Monday, January 22, 2007

What's Your State of the Union?

























In the age of You Tube, it makes perfect sense.

While the country waits for the President's State of the Union address, CNN.com is asking its visitors to upload their own address to the news site.

Sadly, I lost my digital camera a few months ago (though you can send in your thoughts to the site via e-mail, too)...so the following is the script for what would be the most dazzling, cinematic, dramatic, WOW, State of the Union address EVER. Starring yours truly, Mr. Gay Conservative Liberal.

Picture it: a flurry of white rose petals washes over those assembling in the Great Hall. The murmurs of awe and hate make the room tremble. Pearls are clutched, statesmen clutch their wives' hands. In fear. Where IS this country going?

Of course, Madonna, J-Lo, Ricky, Lindsay and Hillary (Clinton) are totally cheering me on and they're leading the audience in anticipatory clapping.

Suddenly, green lasers (yes, very Waiting for Tonight) pierce through the room and a steady drum beat brings everyone to their feet. There is no need to announce me for I enter the room slowly, decked out like one Mr. John Galliano at the Dior show in Paris (pictured above).

I am leading a pack of three Rottweilers, sans muzzles, to the podium. As I make my way down the aisle, avoiding everyone's gaze, marching to the beat of the drum, tugging at the dogs' leashes to keep their gait in step with mine, I realize that power, and this costume, are tedious.

But the show hasn't even begun.

I hand the leash over to a man servant and take the stage. A bedazzled microphone like the ones Mariah Carey uses is handed to me.

It's Showtime (as in the channel) because MY State of the Union Address would be on Pay-Per-View, bitches.

"My fellow Americans, I've kidnapped your leader and turned him GAY.

Because America doesn't need crotch-grabbing cowboys who can't pronounce words like "nuclear" and "radicchio." Cowboys may have won the West, but today's mission of winning the hearts of the world will be won with intellect, with compassion.

And that starts here at home.

If we haven't figured out that democracy equals choice then we have no business trying to "spread" it in other, oil-rich parts of the world.

Let's face it, there are people who hate us and who are dying under oppressive regimes in countries that can't even turn up a dung beetle. And if Osama (the Arab not the black guy) ever got a gun in any of these people's hands we'd all be in trouble. So here's the truth, the war on terror is a pre-emptive move to preserve our greedy way of life.

It is what it is, accept it. Unless you want to wind up your car or your bus or your train to work every five minutes on your way to work in the morning. So get used to it, we're not leaving Iraq until Steve Jobs can create an i-car that runs on the beat of the Immaculate Collection.





When I talk about compassion I mean ensuring that this stupid war that W got us into actually turns into something good for all of us. So I'm asking Congress to appropriate Halliburton's profits and turn it into seed money for the first comprehensive healthcare program for every American citizen.

Because as Americans, we're all part of one big family. And that's why I'm asking Congress to let our brothers marry their brothers. That's right, America, the gay marriage debate ends here. In my American family, everyone is allowed to marry whoever they want. We're going to tax the crap out of you, of course, but fair is fair.



Now, I don't know about you but I think these Evangelicals have got a little too much pull here in Washington. So they can have it! Let's go WAY back to the principles on which this country was founded and bring our nation's capital back to New York City.




And finally, because I know you're all anxious to get to the after-party, I want to talk about immigration.

It's not really a problem for me and that brings us back to my point about making this stupid war we're in count for something. If we're gonna blow up countries with the explicit purpose of preserving our sovereignty, than anyone who is ballsy enough to cross in here and try to raise a family and put them through school deserves a shot at it. Now that doesn't mean I want to see immigrants, or any American, popping kids out recklessly. If you're here and you're working hard that's great, but if you're going to coast by with no education and stuffing your third butt cheek with Pizza Hut you can bet your Payless shoes I'm deporting you and your American-born children back where you came from.

OK folks, I love you all, I love this country. Things are bleek now but not for longer. I want to thank my musical guest Beyonce and I want to thank all of you at home for watching. Good night, and God Bless America!"

19 comments:

ThatGayConservative said...

And now your Stalinist side is showing.

So I'm asking Congress to appropriate Halliburton's profits

Ummmmm....What profits?

than anyone who is ballsy enough to cross in here and try to raise a family and put them through school deserves a shot at it.

Aye, but shouldn't they come here LEGALLY? Or should we give a hearty "FUCK YOU!" to those who are going the legal route and let the wetbacks in at the head of the line?

I REALLY want to know.

James Henry Bailey said...

(sigh)

Where to start...GLC- You seem to have a wonderful vision of a totally free America. But I fear that your devices will only make us less so:

First and foremost, you might get Madge and J-Ho, but trust me, if Hillary were in the front row it would only be to kick your ass after your speech. Throw her out and bring on Paula Zahn. She has more style in her pinky ring than Hillary will ever have.

Now to a more serious note:

Intellect?

The war on terror is a pre-emptive move to preserve our greedy way of life

That statement is another lazy-minded generalization that I expect from the far-left. Although you don't actually say it, you seem to allude to the fact the the war in Iraq is only for the oil (i.e. "we will be in Iraq until Steve Jobs can create an iCar..."). Where do you get that from? Show some evidence, if you can't bring yourself to muster up a fact or two.

The war on terror, though poorly executed, is not to preserve a greedy, oil-hungry lifestyle. (although it certainly aims to protect those of us who love oil and love our money). The war on terror is an attempt to preserve the rights of every citizen in the U.S. to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The President is using his constitutional- and congress-sanctioned- authority to direct this war. If the Iraq was for oil, we would have the goddamned oil! We would not be running around trying to make sure that every Iraqi citizen was participating in a democracy that may very well bring in yet another dictator, who will in turn control the oil. -- Let's not forget it was American technology, blood, sweat, and tears that found most of the oil in the Middle East. It's rightfully our to begin with.

Compassion?

I'm asking Congress to let our brothers marry their brothers

Great. Let's go to Congress and ask them for some rights. Thanks to the "Great Society" and all the money that has poured into it via both the Democrat and Republican administrations recently, we now have to grovel for "rights" that should not even be in question!

GCL- You would do better to pledge to decrease the influence on Government in our lives. Stop giving them more power via taxes and spending! The more money that is at stake, the more they will legislate what you can and can't do. State-sponsored healthcare is a perfect example: The state collects money from all to pay for a few who can't afford healthcare. So, the state rightfully can legislate the unhealthy activities of all citizens. In such a case, even the Supreme Court could not stop them from making a health-care issue out of sodomy. It worked with smoking, and those deadly, dastardly trans-fats.

Enjoyed the post, though. I might need to borrow your pearls.

Gene said...

Somewhere and at some time, it would be nice if someone could explain how "borrow and spend" is a better way of raising revenue than "tax and spend." For instance, how is it better to borrow when it will be necessary to pay interest on top of the principal? Doesn't that demand more money out of the treasury eventually; since the government is only able, truly, to raise funds through taxes, doesn't adding interest payments really guarantee an increase in taxes?

Somewhere and at some time, it would be nice if someone could explain why the nom de jour is "War on Terror" when terror is a tactic.

Isn't the war really on religious ideologues who are extremists in their interpretation of centuries-old texts? Won't it be necessary, at some point, to purge, or at least agree those words are understood to reflect the politics of the time, all religious texts of those passages which allow extremists to claim the approval of a Deity in their murderous, terroristic activities?

Somewhere and at some time it would be nice if someone could explain how, since the Constitution grants citizenship automatically to anyone born in the U.S., we can deport "American-born" children? Are we going for a Constitutional amendment?

The President has stated that "Bring 'em on" was not the wisest choice of words. Maybe it's time that serious discussions of topics such as immigration ought not to include epithets such as "wetbacks;" especially since so many people desperate for a better economic life have died of thirst and heat exposure in our southwestern deserts. Not much swimming out there.

Agape.

ThatGayConservative said...

Somewhere and at some time, it would be nice if someone could explain how "borrow and spend" is a better way of raising revenue than "tax and spend."

Well for one thing when you tax the hell out of the people, rich folks like Kennedy & Sorros hide their cash. Cut the taxes and they break out some of the money they have socked away offshore. They spend the money and increase the revenue of our country. By cutting the taxes, the revenue has increased higher than it has in ages. That's why Kennedy did it, that's why Reagan did it and that's why Bush did it.

would be nice if someone could explain why the nom de jour is "War on Terror" when terror is a tactic.

Because we are fighting against the people who use that tactic. We're not just fighting al-Qaeda, the Taliban etc., even though they were the initial focus. Hussein ruled by terror and terrorists will living the good life in Iraq. Not only that, but Hussein was funding Palestinian terrorists.

Take the War on Poverty (please). Poverty isn't a people. The Cold War wasn't cold. The World Wars didn't involve the whole world and civil wars aren't civil.

ThatGayConservative said...

BTW, Beyonce blows chipmunk.

ThatGayConservative said...

Oops! Almost forgot:

Maybe it's time that serious discussions of topics such as immigration ought not to include epithets such as "wetbacks;" especially since so many people desperate for a better economic life have died of thirst and heat exposure in our southwestern deserts.

Actually, there's already "serious discussions" of topics such as immigration. My point remains valid and you know it. Libs love to frame the discussion as folks on the right being opposed to immigration.
To my knowledge, this is false. I know of no one who is opposed to immigration, rather, they're opposed to illegal immigration. Whether or not they cross the Rio or the deserts doesn't make it any less illegal. And no, we should NOT put water stations in the desert to facilitate people breaking the law.

I used to work with a guy from Canada who waited 6 years on some sort of green card lottery so he could come to the US legally. Wouldn't you be pissed if you went through the processes and yet others just bypassed that and showed up? The libs worry about money for education and healthcare, yet don't seem to care a damn about those who're getting handouts instead of Americans. Not that I agree with handouts, as such, but liberals do.

Gene said...

"Terrorists" use "terror" in order to further an ideology. Until we learn how to defeat an ideology, we're simply spinning our wheels.

Anecdotes abound on both sides of the tax/borrow discussion. Statistics indicate the economy since WWII has done better under Democratic presidents.

Adding interest payments to the repayment of principal merely increases the debt. (The real cost of my $27,000 car was well over $30,000; if I'd paid cash, I'd have had more to spend on other items.)

The point of sharing ideas is to explain or convince. Tossing in pejoratives stops the listener/reader's train of thought and turns it to either an off-the-point agreement (YEAH!) or a knee-jerk disagreement (ASSHOLE!). That weakens the presenter's presentation. Seems counter-intuitive.

James Henry Bailey said...

Tossing in pejoratives stops the listener/reader's train of thought and turns it to either an off-the-point agreement (YEAH!) or a knee-jerk disagreement (ASSHOLE!). That weakens the presenter's presentation. Seems counter-intuitive.

A plea for rational discourse from the owner of a blog named "Take That, Right Wing Nut Scum????

Typical hypocrisy from the left.

Gene said...

You are absolutely correct. The title of my first blog has discouraged many from the right from responding responsibly to my posts.

The title of the post was done in a rush of left-inspired giggles during a conflab with other progressives while discussing blogging and the then current atrocities emanating from Ann Coulter. "I wonder how she and other right wingers would like it if someone came out and used pejoratives about them like she uses about us." And you see what happens. I proved my point. No one pays attention to the argument because they can't get past the title (or "wetback").

My posts on that blog attempt to eschew ad hominem attacks about other bloggers. Mr. Bush and his administation are fair game because they have not played truthfully with the American public. Even with them, though, the observations are less than ad hominem than at their lack of openness with the public.

You may not like what I say, but I will try to avoid saying anything untoward about you personally. If you find fault with a contention or a fact, I'm willing to engage. I expect you to treat me as respectfully in the argument as I do you, regardless of whether or not you like the title of my first blog.

Review Ann Coulter and you will find my titular model.

Agape.

ThatGayConservative said...

Mr. Bush and his administation are fair game because they have not played truthfully with the American public

Brought to you by the folks who have yet to utter anything honest in at least the past 7 years.

James Henry Bailey said...

Mr. Bush and his administation are fair game because they have not played truthfully with the American public.

To what exactly are you referring here? Certainly not the war in Iraq, because if Mr. Bush lied, then John Kerry lied, Bill Clinton lied, Hillary lied ....

Please provide an example of how Mr. Bush has not been "truthful" with the American people, and back it up with proof.

ThatGayConservative said...

As far as tax cuts, note the OpEd in the WSJ today about the many states that are planning to do away with their state taxes. Most of the states without taxes (such as here in FL) do right well. Meanwhile those states with the highest taxes, NY, NJ, CA, CT etc. hemhorage people and businesses every day and run huge deficits.

You'd think, to hear the liberals tell it, the states with the highest taxes would be the ideal places to live. Further, taxes and business strangulat...I mean regulation is one of the reasons for outsourcing. So what's the benefit of raising taxes.

Gene said...

If one believes, after nearly 5 years of discussion about the "debate" leading up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, that the Bush administration was truthful and transparent in its arguments, then obviously no argument to the contrary is possible--for either side. Further discussion becomes an exercise in futility and pointless.

You believed them then and still do; I trusted they would work for the benefit of the country but no longer do.

Let's agree to disagree and move on.

ThatGayConservative said...

Thing is, Gene, the libs have been dishonest and have done everything in their power to undermine the president. The media too. There's no way you can convince me the liberals are not invested in the defeat of the US. All evidence points to the contrary.

James Henry Bailey said...

Well, that's not much of a response, Gene, to my question. Not that I actually expected one.

FYI- I never said I believed Bush in the buildup to the war. Don't know why you made that assumption.

GayConservativeLiberal said...

I feel like Linda Richmond, I gave and topic and everyone discussed. My response to this chain:

-- GCL, I'm not a Stalinist. In my over-the-top view of myself as leader of the free world I would not let corporations, and our elected officials, profit from the deaths of Americans and other innocent civilians around the world.

-- Illegal immigration doesn't bother me, it's the laziness some illegals embrace once they buy their first TV and get their cell phones. All of a sudden babies start coming out and there's no talk of education, advancement, just the proliferation of uneducated, servile, entitled people. I don't care how you get here, just be damned sure you try to become the best person you can be once you're Stateside.

-- JHB: Don't you EVER call J-Lo J-Ho. Have some respect. And for god's sake don't tell me the war in Iraq is a preemptive attack on terror. The horn of Africa, Sudan and anywhere else where there are poor people with exaggerated opinions of what God wants from them can become a hotbed for terrorists, but none of these places have oil. What a coincidence.

-- Gene, your comments on the semantics of propaganda and war are right on.

The subsequent comments on poverty and illegal immigration by TGC are appropriately mean and shortsighted. I think our country is breaking several international laws so it wouldn't hurt us in the karma department to put up a water station in the desert.

And while Gene's new blog title might be a tad crass, he's right, Ann Coulter has set the standard for political punditry with her unique brand of vulgar, un-lady like talk. She's the Trina of the Conservative movement.

And you all BETTER find out who Trina is if you don't know.

ThatGayConservative said...

I think our country is breaking several international laws so it wouldn't hurt us in the karma department to put up a water station in the desert.

Specificly which international laws? Just because the Liberalism For Dummies says so doesn't mean it's true.

And here's a radical thought: If you cross through a desert, ya gotta plan ahead and bring your own water. Otherwise, you can pretty much get what's coming to you. Even more radical: DON'T TRAVEL THROUGH A FUCKING DESERT.

We need to stop illegal immigration not help it along.

James Henry Bailey said...

GCL: The war in Iraq was a pre-emptive attack to prevent Sadam Hussein and other terrorists who have sworn to destroy the U.S. from obtaining the methods to do so.

James Henry Bailey said...

I know this thread is too long already, but I must comment on this one point that has been bothering me. I tried to leave it alone, but my boyfriend has had to listen to me rant about it, which is unfair:

Ann Coulter has set the standard for political punditry with her unique brand of vulgar, un-lady like talk.

For a start, accusing her of "un-ladylike talk" is sexist. I am sure you do not believe a woman should be held to a different standard than her male counterparts.

Second, yes- her assertions are at times outside the realm of polite political discourse (yes, that is putting it mildly). However, the reason she survives despite all of her bad press, is that every conclusion she arrives at is backed up by facts!

I agree that she is abrasive and I rarely agree with her conclusions! However, I read her article faithfully every Thursday. Each post is organized to introduce a point of view/opinion and to back it up with facts and examples.

That is a far cry from the Dowds/Ivans group who continually scream epitaths such as "Bush Lied, People Died" but NEVER show any evidence to support their claims.

Again, sorry to add to this thread, but I could not sleep. I think I'm done.