Paralysis of the Mind

"I have no recollection."
-- Fmr. President Ronald Reagan (1984-1989)

I love when a politician claims they have no knowledge of something they backed/signed/agreed to. I mean, is there a better cop out? If you've ever read a piece of legislation -- and don't give me that, the last thing you read cover-to-cover was a takeout menu -- it's 100-1,000 pages of ridiculously mind-numbing palabum, written in legalese. It's like a renter's lease, but without the charm.

So, I'm totally willing to give a pol a little break. Yes, a lot of these people have assistants and yes, I'm still bitter about how in 2003, suddenly, these idiot Senators woke up and said, "THAT was in the USA Patriot Act?" and certainly, they OUGHT to be reading this stuff, but again, when there's a single line in a 4,000 page budget signifying 0.25 percent hike on dairy-producing farms with less than 100 cows per square acre but more than 20 cows per half-acre in Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado and Texas but not Vermont that doesn't get read... well hell. These people remain human. And a Friday for them is a Friday for them; you don't think Billy Frist sails his ass to Margaritaville post-closure, you're dreaming. (DeLay makes a mean Bloody Mary. Just sayin' what I heard.)

But when it became widely apparent that George W. Bush was asleep with one hand on the johnson while his cronies signed over port security to a governmentally-run business from the United Arab Emirates, I was totally ready for some excitement. The man has lately been in a slump, hitting .178 over his last 8 months. He hasn't homered in weeks, he's barely been able to keep his place in the lineup, what with all of Cheney's good press.

But jeez Louise -- this pitch was in his wheelhouse. I was waiting for a "I looked into Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahayan's eyes and saw his soul." I was pumped for a "They're turning the corner." I could have accepted the "We will stop at nothing to protect American soil from the terrorists"... heck, I could have even given half-credit for a "John Kerry does not have a plan" or "Hillary Clinton is giving aid and succor to our enemies."

Unfortunately, no.

No, our current president (to steal the delightful term of Sarah Vowell) went with "I was not aware." Realizing, moments later, that his response was about a 3 on the scale on absolute masculinity, he puffed himself up, pumped up the codpiece and said that if anyone *dared* to go against his authority, he'd veto their ass.

Which left the Republicans and Democrats is the extremely uncomfortable position of being totally on the same side and wondering if our current president had possibly licked a toad or something. Or was possibly imbibing one of DeLay's famous/infamous Bloody Marys.

And so, our commander-in-chief isn't paying attention to the port security issue. This, apparently, is not as damaging as letting the terrorists know that our government might be trying to tap their phones. And then, when it's brought to his attention, he'd rather veto a plan to keep it out of UAE hands rather than admit he was wrong.

At one point in this country, you couldn't distinguish the cult of Bush and the Republican Party. But things are slowly beginning to unravel for that little love affair that started in 1998. If things don't improve pretty soon, we're going to start seeing outright defections during the upcoming campaign. I mean, how can you say "I'm tough on terror" followed by "So I'm giving the keys to our ports to the UAE. It'll all work out for the best."

I mean, honestly, not even one "Democracy is on the march?"

Here at POTM headquarters, deep inside the mostly-dark Saratoga County, NY (where a February thunderstorm pretty well rocked our world -- read 'bout it here, here and here) we've decided to unveil a new and incredibly insulting new feature.

Title is above. With any luck, we can toss these out once or twice a week. wOOt!!

From Knight Ridder:

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- The bluish-tinted cashier's check for $2,900 certainly looked legit. An Olathe, Kan., branch of Bank of America cashed it, no questions asked.
So Bridgitte Graham-Stacey felt few qualms about wiring most of the money via Western Union to a stranger in England to cover a "clearance fee" necessary to claim her $50,000 in winnings from an international lottery.
"I figured that God wanted me to have the money," said Graham-Stacey, a special education assistant in the Olathe school system.

Let's count the things wrong with this. First, uhm... duh? Ever heard of phishing scams? OK, if not, how about not wiring money to complete strangers? Secondly, this idiot is teaching special ed? Sounds like she needs to be in the class. And thirdly, what does God care if you have money? Indeed, that old trusty standby, Mr. Bible, says as follows:

"Trust in your money and down you go! But the godly flourish like leaves in spring." -- Proverbs11:24

"Wealth from get-rich-quick schemes quickly disappears; wealth from hard work grows." -- Proverbs 13:11

When you love God enough to ignore the (supposed) rules he's put down for you to follow, you're not just dumb, you're also pushing ignorance. Once more, God is making you just a little bit stupider.

"In retrospect, I got off pretty easy."
-- Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) who Cheney once told to 'Go fuck himself.'

There's fifty million good and bad Dick Cheney jokes floating around right now, and I hardly have room to hold them all in my brain. Honestly, though, it could happen to anyone -- and when you give a snarling asshole a gun, it's at least 10 times MORE likely to happen, drinking or not. (Thanks to MSNBC, by the way, for self-censoring itself on the possibility that Cheney was drinking before the incident. Nice journalism, boyos.)

But what's more upsetting is the fact that yesterday was Forced Romantic Token Day. Everybody hates FRTD. If you're single, you're easily depressed. If you're in a poor relationship, you're going to be disappointed. And if you're in an OK relationship, you're probably going to be forced to drop large amounts of money to make sure your significant other isn't disappointed.

Don't get me wrong. Random spending is a sweet way to offer affection. But if it's the thought that counts, then there is absolutely nothing romantic about Valentine's Day. And if it isn't the thought that counts, then you're a money-grubbing punk. Ipso facto... and so forth.

The problem, of course, is expectation. Smart marrieds and those who study these things admit that couples with lower expectations actually do a lot better in marriage. That sounds a little depressing, but it makes SUCH perfect sense. If you go into marriage expecting that the next 40 years will be like the first 3 years of dating, you're going to be wildly disappointed when he/she is working full-time, you have kids, a mortgage, 8 minutes of free time a month and no chance to take a vacation together.

Valentine's Day, though, puts those expectations right up on a pedestal. And sometimes, they can totally be met. Very nice and all, but then you remember -- oh crap, there's a next year, where you're generally expected to top yourself.

Don't think that's true? Well, the National Federation of Retailers certainly thinks it's true, noting that Valentine's Day spending has been rising a click above inflation over the past 10 years. Which means that Americans -- as we're wont to do -- are throwing money at the problem.

Which is, of course, better than birdshot.

But what is the true romantic supposed to do on Valentine's Day? Romance is expected, so there's no surprise at all. And everyone is looking around at each other's romantic output with supressed horror/glee/disappointment. All in all, it equates to the very least romantic day of the year, by far.

Which is fine, if (as one theory goes) Mr. Hallmark met with Dr. Whitman and his wife, Eliza Sampler, one cold February to invent the current incarnation of our modern holiday. "We'll tell them it was a Roman thing," Whitman said, his fat jowls shaking with laughter. "These idiots will believe anything."

But it's a lot less fine if (as another theory goes) Mrs. Hallmark was feeling unappreciated while Mr. Hallmark was coming up with his line of "Completely ridiculous cards that nobody would buy unless it was a desperate guy shopping 5 minutes before the card store closes on the night of his anniversary" and she begged him for just one day a year where he would just be hers.

I'd like to believe the second is true. Knowing the world in which I live, though, I'm willing to bet the first is the ticket.

And so, cheers to the florists, the candy makers, the card scribes, and the teddy bear makers. I'm glad you have your day to sell your wares. But for the romantics out there, there's nothing worse than having to beat a societal expectation of romance on a day when everyone else is playing a love game of "Can you top this?" -- or worse, playing the "I suddenly feel pathetic 'cause everyone else looks happy" game. Neither one make any sense, and neither one are worth playing.

So buck up if you got nothing on Valentine's Day. There's nothing wrong with you. And if you did get something -- even a nice something -- ask yourself if it would have meant more if it had come on July 9th, or last weekend.

But whatever you do, don't sneak up behind Mr. Hallmark while he's writing. You know how snarly and cranky he gets at 30 paces. . .

On Sunday, the football junkies got theirs. It was OK. Commercial junkies got theirs, too (and other than the unimaginably disgusting commercial featuring Kermit, it was OK, too).

But on Monday, the political junkies got theirs -- in a hardcore, wild twi-night doubleheader of political ramifications.

Firstly, our Dear Leader released his sixth budget. But better yet, Alberto Gonzalez took the stand to fall on the Constitutional grenade of Bush's illegal wiretapping (or as he terms it, his Terrorist Surveillance Program).

Gonzalez's basic defense was two-fold. Firstly, he took the resolution passed in the wake of 9/11 that gave Bush the right to use "any means necessary" to deal with terrorists. Secondly, he invoked the "without this, we'd all be dead because of terrorists" collorary.

The latter defense is what all tyrants use when the populace gets restive; it can be discarded as the fluff that it is. But the first defense is intriguing.

Why, you ask? Well, simply put, the defense of "any means necessary" is exactly what everyone who doesn't worship at the altar of Bush fears. I've written before about how much Bush and his worshipers fear terrorists to a ridiculous degree. Now, Bush's opposition has said on many occasions that Bush isn't constrained by law -- and the media has rarely taken note. But suddenly, Bush's top law man (I repeat this: the TOP guy who's entire job is to make sure laws are kept) is saying that, in fact, our President is above the law, when it comes to the terrorists.

Strangely, this hasn't seemed to filter properly through everyone. Liberals kinda scoffed and muttered about how they knew this already. Worshippers lit their candles and don't care what Bush does, anyway. The media sort of glossed over this.

But it's a huge admission, isn't it? Bush said, during the OTHER big thing on Monday, that keeping the country safe is his #1 priority. He's keeping the nation safe from terrorists. And when it comes to terrorists -- the law does not apply to him.

Now, I'll be perfectly honest. If the wiretapping is anything like Gonzalez and Bush have said it is (as in tapping foreign calls coming and going to terror suspects) then I really don't have a huge problem with the program, per se. The issue here is that they broke the law to get from point A to point B.

Why should anyone believe them, though? Gonzalez, rather transparently, went to the Judicial Committee in 2004 in an attempt to get legal coverage on this program. Why then? Well, the New York Times said, once they'd printed the original story about the program, that they'd had the information "for more than a year." Sen. Patrick Leahy thought Gonzalez was engineering a legal cover-up because the press had the information and, suddenly, it wasn't a secret.

Makes a hell of a lot of sense to me.

If the wiretapping is more widespread, it begs the question of "What else?" As in, what else are Bush's cronies doing? Wiretapping is one step; perhaps those secret prisons in Europe I keep hearing about are another. Throw it in with the miscarriage of justice that is Gitmo and you have a very toxic stew. Because when it comes to the terrorists, there is no law. At least according to the Attorney General.

And so, we come back to the first announcement of Monday: Bush's budget.

That's where the "What else" comes into play. Looking at Bush's budget, it's fairly apparent that not ONLY is there no constraints of law when it comes to "fightin' terra", but that there are also no budget contraints, either.

The budget shows off something that ought to be pronounced, early and often: Bush is starting to lose it. With Congress hanging in the balance come November for his party, he released a budget that is sure to be wildly unpopular in most places.

And again, it all comes back to terror. When speaking, Bush knows it's all he's got left. His words inspire people... but when it comes to nut-cutting time, people like good schools, Medicare, Social Security and health insurance. Cutting rich people's taxes isn't as popular as it once was, either; a lot of people are waking up to find that $300 a year isn't going to pay for Little Johnny's tonsilectomy.

That budget will die a bloodless death in the Senate. But the bigger question remains, "What else?" We'll never know, I suspect, everything that has happened since 9/11 done in our name.

But by saying he's above the law, Bush has opened the door for everyone to assume the very worst. And those assumptions will be stoked in a million ways -- in every race for national office in November.

If you were taking shots everytime Bush said either "terror" or "Nu-key-u-lar" last night, you are probably still recovering.

However, if your keyword was "Katrina," then you probably were neither drunk nor amused by 10:00 EST last night.

Suffice to say, Bush's speech was full of everything. Well, except any mention of what two badly-damaged states are going to do in Katrina's wake, if the federal government has any sort of plan for New Orleans, that Bush is remotely apologetic for letting Katrina overwhelm all emergency plans and, uh, if Ray Nagin honestly DOES have some reason to worry about racial cleansing.

Oh, but what it lacked in focus, it made up for in vision. What a sterling look into our future the speech provided, especially in its ambitious energy policies. Bush really called my number on the whole "addicted to oil" thing; without a big glass of light, sweet crude first thing in the morning, I'm a wreck.

And his vision for investing in clean energy and ways to end dependence on oil? Such leadership! If only we'd listened when Jimmy Carter suggested it nearly 30 years ago. (Yet another reason to absolutely hate Ronald Reagan. There, I said it.

Other highlights:

-- The upcoming War in Iran (I'm pumped. Are you pumped?)

-- Not calling the War in Iraq "the silliest war since the Spanish-American"

-- Not making the connection between our ridiculous war in Iraq and the whole "Well gee, now we can't invade Iran -- and we're REALLY sure they're getting nukes, we swear."

-- Not mentioning how our insane war plans have now caused us to be unable to stop Iran's leader, Crazy McSwagger, from getting the bomb. (If I was Israeli, I'm pretty sure this would piss me off in a big way.)

-- Saying "Democracy is on the march," with a straight face (instead of "Democracy is being exported via depleted uranium shells. Army of one, bitches.")

-- Busting Cindy Sheehan for being the mother of a dead soldier. (I'm sure she's really a horrible monster in person, and her shirt probably said something "Satan Rules" or "Death to America")

-- The ejection of a Congressman's wife for wearing a shirt that said "Support the troops"

-- Oh yeah, and the end of rule of law in our country with the enshrinement of Justice Samuel Alito. (It was a nice country while it lasted.)

But nobody reads this blog for its newsyness. It's all about analysis. So here goes.

Firstly, Bush is going to go back to doing what he does best: campaigning. Somebody, eventually, is going to tell him that he won already, but until that point he's going to fly around the country holding rallies to promote war in Iran.

Secondly, "serious" Democrats are going to make noises about how Iran is a danger, and only the wack-job commie-leftist-Hugo-Chavez-loving radicals don't realize it. I expect this to begin somewhere near Joe Liebermann.

Thirdly, Iran will start to dominate the news coverage (I mean, the 4% of the news coverage that is actually news. I don't expect Britney Spears to be bumped off the front burner or anything).

Next, Republican candidates across the country will come out on-message. That message will be "Invading Iran is the only way to secure freedom in America." Pundits will be so overwhelmed by the on-message message that they'll openly taunt the democrats and suggest that the First Amendment is "over-rated" a "17th-century ideal, but not workable in the 21st-century" and "ridiculous." Chris Matthews will fellate Dick Cheney on the air during a "very special episode." Paul Begalia will actually be shanked mid-episode on Hardball. It's going to be a disturbing time.

Following all that, I forsee Republicans holding onto slim margins in the House and the Senate. People are pretty damn sick of their nonsense, but so long as they can keep making wars up, they'll win some votes. Which is why...

We're invading Canada in 2008.

There, I said it. You totally heard it here first. And I'd like to say more about it, but yesterday was just TOO depressing.

My keyword for the SOTU was peace, after all.

Posted by: T-Diddy / 2/01/2006 04:35:00 PM