State of the Union Lowlights

No, I didn't watch (neither did you; admit it, it's okay), but some people did. Democrappy, for example, has a pretty detailed rundown in A Drama In Five Acts.

And I read about this seemingly out-of-place line, and a hint about why it's in the right place (pun intended) after all, in a Slashdot discussion, of all places.

[Bush:] ...Justice is distorted, and our economy is held back, by irresponsible class actions and frivolous asbestos claims -- and I urge Congress to pass legal reforms this year.

...Whaa? Now, let's see, why does Bush consider hindering asbestos lawsuits important? Let's make this one multiple choice:

Why is Bush against asbestos lawsuits?
A. Most small businesses use asbestos in their daily operations.
B. The victims knew the danger and purposefully breathed in asbestos dust anyways.
C. Halliburton paid $4.2 billion to settle such a lawsuit in 1998.
D. Asbestos is a good source of vitamin E.

I think you can guess which is the right answer.

But if you really want the bottom line, and you want it fast, go straight to the Rude Pundit, who sums up the message as, The State of the Union Is "Suck It, Fuckers" (link also via Democrappy).

And the Rude Pundit is sick of hearing how "bold" is every fucking thing Bush proposes. If George Bush took a shit in front of the Lincoln Memorial, Orrin Hatch would appear on Fox "News" to declare how bold a shit it was and how mighty a loaf was pinched out and how are the Democrats going to deal with a President who is unafraid to take a dump with a stone Lincoln staring at him. It is not "bold" to target gays for isolation and denigration in the Constitution; it is not "bold" to cut domestic programs that mainly help those in poverty so that massive tax cuts can be made "permanent;" it is not "bold" to say that you want to create a Social Security system that no longer guarantees a retirement benefit for seniors and that cuts benefits to others; it is not "bold" to hinder scientific developments under the veil of "protecting life;" it is not "bold" to declare that that we should make sure that people on death row are actually guilty; it is not "bold" to imply that you will use military force to impose your political will on other nations. If this is what passes for "bold" in this America, then, indeed, cowards should hold their heads high and declare that their pusillanimity is actually "bold" retreat.