Saying It Like It Ain't
Honestly, I've never made it through an SOTU. In hindsight I flinch that it may be a sign of an incipient moral flaw. Naww! The whole idea is boring as all get-out. When the dude in power has been someone I could live with I didn't want to endure him mincing around up there doing a bad and grossly overextended version of an Emmy-award acceptance. And most of the time it's been scumbags like that dimwitted actor they found in an alley and sort of cleaned up and the passive-aggressive former CIA director who probably was accountable for our committing more actual terrorism on his watch than OBL will in his lifetime. (That's even allowing for GHB et al having lost focus so he is still in operation.) If you are into this sort of thing, Hollywood does a much better job of it. Frankly, though, those "reality" shows are right down there with the SOTU for me.
I was amused to find that Josh of Talking Points Memo has somewhat similar reservations about this particular speech:
I have a confession: I'm not sure when the last time was when I watched the State of the Union address. I think I may have watched it in 2003. But I'm not even certain of that. Perhaps a glance through the archives would show that I watched a bit of it last year, I don't know.
The truth is, I find it unwatchable.
Now, I read the transcript later. I'll often go back and watch key sections so I can get the flavor of a particular passage in the speech or of a debate it has spawned.
But the thing itself (watching the actual production in real time) and then the imbecile chatter afterwards -- I just can't deal. I just find it unbearable.
Are there others out there like me? I know that a great portion of the country never watches the thing and can't be bothered with politics in any case. But are there others out there who are genuine political junkies -- downright incurables -- and yet can't bear to watch this thing?
I'm with you, Josh. Along with my spouse and the lead secretary at work and probably in truth a mandate's worth of the minority of our populace that even is willing to countenance political dialogue these days.
My ferment is certainly not over. I have processed a good portion of the "prepared" Bush speech (hence sacrificing for presumed later enjoyment his notorious speechisms) and several responses. More perhaps to follow in later post. I will sign off here now though with a token annotated paragraph from GHB's text:
[clip]
No one can deny the success of freedom, but some men rage and fight against it [as in suppressing dissent by declaring that “you’re either for us or against us”?]. And one of the main sources of reaction and opposition is radical Islam - the perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death [hmm – calling Pat Robertson]. Terrorists like bin Laden are serious about mass murder - and all of us must take their declared intentions seriously. They seek to impose a heartless system of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East, and arm themselves with weapons of mass murder [as compared to thousand-pound bombs dropped by US warplanes – not uncommonly poorly targeted and frequently killing far more civilians including children than any actual adversaries?]. Their aim is to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven [you’re telling me they thought of this before the Neo-cons did?] to launch attacks against America and the world [highly improbably of course without Bush's unjustified pig-headed provocative invasion and destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure]. Lacking the military strength to challenge us directly, the terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear [it’s unclear whether this is where the Bush administration picked up this tactic]. When they murder children at a school in Beslan ... or blow up commuters in London ... or behead a bound captive ... the terrorists hope these horrors will break our will, allowing the violent to inherit the Earth [brings to mind Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and “rendition”]. But they have miscalculated: We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it [that’s a suicide-bomber’s credo if I ever heard one].
[clip]
I was amused to find that Josh of Talking Points Memo has somewhat similar reservations about this particular speech:
I have a confession: I'm not sure when the last time was when I watched the State of the Union address. I think I may have watched it in 2003. But I'm not even certain of that. Perhaps a glance through the archives would show that I watched a bit of it last year, I don't know.
The truth is, I find it unwatchable.
Now, I read the transcript later. I'll often go back and watch key sections so I can get the flavor of a particular passage in the speech or of a debate it has spawned.
But the thing itself (watching the actual production in real time) and then the imbecile chatter afterwards -- I just can't deal. I just find it unbearable.
Are there others out there like me? I know that a great portion of the country never watches the thing and can't be bothered with politics in any case. But are there others out there who are genuine political junkies -- downright incurables -- and yet can't bear to watch this thing?
I'm with you, Josh. Along with my spouse and the lead secretary at work and probably in truth a mandate's worth of the minority of our populace that even is willing to countenance political dialogue these days.
My ferment is certainly not over. I have processed a good portion of the "prepared" Bush speech (hence sacrificing for presumed later enjoyment his notorious speechisms) and several responses. More perhaps to follow in later post. I will sign off here now though with a token annotated paragraph from GHB's text:
[clip]
No one can deny the success of freedom, but some men rage and fight against it [as in suppressing dissent by declaring that “you’re either for us or against us”?]. And one of the main sources of reaction and opposition is radical Islam - the perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death [hmm – calling Pat Robertson]. Terrorists like bin Laden are serious about mass murder - and all of us must take their declared intentions seriously. They seek to impose a heartless system of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East, and arm themselves with weapons of mass murder [as compared to thousand-pound bombs dropped by US warplanes – not uncommonly poorly targeted and frequently killing far more civilians including children than any actual adversaries?]. Their aim is to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven [you’re telling me they thought of this before the Neo-cons did?] to launch attacks against America and the world [highly improbably of course without Bush's unjustified pig-headed provocative invasion and destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure]. Lacking the military strength to challenge us directly, the terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear [it’s unclear whether this is where the Bush administration picked up this tactic]. When they murder children at a school in Beslan ... or blow up commuters in London ... or behead a bound captive ... the terrorists hope these horrors will break our will, allowing the violent to inherit the Earth [brings to mind Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and “rendition”]. But they have miscalculated: We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it [that’s a suicide-bomber’s credo if I ever heard one].
[clip]
posted by Sir Gumbo at 10:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home