Wednesday, 28 March 2012

Michelle Obama Desecrates White House Yet Again Not

SHARE


A very stupid article in a publication called The Ulsterman Report complains that Michelle Obama is desecrating the 'sacred' precincts of the White House 
'again'  by inviting down market TV programmes to be recorded there - the kind of programmes that rather ordinary, not particularly clever people often like to watch in the afternoons, as opposed to historical dramas made by the BBC, I suppose. And this in the room where Lincoln's corpse was laid out. 

Note the religious importance that is attached to these chief magistrates and the attempt to make believe that this all very antique and historic. The White House is not very old by European standards - they rebuilt it after we burnt it down in 1812 and I wonder how much remains from the rebuilding apart from the shell. And Monica Lewinsky desecrated it before Michelle, as did some say Marilyn Monroe, but they added to the story of the house. Guides will enjoy telling the story of the cigar and the stained dress  to future generations who will not remember which George Bush was which (both invaded Iraq so it will be very confusing).


Kennedy risked the existence of the planet in the Oval Office which some might think even more appalling than a 'workout session' with Michelle Obama or Marilyn Monroe.


I prefer Mr. or Mrs. Obama certainly to a warmonger like Abraham Lincoln, with the blood of millions and an unnecessary, brutal, unjust war on his conscience. But what irritates me as a  monarchist is the question: why do republics invest presidents, their official residences and all the trappings, such as there are, of office with a monarchical aura? The answer of course: because the monarchical principle is part of human nature. Hence Americans refer to  'President Obama' not 'Mr. Obama', as if 'President' were a title of honour like a peerage. It just means chairman.

Jimmy Carter was the only true republican President, with a small 'r', in the 20th Century and he was despised for his humility. His coup de grace I remember was looking very dishevelled and unimpressive while running. Michelle Obama's workout seems unlikely to do her any harm except it seems in Northern Ireland.






5 comments:

  1. I'm not very clear about what these people feel is so awful about using the WH as locus for "down market" television programs.

    I got lost from there to the War of 1812 and Abraham Lincoln.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cyril don't tell me you too find my logic hard to follow. The Americans think Lincoln and the 1860s very ancient - I was brought up to believe that Victorian architecture is not old and old ends at 1837 when Victoria ascended throne. I was saying Lincoln was no hero to be treated like a secular saint and almost anyone else, including Obama, much better. A slightly nuanceless man called Ronnie Smith finds me hard to follow and an Irish poet said he felt like he had had neuro-surgery when he tried to read me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why not include that in the explanation and more about why you think the architecture is NOT old and how that is related to Monica Lewdinsky's affaire with Simon de Montfort's descendant and how those types of events relate to the ancientness of the place, or detract from it, or how those relate to Michelle's "blasphemous" camera work?

    I also think it's ridiculous to refer to the White House in such hallowed terms when the United States is such a secular state. It seems that in their efforts to banish the deeply significant role which religion plays in public life, that some of it has crept into the vacuum.

    Charles Coulombe writes about how American institutions have attempted to adopt the decorum of permanence and tradition of religious institutions.

    Part of the problem are the sentence fragments:

    "The kind of programmes [are?] rather ordinary, not particularly clever people often watch. In the room where Lincoln's corpse was laid out." [fragment]

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well it began as comments on Facebook which may be reason for terse style but although I may be wrong it seems clear to me and I see nothing wrong with fragmentary sentences. I like them. I am not writing Janet and John. But I'll revise it.

    ReplyDelete