Bloodless Coup

I'm not watching either. So there.

Yeah, but I'm drinking. Beat that.

I don't have to beat it -- I can join it, with a decent Belgian ale (Duvel). It's almost gone, though, so I might have to pour myself something harder.

You guys!

Ah, Duvel. That stuff rocks. It's illegal in the fine state of West Virginia (we can only have beer that's below 6% alcohol, though of course wine and hard liquor are legal - explain that). I'm having an Argentinian Carmenere (that's a grape; it's only the second one of these I've had in my life). It's OK. A bit green, but nice pepper and black fruits.

Wish I had a Duvel.

I'd send you one, but it won't fit in the little holes on my computer.

When someone, somewhere, gets around to reading/seeing the State of the Union, would you please let the rest of us know if it says anything worthwhile?

("Worthwhile" being defined as: something we wouldn't normally expect the President to say. I don't need to hear that America is great, or that terrorists are bad. I just want the new stuff.)

Boston.com's current headline reads "Bush tries to take charge of policy agenda in speech", which seems to suggest that Argentinian wine was the more entertaining choice, at least so far.

I watched the speech - Bush seemed kind of drunk, to be honest. It was surprisingly short, and contained nothing new at all. Well, he advocated a few policy goals that are indeed worthwhile (alternative energy sources for example). My personal favorite was working with churches to solve the problem of HIV. I can only reason that we are using churches to stop HIV by 1) trying to get people not to have sex and/or 2) getting people to not be gay.

But yeah, you all didn't miss much.

Well, if he was drunk, that makes two of us.

(OK, not drunk, but reasonably happy.)

I'll read the thing tomorrow (I told my class to watch, so I had better at least look at it). How, in any form of logic, can churches help with HIV? Other than abstinence? I'm glad I didn't watch.

One more note on the State of the Union:

Right in the middle of the front page of today's USA Today, above the fold - one the left a large picture marking the death of Coretta Scott King, on the right a headline that starts with something like "Bush sets agenda ...".

That, sadly, is the USA in 2006 in a nutshell.

the only three notable things, best i could tell, was how the dems cut off bush's introduction to the topic of social security by standing, applauding, and hooting when bush said "Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security."

i don't remember that happening before, a party gloating over defeating a presidential initiative at his SoTU, but i'm probably wrong that it hasn't happened before. in any event, his arrogant smirk and glance over to the dems side, and his chiding finger held up to them as he proceeded from there, made me want to punch a hole in my tv, crawl through, and spit on him -- conversely, the dems' pathetic little victory dance made me want to hug all of them.

in case it isn't clear by now, i was drinking -- glenlivet 15-year.

then of course there was the soon to be infamous "switch grass" energy plan that even David Brooks smirked over on PBS: "We will also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips and stalks or switch grass." i'm surprised he didn't offer to go mow some down on his ranch as soon as he was done speechifying.

the other thing was the non sequitur of the night, and reflected a grotesque indifference to republicans bought and paid for. "[M]any Americans, especially parents, still have deep concerns about the direction of our culture and the health of our most basic institutions. They are concerned about unethical conduct by public officials and discouraged by activist courts that try to redefine marriage."

this was the first mention of corrupt public officials (he came back to this, briefly, later), and he unabashedly linked said officials to "activist courts" who find in their respective state constitutions (as to which the federal government can say virtually nothing of note) a right to civil unions of one sort or another. take a bribe, compromise congress, find that people are allowed to live in a way not condoned by the old f*&king testament, you're all the same scum to him. absolutely reprehensible. so, where are those pictures of bush and abramoff being chummy?

i imagine (or hope) one or more of you will post on this, and perhaps then i'll say more. while watching last night, i sort of liveblogged it for my own benefit, and i might share more of my annotations in connection with a more full discussion.

btw, the Times provides a nice annotated transcript.

I just finished reading the speech. Good lord - it's awful. And I dont mean on the policies and politics of it (of course THAT is terrible), but I just mean as an instrument of rhetoric it's lame as can be. Of course these things often are, but this one is especially bad - and I'm not even talking about those few parts that are positively unhinged (animal-human hybrids?).

Bush's speechwriters often seem to think that the president will be addressing a room full of third-graders. Or maybe that's just the style he prefers. It's crap, whatever it is, but it certainly fits with the parens-patriae-for-all approach that seems to have seized DeeCee in recent years.

Americans used to be grownups. What happened?

I remember reading an article (a blog post?) about "remember when conservatives/republicans were the grown-ups?" As opposed to, you know, slavering reactionaries.

Even guys like Newt and Bob Barr look like sober-minded grownups next to the current crowd.

sober-minded grownups? at this point, newt looks like winston f$*king churchill.