Speaking for myself, I suppose, you know what makes those 60s kids different? They didn't know better. Yes, they didn't know that this world is too damn cynical to allow a bunch of dreamers to build castles in mid-air. Or hell, maybe some of them suspected, but damned if they didn't try anyway.

These days, we don't bother. We watch TV, get pissed off about how fucked up this world is, but then protest that surely nobody expects us to march on Washington D.C. again! I mean, come on, they tried this in the 60s, and did that get them anywhere? No. So why bother now?

I suppose that might be the big failure of those kids in the 60s: they had a chance to change things, and yet they ended up screwing and doing drugs. And yet, perhaps it's our fault for seeing it that way, rather than thinking: you know, we could give this a try also. Sure, they didn't do it right, maybe we could? At least we could try, perhaps? At least we could go into our middle age feeling like we TRIED SOMETHING, telling our kids "oh yeah, and what do YOU know about the 90s? We had freedom back then, kiddo. We fought for it like the demons. Yes, the system co-opted us, made use of our cautious middle age, caused us to cut our hair and get a job, but you know what? At least we stepped onto the front lines and spent our youth fighting for our beliefs. That's the best one can do in this life, anyway."

Instead, what would I tell my kids about the 90s? "I worked for a computer company, made more money than I knew what to do with, spent my days playing on the Internet. That was so new back then! We all wear glasses now because we spent our lives staring into flickering screens. I know, nothing to be proud of, but come on! Look, they tried this rebellion thing in the 60s, and look where it got them. It's pointless. So we never bothered. And neither should you."

Misguided or not, those who lived through the 60s don't seem to be much ashamed of what they did back then. In fact, they seem to be pretty proud of it, at least to me. I don't know about you, but I don't consider that to be "nothing".

I think the problem here is that Bush (and by "Bush" I mean "Bush's handlers") are pathologically incapable of negotiating, especially if that leads to a deal that "benefits both sides". They made their career doing precisely the opposite: aggressively attacking and destroying without mercy. This gives them the all important veneer of decisive manliness, since negotiations and compromises are for liberal pussies.

Those who search for signs of competence in this administration are doing so mostly out of fear. Can we really be governed (for eight years!) by a bunch of people who are THIS inept? Could America (which is number one!) have been hijacked so effectively and for so long by a group of aggressive assholes capable only of ratfucking and not much else? It's kind of scary, isn't it?

Truth is, if you tally up the scandals that should have rocked this administration from Day One, really, you end up with a very impressive line-up of... screw ups. Really bad, overt, brazen screw ups where nobody who is anybody even tried to actually govern. Time after time, officials of this administration found themselves making a choice between admitting to incompetence or admitting to criminal acts, and they very confidently, brazenly and openly admitted to the kind of incompetence that SHOULD be criminal. They aren't here to govern, they're here to stay in power and reap the personal benefits. That's all.

So, when you have a President pick a clearly losing fight with Congress over something that, pretty clearly, benefits a big corporation, you know he's not interested in working for America in any way, shape or form. This guy is working for one person - himself, - and his purpose is to scratch the backs of those who will later scratch his own back. What does he get out of this? Well, he sticks up for the Fat Cats, and they will later finance institutions that will work very very hard to mythologize our Commander In Chief, lobby to name aircraft carriers and government buildings and state parks after him, write books about his awesomeness and otherwise "build his legacy". He is the Resolute Leader who Never Backs Down, especially when fighting those compromising pussies: the liberals. That (and nothing else) is what this is all about. Bush has been fretting about his "legacy" since 2006, that's the only thing he cares about and that's the only project he's working on these days.

Pure and simple. Note, I never once wrote the words "Colombia" or "free trade agreement" in this post. That's because they don't matter. This is the guy who vetoed the legislation to help sick poor children, for the same exact reason. Think about it. Scary, huh?