Month: January 2006

“One: American jobs that will stay in America, using energy independence to generate those jobs. Two: a strong national defense based on telling the truth to our citizens, our soldiers and our allies. Three: Honesty and integrity to be restored to government. Four: A health care system that works for everybody just like they have in 36 other countries. Five: a strong public education system so we can bring optimism and opportunity back in America.”

— Howard Dean, Chairman, Democratic National Committee, Jan. 26, 2006

There are new rules for the State of the Union drinking game for 2006. This year, instead of hoisting a cool one or sipping a mickey every time Dear Leader mutters one of his catch phrases like “terrist survayance program” or “axis of evil,” follow these simple rules:

• At 6PM PST, turn off your television and grab your coat
• Go to the nearest bar
• Drink until kneewalking
• (In the off chance the television in the bar is tuned to the president’s speech, go to another bar)
• Return home safely and go to bed
• Others will count his lies while you sleep

See — all the fun of an old-fashioned “keyword” SOTU drinking game without having to listen to Dear Leader’s torturous elocution.

And if we have learned one thing about Mr. Bush it’s that there is no particular benefit to hearing his lies freshly minted.

Scientific confirmation: At a conference in Southern California last week sociologists and psychologists reported on several studies that show something many of us have long suspected: Republicans — especially strong supporters of George Bush — are implicitly biased against black people,.

Another study … explored relationships between racial bias and political affiliation by analyzing self-reported beliefs, voting patterns and the results of psychological tests that measure implicit attitudes — subtle stereotypes people hold about various groups. That study found that supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did.

Republican National Committee spokesman Brian Jones was quick to accuse the researchers of bias, since they had contributed to the Democratic Party.

“There are a lot of factors that go into political affiliation, and snap determinations may be interesting for an academic study, but the real-world application seems somewhat murky,” Jones said.

The research results compared with several other studies that drew similar conclusions.

“Obviously, such research does not speak at all to the question of the prejudice level of the president,” said Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji, “but it does show that George W. Bush is appealing as a leader to those Americans who harbor greater anti-black prejudice.

“If anyone in Washington is skeptical about these findings, they are in denial,” said Stamford psychologist Jon Krosnick. “We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice predicts voting. Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice against blacks. If people say, ‘This takes me aback,’ they are ignoring a huge volume of research.”

Jan. 31, 2006 Final Senate Vote on Alito, according to C-Span:

A friend in Sweden sent us this graphic. It strikes us as a pretty accurate interpretation of how the rest of the world thinks the United States views the rest of the world.

Leave a comment and tell us what you think.

Empty words: Besides a lengthy dose of fake Texas twang and rhetorical rope tricks to try and justify the failures of his administration, it seems few real Americans are expecting much from the State of the Union address tomorrow night:

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Jan. 4-8 among 1,503 adults, finds only modest public expectations for this year’s State of the Union address. Just 30 percent think Bush’s speech will be more important than speeches in past years, down slightly compared with last year and 2004 (34 percent each); roughly half (47 percent) say Bush’s address will be about as important as the speeches of recent years. In January 2002, a few months after the 9/11 attacks, 54 percent said Bush’s speech that year would be more important. And the following year, as the war with Iraq loomed, nearly as many Americans (52 percent) felt Bush’s address would carry greater importance.

Few of us expect a barn-burner like Bush delivered in 2002, just four months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. That speech was famous for a new term it gave us. Can you find it in this excerpt?

In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. — G. W. Bush

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens — leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections — then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

One down, two to go …