Or maybe he's just dumb.

In my previous post, I suggested that maybe Bush just doesn't understand that the Presidential oath is a bit more than a literal instruction to not let the dog eat the Constitution or something like that.

I take any benefit of the doubt back. He's just stupid.

At a naturalization ceremony yesterday - a handy venue to discuss immigration issues, I suppose - Mr. Bush said, "Our Constitution does not limit citizenship by background or birth. Instead, our nation is bound together by shared love of liberty and a conviction that all people are created with dignity and value."

Well, President Idjit, it kind of does. Maybe Bush's speechwriters were trying to say that ultimately, once you get through the naturalization process, your country of origin does not matter - you are American. Idealistic, definitely, and not true hardly at all, but OK. The problem, though, is that you can't give this halfwit sentences like "Our Constitution does not limit citizenship by background or birth" and not expect people like me to point out the obvious fact that our Constitution does indeed limit citizenship by background or birth.

The 14th Amendment says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

It even has the word "born" right there in it - citizenship is defined by birth first. DUH. Gah, why do his handlers let him read this stuff out loud?

Why why why why why why why...

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I’m beginning to wonder if what we have here is a failure to communicate. Perhaps Mr. Bush is unclear on the specifics of this oath. Maybe he thinks that it is a literal instruction. Is it possible that he’s gotten it in his head that as long as the actual document remains intact while he’s in office, he’s done his duty? Could it be that this is all just a simple reading comprehension issue?

Here’s where part of my confusion comes from, and I’m so stymied that I can’t get past this first section of the Constitution:

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Really? President Bush has made a game of signing legislation and then adding signing statements that basically equate to a big “neener neener, I won’t follow this if I don’t want to.” In regards to the recent Patriot Act reauthorization and its information disclosure requirements, Mr. Bush said that ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . " He has said repeatedly that he doesn’t have to follow warrant laws for wiretapping because we’re at “war,” and in response to Congressional passage of an anti-torture law applying to US detainees, Mr. Bush basically said that he’ll follow the law … unless he thinks it’s really really important that a prisoner be tortured.

I guess if you want to (again) be literal, Mr. Bush isn’t taking away the ability of Congress to pass legislation. He’s just openly saying that he’s going to ignore it. Nice spin, that.

Obviously he’s getting away with this, and I’m really baffled as to why. There are certainly those who say that we should do whatever King George says right now because we’re at war, but the dolts who say that are also more likely to believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 and aren’t going to ever understand that we can’t destroy and defend the Constitution at the same time. There are others who let him slide because he’s a good Christian man, defending us from those radical Muslims, but they’ve got their eyes so firmly on the Rapture prize that they don’t understand that the violence arising from radical fundamentalists in the Middle East is no different than the medieval environment they’d like to create here.

I think there are also many who just don’t want to admit that they made a horrible mistake in voting for this mouth breathing, pretzel choking, nucular pronouncing, strategerizing moron, so they publicly (though more and more often now – quietly) support him with a resigned, “well, we may as well play this out” kind of attitude, but have stopped with the strident defenses of his moral character and strength of resolve in the face of those lily livered un-patriots who have pointed out repeatedly that Bush has destroyed almost global good will towards the US, spent more than anyone … EVER … on whims of war fancy based on fluffy intelligence, has made sure that his inner circle of good ole rich boys have profited mightily from his shoot ‘em up playtime, has openly weakened us in the name of national security (do you feel safer?),
has cut programs for the poorer and weaker in our society, has attempted repeatedly to undermine our environmental safety and sell off our national resources …

Shall I go on? Is there anything that this President has done that has been a net positive for the nation? Can you really think of one single thing that has made America better in the last six years? Safer? Stronger? More admirable? Honorable?

What would you think of your company if ...

• Even though five of the top ten richest people in the country worked for your firm, you and most of your co-workers were expected and encouraged to utilize public assistance for things like healthcare and food assistance because the average wage for employees is below the poverty level?
• Your company was the subject of the largest class action suit ever for gender discrimination?
• Your company served largely as a distribution center for imported goods produced in hellish sweatshops overseas?
• Your company forced American companies out of business and American workers out of jobs - that is, unless they want to come and work for your company for much, much less?
• You had to work overnights and your company actually locked you in the building without a manager to let you out in case of a fire, heart attack, accident, or any such emergency?
• Your company generally finds it less expensive to violate whatever laws it pleases and pay the fines rather than comply with the law?

Would you be proud to work at a place like this? Should any of us support a business like this?

Stupid Science

I saw a short blurb on the news this morning regarding a change in the eating habits of Americans. Apparently, we are eating fewer "risky foods" than we have in the past.

The risky foods covered in the study include the following:

* Pink hamburgers
* Pink ground beef
* Raw fresh fish
* Raw oysters
* Raw/unpasteurized milk
* Runny eggs
* Alfalfa sprouts

Apparently, 31% of us ate one or more of the above in any given work as of 1998, but by 2002 that percentage had dropped to 21%. Good news, right? Not really.

I'm not going to get into a debate about a vegan vs meat-eating diet, because that's not really what this is about. In my opinion, this is just stupid science, completely missing the point of what is "risky" or not.

This study was looking at the risk of food-borne infection, and there really isn't any arguing that the above foods run a higher risk of outbreaks than others. But the real question should be WHY the risk is greater in these foods. Should we be looking at reducing our consumption of them, or should we be demanding higher safety standards in our processing centers?

Should cattle be raised in filthy conditions, fed ground up animals as feed, dunked in pesticides, pumped full of steroids and antibiotics, and run through slaughterhouses at an impossible pace that makes sanitary conditions impossible? Should a pound of ground beef contain meat from possibly 100 different animals coming from several different farms, sometimes even from different countries? "Diversity" is not a good thing when you're trying to track the source of an outbreak and your hamburger has bits in it from Kansas, Colorado, South America, and who knows where else.

WHY are these other foods dangerous? Are our food production industries looking out for the health of the consumers, or are they looking towards their bottom lines? Do they care? Do you?

Are these foods any less risky than Cheetos? Kraft Mac & Cheese? "Juice cocktail" boxes? Spaghettio's? Super chocolate chip peanut butter caramel "granola" bars? Most cereals?

McDonald's cooks their food enough to kill any bacteria, I'd almost surely guarantee, since they don't want a lawsuit. So, if you eat a Quarter Pounder, are you making a healthy choice? Healthier than if you had a patty made from some beef from an organic, local rancher - even if it's still pink in the middle?

Who funds these stupid, stupid studies?

Things just aren't going right ...

Ever have those times, maybe a week or two at a punch, when things just don't flow? Your brain feels froggy, your thoughts don't synch, your memory is flickery, and important details of your every day responsibilities just slide away like bits of California during the rainy season?

I'm having one of those spells. It's not pleasant.