State of the Union Speech a Repeat

fter the excitement of the sports-dominated weekend, Americans faced a rush of new programming afterward, with the exception of some repeats, most notable among them the State of the Union address Tuesday night by President George W. Bush.

Controversy has surrounded the address, as Republicans are quick to agree with Bush's support of tax cuts and military action against Iraq, Democrats aim to poke holes in the president's poor domestic policies, and most Americans convinced the speech is the same one given at the last State of the Union.

"I don't know," said Indianapolis, IN shop teacher Milton Haig, "they kept telling me it was new. I keep thinking I saw some people who weren't there last time, in the audience or in the background… but I'm pretty sure I saw it last time it was on and it was the same thing."

Some would not even entertain doubts about the broadcast, which the White House claims was entirely new material written and beamed live to America Tuesday, January 28, 2003.

"Of course it was a repeat," said Kitty Wong, Big Tobacco publicist. "I remember it clearly when it first aired. Bush said something about terrorism, then he said Saddam Hussein was evil and the U.S. was ready to go to war. Oh, and he said something about tax breaks because the economy can't grow unless people are out spending money and such. Yeah, sure I remember it well—I've seen it at least twice, probably more than that. That's like the Christmas episode or something they drag out whenever they need to fill a slot."

The Bush White House insisted the broadcast was a brand new speech.

"Of course it was a new State of the Union," said antagonistic press secretary Ari Fleischer. "The president, no president, has ever run a repeat of the State of the Union address and President Bush would not be the first—and quit making those little hand 'quote' signs whenever you say President. Tuesday night, despite these rumors and claims, the president put forth a new agenda to lower taxes and stimulate the economy, while clearly outlining his plan to hold Saddam to the disarmament promise he made years ago. And if that takes military force, then we'll use it. That's all new, folks."

The confusion is understandable, said former Newstime editor and quotable commentator Reg Sallad.

"Sometimes news doesn't move as fast as expected, and particularly in a down economy, the president likes to keep attention on foreign issues and potential enemies, and Saddam Hussein has been the outstanding villain for Republicans for more than a decade," said Sallad solemnly. "During periods of prosperity or extreme economic desperation, Americans feel there is no excuse for increasing military spending and sending American troops into war. Americans may be confusing the repetition in party soundbytes since they haven't really changed for either party in at least ten years. Or, it's entirely possible it was just a lame repeat."

Despite the assertion by most politicians that the speech was new and worth discussing, there doesn't seem to be much call for Americans to care either way.

Johann Regal, a Butte, Montana soccer coach: "At least the new TV shows are back on. There's an all-female Fear Factor that looks really hot, and that new Survivor, too. It's about time, those networks were stretching for filler programming lately. Did you see Tuesday night? They were running some 1989 speech by Bush, like right before the Gulf War started."

Muslims Protest Violent Cartoons by Fucking Shit Up

Cheney Comrade Injured During Hunt for Bin Laden

Stealers Wheel Win Super Bowl, Says Heavily Accented Man

Colin Farrell Claims Responsibility for Groin Injury That Sidelined Kwan

I present to you, the King of throw-away island. Slicing a trench into the past, dogwoods spread their sprays like drifting clouds, the most wasteful member of the tree family. "King Trapper of the North" is how they'd like to be remembered. Hardly. Tubers, seeds, runners, corms, bulbs, rhizomes, roots and spores fan out like chuck wagons clattering in a figure eight. A boy sets out; a man returns, chromosomes aligning. Less secret are the lichens, and the groundhogs are without good cause, like spoiled vultures. Shaded by the cursed dogwood. Among the toughest of living things, A.L. van den Brandeler makes quick with the axe to help me single-hand her.

You will feed during summer's abundance, mate, lay eggs and die. Try again later.

º Last Column: Fortune 5
º more columns

It seems like you can't open an unrealistic women's magazine or go game hunting in a daycare center these days without hearing about the nation's weight problem. And it's true, America's been packing on the pounds like a newlywed in Wisconsin since the late 1970's. Why didn't we hear about it until now? Thanks to thinning vertical stripes going out of style a few years ago, we're just now realizing how fat all of our friends and neighbors really are. It's like a Viet Cong of fat ambushing us in the jungle. And the current fashion trend toward Hamburgler-style black and white horizontal stripes certainly hasn't helped, amplifying girth that needed no help and creating a big fat optical illusion at the same time.

But how can a nation seemingly so obsessed with fitness and unattainable standards of beauty also be so hilariously, belt-snappingly fat at the same time? In order to understand this paradox, we must take a look at how America's diet has changed in the last thirty years, the era when America went off its diet like a berserk funnycar and decided nobody could tell it not to drink fat through a straw.

Not long ago was the day when the nation's diet consisted mainly of grain, potatoes, and gas station ham sandwiches. Though not exactly the fish-rice-seaweed trifecta that kept the Japanese wafer-thin and efficiently evil for years, it did well enough and the only fat people back then were those who vaingloriously attempted to live on gas station ham sandwiches alone. Even those fat individuals were a tiny minority, however, since most Americans assumed there must be something in the bible against that kind of thing. Americans did drank a lot of beer, but anybody who tells you beer makes you fat is trying to sell you Lite beer.

Over the years, as technology advanced and Americans sought out new and exciting ways to supplant missing parental love, people began to eat more and more processed foods. Which is industry jargon for remaindered textile wastes and ground up Frisbees. Convenience, plus the thrill of eating something out of a brightly colored box like Crackerjacks used to come in, led to a larger and larger proportion of the American diet consisting of food-shaped industrial byproducts. And as Americans came to demand more convenience, food processors began to shy away from using any actual foods at all, which start to taste funky after being vacuum-sealed in a Mylar bag for three years. By the mid-80's, most of the food Americans were eating consisted mainly of ground carpet remnants coated in flavorful lard. Which sounds awful until you hear what they put in dog food.

The fast food industry accelerated this process, serving up colorful fat-delivery vehicles devoid of depressing nutrients and vegetables in portions big enough to satisfy Uganda. Americans couldn't buy it up fast enough, falling hard for the food-like entrees and pleasantly fabricated environment, a place where The Man wasn't hassling you about eating fiber all the time. The various fast food chains went to great lengths to lure glazed customers their way by offering everything, including napkins, with bacon, and coating the handrails and table tops with a thin layer of rendered cow fat that was absorbed through the skin.

Of course, other factors besides diet have contributed to Americans' booming waistlines. High tech stretch fibers being built into clothes have made being fat more comfortable than ever. In addition, television remote controls, home video pornography and the abolition of sidewalks have nearly eliminated conventional exercise from the average American's daily life.

Perhaps the biggest symbolic blow to a thin America, however, came when Marlon Brando showed the American people that even the beautiful and talented can fall on a fat grenade and blow up like a microwaved marshmallow, so what chance does the average shlub have to stay thin? The sound of French-fry crunching surrender could be heard all across the land, a whisper that has grown into a deafening roar in our current "what the hell" national climate. But is there any hope for a thinner future?

Are you kidding? The only vegetable Americans will eat has to be soaked in oil, fried, and then dusted with pulverized beef balls before it can sneak into our stomachs. We're screwed. Fat and screwed. Sleep tight.

º Last Column: How the Internet Works
º more columns