what came out is that most of us just missed good, head-of-state oratory. Bush's plain spoken-ness simply hasn't inspired me. Given the station the the office of President holds in American government and general zeitgeist, rousing the electorate to aim high, etc... just hasn't been happening. In effect, as President and especially in this regard, Bush has epitomized the soft bigotry of low expectations. This American knows irony when he sees it.

The only genuinely vexing element of the entire experience, thankfully momentary, was seeing Vice President Cheney over President Bush's right shoulder. Sitting in his chair with a smile like he was a winner. It was irksome, but thankfully not for much longer. I just hope that Bush and Cheney take a little trip to Vermont in the near future. Call it reaping what they have sewn.

Kathleen Sebelius gave the Democratic response. It was pretty good in content, but the sense of relief from the prior speech overwhelmed whatever adamance I may have had to agree with her.

Blue Sky-ing

Ye olde blog content hasn’t been flowing too freely of late for a myriad of reasons. Firstly, there has been a lot going on. Secondly, there has been a great deal to chew on, what with the flatlands yanking what should be a basic human right from women (in this blogger’s opinion) and the President of the United States being caught in a lie (and not for the first time) with respects to Katrina and its levees. The list goes on and on and since we are gravely prone to distraction, what little focus I could muster was put towards keeping up with developing a passable chess game and assembling parcels of play-lists for B3.

(Side note: I am still soliciting suggestions for what songs to play B3. Send me an email or Skype/IM me or just reply to whatever relevant entry with the preface of “B3 play-list suggestion”)

With so much to write about and comparatively little time, it is difficult to know where to begin. Seeing as the Nebraska abortion ban is in the fore-brain and several of my blogging compatriots have commented extensively on it, I will only give it quick rumination here. DCeiver and others have hashed out an extremely rational and calculated reaction and plan of action in response to the ruling. It is worth the time spent to read the entry and the following thread. While I completely agree that keeping the issue out of the courts and taking aim at dethroning the conservative establishment that brought this fell state into legal ruling at the elected level, I don’t think it likely or realistic in any honest estimate of the future.

This reflects my complete lack of faith (pardon the pun) in the rationality of the middle states to see past their ideologies (be they evangelical, neo-conservative, anti-liberal or just plain stupid). This jaded-ness stems partially from the electoral dividing line in the last election, i.e. blue states vs. Jesus-land. Basically, it’s the correct way to go about it, but given that the decline of Western Civilization is ever more manifest, it would be nearly futile from an expenditure of energy standpoint. Briefly, here’s why: The baseline of education and awareness of people in the United States of America is, for the most part, a joke. In a country where well over 40% of the electorate are sure to fairly sure that the Rapture will happen in their lifetime (nods to Sam Harris), fact is nearly irrelevant. Blame the decline of America’s educational system. Thank the Reagan years. IOKIYAR my ass!

So, after venting a bit there, I continued to read my fellow bloggers takes on the abortion sitch, natch. This uncovered a rather clever and logical point of reason that would be very hard to argue against. Over at TSOTU, el Checkypantz makes a brilliant point regarding the dichotomy of states rights vs. federal law. If you don’t follow the link, Pantz simply states that the religious conservatives cannot have their cake and eat it too. If you get a law on a moral issue (abortion) passed in a state on the premise of it being a state right and federal law has no jurisdiction, it leaves the door wide open for other such “moral issue” legislation to be brought to bare. Namely gay marriage.

So, blue sky-ing into the future and heaven forbid, say abortion is illegal in forty-six of fifty states. The same justification that allowed abortion to be banned at the state level potentially, state rulings providing, allows gay marriage to be fully legal. Without projecting how many states it would be legal in (blue states from ’04?), those giving their unwanted child up for adoption or state agencies no doubt burdened, because that’s the only option, have a much broader field from which to select adoptive parents! It is idealistic, unlikely and containing bullshit at its base, but philosophically it makes the best of a really bad situation.

So, using the Checkypantz logic and the DCeiver tactics, what should really be happening is pro-abortion activists and organizations should be teaming up, immediately, with the Equal Rights Campaign to flank the religious right and sympathetically aligned conservative base do everything they can to push the gay marriage initiative as far as they can within the bounds of the law and no desist from it until abortion ceases to be threatened. Mind you, all the while others should be fighting tooth and nail to protect a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body.

Word on the Street

Republicans lashing out so strongly against Rep. John Murtha’s (D-Pa.) call for the pull out of Iraq was a disproportionate response to the simple act of free speech. One might argue that it was not the dissent that was so jarring and abhorrent to the GOP but the source that uttered it. John Murtha is a war veteran and has strong connections within the military establishment. “Murtha is not a typical left-wing Dem. A Vietnam vet, he served 37 years in the Marines and received two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star with a Combat "V" and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry.(NYP)" Those that bleed together… and all that. So, what we witnessed might well be a bit of true Washington smoke and mirrors.

Whether it was the dark lord Cheney or the master of puppets Rove who orchestrated and mobilized the tools of the administration to gang up in such short order is irrelevant. With poll ratings in the sewer and no real light at the end of the tunnel short of complete capitulation, the Bush administration is truly up against a wall and in check on all fronts. Its kind of nice.

The rude lashing out was an effort to draw the public’s view away from the real significance of the statement. The word on the street is that Murtha is in tight with many generals at the Pentagon and in the field. He has their ear and their confidence via his service and experience. If he calling for a withdrawl of our troops, the odds are strongly suggestive that he is giving voice to not only his constituency, but to those who conduct the very instruments and cogs of the American war machine.

In Roman society, Caesars had to have the support of the legions in order to rule effectively and securely. While the Bush administration is in no genuine threat of being assassinated by some uppity praetorians, this is as close as Bush and Co. has come to getting stabbed by a messenger of Brutae. Dissent from the military is inevitable given the circumstances, if you consider that neither the ruler nor his chief minions ever truly served in the armed forces. Can you say five deferments? Shakey Air National Guard attendance records anyone? Never in the life of American government has there been a situation as clear cut as this with those in power basically saying “Do as I say and who cares that I wouldn’t do it were I in your shoes.” One could hope that the conservative culture of the military will be forever influenced by the events of our time and from here forward not so blindly support a Republican leadership for conservatism’s sake.

Lets see where we are by mid-March. :-)

BTW, sorry I have not posted for a while. More when I can...

I guess you could say it was a good day...

Bush's approval rating falls to 36%. A FOXNews poll no less! Tee hee.(TPM)

Walken 2008?

Imagine Christopher Walken as the President of the United States. This amuses me. But it is only amusing.

Wallowing in the Miers

Someone had to throw in a Doors allusion. Cut me some slack.


It is truly thrilling to see so many conservative pundits and the like balking over the nomination of Harriet Miers. The Democrats are probably wise to be holding back with their criticism and allowing the President to stew in his own mediocrity. The likelihood of this nomination being successful is extremely slim and that is quite a good thing.

A couple of things are a bit off about Bush’s choice for an unheard of second Supreme Court nomination in the span of one term. People are batting about the whole crony-ism thing and right they should. However, this has been a standard method of operation for this administration from day one. There is nothing new about this so lets move on and look beyond the obvious.

Harriet Miers is well suited to the process she is about to enter. She was one of those chiefly responsible for preparing Chief Justice Roberts for his confirmation hearings. So, this could be a selection, for Bush’s part, of convenience and ease. From this we can interpret two possible motivations. Firstly, the administration is limping right now. Some would say they are on the ropes. Don't we wish. It is enough to say that they have a lot on their plates and this seemed to them, in a pinch, to be a good choice. She is, after all, an evangelical Christian, pleaseth the base. It is well known that the President would much rather go with a person he trusts than a person who is actually qualified for the job (remember “Brownie”). Seeing as how Miers prepped Roberts for his hearings, this seemed (inside the bubble, mind you) like a good choice.

To me, this does not seem like a good choice. It is more likely a lazy and duplicitous choice. There is a strong pull to install a woman on the court given the O’Conner legacy. Bush’s base is largely Christian and he, himself, comes from an evangelical background. So Miers should make the base happy. Right? With people obsessing over Roe v. Wade, it would seem clear which side of the isle Ms. Miers is on. However, when we look past the surface, we see that there is not much depth. I hate to admit it, but Pat Buchanan is right when he cites that this woman has never gone on record as taking a position on any of the major cases of our time.

So we have a nominee with no discernible record of opinion. And she has been nominated to a job where opinion is the paramount and sole product. The President says he knows this woman. Fine. He also says he “knows” that she will not change over then next 20 years. This latter statement is as false as it is frightening. Philosophically this is a gross misstatement. Everyone changes. Be it physically or whatever. So, yet another obtuse statement misapplied by the leader of the free world. Also, the demands of Supreme Court Justice would force change in an individual. To give an opinion for the highest court in the land is quite different than to give one on the part of one’s self. To say that she is not going to change over the next twenty years should be a tremendous red flag that suggests the potential for stagnancy and lethargy. I would think the most arch conservative would want a Supreme Court Justice to be pragmatic, weigh all the facts and be willing to make the best decisions for the greater good of the nation. If seeing a case through to the greater good requires some change, so be it and all the better for the country.

One could say that this choice of nominee is so bad that it could be a screen for something else. With the President’s approval rating in the 30’s, perhaps the administration is looking to get some of the focus taken off its more damning blunders and smudges. It would be a hell of a thing for the office of the President to deliberately lose a poker hand to distract the dealer from the stench in the room.

We all know how short the attention span of the American public is. Lets just keep our fingers crossed.