You know, I just have to wonder why it's always such big news when an American head of state meets the Queen of England and the protocol watchers are out in full force. I get the impression that Americans have a total inferiority complex and want to impress an old woman with no power and a rotten history of fleecing "subjects" with good manners.

So there was Michelle Obama, making some "faux pas" by putting her arm around Elizabeth II. Wow, what a breach? How does Elizabeth II respond? The world breathes a sigh of relief when she takes it all in stride because, as we are reminded by the British, "that what she does."

Does Elizabeth II ever worry about protocol mishaps by her or her staff when visiting the United States? Are we constantly examining her every move to make sure she didn't double-step on her way to greet the Leader of the Free World?

Why are Americans so enthralled by British royalty anyway? The very concept alone is archaic and ludicrous: the aristocracy of Europe had been the pest of mankind for centuries before countries there wisened up and replaced them with people who could be held accountable. What free-thinking person want to be considered the "subject" of another person and not of laws? If the British royal family didn't take so much from the public coffers for themselves, I might shrug this off as sentiment: you can say I'm your subject, Queenie, but that's only on certain holidays.

As usual, it's our Media Glitterati who treat Elizabeth II like she's queen of the world, and we need to make sure we impress her with our adherence to "protocol." Lest I forget to say again, the concept of aristocracy is contrary to a free society and democratic principles. I couldn't give a fuck less about Michelle Obama putting her arm around the old bag or giving her an iPod.

You would think that supporters of Barack Obama would have immediately gone into "tone-down" mode after the election, especially given the extent of the economic crisis that we're in. You would think that his supporters would have remembered how it was when Bill Clinton was elected and he saw the extent of the mess (though not as bad) and realized that a lot of the campaign promises were going to be just that: promises.

But no. Egged by our impatient Media Glitterati, we've been inundated with reports about what Obama is doing during his first 100 days. Because, you see, the rest of his term will mean nothing. We want change! And we want it now!

Although I am not a fan of Barack Obama, I certainly don't wish him any ill will. I understand that eight years of unchecked power and recklessness endangerment by Bush the Dumber and his cabal will take almost as long to sort out. I am not breathlessly awaiting loaves and fishes with the president's first European tour. Nor do I give a shit about Michelle Obama wearing a cardigan sweater.

But leftists, well, as expected, they're going to be Obama's worst enemies. It's already started with the so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats like Eric Cantor who suddenly remembered the Democratic Party's 11th Commandment: thou shalt not support a Democratic president. (This is something else Obama has in common with Bill Clinton. Wait for it to get worse.) We already expect the Republicans, so flush from their election failure, to be obstructionists to the point of pathology, but Dems? Well, it appears they don't like the right-wing sideshow of praying for America's failure, so they want to co-opt the attention with their own sudden devotion to fiscal responsibility and transparency. Bullshit.

So what you want, leftists? Do you want to crank up the unrealistic expectations of the president and set people up for electoral disappointment? You want endless newspaper columns giving all this free advice without actually doing anything to effect change? Or will you subscribe to the Republican strategy and dole out as much rope to the president hoping (praying, really) he hangs himself?

So, George W. Bush wants to defer to history to pass judgement on his presidency? He wants to allow historians with a "fresh set of eyes" to assess the legacy of his leadership of the United States.

He says this without any irony.

You know, George, whether it's one year or 100 years past your presidency, you will still be responsible for starting a war based on lies, for sending close to 4,000 soldiers to their deaths because of those lies, and trashing the Constitution of the United States in pursuit of the executive branch's stranglehold on power. No historian in even 1,000 years will be able to mention your presidency without bringing up torture, renditions, blanket spying powers on your own countrymen and altering the balance of power in a region of the world not known for thoughtful diplomacy, the Middle East.

Bush's insularity has become famous. Here's a man who (along with his crack team) ignored clear warnings in August 2001 of a possible terrorist attack, and who (along with his crack team) took advantage of the horror of 3,000 deaths to silence critics and pretend that the world had given him carte blanche to do what he wanted. Last but never least, let's not forget the thousands of people who died as a result of those lies, those Iraqis who have no names but are figures to be ignored by the neocons who continue to cling to the idea that Bush was appointed by God to lead America. Of course, with Bush's insularity, those are inconvenient factoids; unfortunate collateral damage but mere damage to the more important issues at hand. I'm really sorry I blew up your country, but you need to stop dwelling on those unpleasant details, is what he wants to say. This is probably why he's intimated history will be kind and understanding to him.

No historian will be unable to see the obscene amount of spending that occurred under Bush and its attendant contribution to the economic chaos he left for another president to solve. (Unlike feckless Democrats who still think they should bring a knife to a gun fight, I blame Bush and his Republican cohorts for tanking our system. If you think that's not really correct or fair, then explain why right-wing fucks blame President Obama for the recession and big bank handouts.) Like just about every other business venture he's been involved in, Bush has trashed this country and shaken its principles to make it weak. This despite the grandest fuck of them all, Dick Cheney, crawling out from his crypt to accuse Obama of the very same thing. But that's what I expect of Republicans: their inexhaustible capacity to blame everything on other people, denying their own involvement and preferring to live in a bubble where they can delude themselves of how wonderful they are.

And this is why Bush remains the Bubble Boy of the Republican Party: no matter the evidence of destruction, you can always appeal to history to vindicate you and keep humming some song to drown out the criticism.

You have got to be kidding.

Scores of people honestly think they're being vicitimized by paying too much in income tax and want to stop the president from his evil plan of socializing America by having a modern day "tea party" in protest.

Do these self-satisfied fucks think they're revolutionaries? That they know what real deprivation is? What, did they dress up like Indians to complete the picture here?

The Republican Party doesn't want to be seen as the instigator here, or look like its involved in the planning and execution of this "movement," but the greasy fingers of their proxies at Fox News and right-wing radio are all over it. There has got to be nothing more pathetic than card-carrying members of the bourgeoisie getting their marching orders from rich talk-show hosts to act as though the fate of the Union is at stake here and taking to the streets. And if there's a real point to this "movement" (haven't we heard the clarion call of reforming the tax code for quite some time, now?) it's getting drowned out in a show of phony protest, phony revolt, and downright laughable misuse of the sexual entendre of the adverb "teabagging."

Our Media Glitterati, realizing that there was only so much mileage you could get out talking about Obama's fucking dog, decided to devote some time to this idiotic Tax Day farce, er, protest, and make it look like a grassroots movement was under way. Salon.com tried to run interference as much as possible, both covering this protest and assuring everyone that it was a minor sideshow. In the end, this circus act probably got more attention than it deserved, with the added result of throwing real tax reformers' ideas into the lot of whiny assholes with nothing to do.

But it makes me ask: where were all these people when Bush kept throwing more and more money at Iraq and not telling anyone about the true cost? None of these turds had a sign to wave as the worst president in American history presided over an implosion that reared its ugly head during the campaign last year. And speaking of Iraq, are these Tea Party losers still forgetting that over 4,200 servicemen have died, or did this suddenly become Obama's useless war that he instigated? Where was there protest over the goverment's feckless, half-assed response to Hurricane Katrina? Funny how a desire to undermine the current president was preceded by a blind eye to the hideous incompetence of the previous one.

Enjoy your fame, you coven of Marie Antoinettes, who get to go back to your homes and blog about your outrage. You know, like real revolutionaries do.

With a completely credulous look on his face, ABC News' Dan Harris asked about why the public is so fascinated with economic doom and gloom stories, and how economists have become the new soothsayers in these times.

Hmm, does it have something to do with the incessant comparisons to the Great Depression?

For months now, I've seen countless media reports invoke the Great Depression with a growing sense that our Media Glitterati actually want this to be the case. I mean, after all, you've already commissioned some pieces on it, the graphics are made, the economists are starting to use the term themselves, why not just keep insisting this is the Depression 2.0? A few months ago, "Time" magazine ran a cover story about the "new hard times," replete with a photograph from that era. "The New York Times" can't help itself by running some profile piece about "the new hard times" about every week, upping the anxiety factor about entering a depression when very few of us really understand what the actually means.

But why be sober in your assessment when you can be sensational, or at least, plant it in everyone's mind that this must be a depression because that's the word everyone is using to describe it. It makes sense, right?

Add to that the connect-the-dots mentality many of our hapless media fucks display: guns sales up? Must be the recession. Reports of shootings? Must be the recession "because the gunman just recently lost his job." With that little phrase, the public, having already been terrorized that the bread lines are making a comeback, automatically assumes that violent rampages are a direct result of the recession. Me, I just seem them as another asshole who wasn't satisfied wanting to end his own life and desired to take others with him.

And on the subject of guns: I don't know what bothers me more, that we continue to make guns as easy a commodity to buy as bread, or that so many of these wide-eyed types are buying guns and ammo with the fear of the recession turning into something of their apocalyptic fantasies ("nightmares" is not the right word for these people.) Think about it for a second: if you're the type of guy who thinks that a recession (leading to a depression) is about to collapse society and you're buying guns to be prepared for it, then it means you have a willingness to shoot first and never ask questions later. You are the lunatic who shouldn't be buying or hoarding guns in the first place. It's a little like those folks who would be fucking their sisters if they hadn't been told by their preacher that incest is wrong according to the Bible, and think everyone else learns that way as well.

I suppose our Media Glitterati have never heard of the concept of the psychology of the market and how it's driven up or down by the mere idea of, say, government intervention or bad quarterly reports. The general public is even more fickle and just as reactionary, so if you pump out stories that invoke the Great Depression and frame everything with that lens, are we really to be surprised that ordinary people are, well, going to get depressed? The media has already rented the hall and paid the orchestra, then they make everyone dance to the tune and pass it off as though they had nothing to do with any of it.

Way to go media fucks! Way to go!

I know very little about Latin America in general, and even less about the politics of our neighbors down south, but it seems to me that Mexico has had a particularly bad year.

First, we were inundated with reports about increasing violence due to the drug cartels, and how it's starting to spill over into the United States. There were rumors, mostly pushed by our Media Glitterati, that people in the American government were considering Mexico a failed state. This led to a great deal of frustration by Mexican officials to declare that no, they were not a failed state and the spate of violence with the drug cartels was really the result of the death throes of those trafficking empires. These reasons reminded me of the Rumsfeld/Cheney mantra that the orgy of bloodletting in Iraq was caused by dead-enders and the corner was about to be turned any day now.

Now, with that problem still festering, we have the swine flu, which has apparently caused over 150 deaths in Mexico. People are being warned not to go to Mexico, although no one was this concerned about the drug cartel mass killings going on. No matter: swine flu has commanded all attention, and Mexico is the epicenter.

Speaking of which, there was an earthquake of magnitude 6 on the Richter scale that hit Mexico City.

Unlike mean-spirited religious peckerheads, I don't find the hand of God in much if anything at all, but even I asked myself what the Mexican people had done to deserve all this. Talk about bad publicity! If it's not the cartels killing policemen and other officials, the world is finding other spots to visit on account of the swine flu which will undoubtedly affect the Mexican economy. And now an earthquake that while it didn't cause any casualties, acts like a big warning sign: STAY AWAY.

However, I am fully expecting mean-spirited religious peckerheads to come up with an explanation any day now, because when people suffer, that's when these types shine and step up to the mic.

I will not go so far as reactionary turd Jonah Goldberg and declare the media to be in "slobbering love affair," but now that we have surpassed the magical, mystical wonder that is "100 Days," can we stop the love-in and get to work?

Note to our Media Glitterati: I do not care about your grades of Obama, your navel-gazing editorials masked as appraisals of leadership, challenges and coolness. I do not care about Obama's approval rating and how it's higher than George W. Bush's was and Clinton's (a factoid that must give journalists so much to relish) at this time during their first 100 days. In fact, I don't care anything about this alleged milestone that proves...what?

While it's been apparent for a long time that the media has made Obama's story into their own, the self-congratulation has to end. In fact, I'm a little surprised that anyone in the media felt like partying down or high-fiving each other given the constant stream of bad news: banks continue to cheat and will need billions more, Chrysler bankruptcy seems almost a foregone conclusion, the Taliban are tanned, rested and ready for more, and an outbreak of swine flu running across the globe.

Of course, the media-created "100 Days" crap is really just a propaganda moment, and I mean the word "propaganda" in its original form, not some sinister plot like proud moron Minnesota representative Michele Bachmann (R, of course) wants you to believe. And it's a lucky thing to for the currents administration to have the media pushing your agenda: after all, I have no memory of what Bush the Dumber's first 100 days was like at all. But then again, the media had their "slobbering love affair" with him, too.

So, you've had your day, Media Glitterati. You've feted yourselves in the guise of praising Obama. You think you can remember what your original job description was and get back to it?