Duh, McCartney: Bush's Wife Was a 'Librarian' by Tim Slagle 7 Jun 2010 post a comment Share This: Representative Boehner wants an apology from Sir Paul McCartney for his remarks about President Bush. I’ll take that one step further: Not only should he apologize, we should take away his Gershwin Award. I also think the Queen should ask him to relinquish his Knighthood. In a coy, condescending remark, Paul implied that President Bush doesn’t know what a library is. Perhaps the decades of a vegetarian diet has started to cause neurological damage to Sir Paul. I know that he was probably just recycling a Bob Hope classic, but President Bush was married to a librarian. He must have some remembery of that mysterious place where Laura used to work. Of course, perhaps Paul doesn’t think about a wife’s career choice as being valid. Paul’s last wife claimed to be a Model and a Nobel Prize nominee, but turned out to be a prostitute and a compulsive liar. Why was Sir Paul being given this award in the first place? John was always the political Beatle; Paul was just the cute one. His sole contribution to our culture is being, the face on the “Meet the Beatles” album, that American teenagers were most likely to kiss. He did have an ability to craft an infectious song hook, but was always a little deficient when it came to lyrics. It is a well-known point of Beatles trivia, that the original title for “Yesterday” was “Scrambled Eggs.” And who can forget “The Doggone Girl is Mine?” Without the intelligence of John and George, the Beatles would have vanished into bubble gum obscurity alongside other teeny-bopper idols like the Archies and the Monkees. (While I’m at it, what were the Jonas Brothers doing there at the ceremony to honor musical accomplishment?) I can think of few other living performers that have been living on a legacy longer than Paul McCartney. The ten years that the Beatles topped the charts is what carries on for Paul. I defy anyone to name a Paul McCartney song from the last twenty years; much less one they would enjoy listening to, from the past thirty. Shouldn’t an American award be reserved for Americans? Even President Obama hinted that it was inappropriate giving the award to an Englishman: “as we gather here tonight to present this annual award for extraordinary contributions to American music and culture -- that's right, we stole you, Paul -- (laughter).” The Library of Congress was originally founded to preserve all things American. Does Sir Paul really need any more awards? The Queen already knighted him, which is a tribute that has lost its meaning. Even though "Knights" like Paul are no longer expected to be proficient swordsmen, or to travel the world fighting for Christendom, they are expected to behave in a chivalrous manner. With his remark, he also violated one of tenets of the Code of Chivalry: “To refrain from the wanton giving of offence.” An Englishman truly deserving of Sir Paul’s title, would return it with his apology. You probably cannot blame Paul, since his love of pot has left him little time or ability to keep up with things. Like most celebrities, his grasp of events doesn’t go far beyond talking points, and all his American friends probably told him the last president was really dumb. If it were true that we had a president that couldn’t read, that would be shameful indeed. Almost as shameful, as an awarded musician, that couldn’t read a note of music; someone like Paul McCartney. Because in all the uproar over his criticism of the former President, everyone seems to have forgotten one important thing: Paul is musically illiterate, and needs to hire people to transcribe his compositions. You really shouldn't criticize another man's abilities, without "fixing a hole" in your own.