eftychia: Me in kilt and poofy shirt, facing away, playing acoustic guitar behind head (Default)
Add MemoryShare This Entry
posted by [personal profile] eftychia at 02:01am on 2004-08-06

By now y'all will have heard of, probably giggled at, and possibly ranted about the significance of, the latest verbal gaffe by our president. The gist of it is that Bush said his administration is "looking for ways to harm America". Although I've got no love for this administration, nor any inclination to excuse (or fail to mock) Bush's musutterances, my gut reaction to this one differed from what I've been hearing so far.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we,"

When I first heard this, my immediate reaction was, "hey, that can be deliberately misunderstood in a giggleworthy manner," not, "oooh, Bush misspoke," or "he said he's trying to hurt America." No, I heard it as, "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and [in order to stay a step ahead of them] neither do we." So I don't think this is properly a "Bushism", a case of his fumbling or butchering the language, or a Freudian slip. I think the phrasing is a mistake because it's so easy to twist for irony or snarkiness, not because he actually said something stupid.

So laugh it up, but laugh in silly-mode, not in "look, we found another sign he has to go" mode. He does have to go, for all our sakes (my fellow citizens and my foreign friends), but this one doesn't go on the list of reasons. This one is in the "look how clever we can be with language since he gave us an opening" pile, which is a very different thing.

That said, I'll now proceed to giggle.

There are 10 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 
posted by [identity profile] lothie.livejournal.com at 10:55am on 2004-08-06
I disagree. Sure, that's maybe what he MEANT, but that is not what he SAID. It is not up to us to insert those nine words to come to an understanding of what he meant. It's up to him to present his ideas in a manner that cannot be misunderstood. Since he didn't, it's funny, but in a sad way.

I mean, when Quayle talked about "bondage between a mother and child", we all knew what he meant too.

(deleted comment)
 
posted by [identity profile] lothie.livejournal.com at 02:08pm on 2004-08-06
I think I see what you're saying here. I'm not going to feel bad, though, for ignoring my sense of fair play.
 
posted by [identity profile] dglenn.livejournal.com at 01:59pm on 2004-08-06
As I said to [livejournal.com profile] supremeherptile, this is something I'd allow slack for if it had been said by someone I mostly agree with, so my sense of fair play kicks in. Quayle's bondage quote seems (to me) more like other Bush gaffes that I don't give him slack for than this does.
 
posted by [identity profile] lothie.livejournal.com at 02:08pm on 2004-08-06
Er....see my response to the deleted one -- sorry
 
posted by [identity profile] dglenn.livejournal.com at 02:11pm on 2004-08-06
%wince% Sorry. I'd hoped to get the one with the typo in it replaced by the corrected one before you had a chance to reply to the one I was about to delete. I wasn't quick enough.
 
posted by [identity profile] lothie.livejournal.com at 02:20pm on 2004-08-06
Well, I saw the one you deleted first because I got it in email -- don't worry.
zenlizard: Because the current occupation is fascist. (Default)
posted by [personal profile] zenlizard at 12:24pm on 2004-08-06
As someone who often makes fun of the english language, yeah, I can see where you're coming from. But overall, I have to agree with Lothie: it is certainly part of the president's job to communicate clearly. What bush said can be legitimately interpreted in several different ways, some humorous, some alarming, and some merely sad. If he wants to be understood, then he should speak unambiguously.
 
posted by [identity profile] dglenn.livejournal.com at 01:45pm on 2004-08-06
I guess what I'm saying is that this is something I'd let someone I agreed with get away with, so I feel obligated to treat someone like Bush the same way. I'd rather save my "Look, he's an idiot!" attacks for situations that don't make me appear to be just looking for excuses to pounce. Bush already gives us enough legitimate openings.

Grammar-geeking, it can be legitimately interpreted in several different ways, but one of those makes sense in context and is a straightforward interpretation.
zenlizard: Because the current occupation is fascist. (Default)
posted by [personal profile] zenlizard at 05:38am on 2004-08-07
Ah, I see. On one level, we are in agreement. The difference is that if you agreed with someone, you'd let them get away with the statement. If I agreed with someone, and they said what Bush said, I'd still (and usually do) pick on the english of the person I agreed with.

So, yes, from a sense of fair play point of view, I would pick on Bush's statemeng.
 
posted by [identity profile] dglenn.livejournal.com at 12:09pm on 2004-08-07
Fair enough; that makes sense.

Links

January

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31