So Neils Bohr said “Predictions are very difficult, especially about the future?” Obviously he didn’t study at BPI.

For example, I can predict what will happen if I have to fly somewhere. I’ll get grumpy. I can also predict what will happen if I miss breakfast. I’ll get grumpy. And I can predict what will happen if I spend too much time researching my thesis on 21st Century Political Nuttitude. I’ll get grumpy.

“But Squirrel,” you may ask, “that’s not a difficult prediction. You get grumpy over just about everything.”

Maybe so. Maybe some predictions are easier than others. Like this one by our own HurrikanEagle:

[setmode snark==on]

Obviously the reason there was a Earthquake in D.C. is because of the democratic obstruction of government, stopping the good God Loving Republicans from accomplishing their God given (corporate) duty to the American (rich) people (corporations). This was God’s latest measure to show his displeasure of the heathen Democratic Party.

[setmode snark==off]

Minus the snark mode setting, that’s pretty much what Pat Robertson said yesterday:

Okay, Robertson didn’t crib HurrikanEagle word-for-word. But let’s look at what he did say. [Not every word is his.]

Ladies and gentlemen I don’t want to get weird on this [too late!] so please take it for what it’s worth [not much]. But it seems to me the Washington Monument is a symbol of America’s power [or a phallic symbol], it has been the symbol of our great nation [or part of an occult Freemason code], we look at that monument and say this is one nation under God [apparently “we” don’t].

Now there’s a crack in it, there’s a crack in it and it’s closed up. [Like when a plumber stands up?] Is that a sign from the Lord? [Is that bunny-shaped cloud really a bunny in the sky?] Is that something that has significance or is it just result of an earthquake? You judge. [Okay, I’ll go with earthquake.] But I just want to bring that to your attention. [Gee, thanks.]

It seems to me symbolic. [And you seem to me predictably absurd.] When Jesus was crucified and when he died the curtain in the Temple was rent from top to bottom and there was a tear and it was extremely symbolic. [Religious stories often include symbolic elements.] Is this symbolic? You judge. [I did already. You want an appeal?]

Fortunately, yesterday also featured serious political dialogue from the Huffington Post‘s Christina Wilkie. [Not every word is hers.]

Put simply, Bachmann’s choice of footwear repeatedly violates the most basic rules of fashion and upends her personal style, which has been marked by dressy separates, form-fitting shapes and demure necklines. [And she makes remarkably radical, absurd statements.] But from the ankle down, Bachmann likes to show a little skin [not that we’re sexist or anything] — many of her shoes are either sandals (often worn with pantyhose — argh [the horror!]) or peep toed orthopedic-looking stacked heels. Neither option does her any justice, and both are decidedly dated. [Like her political ideas.] The day of the chunky, strappy sandal has passed, especially worn with stockings. [She also wants to bring back the Gilded Age. Which out-of-date problem is worse?]

Comfort is key on the campaign trail [they all look so very comfortable], but heels are not a necessity (just ask Michelle Obama) [calling her now], and wearing a casual shoe with a dressy outfit still looks silly. [Silly kinda fits her, though.] And like some celebrities, Bachmann also likely changes her shoes as soon as the cameras stop rolling, so the argument that proper heels are too uncomfortable carries little weight in her case. [Few of her arguments carry much weight.]

More important [really? this is the most important thing you can say about her?], Bachmann’s shoes clash with her clothes. Forgive us if this sounds harsh [actually it sounds as absurd as Bachmann’s shoes and Bachmann’s politics], but a female [no sexism here, nosirree!] candidate cannot convey Commander-In-Chief readiness in backless sandals paired with an evening suit [“No Ma’am, we won’t follow orders until you put on proper shoes!”], just as a male candidate [see, she’s not being sexist] wouldn’t score points wearing a suit and tie with mandals [or maybe she is].

I couldn’t get through to the First Lady. I also couldn’t decide which of these statements was more absurd. And that made me grumpy.

Good day and good nuts.