Country....

I apologize for this being late (Mark), but I had nothing. Nothing. Completely blank. Blanker than usual. I think it might have been the State of the Union address that numbed me out. That was one thing about George W. Bush that you could always count on. Whenever he spoke, there was no guarantee that it would make any sense. That alone was reason to watch/listen. It's going to be hard to top "human-animal hybrids". So I think that it must be the mundane-ness that numbed me out. And here's why:

I did a little research (ie, I looked at something else besides porn online) on the whole State of the Union address. I went as far back as Reagan and in every single President's State of the Union address, a phrase similar to "Our union is strong" was uttered. Every time. And that's when I realized, what else do I expect them to say? Can I really picture President Barry standing up there all stoic and saying, "Country...We. Are. Effed." No, I can't. I could kind of picture Bill Clinton doing something like that, but we kind of did all right under him (which is probably how he likes it!).

But that's five Presidents in a row who claimed that and it probably goes back as long as we have recorded speech. The point here is maybe we're strong, maybe we're not. (Personally, I think we're a little soft. But again, who's going to tell you that?) But not claiming that we're strong would be like all of the commentators not claiming that a State of the Union address is a "historic event". Is it? Historic? Every year? I find that hard to believe. I find it hard to believe in general. I believe that some of the events that occurred throughout the year are historic. But the recap of them? THAT is historic? Come on. (Not to mention that at least half of the commentators say "an historic event". It's not 'an'. It's 'a'. You don't say "an hotel", do you? No. Stop saying "an historic". Morons.)

And who is to blame for making it into a speech? It's so long. Wait a minute. I take that back. The speech wouldn't be so dang long if everyone would hold their applause and keep their butt in their seat. It's like watching a room full of Jack-in-the-boxes. (No, not the fast food chain with the oh-so delicious Breakfast Jack. The childhood toy of yore is what I was referring to.) Every single sentence that comes out of the President's mouth gets a round of applause from the peanut gallery and they all jump to their collective feet. Why? All he said was "Good evening"! He gets a standing O for that? Sit down and let him finish so that we can be done with this already! I'll bet you that if you didn't have to wait for all of the clapping and all of the standing and all of the sitting that he'd be done with that thing in twenty minutes. But no. No, now we're all locked in for at least an hour. I pass the time by trying to figure out how John Boehner got to be so orange. (And in case you're still wondering, it was Woodrow Wilson who is responsible for bringing the State of the Union back in the orated form. Jackass.)

See, it doesn't have to be a speech. It's apparently mandated in the Constitution by Article 2, Section 3 that the President, "...shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union". From time to time. I find that hilarious. What say every now and then you let us know how things are goin'? I mean, I know it doesn't sound as good the way that I said it (and without the fancy script it really loses a lot), but that's essentially what's going on there. It says nothing about a speech. Future presidents, current president, please make a note.

So how great would it be if the President just dropped off a letter to Congress? Oh, it would be fabulous! (Besides, the text of the speech always leaks out ahead of time, so it's not like we don't know what he's going to say.) You know what would be even greater? If it said something like "We're doing good over here. Hope y'all are doing good, too. TTYL. Barry." Wouldn't that be fabulous? I think it would be great. If nothing else, it might possibly get all of the media folks to stop saying that it's "an historic event".

State of the Union Bingo is HERE!

Today is the State of the Union address by President Barry. Can you believe that the last State of the Union address, the one where Joe Wilson shouted out, "You lie!", was a year ago? Holy cats, it seems like ten years ago when that happened. Actually, it seems like more like a hundred. Wow. Just thinking of that whole ordeal makes my ass tired. Thus, in order to avoid an overly exhausted anterior region, let's not think about last year. Instead, let's think about this year's State of the Union. And what better way to think of it and to get geared up for it than with a little State of the Union bingo?! Here's your card. Mark off a space every time President Barry utters one of the following words or phrases. Regular Bingo rules apply. If you get a bingo, pat yourself on the back or do a shot or whatever it is that you would do in that sort of celebratory situation. Playing this is probably the only way that I'm going to be able to stay awake through the whole thing.

This Might Explain The Applause

So, we all know that the "memorial" service for the victims of the shootings down there in Arizona was a bit weird. That is, if you consider a pep-rally-esque atmosphere "weird". If you think it's perfectly normal to yell and scream and print up T-shirts and bring signage to a memorial service, then you probably have no idea what I'm talking about. But considering that you're reading this blog, you most likely do not think that is normal and think that those who behaved in such a fashion are tools to the nth degree. Do you think that whole deal could get any worse? If you didn't, you might want to sit down because it kind of did.

My utmost thanks must go to Ima Wurdibitsch of The Wordy Bitch. (I highly suggest that you check out her blog. She's hilarious. I would like to have a beer with her. I would like to have several beers with her. She's that entertaining. But now I sound like a stalker. Hmm. Oh, well. Nothing new.) For it is Ima who informed me of a possible reason why there was so much cheering and carrying on at the memorial service. She directed me to a post over at something called Gateway Pundit. It is there where Robert Gibbs was quoted as saying, "I will say that I read the speech several times and thought that there wouldn’t be a lot of applause if any. I think many of us thought that. But I think there was a celebration, again, of the lives of those who had been impacted. Not just at that grocery store but throughout the country. And I think that, if that is part of the healing process, then that’s a good thing."

Before I continue, just let me say how idiotic that statement sounds. Were any of the family members of those who were killed "celebrating" that day? I'm just going to guess that they were not. I saw pictures of them from throughout the ceremony and they did not look happy. They certainly didn't look like the softheads in the stands who acted like the University of Arizona just won the Rose Bowl or something. And I don't know what part of Robert Gibbs's "healing process" involves shouting and yelling and screaming and clapping, but I don't think I agree with him that it is "a good thing". It's a disrespectful thing. It's an inappropriate thing. It's a lot of things, but I don't think that I would say that good is one of them.

Back to Gateway Pundit. After the quote from Gibbs, they write: "Oh really?Then why was it printed on the Jumbotron?" Wait. What now? Behold!

Good Lord. What in the world is wrong with people? Were they really asking for applause there? It certainly looks like they were. Now, I suppose that it could have been a closed-captioning thing for the hearing impaired. I suppose. (Granted, I'm not sure that would have been necessary, as anyone in that building, hearing impaired or not, would have known that the place was going bat-S.) But it really looks like they were asking for applause. I have no idea which one it was, but given as how President Barry did not ONCE ask for people to be respectful and pipe down, it would seem to be a logical jump that it was being asked for.

Whatever the reason, it doesn't look good no matter how you look at it. It doesn't look good if they asked for applause. And it also doesn't look good that they didn't tell people to stop applauding. (It also didn't look good that they handed out T-shirts with a freaking slogan on them. Not to mention that it was a slogan that had nothing to do with remembrance, healing or memorializing. Nothing. Who hands out T-shirts at a memorial for dead people?) President Barry's crew needs to step it up a bit in whatever way that they should have. It never should have happened the way that it did.

Keep Your Shirt On!

As you may or may not care to be aware, President Barry is vacationing in Hawaii, the state where he was born (NOT Kenya!). The other day, the White House issues "strict instructions" (whatever that is supposed to mean) that they were not allowing anyone to take any pictures of President Barry without his shirt on. Isn't he the leader of the "free world"? Doesn't sound so "free" if pictures can't be taken of him without his shirt on. But what if someone were to take a picture of a shirtless President Barry? Would that be so bad? Have you seen him without his shirt on before? Hell, no, it wouldn't be that bad. Behold!

See? I don't see what's so wrong with that! He looks fine! Since when can someone lay down rules about what one can and cannot photograph? In America! Don't get me wrong. If they were going to say that no one can take a picture of the President shirtless, I certainly wish they would have made that rule long before now. Do you know how many other Presidents have been photographed shirtless? Way too many for my taste, thanks. Let's have a look. We'll start with Bill Clinton. Really? Did we need to see this? Behold!

Put your shirt back on. Please? I also found the picture below of ol' Willie Jeff shirtless. I don't quite understand what's going on to each side of him, but I'm sure that he found it pleasurable. Probably in more ways than one.

Here's Ronald Reagan sans shirt. Why wasn't there a moratorium on photos like THIS?!

No, I don't know why it's in black and white. I'm pretty sure that he was President during the years of color photography (even though he probably spent most of his life sitting for oil paintings). And here's Gerald Ford without a shirt.

Not bad, but he's kind of old so it's kind of weird. And what's with the poolside robe? Was that an early 1970s trademark? Wearing a robe before taking a dip? Interesting. And again with the black and white picture. Here's Lyndon B. Johnson getting as close to shirtless as I am comfortable with, as he shows reporters his scar from his gall bladder surgery.
>

How many of us know an old guy who is just like that? They'll start telling you a story about something that happened to them and the next thing you know, they're practically disrobing right in front of you as if you wouldn't believe them otherwise. No, no! I believe that you almost had your grundle shot off by the Nazis, Grandpa! Put your pants back on!

I just don't get what the big deal is. If President Barry doesn't want his picture taken without his shirt on, as the leader of the free world (with the key word there being "free") I suggest that he keep his shirt on rather than telling folks what they can and can't take a picture of. I'm also going to say that I'll be deeply disappointing in all of the paparazzi out there if they can't manage to get a picture of him shirtless anyway. That's their job. After all, the word "paparazzi" is derived from an old Italian term meaning "A-holes who invade your privacy to get pictures that tabloids will pay for". Chop-chop!

You Think He Had That Memorized?

OK, so get this. You ready? You know how President Barry is on some trip to visit a bunch of different countries in something like 10 days? OK, so the first place he went was to India. And get this: It is news that he will be using a teleprompter. Wait. What?

Correct. They are almost shocked by that reality. The Telegraph of Calcutta starts off their article about this by writing: "The man who mesmerised you with that silver-tongued “Yes we can” will use a teleprompter while addressing Indian MPs in the Central Hall of Parliament on November 8." This is apparently quite surprising to them because "Sources said they could not recall an instance when a teleprompter, also called autocue or telescript, was used in the Parliament Hall earlier. " Wow. Really? Well, considering that they're giving alternative names for the ol' teleprompter, I guess it's the truth. But, man. That's just surprising to me.

The article states that "Used to the machine-gun delivery of Indian politicians who are never at a loss for words, officials here were a bit perplexed when the US embassy broached the topic of affixing a teleprompter to the lectern..." Really? Perplexed? Holy canoli, the whole world just really thought above and beyond the realm of reality with this guy, didn't they?

They certainly did, as evidenced by the one official who said: “We assumed that Obama, being such a brilliant orator, delivers speeches extempore." Riiiiiigght. Are you kidding me? Y'all assumed that he was just winging it the whole time? Any thoughts as to why, if you thought that, he would actually use a teleprompter? “Probably to avoid Bushisms,” suggested a Parliament House source who, along with his colleagues and officials of the external affairs ministry, spent the day discussing the matter with a technical team from the US. Wow.

It took an entire day to discuss putting up a teleprompter for President Barry? Why would that be? And did those guys never hear President Bush speak? Teleprompter or not, he could barely get out a coherent sentence. That was never news. But it is apparently news (in some parts) for President Barry to use a teleprompter. Odd. Very odd indeed.