Bush's "Careful Word Choice"
Or:
More on the Dumbest Man On The Internet
O.k., now, we face a familiar dilemma here. A partisan moron asserts that black is white, that freedom is slavery, that ignorance is strength, or whatever.
Now: we can either just ignore the dumb SOB, or we can refute him. If we ignore him, he and his partisan hangers-on will walk away smugly, and that is annoying. If we refute him, we seem to have in some sense dignified his idiotic position with a response--a response that cannot really be effective in the sense we hope for, because anyone who would say something that stupid in the first place almost certainly cannot be reasoned with.
But we can't help ourselves, can we?
And by 'we', of course, I mean: me.
Here's a big, fat, slow pitch down the middle...the slowest of slow-moving targets...who can resist the urge to hit it out of the park, to blow it in twain?
Who I ask you???
Not me, that's for sure.
Let's just pick one of the almost uncountably-large number of Bush F-ups. And let's stick just to the ones very early in his administration. And let's just stick to ones that are, oh, let's say fifty or so times more serious than the alleged Obama blunder that Hindrocket & co. are on about. And let's just stick to the ones that are of a similar type. So: we're leaving about 99% of Bush's screw ups entirely out of the picture. We're tying 99% of our hands behind our backs here.
Let's just consider one of my favorites: Bush accidentally changing our policy toward Taiwan--and in such a way as to increase the likelihood of war with China. Three months into his Presidency.
Man, that guy really can choose his words carefully, huh?
But of course you can't refute people like Buttmissile. Remember: they do not care about the facts. This is not about facts, this is not about truth, this is not about reason. Folks like the Powerline crew and the Freepers etc. are reverting to their childhood and asserting the things they wish were true. It's a kind of catharsis. It feels so good to say the thing you hoped for, the thing you want to be true but which isn't, that those without much integrity or intellectual self-control just can't help themselves. Then set up the wingnut echo-chamber, where other, equally intellectually incontinent basket cases will enter into a chorus of affirmation...and what you've got is a blueprint for moral and intellectual disaster. A large group of people bootstrapping and groupthinking their way into a complete fantasy world.
That's some f*cked up sh*t right there, my friends.
Or:
More on the Dumbest Man On The Internet
O.k., now, we face a familiar dilemma here. A partisan moron asserts that black is white, that freedom is slavery, that ignorance is strength, or whatever.
Now: we can either just ignore the dumb SOB, or we can refute him. If we ignore him, he and his partisan hangers-on will walk away smugly, and that is annoying. If we refute him, we seem to have in some sense dignified his idiotic position with a response--a response that cannot really be effective in the sense we hope for, because anyone who would say something that stupid in the first place almost certainly cannot be reasoned with.
But we can't help ourselves, can we?
And by 'we', of course, I mean: me.
Here's a big, fat, slow pitch down the middle...the slowest of slow-moving targets...who can resist the urge to hit it out of the park, to blow it in twain?
Who I ask you???
Not me, that's for sure.
Let's just pick one of the almost uncountably-large number of Bush F-ups. And let's stick just to the ones very early in his administration. And let's just stick to ones that are, oh, let's say fifty or so times more serious than the alleged Obama blunder that Hindrocket & co. are on about. And let's just stick to the ones that are of a similar type. So: we're leaving about 99% of Bush's screw ups entirely out of the picture. We're tying 99% of our hands behind our backs here.
Let's just consider one of my favorites: Bush accidentally changing our policy toward Taiwan--and in such a way as to increase the likelihood of war with China. Three months into his Presidency.
Man, that guy really can choose his words carefully, huh?
But of course you can't refute people like Buttmissile. Remember: they do not care about the facts. This is not about facts, this is not about truth, this is not about reason. Folks like the Powerline crew and the Freepers etc. are reverting to their childhood and asserting the things they wish were true. It's a kind of catharsis. It feels so good to say the thing you hoped for, the thing you want to be true but which isn't, that those without much integrity or intellectual self-control just can't help themselves. Then set up the wingnut echo-chamber, where other, equally intellectually incontinent basket cases will enter into a chorus of affirmation...and what you've got is a blueprint for moral and intellectual disaster. A large group of people bootstrapping and groupthinking their way into a complete fantasy world.
That's some f*cked up sh*t right there, my friends.
10 Comments:
Incidentally, this just popped up:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/bush.post.presidency/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Mystic,
Bush is just too modest to say how nearly perfect he's been. Which brings us to another important point that I'm sure Hinderaker just hasn't gotten around to making yet. Obama's going to be in trouble if he doesn't display the same modesty and humility that has been a hallmark of the Bush administration.
Or it's because of Bush's well-known willingness--nay, eagerness--to admit error. His intellectual/moral conscience is so finely-tuned that he regrets things that you and I would never even see as errors. In fact, he feels regret for words and actions that mere mortals would usually be proud of. There are subtle ways in which some of Bush's assertions have been sub-optimal, and he can't be satisfied with anything less than perfection.
Jesus that's one helluva guy.
So true, WS. That he's a great president and a better man is beyond doubt. The only question left for history to decide is whether he is really more like Churchill or Lincoln.
So very, VERY true, R.
But why choose? He's more like a synthesis of Churchill AND Lincoln. Plus a dash of Jesus. And Einstein.
Without Bush's brilliant leadership, I shudder to think what the last eight years might have been like...
Why settle for such historical lightweights as Churchill, Lincoln, Jesus, and Einstein? Let's go in whole hog: he's the next Reagan!
Caligula.
LOL...right! Reagan! And the "Bush is Reagan" theme was already alive on the right...tho, again, now that Palin is Reagan, I'm not sure whether Bush can be Reagan anymore...
I sense a forthcoming Bush-Palin-Reagan trinity theory...
But, Mystic, the Republican party already seems to be in enough disunity without the spectre of a schism over the question of whether Palin proceeds from both the persons of Reagan and Bush or merely from the person Reagan.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home