Wednesday, January 26, 2011

My Take on a Take on the State of the Union Speech

Apparently, there was some kind of gathering in DC where someone gave a speech last night. The speech, as I understand it, was long and dull. It was followed by pundits reacting to it. Elsewhere, physics and chemistry still held sway as did mathematics and the workings of compound interest tables. The PJ Tatler has a partial roundup of reactions. Here's one.
Penny Nance, Concerned Women for America: “President Obama gets an “F” on the idea of a “freeze” on government spending. The President’s plan basically rearranges the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is too little too late to rescue our economy and the current $14 Trillion debt will only continue to grow. Concerned Women for America calls for the President to blah blah blah blah blah*”
Here's my reaction to the reaction.

Honestly, who calls themselves "Concerned Women for America?" They might as well cover themselves in hijabs. Who wants to hear from them, anyway? I want to know what Tiffany from "Hotties for Another Round of Mojitos" had to say about the speech.

* - I'm not sure if she really said "blah blah blah." I lost interest and didn't follow what was written.


tim eisele said...

"The speech, as I understand it, was long and dull."

This is the thing that always mystified me about political speeches. Everybody *knows* they are generally long and dull. The occasional one that isn't (Gettysburg address, for example) often get elevated to the pantheon of Great Literature. And if anything is remembered from a longer speech, it's nothing but the occasional pithy one-liner.

So why don't these guys keep it short? I think about 5 minutes is plenty. Maybe 10, tops.

Wollf Howlsatmoon said...

Netflix sent me the first season of NCIS.

Guess what I watched instead of the SOTUS?

*Good Guess!*