Writer Erin O'Brien comments on all things human.
Here's a good comment section game to play!How long did it take you to stop waiting for someone to say Live from New York ... it's Saturday Night! or for some other punchline?It is quite a moment when you realize what this is. All at once I felt horror, relief, disbelief, and shame, with a maniacal humor rising up behind it all.
Bummer, I used to love Scotties!
Corny, yes. But entertaining nonetheless. And I'm sure I've seen worse.Julie would like the dogs - she love Scottish Terriers. In fact, she just got us a new dog - a mini-schnauzer poodle mix. Yippee. A dog with a beard. Real dogs don't have them.BTW, I've been in the press room where all the folks held up the "10" signs. It's really small - not like what you see on TV. My brother Tom is a secret service agent and some time ago (pre-9-11) took myself and my family on a tour of the west wing (this was when Bill "I did not have sex with that woman ... I feel your pain ... it depends on what your definition of is is" Clinton was in office). We saw that room, the cabinet room, the Oval Office, etc. Was pretty cool.AlTRAG
So Bush put his dog in charge of the Christmas decorations this year eh?Makes you wonder how many other decisions Bush delegated to Barney doesn't it?
It sums up his presidency: One big, unfunny, corny, joke. I can't wait until January 20!
Some thoughts on what I've just witnesed.While he's no Orson Welles, George Bush is a far better actor than either of his two daughters. Hopefully, that means they won't run for anything.Presidents comically exploiting their pets for political gain goes back to FDR. Answering a Republican charge that he sent a battleship to fetch his dog Fala (another scottie, I believe), he said, "You can attack me, you can attack my wife, you can attack my children, but when you attack Fala, you've gone too far!" FDR plays it perfectly straight when says that. It's hilarious!It's physically impossible for a dog to decorate a house. I know that seems obvious, but if they're going to put out a video with bad acting, bad staging, bad special effects, and even bad background music, then the central concept should at least be sound.Finally, Laura said it was a "privilege" That word pretty much sums up his administration.
I'm not going to take a guy's fun away from him, even if tax dollars paid for the stupid thing. I've lost all my anger.
I've lost my anger, too, but not my cultural sensibility. What is it with these Bushes and their damn dogs? (Remember Barbara Bush's Millie book?) They think it's cute to anthropomorphize their dogs while they implement policies that dehumanize most of the world's human population. Like the First Family, an awful lot of rich white people can't distinguish cute from crass and have no sense of irony, particularly concerning their oh-so-special selves.But I don't get the motivation behind this kitsch at all. Someone in the White House -- or rather, several someones -- thought that thinking up, writing, staging, acting in, filming, animating, and editing this dreck was a good use of their time. Why?And for whom was it made? Who is the imagined audience for this video? Although we left-wing netizens are having a good time with it, surely it wasn't meant for us. What constituency did the First Family believe would find this heartwarming entertainment? Recently laid-off NASCAR dads?
I must live in another country, as I certainly won't miss the bastard. The best of holiday seasons to you, Erin...and may '09 totally rock (and I'm expecting a new book...right?). Peace out, friend.
Who's smart enough?
"It sums up his presidency: One big, unfunny, corny, joke. I can't wait until January 20!"I can't wait until January 20, 2013.AlTRAG
Wow! Al's already forecasting a Obama's second term!
Erin, Nope. When the rest of the country figures out that Obama can't deliver on what he's promised (and he's promised a lot), we'll get "change" on that date. BTW, change is all you'll be left with after four years of "spreading the wealth."AlTRAG
The electorate spoke rather loudly Nov. 4th. May the ship of state have taken a severe turn by Jan. 20th, 2013, or we are truly sunk. This administration came in with a 3 trillion dollar surplus, turns it into a 3 trillion dollar deficit with their tax cuts, declared a trillion dollar (+) war, and on their way out loots another trillion dollars "bailing out" the banks. The tax payers are 8 trillion dollar suckers!
Don't overthink the video. There's nothing ulterior about it - it's a fun fantasy about the White House dog, roughly equivalent to anybody else's Yahoo video.Kirk - There's nothing "unsound" about building on central concepts that defy the facts. Most Hollywood movies use that strategy. The politics of both major U.S. parties depend upon that strategy. Then, once in office, they ignore any promises that are inconvenient, abandon the people who put them there and do what they want. Welcome to "Change".LilaTovCocktail - You sound like a cat person, but I won't hold it against you.The world isn't nearly as black and white as the two major parties want you to believe. If you can't find something that the Dems are wrong on and the Reps right, or vice versa, then you aren't thinking for yourself, because for the main parties, many of their positions are historical accidents. Their platforms are based upon the historical agglomeration of special interests, rather than the result of principles. alkkemist -Actually, there was never a true surplus, net of Social Security, and the tech bubble was already collapsing before Bush took office. The Sept 11th bombings were a multi-billion dollar hit to the economy and it went down from there. Then Bush's mistakes piled on that. But, if you want to say something nasty about the people bailing out those banks and union-choked car companies and such, then you should look at which party is currently in full control of Congress and the Senate. It was mostly Republicans fighting against the bailouts. Blaming those bills on Bush is nonsense, and you know it.
I just re-read my comment, and noticed I left out an "s" in "witnessed". Unsound spelling!As far as the "unsound concept" goes, Dal, maybe I should have worded it differently. Yes, you can build on an unsound concept, but I just don't happen to think they did.It's not like the Bush administration didn't have experience building on, and then selling, an unsound concept.Look at the war in Iraq.
Post a Comment
Subscribe in a reader