Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I'll give you a moment to stop laughing at the title of this post. ***whistles for a minute*** Ready? Okay. Here's a good example of the absolute vacuousness of state of the union addresses (and by extension, pretty much all political rhetoric). From last night's speech:
Every year of my presidency, we've reduced the growth of nonsecurity discretionary spending.
It reminds me of those commercials for some vitamin supplement that uses as many weasel words as possible - "Some studies suggest that eating caramelized rat droppings may reduce the risk of some types of cancer." Here's what that phrase really means: The first year of my presidency, the increase in discretionary spending was earth shattering. The second year it was merely mind boggling. The third year it was reduced to incredibly alarming. The fourth year we'd managed to bring it down to the level of patently absurd. And by last year we had reduced it all the way to merely staggering. Followed by a pause for applause and the Pavlovian legislators rising to their feet in unison to cheer on this sheer idiocy.
Comments
Reminds me of a BBC news satire from years ago: "vote for us, where birds and trees and animals and people love each other, it never rains, and everyone has jobs they love, which pay them too much, if anything..."
Posted by: Ian B Gibson
| February 1, 2006 9:03 PM
And have you seen that already, one day later, the Administration is backing off the "We don't need no stinkin' oil" remark too? I suppose this is progress of a sort. In the part you quote, we're left up to our own devices to figure out what we're told is crap. Now they've got the courtesy to come right on out and tell us!
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/13767738.htm
Money quote:
Apparently Genesis is the only thing Bush wants us to take literally, not the SOTU.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert
| February 1, 2006 9:16 PM
Also note the language "reduced the growth". Perhaps it was 200% year one, 150% year two, ...
Posted by: ThinkDifferently
| February 1, 2006 11:09 PM
Reading the transcript of the address I got some idea of how Paul O'Neal must have felt during those panel discussion on fiscal policy.
Bush said that we need to make his tax cuts permanent to half the deficit by 2009. What the ...? Someone clue me in here, what am I missing? Did not the tax cuts CAUSE the deficit?
Posted by: Hume's Ghost
| February 2, 2006 12:23 AM
Haven't stopped laughing yet, this administration never ceases to amaze me!
Posted by: pensy
| February 2, 2006 1:28 AM
I wonder if bridges to nowhere count at "discretionary spending."
Posted by: Tim
| February 2, 2006 2:13 AM
Don't forget that "discretionary" spending doesn't include his 1 trillion dollar Medicare Drug plan. It also may not include "off budget" areas like the transporktation bill.
Posted by: sgent
| February 2, 2006 2:23 AM
"Nonsecurity discretionary spending?" And what about "security" discretionary spending?
Posted by: Mark Paris
| February 2, 2006 8:52 AM
I can't understand it ma'am, I cut that piece of wood three times already and it's still too short.
Posted by: Dave S.
| February 2, 2006 9:35 AM