Skip

Obligatory link
January 29, 2002 6:31 PM   Subscribe

Obligatory link to the state of the union address. I'm surprised that there isn't a play by play thread yet. Comments?
posted by yangwar (105 comments total)

 
There should probably be at least 2-3 flash animations too. What gives?
posted by syscom at 6:34 PM on January 29, 2002


Ummmm...who is this sitting with the first lady?

-- James Hoffa, the head of the Teamsters Union, who has helped the administration lobby lawmakers for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

We are drilling in a wildlife refuge? Huh? I'm no PETA freak, but this seems a bit odd.
posted by Benway at 6:39 PM on January 29, 2002


I'm just mad that I'm not at home. Then I could be playing the State of the Union Address Drinking Game instead of "working".
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:40 PM on January 29, 2002


I'm listening on the radio.

Bush is stammering all over the place. He's trying too hard to sound like he knows what he is talking about. He doesn't.

I've never been one to care about Bush's grammar (I ain't got perfect grammar either), but I'm wondering if he even read this speech through once they handed him his copy.

The speech seems to be the standard State of the Union, nothing that special one way or the other.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 6:41 PM on January 29, 2002


Well, the president just made fun of Ted Kennedy.
posted by j.edwards at 6:42 PM on January 29, 2002


The part I was waiting for has already come on. Bush announces the largest increase in military spending in 20 years, then says that we can still come in under budget if Congress spends wisely.
posted by Hildago at 6:43 PM on January 29, 2002


I really could have done without the whole "axis of evil" schtick.
posted by aramaic at 6:45 PM on January 29, 2002


okay, wait a minute. did anybody else find the transition between past and future tense toward the middle of the story a little odd?

i mean, i know cnn has an advance copy of the speech, and wrote this piece before bush even stepped to the podium, but the lead and the first few graphs proceed under the pretext that they've been written after the fact. then, all of the sudden:

"The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons," Bush is expected to say.

i think they actually transition into the future tense in the paragraph above that one, but i interpreted that graph as predicting bush's future actions the first time i read it.

and then there's the mention of delay before he's properly introduced, like those two graphs got switched.

i understand deadlines, but this isn't exactly breaking news. you'd think cnn would do a decent proofread before they posted?
posted by damn yankee at 6:47 PM on January 29, 2002


(after half a glass of wine, i am intensely paranoid that i may have made a typo in that last post ... )
posted by damn yankee at 6:48 PM on January 29, 2002


Play by Play:
War war war, money, war, pause for applause, war war, money money money, stammer, slip up, war money, money war, hey guys, lets not bicker and lets work together to do what I want, pause for applause, money, money, war, war, stammer, money money money, rhetoric, silly shtick, wash, rinse, repeat.

Bah. Who elected this fool?

Oh that's right, No one knows.
posted by fuq at 6:48 PM on January 29, 2002


okay, so i don't have a tv or a radio, and i didn't realize that the speech was literally still happening. i feel like a bit of an ass, but i still think cnn's story is odd.
posted by damn yankee at 6:49 PM on January 29, 2002


"They are as wrong as they are evil."
posted by Hildago at 6:51 PM on January 29, 2002


Financially, this speech is pure fantasy. Spend spend spend, reduce taxes reduce taxes reduce taxes. I think we're near the end now, he's looking kinda sleepy. Overall, I feel kind of dirty after listening to this, the constant Sept. 11 references are quite panderous. Not that I expected anything less. (From Bush or anyone else)
posted by joemaller at 6:55 PM on January 29, 2002


Our new creed is "Let's Roll?" Too many ecstasy connotations for me...
posted by emptyage at 6:55 PM on January 29, 2002


"They are as wrong as they are evil."

Yeah, the moment I heard that, I realized that would be a phrase that would enter my every day vernacular.

"What? That car thinks he's going to cut me off at the light? Hmph. They are as wrong as they are evil."
posted by warhol at 6:56 PM on January 29, 2002


'MERICA'S NEW CREED:
LETS ROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
also:FREEDOM CORPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is the first time even I've EVER laughed so hard I nearly pissed myself during a state of the union address. God bless you George, you're funnier than most professional comedians.
posted by fuq at 6:56 PM on January 29, 2002


It's really stupid to talk about Enron without saying the name ENRON.

Uh, let's roll...
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 6:59 PM on January 29, 2002


Lies, Lies [no mention of the Enron] Scandal, and Lies!
posted by jpoulos at 6:59 PM on January 29, 2002


This doesn't even qualify as a "speech" in my book. It's nothing more than a series of bullshit soundbites strung together. It's absurd. At one point it was beyond "applause after every sentence" - it was applause after every phrase. At least I know I won't be missing anything when I change the channel to MTV's "the Real World."
posted by dnash at 6:59 PM on January 29, 2002


Is this the bizarro-freerepublic now?
posted by dagny at 7:02 PM on January 29, 2002


I heard that this speech went through 25 edits, and this is what you people come up with? Good lord, don't they have any decent speechwriters in the US?

I've never heard a State of the Union that could be described as good, but I feel pretty comfortable in saying that this one is bad.
posted by aramaic at 7:04 PM on January 29, 2002


It's over! Thank God. Speaking of which, let's let George bring God back into politics/schools/military. Oh, by the way, God: let's roll.
posted by bloggboy at 7:04 PM on January 29, 2002


So... When do we bomb Iran?
posted by emptyage at 7:06 PM on January 29, 2002


USA Freedom Corps. Site goes live Jan 30.
posted by warhol at 7:07 PM on January 29, 2002


Let's roll is minimally distinguishable from "if it feels good, do it."
posted by rschram at 7:12 PM on January 29, 2002


It's nothing more than a series of bullshit soundbites strung together.

That's pretty much what every State of the Union address I've seen has been, with little vidbites to show the occasional war widow, hero stewardess, or man o' the cloth. I agree this was delivered less skillfully than many, but contentwise it seemed pretty standard.
posted by rodii at 7:13 PM on January 29, 2002


Bah. Dear lord, that was an awful speech. I know 6th graders who could write a better one.

And so, Bush basically proposes doubling the defense budget, making sure that we don't spend money on anything else to calm the small-government people, says that we're going to bomb whomever we damn well feel like, and that, despite our enitre nation being in a state of virtual collapse, hey! everything's a-okay.

Humbug. That is all I can say. Humbug.
posted by Theiform at 7:17 PM on January 29, 2002


I've just realized that the state of the union wasn't a joke. George meant every word he said. The same person that gave that speech is THE LEADER OF THE NATION.

It boggles the mind.
posted by fuq at 7:17 PM on January 29, 2002


It was all right. Members of Congress always applaud every five seconds in these speeches, and the prez always proposes too much spending and talks BS (the worst this time: Hey! Y'all get the accounting together already, or I'll . . .). I actually like the national service bit, though. Makes more sense than calls for more shopping. It's a long, long, long overdue thing.

"Let's roll" was the line heard via cell phone before an apparent struggle between passengers and hijackers in the Penn. crash, for those totally not in the know. Implies a joint effort, and not, "If it feels good, do it." Methinks most people caught that. So what if it's too slangy-sounding?
posted by raysmj at 7:18 PM on January 29, 2002


That was trim after eight years of Clinton's two-hour extravaganzas. How long was it?
posted by swerve at 7:18 PM on January 29, 2002


"I heard that this speech went through 25 edits,"

This is the speech you get after 25 edits and approvals by at least 7 staffers. Every element of passion and blunt truth is systematically eliminated so all we get is a watered down, in-offensive pile of crap. Mind you I'm making the assumption that the original was worth anything. Which I doubt.
posted by madmanz123 at 7:19 PM on January 29, 2002


Some of you didn't hear the speech? Gosh, that's horrible. Here's a synopsis:

Hey all,

America is a good country. We're a strong country, and we're proud of it. We're having some problems right now, but don't think we couldn't still kick your ass. Our ass has a proud tradition of proudly kicking the ass of anything that stands in our way, and with the help of several different types of heroes, and adding more money to the pile of money from which our designated ass-kickers remove money in order to kick asses, we will kick more ass than ever. (applause)

I think Americans should be happy. (applause) America is happy. (applause) America should continue to be happy, though make no mistake, there is no guarantee. To ensure happiness, I not only vow to kick ass, but to get others to help me. People who do not want us to be happy are bad.

In closing, do not question me. (applause)
posted by Hildago at 7:23 PM on January 29, 2002


Well, Gephardt made the standard response and actually made some sense among all the standard stuff you would expect him to say.

He didn't stammer all over the place either, so he wins, I guess.

Hey, let's roll.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 7:23 PM on January 29, 2002


Hey, you guys are being so negative! What will the Freepers think?
posted by rodii at 7:25 PM on January 29, 2002


Homer Simpson: "No honey, it's pronounced nuke-u-lar."

George W. Bush: "Nuke-u-lar."
posted by stopgap at 7:25 PM on January 29, 2002


""Axis of Evil". Someone let him read that Spysmasher comic from 1945 again, didn't they?"

"John Ashcroft: "No boobies. I better not see no boobies.""

I have some play by play on my site...
posted by owillis at 7:29 PM on January 29, 2002


The part I found strange is when he proposed taking the DNA of the good dead presidents and cloning them.

I thought my butt looked big.

thanks.
posted by zenhues at 7:36 PM on January 29, 2002


"I really could have done without the whole "axis of evil" schtick".

But it's true -- there IS an axis of evil -- and I mean bad, dirty, cowardly, misanthropic, capable-of-anything evil -- and it is pointed squarely at US. Us meaning the United States and other freedom-loving countries that are governed by the people, ruled by law, and tolerant of fellow citizens. I don't know about you, but I feel much better knowing that we are actually DOING something to hunt down these evil people and put them out of business, instead of just lobbing a missile or two at a factory in the Sudan. President Bush is the right person for this war on global terrorism; he "gets" it - the stakes, the importance, the meaning -- and his speech tonight was very good, in fact.
posted by davidmsc at 7:37 PM on January 29, 2002


(ducking)
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 7:39 PM on January 29, 2002


blech. who could not get the "let's roll" reference? i know my local classic rock station is playing that freaking neil young song to death. (and yes, every time i hear it, i think my cell phone is ringing. i wonder how much sprint is getting in royalties?)
posted by damn yankee at 7:39 PM on January 29, 2002


I discussed with a friend exactly what this thread would be like at about 3pm(eastern) today. Really should have blogged it. I'd love to comment substantatively on the speech (since hardly any one else seems to be interested in it) but I've got to go see if there are any job openings for psychics...
posted by revbrian at 7:50 PM on January 29, 2002


But it's true -- there IS an axis of evil -- and I mean bad, dirty, cowardly, misanthropic, capable-of-anything evil -- and it is...
...currently running this country.
posted by quonsar at 7:55 PM on January 29, 2002


whoa Quonsar what happened dude, I thought you liked bush!
posted by chaz at 8:18 PM on January 29, 2002


I do love to hear Republicans bad-mouthing Clinton for only lobbing missiles at bin Laden; They've conveniently forgotten that at the time they were busily second-guessing him in the exact opposite direction for so rudely interrupting their extracurricular blowjob investigation.
posted by boaz at 8:20 PM on January 29, 2002


That's a fantastic oversimplification boaz, and it quite fits the rest of the thread!
posted by revbrian at 8:30 PM on January 29, 2002


By initiating the new motto "Let's Roll," we invoke in would-be terrorists the image of a just and powerful nation tearing out of a parking lot in a souped-up convertible fueled by freedom and powered by heroes.
posted by Hildago at 8:34 PM on January 29, 2002


Someday they're going to build cities around that speech.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:41 PM on January 29, 2002


...or perhaps rebuild cities, from the rubble.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:42 PM on January 29, 2002


A souped-up convertible? No freakin way -- there's gotta be carpeting on the ceiling, and you can't do that in a convertible.

...or maybe an El Camino, with astroturf in back.
posted by aramaic at 8:42 PM on January 29, 2002


It was a great speech right up to the point where he mentioned that Canada and Mexico will be admitted to the Union if they promise to keep sending us cheap lumber and Tequila...
posted by Mack Twain at 8:46 PM on January 29, 2002


"But it's true -- there IS an axis of evil -- and I mean bad, dirty, cowardly, misanthropic, capable-of-anything evil -- and it is..."

"...currently running this country."


... a country where you can express this sort of cynical sentiment towards the leadership in the government and not be arrested for it. Or killed. I really do wish people that feel like this could spend even a few days in a country with a genuinely repressive regime. Do you think there's a chance you'll wake up in the middle of the night tonight fighting for breath, and with your last few moments of life realize your entire village is dying from the poison gas your government just dusted your city with?

I'm sure there will be some pithy response to this notion, because we have the luxury to play around with concepts. And you may not like Bush at all. But there are governments that delibrately keep their polulations at the 1st level of Maslow's hierarchy, that arrest, and sometimes imprison and torture people for believing in the wrong religion, that tell women that for them a calculus textbook is considered contraband, and possession is subject to stiffer penalties than most nations impose for a pound of pot ... nations that simply drag people out into soccer fields and blow their brains out in front of crowds.

Unless you are arrested and imprisoned tomorrow morning for writing what you just wrote, I think you just do not understand what living under an evil government really means - if you did, you just flat out would not make that statement.

That speech had a good deal of substance to it ...

" ... We have no intention of imposing our culture -- but America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law ... limits on the power of the state ... respect for women ... private property ... free speech ... equal justice ... and religious tolerance ...".

You may say this was all fluff, delivered by an evil regime, but there are many thousands still in this world for whom "the non-negotiable demands of human dignity" is not just rhetoric to be tossed around intellectually and reacted to cynically, but is a statement of their deepest yearnings (that they do not even dare speak in public).
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:55 PM on January 29, 2002


Howdy rev, thanks for the nod there. I hope you ain't gonna turn this into one of those 'It's-not-the-sex-it's-the-lying' things; that's so 1998.

If you're interested, here's a good link to a much less simplified version of those events. Sorry if my attempts to punch it up a little struck you as over-simplified, but I (and indeed most of America) do have a quite good memory of the Republican Gestalt from that period.
posted by boaz at 9:10 PM on January 29, 2002


I'd love to comment substantatively on the speech (since hardly any one else seems to be interested in it)...

Well, I made some comments upthread.

It was a bad speech and the delivery will make Bush prone to an all-new barrage of he's-a-dumbass jokes.

I can't believe they're feeling too good about it at the White House right now.They'll feel better after they see Bush bounce back over 90% in the polls.

That speech had a good deal of substance to it ...

This was the same State of the Union rah-rah speech America always gets , no matter who the President is and very poorly delivered.

Unless you are arrested and imprisoned tomorrow morning for writing what you just wrote...

We will be, if America continues in the current direction it's going.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 9:10 PM on January 29, 2002


Midas, just for the sake of argument: Evil is not made good by comparison to a larger evil, it just becomes a lesser evil.

We have no intention of imposing our culture

If you believe that, you've never eaten a Whopper in Bangkok, or sipped Coca-Cola in Casablanca, or stopped into a 7-11 on the Champs Elysees. But even if you haven't, you could.

Also, Bush is on record in a State Department document saying nearly the complete opposite:
"As we export American goods and services, we also export American values."
posted by joemaller at 9:24 PM on January 29, 2002


I suspect that most Americans that have the opportunity to visit oppressive totalitarian regimes and witness the conditions themselves are there on business.

Now that's cynical.
posted by dglynn at 9:28 PM on January 29, 2002


a country where you can express this sort of cynical sentiment towards the leadership in the government and not be arrested for it. Or killed. I really do wish people that feel like this could spend even a few days in a country with a genuinely repressive regime.

Isn't the internet globally accessible? You don't have to live in the USA and be graced with the perception that you have rights to communicate in order to communicate. I point you to an earlier thread that might compel you to choose your comrades more carefully. Unless you're a millionaire+, you're better served caring about your own rights and those in the community's around you, not the ineffectual innuendo of a rich anti-intellectual.
posted by crasspastor at 9:32 PM on January 29, 2002


Here is the text of the speech.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 9:55 PM on January 29, 2002



As we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers. Yet the state of our union has never been stronger.


I think he left out, "freedom is slavery."
posted by electro at 10:00 PM on January 29, 2002


This thread consists of nothing but the traditionally sophomoric and irrationally biased rhetoric many of you spit out in regards to any issue.

Why did you even bother to listen to the speech?
posted by John Galt at 10:04 PM on January 29, 2002


Here is a front page a dittohead can love.

I think Karl Rove is now in charge of the Washington Post.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 10:04 PM on January 29, 2002


He did not say, "Let's roll." I refuse to believe that. What is this, Convoy? Never mind where that phrase came from; as a call to action, it's...directly aimed at most Americans, rouses righteous indignation while pointing it nowhere, and cynically evokes the bravery of people for his own political agenda. *sigh*

Not that I'd expect anything less from a Democrat, mind you.

Did I miss anything sexy?
posted by solistrato at 10:05 PM on January 29, 2002


For too long our culture has said, "If it feels good, do it." Now America is embracing a new ethic and a new creed: "Let's roll."
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 10:10 PM on January 29, 2002


I suspect that most Americans that have the opportunity to visit oppressive totalitarian regimes and witness the conditions themselves are there on business.

This is probably true. It is also probably true that for many of those nations, the entrance of American businesspeople is the most likely avenue through which that totalitarianism will ultimately be replaced.

Midas, just for the sake of argument: Evil is not made good by comparison to a larger evil, it just becomes a lesser evil.

True. But there are orders of magnitude. People can do things that are wrong without being "evil".

We have no intention of imposing our culture

If you believe that, you've never eaten a Whopper in Bangkok, or sipped Coca-Cola in Casablanca, or stopped into a 7-11 on the Champs Elysees. But even if you haven't, you could.


Yes ... and within walking distance of my apartment are Thai, Morracan, and French restaurants. Does that mean they are "imposing" their cultures on me? No it means enough people actually desire that food to keep their businesses going. Which is the same thing it means in Bangkok, Casablanca, and Paris.
posted by MidasMulligan at 10:21 PM on January 29, 2002


you have to wonder what bush's use of "let's roll" is going to do to the trademark claim.
posted by jimw at 10:35 PM on January 29, 2002


"lets roll" ...I can't wait to see the pothead novelties for this one. actually, I can!
posted by mcsweetie at 10:38 PM on January 29, 2002


"It was a bad speech and the delivery will make Bush prone to an all-new barrage of he's-a-dumbass jokes.

I can't believe they're feeling too good about it at the White House right now."


They're probably feeling quite good about it at the White House. Believe it or not, deeply cynical discussion boards -that now and then verge on apparently utter and complete hatred of the president - may actually not be a representative sample of the US population.
posted by MidasMulligan at 10:42 PM on January 29, 2002


I thought it was a middling speech. Not nearly as bad as the ones he gives off the top of his head, but his speech right after 9.11 was very good (to me, a Bushbasher). The bar is always lower for him with regard to public speaking (and most everything else). Reagan and Clinton were much better speechmakers, with Bush I only slightly better than his son.
posted by owillis at 10:55 PM on January 29, 2002


Nuclear - pronounce it Nu-klee-ar, or nu-kleer, or even nu-klee-ur (or worst case, like Slim Pickens, say nuke'lr) . Please. for God's sake, for America's sake... for Freedom's sake... Say it with me George. Sound it out, look at how the word is spelled...

Every time Dubya sez "Nookyular" I cringe. I curl up and completely ignore any message he's trying to convey. All I can think is "My God, he just murdered that poor word... In front of the whole world..."
posted by kokogiak at 11:04 PM on January 29, 2002


clap clap clap...... clap clap clap... crap crap crap.
more of the same from the state of the union address.
posted by howa2396 at 11:08 PM on January 29, 2002


within walking distance of my apartment are Thai, Morracan, and French restaurants.

Midas, that is a great response, and a very interesting point, even if I don't necessarily agree with your original statement.
posted by Doug at 11:30 PM on January 29, 2002


Let's roll is minimally distinguishable from "if it feels good, do it."

...and the Sloan song is minimally better than the Neil Young song.
posted by Bearman at 11:31 PM on January 29, 2002


There was a speech?

I try to avoid watching the Bush whenever possible. He just forces me to mutter "asshole" to myself every 30 seconds.

Sometimes I get the feeling that this administration might be the last hurrah for the republicans for a while. He didn't win anyway. Then there is the recent article mentioning how more college freshmen consider themselves "liberal" since any time since the 60s, and i think it is adding up to a big Democratic gains next time around.

The media says his "approval rating" is high, but approval doesn't mean "i'll vote for this guy."

Just look as metafilter... we are a bunch of left wing bush-haters. :) I think it is spreading.
posted by benh57 at 12:08 AM on January 30, 2002


Yo Joe!!!
"They fight for freedom wherever there's trouble - GI Joe is there!!"

This is so cool. I want to join the Freedom Corps; my name shall be "Crankcase". I will be a sullen yet earnest special vehicle wizard who is never at a loss for a smartass quip. And whenever Destro escapes, I shall shake my fist skyward and shout, "Damn you, Destro!!!"

And I always, Always will "overcome evil with greater good."

Of course, I can't join if I have to give up my membership to the Blue Blaze Irregulars. Buckaroo needs me to be on call 24 hours a day already. The Lectroids and The World Crie League keep us on our toes!
posted by Perigee at 12:16 AM on January 30, 2002


many thousands still in this world for whom "the non-negotiable demands of human dignity" is not just rhetoric to be tossed around intellectually and reacted to cynically, but is a statement of their deepest yearnings (that they do not even dare speak in public).

And you're intimating that Bush and his ilk are amongst those who believe thiese things? How sad. It's advertising, and not particularly effective advertising at that, and if you believe that your politicians mindlessly mouthing phrases like "no intention of imposing our culture" and "the non-negotiable demands of human dignity" somehow equates to them believing in those things, or doing anything about them, I've got some swamp land in Florida you might be interested in, as the vicar said to the garbageman.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:18 AM on January 30, 2002


On the one hand it is a very tough time to give a speech-- the economy is tanking, the 'war' has been only a limited success and may be just beginning in ernest, and the public is over it's rah-rah period. The bar I was in had the television on and the volume up, and barely anyone was paying attention. This was a somewhat conservative (but still left-coast) upscale neighborhood bar with an afterwork crowd in it.

I have to believe that among that crowd, if we had a compelling president with compelling things to say, at a time like this everyone in the room would be watching. On the other hand, I can't think of a president in my lifetime (I'm in my mid-thirties) who would have commanded that attention. Democracy often fails us when it comes to strong, vibrant leaders who we really care about and are the complete package. Hopefully the system itself, for all its beurocracy (or more likely because of it), will be strong enough to filter the weaknesses and keep the nation's best resource, it's people, strong and healthy.
posted by chaz at 12:27 AM on January 30, 2002


excuse the spelling mistake(s?) I just got home from said bar...
posted by chaz at 12:28 AM on January 30, 2002


> Believe it or not, [Metafilter members] may actually
> not be a representative sample of the US population.

True. Much of America is, yes, dummer, less educated, less in touch with the world. That sort eats up moronisms of the "Let's Roll" sort.
posted by pracowity at 12:36 AM on January 30, 2002


True. Much of America is, yes, dummer,

Irony, thy name is elitism.
posted by owillis at 12:43 AM on January 30, 2002


True. Much of America is, yes, dummer, less educated, less in touch with the world.

Not to mention the other half who prefers optimism over cynicism, patriotism over sarcasm, and is probably as a general rule happier for it. Some people in America actually try to do positive things to influence government, rather than pointless bitching and nitpicking. The nerve of those bastards.


That sort eats up moronisms of the "Let's Roll" sort.

Just like "that sort" ate up moronisms of the "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" sort?
posted by canoeguide at 1:09 AM on January 30, 2002


[True. Much of America is, yes, dummer, less educated, less in touch with the world. That sort eats up moronisms of the "Let's Roll" sort.]

Thanks for coming out of the closet as a elitist. Believe it or not there are genuine differences of opinion in this world not caused by ignorance, or lack of intelligence. As a general rule I don't accuse those on the other side of the issue of being uneducated or stupid, just wrong on the issue.

Making broad accusations on someones 'intelligence' or 'education' says quite a bit about your inability to articulate the merit's of your case.
posted by revbrian at 4:11 AM on January 30, 2002


... and if you believe that your politicians mindlessly mouthing phrases like "no intention of imposing our culture" and "the non-negotiable demands of human dignity" somehow equates to them believing in those things, or doing anything about them, I've got some swamp land in Florida you might be interested in, as the vicar said to the garbageman.

Funny thing ... this is exactly what Bush is doing in Afghanistan. He is standing up for "the non-negotiable demands of human dignity". Force was used to oust the Taliban - but we didn't occupy, in fact went way out of our way to make certain a government formed of people in the region itself takes over. The new leader has just announced that elections will be held in two years.

In short, Bush both believes it, and is doing something pretty damn effective about it.

Ask the Afghani's currently dancing to music for the first time in years who they think is "doing something about it" - Bush, or the people that will put on puppet shows this week in New York.
posted by MidasMulligan at 4:17 AM on January 30, 2002


Nope. Not good enough. Neither he nor his predecessor were standing up for human dignity in Afghanistan before September 11. They were standing back, whistling nonchalantly, while the Taliban did what they wished with the 'human dignity' of women, and of men for that matter, while they blew up ancient Buddhist monuments...you must see where I'm going with this.

I'm forced to reiterate - I do not believe for a second that there is any true connection, other than the ones of irony and black, black humour, between the phrases we've been quoting, and what is happening in Afghanistan and elsewhere, including within America itself, importantly. The fact that there may well be a better country called Afghanistan than there has been for the past 30 years or so after all is said and done, and this is attributable in no small part ot the military actions that America has undertaken (solely in its own interests, let the be no mistake), is a good thing.

But there is no way that I, for one, will believe that the president bumbling his way through phrases like "the non-negotiable demands of human dignity", which were written for him by someone else to read off a fucking teleprompter anyway, indicates that such noble concepts are anything but an after-the-fact whitewash.

If you choose to believe differently, Midas, that's your prerogative. I just think it's dangerously naive.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:22 AM on January 30, 2002


"... It was a bad speech and the delivery will make Bush prone to an all-new barrage of he's-a-dumbass jokes. I can't believe they're feeling too good about it at the White House right now."

Apparently a lot of Americans Americans beg to differ.
posted by MidasMulligan at 5:26 AM on January 30, 2002


Much of America is, yes, dummer, less educated, less in touch with the world.

Let's just say that people who post and read metafilter are of an equal level of education and intelligence as the population at large, and have attended, on average, the same number of years of college. If we all stay PC, we can all be happy together :)
posted by Loudmax at 5:30 AM on January 30, 2002


Apologies for the misspellings. I was on a roll.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:30 AM on January 30, 2002


> I was on a roll.

"Bah-ha-ha-ha-ha," laughed the elitist shamelessly.

> Let's just say that people who post and read metafilter
> are of an equal level...

Oh, that's right. Thanks for reminding me. I forgot to pretend everyone's the same.
posted by pracowity at 7:10 AM on January 30, 2002


" ... I just think it's dangerously naive ..."

If I "choose to believe differently"? So anyone that doesn't have the same opinion you do is naive? I'd be willing to bet I've seen a considerably larger amount of the world than you have (we can compare frequent flier miles if you want), and have also met and talked to both government and corporate leaders, both socially and in the course of business. You are flat out wrong if you think most of these people don't genuinely try to do what is good ... and really do want a world in which freedom and prosperity are widespread.

You may disagree with their concept of what the good is, and may disagree with the means they choose to attempt to further it - but if you want to question their attitudes, intentions and integrity, it is not "naive" to think they are motivated in part by ideals much bigger than their own selfish interests, and that they do believe in the "the non-negotiable demands of human dignity". In fact it is your attitudes and intentions that are somewhat questionable.

If you want to see the world through glasses clouded by bitterness, well, "that's your prerogative" ... but I might ask you to consider that well intended people that genuinely desire the good can come to dramatically different opinions about how to conceive and act upon it ... and that to automatically assume that any corporate or political leader has only utterly selfish interests in mind, and is not capable of genuine, high and noble intentions is the sign of a mind whose perceptions are seriously distored by cynicism.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:47 AM on January 30, 2002




So, Midas..... would you say that our government has been trying to work against Taliban rule from before Sept 11th? And, would you be able to back that up with references?

I sure hope so, because it would make me feel a whole lot better about the USA.
posted by dwivian at 8:17 AM on January 30, 2002


"Together with friends and allies from Europe to Asia, from Africa to Latin America, we will demonstrate that the forces of terror cannot stop the momentum of freedom."

I was amazed that he got through this sentence without a fumble. I sat up and applauded.

In other news, I liked his tie.
posted by swerve at 8:42 AM on January 30, 2002


"As we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers. Yet the state of our union has never been stronger."

As my somewhat cynical, probably-not-a-morning-person OPB announcer said this morning, "If you say so."

Which is a pretty good summation of how I feel with the current administration. There's so much uncertainty on my part about what Bush & Friends are doing with our nation. The fact that he seems to be twisting issues left and right, trying to make something break: Re-opening the abortion debate; changing policies on Presidential records; military tribunals; etc. It's a scary, scary world and I fear what the politicos are contributing to it.

In Portland yesterday, apparently they were staging drills downtown in the event of a biological disaster. Officials were quoted as saying that this will help them prepare for similar attacks like we've seen in the recent past. Then they went on to say that they were preparing in the event of a bomb carrying biological weapons.

A bomb.

And I'm thinking, that's not what the recent biological incident was! It was little paper envelopes passed through many hands and buildings. Not a bomb. A bomb seems almost easier.

Same thing with some of the new security measures going on at airports. I'm not saying they aren't warrented but they are overdue. Many of the measures appear to be directed at suitcases going on planes without the associated passenger. This is all well and good but when was the last time a bomb went off in the cargohold of a passenger plane? What's fresh in my mind is the group of individuals wielding box cutters -- what do we do there?

So, this State of the Union address was rather typical in the history of addresses. It was rather typical in a very atypical time. I find that unsettling.
posted by amanda at 9:30 AM on January 30, 2002


Did he mention the name "Osama bin Laden" even once?
posted by muckster at 9:39 AM on January 30, 2002


Look, I'm a very strong supporter of The War Vs. TerrorTM but neither Bill Clinton, Dubya, I or most Americans knew about or cared about the Taliban prior to 9.11. If we heard about them, it was just the usual "some crazy foreign country" stuff. So its pretty disingenous of him (and us) to pat ourselves on the back saying "See, see, we did it all for those people". No, we did it for ourselves but it's cool that the halo effect of that is that all these people are free right now.

Of course, it would be nice if we did this in Africa now before we create another Afghanistan-style hiding place.

(most annoying is the bs recasting of Laura Bush as some sort of bastion of women's rights. her vacous smiling is the very epitome of "Tammy Wynette, standing by her man")
posted by owillis at 9:51 AM on January 30, 2002


...and that to automatically assume that any corporate or political leader has only utterly selfish interests in mind, and is not capable of genuine, high and noble intentions is the sign of a mind whose perceptions are seriously distored by cynicism. MidasMulligan

Actually, they're educated by experience and reality.Quite a generalization there, Midas.Maybe someday we'll all be as perfect as you.

I don't know about "any" leader, this thread was about GWB.

BTW, if you think Bush and his war are about anything in the long run but keeping the right wing in power, you're wrong. It's all they have going for them.

As far as me "nitpicking", I listened to the speech on the radio. I wasn't distracted by imagery.

They keep Americans living in fear and paying attention to the war while they continue to infuse conservatism into everything everywhere. If anyone asks any questions or poses any critical thoughts, they're a bad American.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 10:59 AM on January 30, 2002


Let's Roll

Does anyone else think its odd to be referencing something someone said right before a plane crashed. A quip that sounds like something a Stallone Movie Character would say right before they lead the attack on the complex, or are trying to get the convoy to stop the evil sheriff?

So is Bush trying to suggest that we'll stop the terrorists, but in the end, the nation will crash anyways?
posted by drezdn at 11:36 AM on January 30, 2002


dwivian-
Evidence that the US was working to remove the Taliban prior to 9/11. You can draw your own conclusions as to their motivations.
posted by euphorb at 1:25 PM on January 30, 2002


should it be let's rock and then let's roll?
posted by Adman at 3:26 PM on January 30, 2002


MidasMulligan said : So anyone that doesn't have the same opinion you do is naive?

No, the belief I described, is, in my opinion, naive.

and : I'd be willing to bet I've seen a considerably larger amount of the world than you have (we can compare frequent flier miles if you want), and have also met and talked to both government and corporate leaders, both socially and in the course of business.

You'd lose that bet. For what it's worth, I've been living as an expatriate, circling the globe, on business and otherwise, for 15 years. And I've "met and talked to both government and corporate leaders, both socially and in the course of business", too.

How does your wealth of wordly experience excuse you believing in fairy tales, anyway, good Midas?

As far as "seriously distorted by cynicism", I'll cop to that. But at no point did I "automatically assume that any corporate or political leader " is a self-interested sack of shit...Most of the ones I've met are, true. But there's no need to put words in my mouth. I have enough there already. About American policiticians, though, or most others at a national level in most nations? I really thought they had the best interests of their citizens in mind, when I was 12. I outgrew that dangerous misconception.

Better to be a cynic, who believes in "the non-negotiable demands of human dignity" and does what he can in his own life to further that noble dream, than a pollyanna who thinks that his leaders are going to do it for him.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:51 PM on January 30, 2002


Did he mention the name "Osama bin Laden" even once?

Nope. Called it!

And as long as I'm shamelessly self-linking: Axisofevil.com was registered last night.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 3:55 PM on January 30, 2002


" ... MidasMulligan said : So anyone that doesn't have the same opinion you do is naive?

No, the belief I described, is, in my opinion, naive..."


So then, care to share and opinion that is dramatically opposed to yours that you wouldn't consider naive?

" ...You'd lose that bet. For what it's worth, I've been living as an expatriate, circling the globe, on business and otherwise, for 15 years. And I've "met and talked to both government and corporate leaders, both socially and in the course of business", too..."

Actually, I'd win it. 26 years bucko - and that's only counting adulthood. And having looked at your blog, I suspect "corporate and government leaders" means something different to you than to me. Very few of the ones I'm referring to go on pub crawls.

" ... About American policiticians, though, or most others at a national level in most nations? I really thought they had the best interests of their citizens in mind, when I was 12. I outgrew that dangerous misconception..."

Actually, your site did make a lot of things make sense. There is a sort of archetype of American expat - of which I've met more than one - that takes it as absolute hipness that he must obviously, being so wordly, realize most Americans are stupid and don't realize how corrupt the real world is. It's really quite a lovely aire they put on - and of course they really do think anyone that hasn't achieved their perspective is naive.

My wife and I actually have a name for them (though it's not worth sharing), and if we ever stumble across one in a cafe, greatly enjoy playing with their utterly predictable minds.

Give it up dude ... you'll never even come close to a Parisian when it comes to adopting such attitudes.

" ... Better to be a cynic, who believes in "the non-negotiable demands of human dignity" and does what he can in his own life to further that noble dream, than a pollyanna who thinks that his leaders are going to do it for him..."

And even better to be an optimistic businessman, who depends on neither governments, nor puppeteers, nor cynical twits to spread the "non-negotiable demands of human dignity", but rather creates jobs and opportunities ... which is what a helluva lot of people in this world want much more than warm fuzzy activists or wry cynics.

The truth is that either believing leaders are pure, or believing them corrupt are both bad distortions. The truth is that they're just people - on the whole partially out for themselves, and partially out for others. The bell curve has it's tails - a few are stunning, and a few others are close to absolutely evil ... but most are trying to do the best they can. And approaching them by looking for the good, and focussing on it is the best way of drawing more of it out.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:13 PM on January 30, 2002


Go for it, Midas. Hope you're enjoying the sparring on this site and will keep at it.

Hooray for Dubya! He told the country there's more to life than making money, everyone needs to stop being selfish and go do something of service to others, including people overseas. Far out.

Predictable response: "This speech contained no message ..." ;^)
posted by sheauga at 9:19 PM on January 30, 2002


Actually, FWIW, I'm not American, and if in your careful survey of my site, you'd read bothered to read the first sentence, you'd have noticed that. (Or perhaps by 'site' do you mean my profile page here at Metafilter?) Just a bit of friendly advice - it'd behoove you not to make assumptions about who someone is, who they've known, or what they've done, particularly if you're going to go in for the ad hominem. Makes you look foolish, and I'm sure you just hate that.

Further, you are the one that pulled the 'worldly' card, not I, so kindly put it back in your pants. I'm unimpressed.

Very few of the [corporate and government leaders] I'm referring to go on pub crawls.

More's the pity, Midas, for them and for you. Might help to deflate the pomposity a bit.

The truth is that either believing leaders are pure, or believing them corrupt are both bad distortions...

Absolutely. I agree. Are we done here?

Now leave off the personal attacks, bucko. It's unbecoming of someone of your clearly elevated stature.

(And yes, my admonition to avoid personal attacks is embedded in what amounts to a personal attack. Sue me.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:51 PM on January 30, 2002


> Actually, your site did make a lot of things make sense.

If you're going to refer to personal content outside Metafilter, you should at least be brave enough to link to some of your own from your profile page. Otherwise, stick to what's here.
posted by pracowity at 3:52 AM on January 31, 2002


pracowity: If you're going to refer to personal content outside Metafilter, you should at least be brave enough to link to some of your own from your profile page. Otherwise, stick to what's here.

Why? What makes that bravery? What if MM doesn't HAVE a page? Not everyone sees the need, you know. Anyone linking external info makes that info fair game.

I've always thought the "fight me like a man" argument was silly. Reminds me of several movies I've seen, where the other person, goaded, into "fighting like a man", gets taken out when the instigator goes back to fighting dirty.
posted by dwivian at 8:06 AM on January 31, 2002


> Why? What makes that bravery?

Shit. I responded and it disappeared, and now I don't have time. Here's a shorter version:

I didn't mean bravery as in "fight like a man" or any shit like that; people who take it outside are cretins. I meant that standing outside in the dark, looking in through the windows, watching how someone lives, and then yelling an argument in through the window instead of coming in, shaking hands, sitting down, and talking eye to eye shows a considerable measure of intellectual timidity. It's an easy and fairly low thing to go to anyone's web site and find ammunition to use in a mefi debate. If you choose to do that, you should at least have the courtesy and backbone to offer a personal e-mail address.
posted by pracowity at 8:57 AM on January 31, 2002


« Older The most misunderstood and underrated band of the...   |   Washtech.com hacked Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post