Join 3,380 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

hooray for america
February 8, 2005 7:46 PM   Subscribe

Need three jobs to support your family? That's great, Uniquely American at that.
posted by delmoi (71 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
As amusing as this is, someone's going to yell "this is not your blog". I can see it now.

But anyway. Yeah. Go Bush Go.
posted by blacklite at 7:54 PM on February 8, 2005


Only tree jobs! Howcome you so lazy? I got thirteen jobs!



I got no time for your foolishness!
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:59 PM on February 8, 2005


Pheh. Compassionate conservatism. I continue to find it hilarious, well... maybe more apalling than hilarious, that people think of Bush as a "good man" when he's so clearly a callous, cold-hearted son of a bitch
posted by psmealey at 8:03 PM on February 8, 2005


or maybe he just understands that she's trying to put food on her family.
posted by psmealey at 8:04 PM on February 8, 2005


Or maybe he's just always been rich and doesn't have a clue.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:11 PM on February 8, 2005


What the hell does he mean by "uniquely American" anyway? That people in other developed countries are lazy and don't work their asses off for a system that hates them?
posted by borkingchikapa at 8:13 PM on February 8, 2005


At least the link wasn't from Kos.

It's an amusing line and really just kind of goes more to the issue of politicians needing to respond to the statement while at the same time being positive.
posted by Arch Stanton at 8:13 PM on February 8, 2005


He should have signed her up for the Army, so that she could have had three adventures instead.
posted by davejay at 8:14 PM on February 8, 2005


She is exactly who this crazy policy is going to screw hard. "The promises made by the government will be kept by the government." And if you were listening carefully, there weren't many promises...

Link to the full transcript.
posted by ontic at 8:14 PM on February 8, 2005


I try to stay away from pointless, snarky, and unhelpful political comments here, but I can't help it: The president is a dumbass and doesn't have slightest idea what it is like not to be a child of privilege who has never had to work for anything in his life.
posted by marxchivist at 8:18 PM on February 8, 2005


Good tags.
posted by marxchivist at 8:19 PM on February 8, 2005


It's an amusing line...

Which part of it did you find amusing? Because when I read it, and far from being amused, I couldn't help but think what a thoughtless piece of shit we have for a president.
posted by psmealey at 8:19 PM on February 8, 2005


I truly don't think Bush has any idea that she has to work three jobs or she loses her home and life.

And why would he? He was born into immense wealth and has worked hard to make sure all his pals have far more money than they'll ever need too.

The "get any sleep?" basically just shows that he's an asshole.
posted by fenriq at 8:21 PM on February 8, 2005


He should have signed her up for the Army, so that she could have had three adventures instead.

O.T. I had an Army recruiter call this morning, asking if my wife would be interested in signing up.. She broke down laughing..
Then they asked me if I wanted to go.. I told them I already served in the USAF, that didn't stop them..

I'm 35 with long hair, She's 28 with no interest. They must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel...

But this IS the slow time of year for my buisiness (construction) and these ARE the couple of months we spend in near-starving mode..

But not quite starving enough to take a job in the Army..

The whole concept of three jobs is lost on this president, as is military service, as is starving for a few months per year.
posted by Balisong at 8:26 PM on February 8, 2005


"Get any sleep?"

"Need some wood?"

He does have a track record of making lighthearted, snarky comments to defuse situations that make him uncomfortable. Does that make him an a**hole? Depends on the person, I suppose.

Don't any of you contradict me, or I'll have to defuse the situation with a lighthearted, snarky comment.

Oh, and his comments do lend themselves to haiku:

Unwed mom of three,
Are you getting any sleep?
Then you need some wood.
posted by davejay at 8:28 PM on February 8, 2005


Fantastic.
posted by crazy finger at 8:33 PM on February 8, 2005


Fabulous.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:37 PM on February 8, 2005


Which part of it did you find amusing?

It's an amusing line because it's disingenuous and as silly and easy to make fun of as any of the other times that Bush says something stupid. It's a funny quote that we can put on blogs and forwarded to people, pointed out to coworkers, and to have snarky comments made about it. That's why it's an amusing line. I didn't think my comment was too confusing.

Personally, I thought his attempt at explaining the new social security program (find: how is it the new plan is going to fix that problem?) was funny and even funnier when translated through gizoogle.
posted by Arch Stanton at 8:47 PM on February 8, 2005


Well I may be wrong but it seems to me that to Bush (a man who has never had to question the roof over his head) no doubt his first thought was that she's not working three jobs to keep herself from starving, she's doing it because she's an industrious American who doesn't want to sit around the house watching television. Some people develop hobbies or travel during their "free time," but oh, we unique Americans just like to work work work! Sleep much? Hell no, that's boring! Get me another job, dammit! I have a half hour to kill!

Yeah, whatever. Idiot. Unfortunately, having a President who is on vacation for half of the time that he's supposed to be running a country appears to be a uniquely American experience too.
posted by miss lynnster at 8:49 PM on February 8, 2005


I think the problem of the unwed mom of three who's not getting any sleep is too much wood.
posted by kindall at 8:50 PM on February 8, 2005


Maybe he's talking about the American work ethic. We're not out protesting to keep our maximum 35-hour work weeks like some countries...
posted by jonknee at 8:55 PM on February 8, 2005


and maybe her three jobs are CEO, board of director, and spokeswomen for Gerber.

(and maybe monkeys will fly out my ass, develope culture, and destory our civilization.)
posted by MikeKD at 9:01 PM on February 8, 2005


We're not out protesting to keep our maximum 35-hour work weeks like some countries.

And thank God for that - I'd hate to spend more time with my family!
posted by crazy finger at 9:02 PM on February 8, 2005


This is Wonkette linked from Drudge, for heaven's sake... yes it resonates but most likely B.S.
posted by greensweater at 9:06 PM on February 8, 2005


ontic linked to the full transcript above. It's a bit truncated, but it's not B.S.
posted by psmealey at 9:07 PM on February 8, 2005


What the hell does he mean by "uniquely American" anyway? That people in other developed countries are lazy and don't work their asses off for a system that hates them?

Just personally, I'm in another developed country, and I'm way lazy.
posted by pompomtom at 9:10 PM on February 8, 2005


Arch, thanks for Gizoogle. I'm glad to see someone's been improving the Shizzolator.

What the country needs is for the Bush twins secret sex tape to get onto the internets so we can all get some wood and not enough sleep.
posted by fenriq at 9:10 PM on February 8, 2005


It's not really fair, the jokes just write themselves...
posted by nightchrome at 9:16 PM on February 8, 2005


oh, thanks psmealey... at first glance it seemed like a right-wing troll --
posted by greensweater at 9:25 PM on February 8, 2005


Personally, this was my favorite part (from the full transcript above):

MS. MORNAN (sp): Okay. I'm a divorced single mother with three grown adult children. I have one child, Robbie, who is mentally challenged, and I have two daughters.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Fantastic.

posted by papakwanz at 9:27 PM on February 8, 2005


Oh, wait, I just found this one!

PRESIDENT BUSH: They know something about beef in this state.

That's just a funny line for some reason, no matter who says it!

Although coming out of Bush's mouth I imagine it's even better.
posted by papakwanz at 9:30 PM on February 8, 2005


PRESIDENT BUSH: They know something about beef in this state.

That's just a funny line for some reason, no matter who says it!


LOL, reminded me of this for some reason

posted by delmoi at 9:46 PM on February 8, 2005


It's not really fair, the jokes just write themselves...


"I just came back from a trip to the year 2008, and boy are the comedians fat!"

"How fat are they?"

"They move them from gig to gig on forklifts!"


If I were a comedian with steady work, I'd be ordering another 50-foot gold-leaf covered marzipan and caviar sculpture of myself right about now. I wouldn't be hungry - I just know I'd be able to pay for it.
posted by trondant at 9:58 PM on February 8, 2005


Well I may be wrong but it seems to me that to Bush (a man who has never had to question the roof over his head) no doubt his first thought was that she's not working three jobs to keep herself from starving, she's doing it because she's an industrious American who doesn't want to sit around the house watching television. Some people develop hobbies or travel during their "free time," but oh, we unique Americans just like to work work work! Sleep much? Hell no, that's boring! Get me another job, dammit! I have a half hour to kill!

My thoughts exactly.

Personally, this was my favorite part (from the full transcript above):

MS. MORNAN (sp): Okay. I'm a divorced single mother with three grown adult children. I have one child, Robbie, who is mentally challenged, and I have two daughters.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Fantastic.


Hilarious! 9.8!
posted by ludwig_van at 10:59 PM on February 8, 2005


We're all doomed.
posted by Espoo2 at 12:00 AM on February 9, 2005


I blame Bush...
posted by Balisong at 1:19 AM on February 9, 2005


How dare you criticize the commander of chefs ?!
posted by elpapacito at 4:29 AM on February 9, 2005


We're not out protesting to keep our maximum 35-hour work weeks like some countries.

It's not about being lazy jonknee, it's about quality of life. The 35 hour work week is generally regarded as a social progression, development after many years of people's toiling in factories. And many argue that general productivity doesn't necessarily suffer.

And some French people are even more scandalous :

My wife is a "uniquely French" professeur agrégée de philosophie -- a high school philosophy teacher.
She gives around 15 hours of class a week (French teachers aren't asked to do parking lot and bathroom duty as the students smoke if they want and university students take over the lunchroom duty while the teachers eat..and sometimes even drink wine). She has a minimum of two weeks vacation every 6 weeks -- sometimes 7. Yearly, she has a total of about 20 weeks of vacation. Her salary is rather modest but she has the possibility of teaching in French lycées all over the world.

As for her efficacity, well, she worked very hard to acheive her status and she is part of an intellectual elite. She, like her collegues, is extremely competent and among the best suited for her job. Others simply aren't qualified and only those qualified are hired. As the French education system is national, all students have teachers of relatively equal caliber. Hence, an educational system that, from the start, is much more equal than some countries...
French teachers have a job for life because it is nearly impossible to be fired. However, retirement does comes after 40 years of teaching. Lazy??

Flash to my father, an American like me.

A typical high school gym/ biology/ earth science/ history/, intro to technology, you name it coach/teacher -- most of us who went to public schools can think of a few. A former UNC basketball player, a degree in criminology, a Master's in education -- pops became a basketball coach/ teacher... well he was always hired to be a caoch.
40 hour work weeks during the school year, 60 to 70 during the basketball season, summers running basketball camps (not a choice), dad put in 28 years in various schools only to be shit-canned in the end by a redneck principal/ athletic director who had personal differences with him (he has since left his position because it was found that he was stealing money from the coke machines among other things). He looked for jobs for a year or two but his "high qualifications" and age didn't make him a very attractive candidate. So he look an early retirement (Tennessee is at 30), and now he can be lazy. He is 60, in good health, and his retirement checks don't excede $1500. American dream?

While we can scoff at others we perceive as "lazy", I'm not convinced Mary Mornin wouldn't take a few hours off if she could.
posted by pwedza at 4:30 AM on February 9, 2005


Just personally, I'm in another developed country, and I'm way lazy.
Hey, me too, pompomtom!
Maybe Bush is on to something...
posted by blacklite at 4:34 AM on February 9, 2005


pwedza: Wasn't there a touch of irony in jonknee's comment?
posted by biffa at 4:52 AM on February 9, 2005


Well, you can see the logic.

Jobs = Good
More jobs = Better!

Like he's always been told that jobs (whatever they are) are good for America, so having three must really be great.
posted by cell at 4:58 AM on February 9, 2005


When he comes up with off-the-cuff comments like this, it's hard to determine whether I have more contempt for him than disgust or the other way around. I don't think that I can handle four more years of this clown.
posted by leftcoastbob at 6:38 AM on February 9, 2005


"Three jobs..."

"Fantastic!!"

I'm sure Papa Bush is slapping himself on the head right now, for the thrashing he got over supermaket check-outs.

That and the politicization of his former agency.
(sorry, no lnks - I shouldn't have to.)
posted by vhsiv at 6:59 AM on February 9, 2005


I think the quote is wonderful. A true snapshot of American values.
posted by effwerd at 7:21 AM on February 9, 2005


You know, the sad thing is that, post election, these comments take on a whole new meaning. At one point in time it was, "Yeah, this clown... He'll never be re-elected.. What a schmuck!"

Now it's like-

"My god, this idiot... is our President!"
"Yup."
"For four more years!"
"Yup."

[groan]
posted by afroblanca at 7:34 AM on February 9, 2005


Not to put too fine a point on it, but it does seem like a lot of people (some on this thread) want to write this off as another harmless, isn't that cute, Bush verbal misstep, but I thought it was pretty telling. Bush was attempting to be funny, but he came across as demeaning, detached and just a little mean-spirited.

In view of this, coming from the man who is to be the "savior" of social security, I didn't find it amusing at all.
posted by psmealey at 8:04 AM on February 9, 2005


Well, the idea that finding this funny is somehow inappropriate is a little too spartan for me. Finding humor in discomfort is natural. Yeah the quote is telling, but it's no scale tipper. My assessment of Bush doesn't need to rest on this quote.
posted by effwerd at 8:15 AM on February 9, 2005


Now I need three jobs to put food on my family? Fool me once...won't get fooled again!
posted by fungible at 8:30 AM on February 9, 2005


efferd, yeah, I read that again, and I suppose I did imply that. Most of what I meant is express my personal frustration with possibility that, yet again, Bush will get another tee-hee, isn't the funny free pass, when what he really did was reveal a bit of the content of his character (again). Now, I'm really putting too fine a point on it, but wanted to explain.
posted by psmealey at 8:43 AM on February 9, 2005


I think the problem of the unwed mom of three who's not getting any sleep is too much wood.
posted by kindall at 8:50 PM PST on February 8


Wow. Just - wow.

*makes mental note never to listen to kindall again*
posted by raedyn at 8:48 AM on February 9, 2005


I think the problem of the unwed mom of three who's not getting any sleep is too much wood.

My assumption was that she was divorced, like the majority of single mothers in this country.
posted by wicked sprite at 8:49 AM on February 9, 2005


wicked sprite - In fact, that's what she said. But does it make a difference? Is that comment any more acceptable if she had never been married?
posted by raedyn at 8:51 AM on February 9, 2005


It's alarming and tragic that the leader of our country doesn't immediately seize the point here that if this poor woman works three jobs, her children are virtually parentless and will grow up without the security of having a protector. Where was young George's mother during HIS childhood...staunchly by his side. Though, of course, she had other duties.

Yes, our president has very little in the way of clues about how his subject actually go about their daily lives. That's not so surprising. We keep electing people to lead us who are wealthy and powerful. If we could see our way clear to looking past the hype, glitter, styled hair and well-pressed clothes of our current crowd of polls, we might actually get real thinkers who could get their hands out of the cookie jar long enough to do something before they "retire." I say, let's stop rewarding bad behavior. No pensions, no benes, no holidays...if you are elected to office, you get to work like anyone else.
posted by Griffins_posse at 9:22 AM on February 9, 2005


Whoa there raedyn, it was a joke.
posted by Specklet at 9:27 AM on February 9, 2005


I'm sure Papa Bush is slapping himself on the head right now, for the thrashing he got over supermaket check-outs.

Bush Sr.'s amazement at supermarket scanners seems to have been a bogus story.
posted by Zed_Lopez at 9:35 AM on February 9, 2005


That's not so surprising. We keep electing people to lead us who are wealthy and powerful.

This was something I was thinking about a lot the other day. The vast majority in this country are middle and lower income, so why do we keep electing the wealthy to represent us? The millionaires in office do not have the same concerns about health insurance, social security, public education, and work regulations that the rest of us do. It makes no sense for them to be representing us.

It is going to take something major, though, for middle America to realize this and stop voting for the guy with the most money to spend on campaigns. When our choice right now is limited to Wealthy Guy vs. Even Wealthier Guy the "Democratic" system of government needs to be overhauled. Yeah, I know campaign finance reform is boring-- but we desperately need it.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 9:38 AM on February 9, 2005


The millionaires in office do not have the same concerns about health insurance, social security, public education, and work regulations that the rest of us do. It makes no sense for them to be representing us.

This has been the case since time immemoriam, though. Some of our greatest progressives (Jefferson, TR, FDR, etc.) have come from enormous wealth. I would argue that this is not the real problem (though I don't entirely disagree), it is that we currently have people in the Administration that don't really understand, or else have a willful disdain for what the nature of true public service. They seem largely to function on the notion that what's good for their ilk must certainly be good for the rest of us.
posted by psmealey at 9:48 AM on February 9, 2005


I'll grant you that electing the wealthy has been a theme since we've had organized elections. But part of that was related to the economics of literacy. A non-literate person cannot govern a large and diverse (social, political, economic and geographic) group of people. So what's our excuse now?

Say what you will about FDR, he was able to put aside his upbringing of wealth and priviledge to address the plight of those without his advantages. Even JFK could do it, to SOME extent, but he also clearly held himself to a different set of standards as far as his personal behavior was concerned. (FDR too, probably.) Moral behavior does not necessarily equate to leadership skills. Some rather immoral men have been excellent and altruistic leaders.

I think there is also a sense that the wealthy have nothing on the line when they lead. Their money is secure. They are innured to the consequences of their own decisions. That should change. Maybe we can convince people that, if they are elected, all their assets have to go into a public trust which is tied to a group of "leading economic indicators" or something. You do good, your wealth grows too. You do bad, we'll see you down here at the soup kitchen!
posted by Griffins_posse at 10:01 AM on February 9, 2005


You know psmealey, I think perhaps the reason why the wealthy people in office now don't have the same concerns as the wealthy people in office back then is this: before the safety nets were inacted, the Upperclass really were more in tune with charity. You were wealthy and priviledged but you were taught that along with the priviledges came noblesse oblige-- the obligation to care for those less fortunate then yourself.

I am guessing that the wealthy don't teach this to their offspring anymore. "The state is taking caring of the old, the sick, the handicapped, so we don't have to."

Just a theory.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 10:06 AM on February 9, 2005


"For four more years!"
"Yup."

[groan]


Sorry to be the one to break this to you but look at the new Congressional bill H.R.9. Its about repealing the 22nd amendment. Yup, could be more than 4 more years. [groan X 22]
posted by nofundy at 10:42 AM on February 9, 2005


Er, nofundy, could you link to the specific section that deals with repealing the 22nd? I can't find it quickly and easily, and I'm not sure what to look for anyway...
posted by five fresh fish at 11:14 AM on February 9, 2005


It's H.J. Res 9 and it's pretty clear: "The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."

Fortunately, amending the Constitution is really hard.
posted by Zed_Lopez at 11:36 AM on February 9, 2005


I am guessing that the wealthy don't teach this to their offspring anymore. "The state is taking caring of the old, the sick, the handicapped, so we don't have to."

I think that's way too pat. There are plenty of examples of wealthy people who have never wanted to give to charity, and it's obvious that many of today's wealthy feel that even paying taxes toward helping the less fortunate is unfair to them. Charities only really became organized around the industrial revolution, anyway, because that was when we switched from relying on land as the basis to an economy based on money (obviously we had money before, but it was supplemental - if you had land, or were allowed to use someone's land, you could build a house and grow some food). So the New Deal was a response to that because relying on charities wasn't really working.

These comments from Bush just clarify how completely, mind-blowingly out of touch he is. I hope that women realized during their exchange that he had no clue what she was dealing with. He has never had to work a day in his life, and simply does not viscerally understand what it is to need to work - not to do it because you enjoy it, to romp around until you find something fulfilling or interesting or fun, but to actually have to drag your body out of bed to spend 8 hours doing some random drudgery so that you can afford that bed you drag yourself back into at the end of the day...
posted by mdn at 11:37 AM on February 9, 2005


Charity isn't necessarily the same as giving to a charity, charitable giving has been an established aspect of many societies a long time prior to the industrial revolution. Mohammed established zakat as a pillar of islam, alms giving in the Christian world, etc.
Though I suspect a lot of people wouldnt have given as you say, I'm not sure what the stats would be, and I imagine there would be significant pressure to give in a number of cultures.

As to Bush, I could go with either the thesis that he doesn't really comprehend existence outside his privileged experience or that he just doesn't really give a fuck what the little people he gladhands are actually saying, and practically sleepwalks through chats.
posted by biffa at 11:57 AM on February 9, 2005


Ahha. I was googling for HR9, not HJ.

What a scary proposition! I hope everyone laughed when it was put forward.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:59 AM on February 9, 2005


Charity isn't necessarily the same as giving to a charity, charitable giving has been an established aspect of many societies a long time prior to the industrial revolution.

of course, didn't mean to imply otherwise - I was just making the point that charities became more organized along with the economy as a whole becoming more organized, and that the old way of doing things (via handouts and churches) worked in accordance with the old economy but we had to implement more structured safety nets to really adapt to the realities of the new economy, because trying to better organize charities etc, didn't really solve the problems.

That HJRes 9 thing is weird - it's put forth by a democrat from the bronx! What's his deal?
posted by mdn at 12:17 PM on February 9, 2005


That HJRes 9 thing is weird - it's put forth by a democrat from the bronx! What's his deal?

You could also use such an amendment to rerun Clinton.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:49 PM on February 9, 2005


That's what I was thinking, PST.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:56 PM on February 9, 2005


Re: The HR RES 9 repeal on term limitations.

US News & World Report from a couple weeks ago claimed that it was primarily to clear the way for a 3rd term by Bill Clinton, and that the GOP would support it if the Dems would support an amendment allowing foreigners to run for office.
posted by papakwanz at 7:20 AM on February 10, 2005


Whoa there raedyn, it was a joke.

Are you sure Specklet? It might have been. But I've encountered people who say that in all seriousness, and kindall didn't give us any reason to believe that he was kidding. If you're going to make off-colour jokes it's probably important to make it clear that you're joking. And even then, you should be prepared for the possibility that other people won't find them funny and might call you on your insensitivity.
posted by raedyn at 3:20 PM on February 10, 2005


Oh come on. Her lack of sleep is because of working so hard, which is because of the kids, which are because of the sex! It all comes down to too much sex! And Bush is famous for his line "Need some wood?" No, she definitely does not need anymore wood. Really, I doubt she has time for it.

Sheesh, it stops being funny when you have to 'splain it.

(On review, I see I may have confused the number of kids she had with the number of jobs. Oops.)
posted by kindall at 6:25 PM on February 10, 2005


« Older PodBrix....  |  "My daughter and I, searching ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments