plucked this one off the fmu message board :
Kathy Graham ckane@wpost.org
Bush Bush In The Puss
Wed Jul 18 12:31:31 2001
Who Cares What You Think?
Here's an honest to God (?) account of one person's meeting with the President in Philadelphia last week:
"So when the President was here on July 4, I had the opportunity to shake his hand. I wasn't sure if that was a good idea or not but I did it anyway, and said to him, "Mr. President, I hope you only serve four years. I'm very disappointed in your work so far." He kept smiling and shaking my hand but answered, "Who cares what you think?"
His face stayed photo-op perfect, but his eyes gave me a look that said, if we'd been drinking in some frathouse in Texas, he'd've happily answered, "Let's take it outside." A nasty little gleam.
But he was (fortunately) constrained by Presidential propriety. But that was the end of it until I turned away and started scribbling the quote down in my notepad, so as to remember the "Gift" forever. When he saw me do that, he got excited and craned his neck over the rubberneckers to shout at me, "Who are you with? Who are you with?" People started looking, so he made a joke: "Make sure you get it right." But he kept at it: "Who do you write for?" I told him I wasn't "with" anybody and pointed to one of his staff people who knows me a little, and said, "Ask him, he'll tell you."
Then I split.
Half an hour later, my boss (who had helped organize the event we were at) came up to me and said, "Did you really tell the President that he was doing a 'lousy fucking job'?" "No way," I said, "I was very polite, I just told him what I thought." Fortunately, he believed me. He wasn't happy with me, but he believed me.
But anyway, if you ever wondered if the Prez really is kind of a jerk, I'm here to tell you, he is, and I got The Gift to prove it. I'm thinking of making up T-shirts so we can share The Gift with everyone: "Who cares what you think?" - President George W. Bush, July 4, 2001.
Andrew Hudson
Spokesman, Mayor Wellington Webb
1437 Bannock Street, ST. 350
Denver, CO 80202
Direct (720) 865-9016
FAX (720) 865-8791
Pager (303) 640-0780
Cell (303) 880-9521
For information on Mayor Webb's Office
Do The Mouse
We knew Bush was a jerk, now we know the writer is the same. I guess speaking truth to power descends to the level of the power.
takes one to know one.....
whats that supposed to mean?
Not sure I understand either. If "we know Bush is a jerk" - as you say - doesn't that put you in danger of descending to the same level you say the writer has descended to? Or is it something else about the writer (other than him telling bush that he was doing a bad job) that you didn't like? Maybe knowing it is O.K., but saying it isn't? Or is it the saying of it right to his face that is wrong?
I have to agree with Bush that nobody does care what this person thinks. That's just a fact that all of us non-famous and non-rich people live with. It's true: nobody cares. But since Bush volunteered to be considered for a job where he should (at least theoretically) care what the people he is representing think - that's his job afterall - isn't this sort of an inappropriate comment? Yes, nobody cares; but a "representative of the people" should at least pretend to care a little about what the people he is representing think. If not, who is he representing? (Yes, I know the an$wer.)
Of course, this could easily be a B.S. story, so who knows... And in any case, I'm not surprised. It won't make any difference in the big picture (or even in the little picture.) Still I think it's a good story. And I'm not immediately convinced the writer is a jerk.
Bill Clinton would have said "I'm sorry you're disappointed, what can we do?" It wouldn't necessarily be sincere, just a smarter way to deflect the question politically. You could always say Bush was "having a bad day," but his kneejerk response to the question seems very much in character. Whatever the writer's motivations, if his essay convinces anyone to doubt the Smirker-in-Chief (who didn't already), it's a worthwhile exercise. This is war, after all.
Just trying to be provocative, but, (and this could be a critique (or an interpretation) of the comments) maybe that's no longer a very useful political mechanism. Dave is closest to what I was thinking, not that I was thinking much; just a gut reaction to what struck me as a self-serving attempt at political "dialogue". If you want to take it to some sort of larger issue, then it's a notion that I've been nursing for some time, which is that subversion as such is no longer an appropriate strategy. I'm coming at this from an art-world viewpoint, but even that language is all mixed up with the sad tale of 20th century "Marxism" et al, and constitutes a sort of vulgar political dialectics. If we're really serious about things like "Partnership", or the "Return of the Goddess", or the "Archaic Revival", or "Gylany", or replacing competition with cooperation, or however else you want to phrase the transformation we'd like to see take place, then we don't help the situation by trying to bring out the worst in our "enemies" (who actually share plenty of common ground with us). Sticking flowers in a soldier's gun was an inspired gesture; the present example is just ego: knock this chip off my shoulder.
gylany? is that where leprechauns are from?
I didn't see Hudson's statement to Bush as a Jerry Rubin-like tactic designed to smoke out arrogant behavior, but rather a case of "What do you say if you get a chance to speak to someone in power?" He said what he believed, and this was the result. Then, once that's happened, does he tell the story or doesn't he? He chose to tell it, as modestly as possible; he didn't (and doesn't) strike me as a jerk.
Yes, Alex, I agree. There is a strange logic to the parasite. Subverting a program has the vexing requirement of relying on the very program which is to be subverted. Probably you're right and it is better just to pay this sort of thing no mind and get on with the more important business at hand.
The problem, I guess, is that ignoring Bush won't make him go away (for another 3 years or so, at least.) Of course, paying attention won't make him go away either, so I'm sort of stuck there. And worse, even when he does go away, there's somebody else just like him to step in.
I used to read a lot of this woman, Avital Ronell, and she was involved with this problem of trying to go beyond mere subversion. She thought (I think) that we need a radical break, a rupture, in order to move beyond this "reactive, mimetic, and regressive posturing" which I think is something like the problem you are referring to.
"A thinker" Flaubert said, "should have neither religion nor fatherland nor even any social conviction. Absolute scepticism."
Still, my emotions often seem to over ride my better judgement, and probably that's not always bad. I'm no democrat (or republican) but I'll most likely continue to take a small laugh at G.W.B.'s expense when I get the chance. Not that her story was particularly funny, but I could see the image of him standing there with that mask-like campaign look plastered on his face while saying something nasty under his breath. That's good for a chuckle. If he didn't look so much like Alfred E. Neuman when I picture him in my mind the whole thing might even serve to humanize him a bit.
Maybe humor can be a mini-rupture which allows you to subvert without getting caught up?
Can I still get a res at Gylany? 8:30?
Damn strange, last night I had a dream in which I met George W. Bush and told him that I thought he was doing a lousy job as president. I think remember that I called him a dope.
OK, I admit it, Madame Bovary is me.
But I do think this is a "big idea". It's still inchoate, maybe more a vision than an idea. That's why we can only see a rupture, rather than a path from here to there. Still, we gotta try. I was taught the subversive strategy in art school, and you can be sure that once it's reached that point, it's over. What started as a formal observation of the way in which art styles change became a prescription, demanding constant change, even if based on nothing but reaction. The result was a lot of really boring, academic art, which lead to a real reaction, which produced even worse art. Much the same with politics. Marx's critique rings as true as ever, but the prescription derived from it failed. At least in the art world not so many people get killed in the process.
I believe in humor, but the funniest jokes are always at our own expense.
|
Kathy Graham ckane@wpost.org
Bush Bush In The Puss
Wed Jul 18 12:31:31 2001
Who Cares What You Think?
Here's an honest to God (?) account of one person's meeting with the President in Philadelphia last week:
"So when the President was here on July 4, I had the opportunity to shake his hand. I wasn't sure if that was a good idea or not but I did it anyway, and said to him, "Mr. President, I hope you only serve four years. I'm very disappointed in your work so far." He kept smiling and shaking my hand but answered, "Who cares what you think?"
His face stayed photo-op perfect, but his eyes gave me a look that said, if we'd been drinking in some frathouse in Texas, he'd've happily answered, "Let's take it outside." A nasty little gleam.
But he was (fortunately) constrained by Presidential propriety. But that was the end of it until I turned away and started scribbling the quote down in my notepad, so as to remember the "Gift" forever. When he saw me do that, he got excited and craned his neck over the rubberneckers to shout at me, "Who are you with? Who are you with?" People started looking, so he made a joke: "Make sure you get it right." But he kept at it: "Who do you write for?" I told him I wasn't "with" anybody and pointed to one of his staff people who knows me a little, and said, "Ask him, he'll tell you."
Then I split.
Half an hour later, my boss (who had helped organize the event we were at) came up to me and said, "Did you really tell the President that he was doing a 'lousy fucking job'?" "No way," I said, "I was very polite, I just told him what I thought." Fortunately, he believed me. He wasn't happy with me, but he believed me.
But anyway, if you ever wondered if the Prez really is kind of a jerk, I'm here to tell you, he is, and I got The Gift to prove it. I'm thinking of making up T-shirts so we can share The Gift with everyone: "Who cares what you think?" - President George W. Bush, July 4, 2001.
Andrew Hudson
Spokesman, Mayor Wellington Webb
1437 Bannock Street, ST. 350
Denver, CO 80202
Direct (720) 865-9016
FAX (720) 865-8791
Pager (303) 640-0780
Cell (303) 880-9521
For information on Mayor Webb's Office
Do The Mouse
- bill 7-19-2001 3:50 pm
We knew Bush was a jerk, now we know the writer is the same. I guess speaking truth to power descends to the level of the power.
- alex 7-19-2001 5:09 pm [add a comment]
takes one to know one.....
- bill 7-19-2001 8:39 pm [add a comment]
whats that supposed to mean?
- dave 7-19-2001 8:42 pm [add a comment]
it can be read two ways, neither of which apply
- bill 7-19-2001 9:01 pm [add a comment]
i understood it to mean an inappropriate remark deserves an inappropriate reply.
- dave 7-19-2001 9:17 pm [add a comment]
Not sure I understand either. If "we know Bush is a jerk" - as you say - doesn't that put you in danger of descending to the same level you say the writer has descended to? Or is it something else about the writer (other than him telling bush that he was doing a bad job) that you didn't like? Maybe knowing it is O.K., but saying it isn't? Or is it the saying of it right to his face that is wrong?
I have to agree with Bush that nobody does care what this person thinks. That's just a fact that all of us non-famous and non-rich people live with. It's true: nobody cares. But since Bush volunteered to be considered for a job where he should (at least theoretically) care what the people he is representing think - that's his job afterall - isn't this sort of an inappropriate comment? Yes, nobody cares; but a "representative of the people" should at least pretend to care a little about what the people he is representing think. If not, who is he representing? (Yes, I know the an$wer.)
Of course, this could easily be a B.S. story, so who knows... And in any case, I'm not surprised. It won't make any difference in the big picture (or even in the little picture.) Still I think it's a good story. And I'm not immediately convinced the writer is a jerk.
- jim 7-19-2001 9:58 pm [add a comment]
Bill Clinton would have said "I'm sorry you're disappointed, what can we do?" It wouldn't necessarily be sincere, just a smarter way to deflect the question politically. You could always say Bush was "having a bad day," but his kneejerk response to the question seems very much in character. Whatever the writer's motivations, if his essay convinces anyone to doubt the Smirker-in-Chief (who didn't already), it's a worthwhile exercise. This is war, after all.
- tom moody 7-19-2001 10:17 pm [add a comment]
but what about a coarsening of the culture? i have to ask myself WWKGD? (what would katherine graham do?) and yes, clinton would finesse (and make you feel oily) while the shrub engages with slash and burn (as much oil as possible). maybe this has something to do with it.
- dave 7-19-2001 10:27 pm [add a comment]
In AW's inditement of "jerks" he implicates himself if you extend the "takes one" axiom. Since I don't agree with his critique, he's automaticly off the hook and there remains but one original "jerk" to the story. It's fuzzy logic, but it's my logic.
I think Bush contridicted himself, proving he *did care* by doubling back and repeatedly asking "who are you with ?".
- bill 7-19-2001 11:07 pm [add a comment]
fuzzy logic, fuzzier spelling.
- dave 7-19-2001 11:14 pm [add a comment]
same old dave
- bill 7-19-2001 11:20 pm [add a comment]
i resent your incendiary indictment of my supposed character. by automatically linking my present pronouncement to your perceptions of my passed behavior, you have done us both a disservice. therefore, it is fortunate (for you and i both) that i reject your initial line of reasoning nullifying the egregiousness of your insurmountable logic and drawing attention away from your questionable consideration regarding orthographic concerns.
- dave 7-19-2001 11:53 pm [add a comment]
Reminds me of one of those great all purpose explanations, so useful in politics, such as "mistakes were made" (never mind who by). Anyway, a friend of mine once explained: "how can I be held responsible for something I did in the past?".
Oh yeah, another good one is "you may be right, but that doesn't make it true", also known as "that may be true, but it doesn't mean you're right".
- alex 7-20-2001 12:01 am [add a comment]
ummm, of course, i meant passe....i mean....i.i.i was just testing you, yeah thats it. whew... thats not why im sweating. just mind your own damnable business.
- dave 7-20-2001 12:08 am [add a comment]
your drifting again - can't stay on toipic ?
- bill 7-20-2001 12:14 am [add a comment]
Just trying to be provocative, but, (and this could be a critique (or an interpretation) of the comments) maybe that's no longer a very useful political mechanism. Dave is closest to what I was thinking, not that I was thinking much; just a gut reaction to what struck me as a self-serving attempt at political "dialogue". If you want to take it to some sort of larger issue, then it's a notion that I've been nursing for some time, which is that subversion as such is no longer an appropriate strategy. I'm coming at this from an art-world viewpoint, but even that language is all mixed up with the sad tale of 20th century "Marxism" et al, and constitutes a sort of vulgar political dialectics. If we're really serious about things like "Partnership", or the "Return of the Goddess", or the "Archaic Revival", or "Gylany", or replacing competition with cooperation, or however else you want to phrase the transformation we'd like to see take place, then we don't help the situation by trying to bring out the worst in our "enemies" (who actually share plenty of common ground with us). Sticking flowers in a soldier's gun was an inspired gesture; the present example is just ego: knock this chip off my shoulder.
- alex 7-19-2001 7:47 pm [add a comment]
gylany? is that where leprechauns are from?
- dave 7-19-2001 11:14 pm [add a comment]
Yes.
- alex 7-20-2001 12:04 am [add a comment]
I didn't see Hudson's statement to Bush as a Jerry Rubin-like tactic designed to smoke out arrogant behavior, but rather a case of "What do you say if you get a chance to speak to someone in power?" He said what he believed, and this was the result. Then, once that's happened, does he tell the story or doesn't he? He chose to tell it, as modestly as possible; he didn't (and doesn't) strike me as a jerk.
- tom moody 7-19-2001 11:29 pm [add a comment]
is time to start drinking yat ?
- bill 7-19-2001 11:32 pm [add a comment]
Yes, Alex, I agree. There is a strange logic to the parasite. Subverting a program has the vexing requirement of relying on the very program which is to be subverted. Probably you're right and it is better just to pay this sort of thing no mind and get on with the more important business at hand.
The problem, I guess, is that ignoring Bush won't make him go away (for another 3 years or so, at least.) Of course, paying attention won't make him go away either, so I'm sort of stuck there. And worse, even when he does go away, there's somebody else just like him to step in.
I used to read a lot of this woman, Avital Ronell, and she was involved with this problem of trying to go beyond mere subversion. She thought (I think) that we need a radical break, a rupture, in order to move beyond this "reactive, mimetic, and regressive posturing" which I think is something like the problem you are referring to.
Still, my emotions often seem to over ride my better judgement, and probably that's not always bad. I'm no democrat (or republican) but I'll most likely continue to take a small laugh at G.W.B.'s expense when I get the chance. Not that her story was particularly funny, but I could see the image of him standing there with that mask-like campaign look plastered on his face while saying something nasty under his breath. That's good for a chuckle. If he didn't look so much like Alfred E. Neuman when I picture him in my mind the whole thing might even serve to humanize him a bit.
Maybe humor can be a mini-rupture which allows you to subvert without getting caught up?
Can I still get a res at Gylany? 8:30?
- jim 7-20-2001 12:08 am [add a comment]
Damn strange, last night I had a dream in which I met George W. Bush and told him that I thought he was doing a lousy job as president. I think remember that I called him a dope.
- steve 7-20-2001 12:18 am [add a comment]
i think youre having al gores dreams. was tipper there?
- dave 7-20-2001 12:22 am [add a comment]
OK, I admit it, Madame Bovary is me.
But I do think this is a "big idea". It's still inchoate, maybe more a vision than an idea. That's why we can only see a rupture, rather than a path from here to there. Still, we gotta try. I was taught the subversive strategy in art school, and you can be sure that once it's reached that point, it's over. What started as a formal observation of the way in which art styles change became a prescription, demanding constant change, even if based on nothing but reaction. The result was a lot of really boring, academic art, which lead to a real reaction, which produced even worse art. Much the same with politics. Marx's critique rings as true as ever, but the prescription derived from it failed. At least in the art world not so many people get killed in the process.
I believe in humor, but the funniest jokes are always at our own expense.
- alex 7-20-2001 12:59 am [add a comment]