Random Crap

So on Monday, the purveyor of this brought his family by my hut, and they hung around, unable to sit down, trying not to sneeze because of all the airborne pet dander, making sure the little guy didn't hurt himself in my so-not-child-friendly house (the only casualty of the afternoon, thankfully, was an innocent bottle of off-brand antacids that took one for the team), until they eventually had to get to dinner. It was great to see everyone, and they were very polite and supportive about my squalor, but now I have to actually do some damn work around here so that the next time they come up, the place isn't quite such an appalling hovel. Dammit. Maybe I'll sell it instead...

In other news, Monday I also took receipt of two very cool Antec products (this and this), and then discovered that the spare motherboard and CPU I have are so horribly obsolete that Intel doesn't even support them any more... the right thing to do would be to suck it up and start saving for a new set, but I am, of course, dying to buy them now. I won't, though. Maybe.

In yet other news (of approximately equal interest to my reader(s), I'm sure)... yesterday I took receipt of a low-end Pioneer CD player for the Evil Practical Mobile, and today I installed it. There remains only the one sad speaker, but at least now I can listen to CDs when I wanna. And I am all about instant gratification, as everyone knows. Bleh.

Commercial Interruption The Fourth

First off, it is my avowed intention to slog through the rest of this fucking SoTU speech this weekend, I know you've all been waiting with 'bated breath. One might think the breaking of a ridiculous scandal involving a gay prostitute would make it easier for me to expose the blatant hypocrisy of the Republican party, but unfortunately, to sum up, "they have no problem paying him to parrot their opinions, but that doesn't mean they want to let him get married."

Meanwhile, last night I watched one of my languishing Netflix movies, the Criterion Edition of Henry V. I know the Branagh version quite well; it's one of my all-time favorite movies, actually, so you can go ahead and speculate as to what that means. It's also, to my mind, Branagh's most successful Shakespeare, mostly because Keanu Reeves is nowhere to be found.

The Olivier version was made in 1944, and thus felt the need to be somewhat more artsy than a modern film would (I am not complaining; today's movies, especially those from big Hollywood studios, suck almost to a one; there were more great movies made in any given year of the 70s than in the entire decade of the 90s). The movie is also rather informed by the ongoing world war, and was apparently made at least partly to boost British morale (and yes, it does make the French look like pussies).

So we start with a poster advertising a performance of "Henry the Fift" at the Globe Playhouse, then the camera swings over a Mr Rogers' Land-of-Make-Believe-like model of South London in 1600; pre-1666, mind you, so there are a whole lot of flammable-looking buildings about, probably with no little model fire doors, and more importantly, there is no Wren's St Paul's. Also, for some reason, the Thames looks about 50m wide. Eh.

Anyway, we continue with a production of the play at a remarkably accurate set of the Globe (if the current South Bank replica is to be believed; there did not, however, appear to be a historically accurate cast iron gate sponsored by Ford). It's not the players' lucky day, however, as they miss cues, drop lines, lose headgear, and then it starts to rain. There is some commentary from the filthy groundlings. Damned filthy groundlings.

Mercifully, by the time Henry's ship embarks from Southampton, we move into more reasonable sets, although apparently we are still in the land of comical matte paintings. I am not knocking the movie for any of this, mind you; nowadays, any chimp (cough BRUCKHEIMER cough) can slap together a slick CGI production that looks more or less real, and nobody but Pacino (I am DYING DYING DYING to see his Macbeth) would make any attempt to evoke stage life in Elizabethan England, but it's distracting in the same way that now-archaic elements of Citizen Kane are. It's also worth noting that most of Britain's better sets were, um, otherwise employed when this movie was being made.

What I WILL knock, and roundly, is the soundtrack, which is as sweeping and goofy and melodramatic as that of any silent movie. Give me Patrick Doyle any day.

Basically, the short version of this somewhat directionless review is, while I still prefer the Branagh version overall (settle down, Campbell, I'm NOT FINISHED), it should be apparent to anyone that Mr Branagh did his goddamndest to mimic Olivier's version in every particular, down to the costumes and the silly haircut. He delivers all the key speeches as close as he could muster to Olivier's delivery (which, to his credit, is really quite close), and obviously spent weeks in a darkened room watching this movie over and over again.

What he did that was more impressive from a logistical standpoint was stage all the battle scenes on real fields, with all that entrains. Before Saving Private Ryan, the Branagh Henry V battle scenes were the most wrenching I'd ever seen, and they set the bar for every Braveheart and other kilted epic that followed. I haven't seen Master and Commander yet, but I find it difficult to expect more from it.

There was also a scene that I don't remember from the Branagh version, in which a couple of Welsh characters somewhat gratuitously mock the Scots; it's in the original play, and was no doubt one of Shakespeare's sops to the Tudors, but it was really, really weird. Also, the "Scottish" actor sounded German.

So, um, see it. Boy, really fell apart there at the end, didn't it?

Oh, shit. Just remembered the entire reason I wanted to post this. From the scene in which Henry visits his troops in "disguise" like they wouldn't just recognize him from television, sheesh (Act IV Scene I):

Williams: But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make when all those legs and arms and heads chopp'd off in a battle shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place' - some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon their debts, some upon their children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle, for how can they charitably dispose of anything when blood is their argument? Now if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it, who to disobey were against all proportion of subjection.

To paraphrase: fuck you, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice; I'd like nothing better for you piles of human offal than to be haunted for the rest of your lives by pictures of pointlessly slaughtered 18-year-olds. Lucky for you the media won't publish any.

The reason no one is scandalized by the Gannon/Guckert revelations is that we all already know that the media is composed of nothing but embarrassing whores. It's a hell of a legacy, to ruin the country.

Commercial Interruption The Third

For the scant few of you that read my blog and not David's, if such creatures in fact exist, follow this link and you will be directed to a brief survey in service of the impending Project X, and there will be much rejoicing.

If you've already done this because you secretly DO read David's blog, then never mind. Also, why would you bother lying about something so stupid? You need help.

Commercial Interruption The Second

The latest Coolest Thing Ever... Sign me the fuck UP!

Notes on the 2005 State of the Union Address, Part the Second

To keep our economy growing, we also need reliable supplies of affordable, environmentally responsible energy [this could not be more true; it’s a shame Bush isn’t talking about actual change, as we’ll see in a moment. What he is ostensibly talking about is reducing pollution and reliance on oil, which, while long overdue, may herald its own peril].

Nearly four years ago, I submitted a comprehensive energy strategy that encourages conservation, alternative sources, a modernized electricity grid and more production here at home, including safe, clean nuclear energy [this plan could have been better received…].

My Clear Skies legislation will cut power-plant pollution and improve the health of our citizens [unless, of course, you believe those crackpots over at the Sierra Club…].

And my budget provides strong funding for leading-edge technology, from hydrogen-fueled cars to clean coal to renewable sources such as ethanol [or, if you don’t believe those crackpots over at the Sierra Club, how about those crackpots over at the American Chemical Society?].

Four years of debate is enough. I urge Congress to pass legislation that makes America more secure and less dependent on foreign energy [I can’t imagine why Congress balked at such a right-minded plan, but regardless, it’s far from clear that “energy independence” is a realistic or reasonable goal].

All these proposals are essential to expand this economy and add new jobs, but they are just the beginning of our duty [I don’t mean to be puerile here, but Bush’s inability to pronounce mid-word t’s leaves me no choice].

To build the prosperity of future generations, we must update institutions that were created to meet the needs of an earlier time [uh oh…].

Year after year, Americans are burdened by an archaic, incoherent federal tax code. I've appointed a bipartisan panel to examine the tax code from top to bottom [while this definitely needs to be done…].

And when their recommendations are delivered, you and I will work together to give this nation a tax code that is pro-growth, easy to understand and fair to all [or at least, to the rich… look who’s excited about Bush’s plan].

America's immigration system is also outdated -- unsuited to the needs of our economy and to the values of our country. We should not be content with laws that punish hardworking people who want only to provide for their families and deny businesses willing workers, and invite chaos at our border [here’s Bush’s plan as it stands now].

It is time for an immigration policy that permits temporary guest workers to fill jobs Americans will not take, that rejects amnesty, that tells us who is entering and leaving our country and that closes the border to drug dealers and terrorists [not everyone is as excited about this as Bush is].

One of America's most important institutions -- a symbol of the trust between generations -- is also in need of wise and effective reform [or, failing that, foolish and pointless reform].

Social Security was a great moral success of the 20th century, and we must honor its great purposes in this new century [and by honor, we mean subvert].

The system, however, on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy. And so we must join together to strengthen and save Social Security [oh, really?].

Today, more than 45 million Americans receive Social Security benefits, and millions more are nearing retirement. And for them, the system is sound and fiscally strong [or not].

I have a message for every American who is 55 or older: Do not let anyone mislead you. For you, the Social Security system will not change in any way [this is only because the reform he’s planning is so huge as to take decades to fully implement].

For younger workers, the Social Security system has serious problems that will grow worse with time [sigh].

Social Security was created decades ago, for a very different era. In those days, people did not live as long, benefits were much lower than they are today, and a half century ago, about 16 workers paid into the system for each person drawing benefits [since I am too lazy to debunk these numbers, here is a related link, just in case you were starting to think that any of this crap meant that Bush isn’t lying].

Our society has changed in ways the founders of Social Security could not have foreseen. In today's world, people are living longer and therefore drawing benefits longer. And those benefits are scheduled to rise dramatically over the next few decades [and another].

And instead of 16 workers paying in for every beneficiary, right now it's only about three workers. And over the next few decades, that number will fall to just two workers per beneficiary [and again].

With each passing year, fewer workers are paying ever- higher benefits to an ever-larger number of retirees [and another].

So here is the result: Thirteen years from now, in 2018, Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in. And every year afterward will bring a new shortfall, bigger than the year before [oh for christ’s sake].

For example, in the year 2027, the government will somehow have to come up with an extra $200 billion to keep the system afloat. And by 2033, the annual shortfall would be more than $300 billion. By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt [it made me exceptionally happy that the Democrats booed at this… they BOOED… now if only they were willing to actually fucking do something…].

If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be dramatically higher taxes, massive new borrowing or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs [bullshit, as above].

I recognize that 2018 and 2042 may seem a long way off. But those dates aren't so distant, as any parent will tell you. If you have a 5-year-old, you're already concerned about how you'll pay for college tuition 13 years down the road [does it trouble anyone else that he’s saying 13 years is analogous to both 13 years AND 37 years?].

If you've got children in their 20s, as some of us do, the idea of Social Security collapsing before they retire does not seem like a small matter. And it should not be a small matter to the United States Congress [it’s not, actually, they’ve been discussing it since well before Clinton was in office].

You and I share a responsibility. We must pass reforms that solve the financial problems of Social Security once and for all [he’s sort of right, except that his plan is an abomination…].

Fixing Social Security permanently will require an open, candid review of the options. Some have suggested limiting benefits for wealthy retirees. Former Congressman Tim Penny has raised the possibility of indexing benefits to prices rather than wages. During the 1990s, my predecessor, President Clinton, spoke of increasing the retirement age. Former Senator John Breaux suggested discouraging early collection of Social Security benefits. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated [The Bush administration’s commitment to bipartisanship is so miniscule that they are willing to run a right-moderate Democrat who supports privatization out of office rather than enlist his “bipartisan” support].

All these ideas are on the table [no they’re not].
I know that none of these reforms would be easy. But we have to move ahead with courage and honesty, because our children's retirement security is more important than partisan politics [bullshit; here’s a bipartisan approach; note how unlike Bush’s plan this is].

I will work with members of Congress to find the most effective combination of reforms. I will listen to anyone who has a good idea to offer [it should be very clear by now that Bush is only interested in his foolish privatization scheme, and has no interest in anything which does not represent a handout to Wall Street…].

We must, however, be guided by some basic principles: We must make Social Security permanently sound, not leave that task for another day. We must not jeopardize our economic strength by increasing payroll taxes. We must ensure that lower-income Americans get the help they need to have dignity and peace of mind in their retirement. We must guarantee that there is no change for those now retired or nearing retirement. And we must take care that any changes in the system are gradual, so younger workers have years to prepare and plan for their future [here’s the math; the average US income was $36,764 in 2003. Everyone who makes up to $87,900 pays FICA on their entire salary. Everyone who makes MORE than $87,900 pays FICA on the first $87,900 of their salary. Dick Cheney made $40,000,000 the year Bush first assumed the Office of the President. In other words, he did not pay FICA on the top $39,912,100 of his income. FICA is currently 12.4%, split evenly between employer and employee. 12.4% of $40,000,000 is $4,949,100, which is the equivalent of the tax paid by more than 450 people making $87,900 annually. In other words, Bush’s facile math of “used to be 16 for each worker, now it’s only 3” could be thoroughly ignored if the Cheneys of the world were forced to kick in at the same rate normal people are. Yes, yes, Cheney’s not going to draw benefits, so why should he have to pay into the system? Well, there’s no cap on Medicare Tax, now, is there? (There is not)].

As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers. And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts [the best way to reach that goal is NOT to bankrupt the government].

Here is how the idea works:

Right now, a set portion of the money you earn is taken out of your paycheck to pay for the Social Security benefits of today's retirees. If you're a younger worker, I believe you should be able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account, so you can build a nest egg for your own future [you can; it’s called Thrift Savings or 401k or 403b, etc; all of these allow pre-tax contribution, which essentially lessens the amount of your salary that is subject to income tax as well as to FICA].

Here is why the personal accounts are a better deal:

Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver [unless, of course, there is a crash right at your retirement date, oops!].

And your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security.

In addition, you'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children and -- or grandchildren [this is another blatant sop to the rich; only those that set aside enough to live on for the rest of their lives have anything left over to give to their heirs, and only those that didn’t need another investment option to begin with will have enough left over for them to care about the so-called “death tax”].

And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away [this is obvious nonsense; the government can always introduce a new tax that can have the effect of ‘taking your money’; much more important is whether the plan is a loser from the get-go].

The goal here is greater security in retirement, so we will set careful guidelines for personal accounts:

We'll make sure the money can only go into a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds [you mean, as conservative as T-bills?].

We'll make sure that your earnings are not eaten up by hidden Wall Street fees [here we see something interesting; it’s easy to label Bush as “rabidly pro-business” but it is in statements like this that we see that he is actually “rabidly pro-plutocrat”… the Bush Administration doesn’t care if they fuck Wall Street over with this scheme, as long as their core constituency of stupendously wealthy doddering old white men are enabled to steal a few more billions from the Federal Government; the problem is, they’re so inept that they end up undermining themselves with hasty amendments].

We'll make sure there are good options to protect your investments from sudden market swings on the eve of your retirement.

We'll make sure a personal account cannot be emptied out all at once, but rather paid out over time, as an addition to traditional Social Security benefits.

And we'll make sure this plan is fiscally responsible by starting personal retirement accounts gradually and raising the yearly limits on contributions over time, eventually permitting all workers to set aside 4 percentage points of their payroll taxes in their accounts [some more math: 4% of $30,000 is $1200; 4% of $1,000,000 is $40,000. Which investment pool do you think will accumulate more long-term interest, and which do you think will be more eaten away by fees? Which employee do you think is more likely to contribute the full 4%?].

Personal retirement accounts should be familiar to federal employees, because you already have something similar, called the Thrift Savings Plan, which lets workers deposit a portion of their paychecks into any of five different broadly based investment funds [like most such pre-tax plans, TSP is available only to full-time employees, and those who need such plans the most tend to be least able to spare part of their paychecks].

It's time to extend the same security and choice and ownership to young Americans [provided they are employed full-time; is there any reason to expect that vast numbers of employers will NOT opt out of this plan, as they do out of 401ks?].

Commercial Interruption The First

So I bought me some of this (here) and some of this (here), and made me some of this (as described here).

A little sweet for me, but ver' ver' tasty nonetheless. I'm putting the kettle back on.

Notes on the 2005 State of the Union Address, Part the First

BUSH: Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, fellow citizens:

As a new Congress gathers, all of us in the elected branches of government share a great privilege: We've been placed in office by the votes of the people we serve [as far as anyone can prove, that is].

And tonight that is a privilege we share with newly elected leaders of Afghanistan, the Palestinian territories, Ukraine and a free and sovereign Iraq [while no one is sorry to see the back of Saddam, Iraq was a sovereign nation when we invaded it, and Saddam’s party originally came to power with our help in 1963].

Two weeks ago, I stood on the steps of this Capitol and renewed the commitment of our nation to the guiding ideal of liberty for all. This evening I will set forth policies to advance that ideal at home and around the world [Filler].

Tonight, with a healthy, growing economy, with more Americans going back to work, with our nation an active force for good in the world, the state of our union is confident and strong. [The economy does appear to be strong right now, despite masking factors such as the general worthlessness of the dollar against foreign currencies, but this is no more Bush’s doing than it was Clinton’s.]

Our generation has been blessed by the expansion of opportunity, by advances in medicine, by the security purchased by our parents' sacrifice [but not by anyone in his Administration; with Powell gone, not a soul in the Bush camp has ever served in the military (and no, I don’t count Bush’s brief stint in the Texas ANG)].

Now, as we see a little gray in the mirror, or a lot of gray, and we watch our children moving into adulthood, we ask the question: What will be the state of their union? [And how can we make it even worse?]

Members of Congress, the choices we make together will answer that question [sadly, this is, as always, true]. Over the next several months, on issue after issue, let us do what Americans have always done and build a better world for our children and our grandchildren [Americans, maybe; the Executive Branch, more arguably].

First, we must be good stewards of this economy and renew the great institutions on which millions of our fellow citizens rely [This is one of the many sentences in this speech that sound great and right, on the face of it, but which are uttered without the slightest irony, knowing that the best they can say is that they haven’t crippled the country YET. The problem is, for ordinary citizens, who want to believe in their government, these are the only parts of the speech they hear].

America's economy is the fastest growing of any major industrialized nation [this is largely meaningless; it’s mostly because we just had a fairly massive recession].

In the past four years, we have provided tax relief to every person who pays income taxes [not even remotely true], overcome a recession, opened up new markets abroad [read: invaded Iraq], prosecuted corporate criminals [only a single member of the Enron management has been prosecuted as of this date], raised homeownership to its highest level in history [while homeownership IS at record levels, this is largely because of the number of retiring Baby Boomers and the fact that real estate is perennially seen as a good investment; meanwhile, homeownership for those who NEED it is actually DOWN]. And in the last year alone, the United States has added 2.3 million new jobs [which doesn’t quite make up for the three million lost between 2000 and 2003].

When action was needed, the Congress delivered, and the nation is grateful [Filler].

Now we must add to these achievements. By making our economy more flexible, more innovative and more competitive, we will keep America the economic leader of the world [Filler].

America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government [Conservative filler; also, it’s widely held that Bush is one of the least fiscally conservative Presidents in history; as I said earlier, the President deserves very little credit for the state of the economy, so it’s not really his fault that Clinton’s Budget Surplus went away, just as it wasn’t really Clinton’s doing that there was a surplus in the first place. However, Bush’s key policies either massively reduced tax revenues, or massively increased military spending, at a time when the budget couldn’t support doing either. Still, at face value, this is nice to hear. Bullshit, but nice to hear].

I welcome the bipartisan enthusiasm for spending discipline [“I don’t want to be a Lame Duck”].

I will send you a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, makes tax relief permanent [this would be great if the tax cuts were correctly distributed, which they are not] and stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009 [which should prove easy to do, since the deficit is largely a product of this Administration].

My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results or duplicate current efforts or do not fulfill essential priorities [The only example I can find so far is Amtrak. Bush wants to eliminate funding for Amtrak. I find I have nothing coherent to say about how mind-numbingly stupid and wrong this is].

The principle here is clear: Taxpayer dollars must be spent wisely or not at all [Again, this would be nice, if remotely true, but would represent a full 180 in this Administration’s prior policies].

To make our economy stronger and more dynamic, we must prepare a rising generation to fill the jobs of the 21st century.

Under the No Child Left Behind Act, standards are higher, test scores are on the rise, and we're closing the achievement gap for minority students [NCLB is a horrible, horrible program, unless you advocate the destruction of the Public School system, which Bush does].

Now we must demand better results from our high schools so every high school diploma is a ticket to success.

We will help an additional 200,000 workers to get training for a better career by reforming our job-training system and strengthening America's community colleges [Here Bush is masking his plan; he’s talking about improving public high schools and community colleges, but he eventually wants them all privatized].

And we will make it easier for Americans to afford a college education by increasing the size of Pell Grants [when all schools are private, there will naturally be a greater need for public assistance; is this really a useful tradeoff? Pell Grants are NOT loans. In addition, the maximum annual Pell Grant right now is $4000. Bush plans to gradually raise it to $4550. The current average annual cost of attendance at a 4-year private college is $20,082, not counting board].

To make our economy stronger and more competitive, America must reward, not punish, the efforts and dreams of entrepreneurs [Filler].

Small business is the path of advancement, especially for women and minorities [Filler].

So we must free small businesses from needless regulation and protect honest job creators from junk lawsuits [This is one of the cleverer passages of the speech; no one is against Small Business, even those who know what “junk lawsuits” is code for].

Justice is distorted and our economy is held back by irresponsible class actions and frivolous asbestos claims [It’s true that some members of the legal community are exploiting our current class action provisions and are pursuing asbestos claims that are much less supportable than those of the 80s and 90s, but they are hardly “clogging the courts”, and it seems like simple revisions to the class action mechanism and to the manner in which lawyers’ fees are derived would solve most of these problems; the real reason Bush is going after trial lawyers is that they gave overwhelming to Kerry/Edwards in the last election cycle].

And I urge Congress to pass legal reforms this year ["Because soon, I will be a Lame Duck"].

To make our economy stronger and more productive, we must make health care more affordable and give families greater access to good coverage and more control over their health decisions [again, sounds good, but I don’t like where this is going…].

I ask Congress to move forward on a comprehensive health-care agenda with tax credits to help low-income workers buy insurance [given that the main problems with our current health-care system are the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, this is not going to be a useful measure; the other problem is that low-income workers don’t tend to be aware of or take advantage of tax credits, as they do not have accountants, and also, a tax credit for someone at the poverty line is worthless anyway, because chances are they’re not paying any tax in the first place… how is allowing them to get back a small portion of the thousands they would have to spend annually on insurance AT THE END OF THE TAX YEAR going to help them pay for insurance NOW? Answer: it’s not. This measure is bullshit.]; a community health center in every poor county [this sounds more promising, but notice there is no mention of how patients will pay; this is basically an opportunity for Bush-friendly businesses to open sketchy medical centers in poor areas and charge too much – but slightly less than insurance would cost – to poor people]; improved information technology to prevent medical error and needless costs [this IS desperately needed]; association health plans for small businesses and their employees [this is too vague to be meaningful], expanded health savings accounts [this is terrible; while FSAs are a useful tool for those who can afford to take advantage of them, they are out-of-reach to the unemployed and to those who work for companies that do not provide them] and medical liability reform that will reduce health-care costs and make sure patients have the doctors and care they need [this is another thinly-veiled stab at trial lawyers, again missing the point that medical liability affects doctors most heavily through ridiculously high malpractice premiums; while insurance companies claim that the rise in premiums are necessitated to cover all the legal costs, there is no provision for lowering the premiums for doctors that have never been sued, and so on].

First Impressions

Obviously I haven't had time to go through the whole thing yet, but here are my initial thoughts on the State of the Union Address:

• I watched ABC, and was amused that Peter Jennings was so ill-prepared that he had to guess a couple of times at which obscure Cabinet member was filing in


• Bush was super-over-enunciating the entire time, and said "rother" several times; he's obviously had a speech coach. It's a shame it wasn't a better one...


• he still said "nucular" at least four times


• Cheney has obviously been told that his face sneering behind Bush throughout the speech is distracting, as he was consciously smiling for at least the first half, and looked like a lobotomized muppet


• The Democrats. Booed. At the idea that Social Security. Is going bankrupt. BOOED.


• When did the WMD become "Weapons of Mass Murder"?


• The only thing that makes me believe that the "spontaneous hug" truly WAS is that Bush looked annoyed for every second that it got more applause than his entire speech


• Bush kissed Joe Lieberman. I gotcher "Joementum" RIGHT HEAH!

Overall, this is going to be a hard speech to comment on; not because it didn't have its share of patent lies and distortions, but because it's difficult to argue with the idea that liberty is a good thing, that freedom is the right of everyone in the world.

It's just a shame that BushCo has no idea what "liberty" actually means.

Good News on SOTU Day

As I prepare myself for the grueling 90-minute festival of swearing and gnashing of teeth that is my planned screening of the State of the Union (which is to say, I need to buy some beer), I can honestly say I would much rather be watching a completely different fictitious account of how our government operates.

In the meantime, this is the most heartening thing I've heard in many years.

Key bits for those of you too lazy to click (oh wait, that's a MIRROR!):

With an instant runoff, the candidate with the lowest vote total would be eliminated. His or her votes would shift to the remaining candidates, according to preferences that the voters list. The elimination would continue until one candidate wins a majority.

In races with three or more candidates, elected officials often win less than 50 percent of the votes. For example, each of Maine's last five governors has won at least one election without capturing a majority.

If the new voting system wins approval, Maine will be the first state to have it. Now, only cities such as San Francisco and Cambridge, Mass., and countries such as Ireland and Australia use the instant runoff system.

And honestly, if the beer-soaked, sheep-loving residents of Australia can figure this out, why can't we?*

* Note to any Australians reading this: I meant "Ireland"**

** Note to any Irish reading this: I really DID mean Australia... don't worry, they won't be able to figure out the nested footnote...***

*** Ha ha, you Aussies have really come a long way, huh? Ahem.