And I really don't want to.
If you were wondering what sort of demographic was actually impressed by the Bush address:
Apart from that, though, everything seemed fine. I heard a rumor that the Commie networks (Commie Broadcasting System; Nothing But Commies; and All Bloody Commies) did not deign to carry the President's speech live. Was this true?
If so, there must have been something more important on -- like a baseball playoff game [yawn] or Al Gore [who?] giving a speech to a critical Democrat constituency like the Gay Crippled Latinos Society [snore].
Kim du Toit seems to have favored it. So that's the all-important Deranged White Male demo, right there.
The (current) Mrs. has a blog now, too. Nothing about the Prez, but a few days ago she did say:
The Mister and I got on the subject of Iraq and the U.N. last night. We dug out Jesse Helm's January 2000 speech to the U.N. It was and is a great speech.
It's quite good. I mean, in only three sentences, she's managed to convince me that I don't want to be anywhere near their happy little family, and should offer prayers to any gods which might be paying attention that it never, ever grow.
Unfortunately, there's a bit on homeschooling further down the page, indicating my prayers would come too late. Well, there's always school shootings or something. Are there homeschool shootings? You'd think so, in that house. Or at least hope so.
As for the Helms speech (you're not meant to put a possessive apostrophe inside a proper name like that, right?), for those of us who didn't have a copy handy, the senior Senator from Harkonnen-controlled Arrakis said:
When the distinguished Secretary General, Kofi Annan, was elected, some of us in the Senate decided to try to establish a working relationship. The result is the Helms-Biden law, which President Clinton finally signed into law this past November. The product of three years of arduous negotiations and hard-fought compromises, it was approved by the U.S. Senate by an overwhelming 98 -1 margin. You should read that vote as a virtually unanimous mandate for a new relationship with a reformed United Nations.
You might remember Kofi Annan's predecessor, Boutros Boutrous Ghali:
In the final months prior to the end of Ghali's first term in office it was evident that the United States, the most influential member-state in the UN, did not want him to return to his position. The obscure and dour Egyptian Coptic Christian had become even a domestic political liability to the United States government.
The Republican opposition to then President Clinton routinely cited Ghali as the reason why the American government should not pay its backlog of dues to the United Nations, a development that threatened to cripple the activities of the organization. The money would be wasted anyway, Ghali's critics argued, because they alleged he had failed to rein in the UN's bloated bureaucracy, among other "sins". The American government listened to its domestic critics. At the time Ghali's term came up for renewal, it became well known that the US' attitude was "Anybody But Boutrous".
Or not. That was way back in the previous millennium, and we're meant to be shaking off the dead hand of history teachers. Or something.
Anyway, the U.S. sort'a engineered Ghali's departure and kind'a hand-picked Annan as a replacement, at least in part because he's also from Africa. Some people accept the Afrocentrists' absurd notions about Egypt being part of the continent it's attached to, you see, which is why Ghali taking the spot was seen as something of a victory back in the day.
That's even further back in the mists of time, though. We should look to the future instead of the past.
Doubt there's going to be as much of it, so it'll be easier.