Wednesday, January 29, 2014

SOTU 2014 [Stifles a Yawn]


I have a confession to make.


I didn't watch the State of the Union address last night. In fact I didn't watch any television last night. (Unless you count watching The Sopranos on the computer via DVD as "television". Which I don't.)

Last year I didn't watch it either. I reread that post earlier today, as did a handful of other people, no doubt folks who Googled "State of the Union" and wound up here. I wonder what their reactions were on landing here? (Hence this year's title refers to the "event" as "SOTU". Don't want any serious folk winding up here by mistake. Or do we?)

Last year's excuse for not watching was that a blizzard had been through the week before and had somehow fried my DirecTV box (no doubt when the power went down, after surging a couple of times - for three days. Yes, that did suck. Thank you for asking.)

This year, no blizzard. I also noted that last year's State of the Union was in mid February, this year's in late January. (For those not paying attention as to what day it is. And yes, that is directed at all my retired friends. I hate you all and can't wait to be just like you!)


According to Article II (Which created the Executive Branch of the Federal Government), Section 3 (Presidential Responsibilities) of the U.S. Constitution, which states -
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
The underlined bit covers the State of the Union. Note that there is no set time or periodicity for this information to be rendered unto Congress. (And to the rest of us, if we bother to watch.)

Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything about the other Party having to "answer" the President's message to Congress. I'm not sure when that sad practice was started. Probably sometime in the Sixties when I believe that all this "fairness", "it takes a village" and "everybody gets a trophy" crap started. (Well, maybe not exactly then. But the seed had been planted somewhere in that decade. Don't get me wrong, a lot of good came from that decade. But a lot of gross idiocy as well. Maybe it was the drugs. I dunno...)

I thought the rebuttal bit was stupid when the President was a Republican and I think it's stupid now. But what's worse is when the talking heads take over to tell us what the President and the rebuttal person just said. Based on recent evidence, I know most voters are abysmally stupid. But really, you need somebody to tell you what somebody just told you? Seriously?

Of course, it's all a crock of bovine excrement anyway. Many of us don't bother to watch it but some will (as I did) read the transcript the day after. So we can avoid all the clapping and collective nonsense which occurs at these affairs regardless of which party is currently screwing up the country in power.


The problem is that a rather large majority of the voting populace will just go with what the media tells them he said. Or worse, they'll listen to so-called celebrities gush about what he said and take that as Gospel-truth.

I am amazed at the lies and meaningless crap that is contained in this latest pResidential outburst. I often wonder what it would sound like translated into Italian and delivered from a balcony in Rome while wearing a comic-opera uniform. (I thought about saying "translated into German and delivered with a guttural Austrian accent" but no. That particular individual was a seriously evil a$$hole. No way can our current Clown Prince compare to that evil bastard. Il Duce seems closer to his style.)

Now don't get me wrong. I find what most politicians say (regardless of Party affiliation) to be full of outright lies, carefully slanted statistics and twisted half-truths. It's just that the current holder of the Office of the Presidency seems to revel in it.


Sigh...

Politics.

Panem et circenses. It has me worried.

10 comments:

  1. I think the SOTU would be a LOT better if it had a Benny Hill soundtrack... sotto voce... running for the entire time the president is in the House. By that I mean it would begin when the Sergeant At Arms announces "Mr. Speaker... the President of the United States!" and continue as he autographs his way out the door after he leaves the podium. Maybe we could get the networks to speed it up like a Benny Hill chase scene, too. A LOT more people would watch.

    Full disclosure: I didn't watch, either. Nor did I read the transcript.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Every time I here POTUS I think of Archie Bunker
    "Stifle, Edith, stifle!"
    Only my words are, PUT A SOCK IN IT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As always, IT, you've hit the nail squarely on the head.

      My sentiments exactly!

      Delete
    2. Haven't watched one in years. Usually have more important things to do, like laundry. In a day or so will find the speech and read it all the way through.

      Delete
  3. Your last sentence says it all... sigh

    ReplyDelete
  4. I didn't watch for the same reason I didn't watch the Grammys- far too much hot air put out by a bunch of self-absorbed idiots who don't think about us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not only do they not think about us, they don't even think like us.

      Delete