Last night was the third State of the Union Address presented by the appointed President George W. Bush. Admittedly he's gotten better at reading and delivering speeches. The smirk is not as apparent and his ability to handle multi-syllable words has improved, though he still needs work on "nuclear". It probably gives him a thrill to say that word.

Highlights: When Bush mentioned affordable prescription medicine for Medicare folks, the cameras cut to Ted Kennedy rolling his eyes and looking to the heavens. I think Teddy wanted to bury Bush beneath one of his jowls. Don't worry Teddy, you'll be able to afford your medicine. You're still privileged.

Not too soon after that Bush was prattling on another topic, the crowd was going wild, and the cameras cut to Hillary Clinton sitting silent and somber. She looked like she'd rather be somewhere else, perhaps even with her husband. Hey Hillary, if you think you can do better, why don't you run for President? Get a nice boy intern... Wait a second, why am I picking on her? I'd probably vote for her.

I enjoyed the moment when Bush, saying how parts of the Patriot Act were soon to expire, got momentarily flustered at a smattering of applause. However that moment was quickly overwhelmed by those True Patriots clapping for complete renewal. Civil liberties be damned! We talking nasty terrorists. Bush probably had the House Gestapo take those who clapped against the Patriot Act outside for "re-processing".

In all, a typical White House dog-and-pony show. Listening to Bush, you'd think we had a perfect economy, perfect peace, and an undefeatable military. Yet, of course, all is not well. We're in a war with terrorists (whom are everywhere), religion has yet to be fully integrated into our school systems and government, there's a patch of healthy trees in Washington in need of deforestation, and there's still billions of dollars waiting to be siphoned over to the wealthy. Bush's work is not yet done. America is bleeding but not yet dead.

What gets me is the blatant hypocrisy or maybe it's irony. Two examples: First, Bush mentioned how we *HAD* to go after Hussein because if we didn't then the United Nations would look impotent. We had to take out Hussein so that Hussein wouldn't make the United Nations look bad. Bush neatly sidestepped the fact that we unilaterally went blazing into Iraq against the wishes of the United Nations. So, we made the United Nations look impotent. More importantly, it sent the signal that whatever went on in the world had to do so under the eyes of the U.S.. The actions of the U.S. towards Iraq pretty much spelled the end of the United Nations as any type of world authority. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WoMD) were mentioned as a likely reality if Hussein had stayed in power. Even Bush is waffling against his own words that Hussein *HAD* WoMD and thus we had to go in and get him. Lies begets lies begets lies.

Second, Bush stood up there and talked, like most recent U.S. Presidents, about the need for world peace. How the U.S. is committed to peace. how we're a peaceful nation. Blah, blah, blah. Then, he talked about the war against the terrorists. We won't stop fighting until the terrorists are gone. Homeland Security is making sure we will be safe from terrorists. Terrorists everywhere! Even your neighbors might be terrorists!

How can we be about peace if we're committed to a nebulous open-ended ill-defined war? What defines the moment when terrorism is officially eradicated? Are we talking about prosecuting or eliminating those terrorist groups who've actually comitted acts, or are we expanded the territory to include those who may do heinous acts? Is intent enough for a conviction or elimination? How about those who talk about doing heinous acts, but really wouldn't (like most teenagers, for example)? Are mere words enough for suspicion and detention? If I bad mouth the policies of the Government is that Freedom of Speech or inciting terrorism? Where's the lines? Bush's War on Terrorism is a convenient excuse trash our civil liberties, to destroy everything that America stands for, in the name of Homeland Security.

Terrorism is a concept that may or may be not be acted out. To have a war on a concept opens the door for mass persecution and unnecessary paranoia. No wonder Rumsfeld looked so gleeful with Bush going on about the Patriot Act. He was thinking "POWER!" How can we have peace in our nation when the citizens fear their very Government. How can we have peace in the world when the most powerful nation in the name of peace seeks to eradicate any group or country that doesn't see things the same way?

What's next - Thought Police?

If you - the reader of this crappy writing - consider yourself a true Patriotic, Freedom-loving, peaceful American then come November do not vote Republican and perhaps not even Democrat. Vote third party. We need a change. We need more options.

Swear Words on TV

There was a news item on TV that Californian Representative Doug Ose is trying to get a bill that would limit profanity on TV. The news cited a "Parents Television Council" statistic that showed profanity increasing 95% in the past couple of years during prime viewing hours, to something like 5.8 words per hour.

From the "Parents Television Council" (PTC) site - here

"Foul language increased overall during every timeslot between 1998 and 2002. Foul language during the Family Hour increased by 94.8% between 1998 and 2002 and by 109.1% during the 9:00 p.m. ET/PT time slot. Ironically, the smallest increase (38.7%) occurred during the last hour of prime time - the hour when young children are least likely to be in the viewing audience."

"The good news is that there were some minor qualitative improvements. That is, in every time slot, mild oaths and curses comprised a larger share of the foul language in 2002 than in 1998, which means that harsher terms (scatological and sexually indecent language, for example) became marginally less prominent."

I admire the intent of the site - giving parents a resource to determine whether a TV show is appropriate for kids to watch. Though it'd be just as easy for the parents to take responsibility themselves, watch the shows, and make their own judgement calls. I fear that the efforts of the PTC are more politically motivated, that providing resources to parents isn't their goal. Instead they want to dictate policy. So I did a little snooping.

According to FTC 2001 tax statement that you can download from their site the President of the PTC is Brent Bozell. (And look Pat Boone is on the statement as well.)

Brent Bozell appears to be behind the Media Research Center (MRC) and a few other groups. The MRC mention that their purpose is to keep balance in the Media. By that they mean offsetting anything that's Liberal or anything they disagree with by using Political Activism. Mind you I found this out because of the "Liberal" media reporting their study to begin with so I think the issue really boils down to:

This is yet another Conservative Group seeking power and control. This Bozell person seems to have his fingers in quite a few web sites, all nicely linked to each other. And look the PTC brought in $6 million dollars in 2002. How much money are we talking here behind all these groups?

Call me a Liberal if by that you mean some one who loves Freedom and personal responsibility. Consider this. The FCC has already said that there are certain words that can't be said on TV (reference George Carlin). The PTC wants to expand that list to include derivations, so "fuck" is outlawed except as an adjective. The problems is that if derivations get forbidden, how long before non-English versions (e.g. merde and scheiss) and their derivations get added. How long before the list is expanded? End result is censorship.

I'm sick of Conservatives trying to control my judgements for me. Censorship doesn't work. Once you start down the road of censorship you have to continue down it until you end up trying to control damn near everything and you can't do that for one simple reason. Human variability. We're all different in our thoughts, desires, interests, and needs. With over 280 million people in the U.S. alone, it's a guarantee that no matter what rule you make there'll be someone to break it. Outlaw cannibalism. Look! - There's someone posting on the Net looking for a willing body for consumption. And there's 200 replies. And there's the meet, the meat, and the eat. It happened in Germany.

With so much human variation you can either try to control as much as possible or teach responsibility and control the occassional damage from having so much freedom. Conservatives want to control as much as possible - clean words mean clean thoughts. Say "No!" to drugs means no drug users. But hypocrisy creeps in, witness Rush Limbaugh and his drug problem. You end up with the Haves (those who make the rules but don't necessarily follow them) and HaveNots (those who have to follow the rules). Conservatives preach responsibility but avoid it like the plague.

This prelude to formal censorship overlooks intent. If "fuck" and "shit" were removed entirely from our language, other words would fill the void. We seek words to express our intent. If I drop a hammer on my foot and scream "Boggywoggle!" it'd mean the exact same thing as "Shit!". If anything, I want the FCC to say that under Freedom of Speech all words are allowed on TV. I'd rather teach my kids that some words are more polite than others, and not make an issue of it. Tell them that certain words are outlawed and you guarantee that you'll be hearing those words over and over and over. Instead of censorship let's teach responsibility and manners. Hey, that'd shrink the Government too.

On a different path of venting what's also gets me is that the FCC list is only - what - 8 or 10 words. That's it? For the whole of English language with umpteen gazillion words the FCC could find so few worthy of penalty? What has happended to language? Where's the variety? "Fuck" is it - the ultimate swear word? How disappointing. Perhaps "boggywoggle" should be the ultimate swear word. Ooohhh...