February 3, 2005 by s.z.

What the SOTUA Means to Me I had a headache last night, but I tried to watch the State of the Union Address, because I figured it was my duty as a citizen.  However, after a couple of minutes of George, I just couldn't take anymore, and switched to the TNT "Law & Order" rerun (it was the one about the mother-son team of high society con artists and murderers who are just a little too close to each other).  I did switch back to the speech during commercials, however.  And so I learned the following: "Our" generation, which is a loser generation compared with the Greatest Generation, often looks in the mirror, sees gray hair, and wonders "What is the state of Jenna and NotJenna's union?  When will they quit fornicating and get married?" If you have children in their 20s, as the President does, you worry about social security collapsing before they get their first jobs. Laura Bush is now in charge of our nation's gangs, having come out on top in rumbles between her and the leaders of the Crips, the Bloods, and the Jets. The President is proposing a three-year faith-based initiative to help organizations show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence.  It will be called "Let's Trim Our Hair According to Freedom-Loving Lifestyle," and requires that men keep their hair no longer than 2 inches long.  Because long hair hampers brain activity by taking oxygen away from the nerves in the head, this initiative will aid our young men to get jobs and stay out of jail. Condi Rice, fresh from her success as the bestest National Intelligence Advisor EVER, is going to Palestine with $350 million in order to bring peace to the Middle East and buy some T-shirts. And if Syria doesn't shape up, we will be forced to taunt them a second time. Oh, and Iran, if you, say, decide to have an uprising and kill your leaders and stuff, we'll hold your coats while you do it. The abolition of slavery used to only be a dream, until it wasn't.  Likewise, the democratic nation of Bushatonia. Okay, so I probably missed all the important stuff, but I did learn that being a "walker" to high society women in NYC sounds like a pretty good job -- that is, until you're shot by a guy who is trying to kill his mother for trying to murder his rich, old wife. But anyway, I learned all I needed to know about the speech from James Lileks -- and that was "Just use your imagination, and you can get all het up and indignant and have hissy fits any time you want." The moment between the survivors of the fallen soldier and the Iraqi would have impressed me more if I knew what was going on; that’s the problem with the radio. But once I knew what the sustained applause was all about, I got gooseflesh in retrospect. Unfortunately, I have a tendency to imagine, almost instantly, what people who hate this sort of thing might be thinking, and how their minds spin to cover such a moment with spittle and ash. It's true, he does have that tendency!   It's the basis for many of his most saliva-flecked screeds! Take for example this Bleat from Monday, which deals with the Iraqi election: I’m just glad I’m stupid enough to be hopeful. I’m glad I’m naive enough to suspect Iraqis actually wanted to vote. I’m very glad I’m not so aslosh with solipsistic hatred that any success in Iraq makes me trot out a cynical riposte so the rest of my buddies on Olympus will nod in wry assent. I’m glad that a picture of a mother holding her daughter to cast the ballot reminds me that this is number two in a series. All other things aside – which is a difficult thing to posit, I know – I’m glad to be on the side of holding elections. In the end I’m glad to be glad. And now I will go skip through the daisies and sing happy songs about bunnies, because I am obviously a fool.  And that WAS the reaction of many people upon hearing about the success of the election: "I hate it that things may have gone okay in Iraq.  Oh, and I think that James Lileks is a big, naive dummy who sings happy songs about bunnies, and who will light his shirt on fire after writing his little thing about spittle and ashes." I'm pretty sure President Bush said so in his speech last night, during one of the parts I missed. 5:42:00 AM

Who Said It? Before I reveal the answers from last time, I want to congratulate you all (well, all of you who did your assignment) on the excellent reponses to the question, "How Would Jesus Meghan Cox Gurdon Chill Out?"  And you didn't even have to window peep on Meg to come up with your ideas! And thanks to Clif for revealing Meg's real chilling secrets: Sometimes I'll suggest a conversation topic to my four children, such as what kind of animal they would be; participate for a couple of minutes; then say, "I'll be right back." I dash up to my bathroom, lock the door, and spend a luxurious ten minutes plucking my eyebrows, putting a little moisturizer on my arms and legs, and maybe whipping off a few tummy crunches on the bath mat. Then I spring up, feeling rejuvenated. Meanwhile, of course, the children who wanted to be wolves and pumas have eaten the ones that wanted to be bunnies and ponies.  But hey, at least Meghan now has plucked eyebrows and a crunched tummy. Now, the answers from last time: Mystery Guest #1 (the one who is sad because President Bush forgets their anniversary)was Gary Bauer.  Congrats to Vivek for naming him, and for getting out of the relationship with Gary's good friend's daughter. Mystery Guest #2 (the one who says that God wants to meet us at the place where the penis joins with the vagina) was Reverend Moon.  Rob was the first to Name That Messiah!  (Which may be a new game show for which we'll write a spec script one of these days). Mystery Guest #3 was Jerry Falwell talking about Tim LaHaye's Left Behind .  The claim that the Left Behind books have had nearly as much impact on Christianity as the Bible explains a lot about why our country is currently so screwed up.  Vivek named LaHaye, but Gary Kleppe was the first to note that in the quote Jerry Falwell talking about LaHaye's book.  So Gary wins the copy of the 100th volume in the Left behind series, The Nephilim Tetrahedron of the Beast. Oh, and if you want to know more about the Unification Church's payoffs to illustrous Christian conservatives like Bauer, the LeHayes, Falwell, and many others, you should read this Christianity Today piece, and then maybe go here,  here, and here.   Now, Who Said This? #1.  He said the following while on CNN,  discussing the Democratic response to the State of the Union Address : Once again, the Democrats showed how incredibly lame they are, how vapid their arguments are. He added the following in his blog A "Marshall plan for America"? Could these people be lamer? More out of touch? More pathetically pandering? Just when you thought you couldn't get any worse than Tom Daschle, you get this ... Jeez. "Groundhog day"??? Groundhog Day, of course, is Jonah Goldberg's favorite movie, and the topic of the cover story he wrote for the latest issue of National Review.  So, yeah, mentioning it is pretty lame. #2.  Who said this in a recent interview? You know, it's amazing that - there's kind of an interesting George Washington now - Ellis has written a book which I'm reading now, and David McCullough is writing a book on George Washington. I read one earlier on Washington - I can't remember the name of it - Washington Crosses The Delaware - something - it was a very interesting book about some of the many - how he organized the army. The Alexander Hamilton book by Chernow, which is obviously about Hamilton, but it was about the time of George Washington and Washington plays a prominent role. It's very interesting, there's a resurgence in analyzing Washington, the first President, during the time of the 43rd President, which makes my point - that there's - history is always evolving, and people's appreciation of a President changes over time, as well - one way or the other. Yes, because nobody used to appreciate George Washington, and now historians seem to think that he was a pretty good President! #3.  Who is the interviewer who said this in response to the above remarks by his interviewee? You go through these books and everything, this is a strategy of yours, isn't it? You are - this is amazing - you go through these three books you're reading. You will note that #2 said that he is currently reading a book about Washington, that David McCullough is writing one, that he (#2) read a book earlier about Washington, and that a book about Alexander Hamilton is set in the time of Washington.  So, how does the interviewer reach the conclusion that his subject is "amazing" because he's is currently reading three books? 5:00:28 AM