So I came across a lot of people who thought Obama's speech last week in Norway was pretty nifty. And by " a lot of people," I mean my mom, and by "nifty" I mean "not stinky."

To me, the speech was little different from whatever President Bush would have given - that is, a capable defense of American interests based on an acknowledgement of evil in the world.

Which raises the question: where are the protests against this new wartime President?

Viewer Chad S. wrote in to remind me of the infamous Rock Against Bush campaign - started by some low level punk rockers. Its goal, presumably, was to create an antiwar movement with Bush as the primary target of relentless, brutal (warlike, even!) scorn.

But hey - it was called Rock Against Bush, not Rock against War. And that tells you something. Rock Against Bush wasn't a campaign to force the President to rethink war, it was a campaign to use war to crap all over Bush, an ideological enemy. So, it wasn't about pacifism, it was about politics. Which is why - after crapping on Bush - they remain mysteriously silent over Obama, now. I say "mysteriously" because I'm stupid.

Look - a drone still kills people, whether it's commanded to do so by a Republican or a Democrat. So, it comes down to consistency. If you're critical of war under Bush, you gotta be critical of war under of Obama. I've been critical of our President over a crapload of things, but I support him in this troop build-up, the same way I supported the surge under Bush. So one must wonder, if there was a Rock Against Bush, why not a Rock Against Obama?

I'm glad for our troops that these sellouts found something else to do.

and if you disagree with me, then you sir are probably a racist.