I have officially decided that the state of the union (is that a proper pronoun?) is a bunch of horse-shit.
Based on the 62 interruptions of applause, it seemed that old dubya is actually respectable and doing a good job. By George, it sounded as if people like him!
Because a record of multiple state of the unions has bared zero fruit, what makes anyone think the labor of his loins is anything short of a joke this time around?
In fact, I found the entire experience quite bothersome, because the ceremonial affair actually seemed to humanize the president. Allowing a war-criminal/profiteer to stand in esteem and ramble on like a sweet monkey-looking Texan grandpa, talking about democracy and freedom and effective policy (that will never happen) conjures imagery of him as not-so-bad. In fact, his repetition of fancy notions and progress and the right thing (no pun intended there), and the way he pointed out wonderful Americans in the audience, depicts an inaccurate scenario of who our president really is...
and everyone sits (and even stands) to clap. Where is the message in that? How does that convey at all the people's outrage, or the fact that we have a leader who could give a shit less about surveys, polls, or public opinion at large? Because people ARE outraged, and George DOESN'T give a shit. I'm sorry, let's not humor someone who exploits and privatizes war and excuses death for his and the sake of his cronies, with "respect"--because its bullshit.
Honestly, that was the biggest jerk-off session I have ever seen.
Is this the job of an aware political officer: to be outraged on the one hand, and then cup your balls/labia and dignify someone of our presidents standing at some "formal" affair?
(steam blowing out of ears)
However, I found the Democratic response tastefully-delivered.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
State of the Unions never mean anything from anybody, Democrat of Republican, and they probably never will. Presidents will do what ever they want regardless of what they say at the State of the Union. Its just something the public is going to have to take with a grain of salt every January.
Though, you also have to consider the fact that the terminology decided upon during SOTU, as well as any speech, but perhaps more importantly, relates to how the public perceives policy (for example, the 'axis of evil' was conceived in a State of the Union address) and therefore the speech is somewhat relevant
Post a Comment