The Bush Dyslexicon
July 31, 2001 11:23 AM Subscribe
I don't know what is more frightening: that this guy is right, and we have much more to fear about Bush, Jr. than we thought...or that he is wrong, and we do indeed live in a land whose president is an imbecile.
-- jfuller, former director, stable isotope laboratory, University of Georgia Institute of Ecology.
posted by jfuller at 11:47 AM on July 31, 2001
posted by fluxcreative at 11:54 AM on July 31, 2001
posted by binkin at 11:56 AM on July 31, 2001
It's an attempt to steal the appearance of substance and smear it on something made of fluff. And it shows a distinct (justified) inferiority complex on the part of the, uh, discipline. Imagine a professor of sociolinguistics who suddenly feels compelled to call himself a sociolinguistic physicist.
posted by jfuller at 12:09 PM on July 31, 2001
Oh, well, I suppose I'll continue to fail to understand why you take such umbrage at someone's use of what (it seems) you perceive as "your" word.
posted by binkin at 12:18 PM on July 31, 2001
posted by binkin at 12:24 PM on July 31, 2001
Do we need to fear this? Probably. Just because the poster child propped up in front of us has no content doesn't mean those behind the scenes are not totally capable of sending us to the Dark Ages.
Jfuller- Attacking the messenger doesn't obviate the message. Perhaps the author doesn't meet your expected qualifications or expectations, that won't render him incapable of making valid points. Hell, Rush may actually say something one of us can agree with someday!
posted by nofundy at 12:25 PM on July 31, 2001
They don't list anyone important until Lewis Mumford, down at no. 11. (And I note that they're kidnapping Mumford from outside the field: "Mumford is, for many, the founder of the media ecology approach, even though he had relatively little to say about media.")
posted by jfuller at 12:35 PM on July 31, 2001
posted by holgate at 12:45 PM on July 31, 2001
From my perspective, the field is a legitimate one - of course we should have an interest in how people interact with the media, given that it's so pervasive.
posted by binkin at 12:47 PM on July 31, 2001
Even if he is dyslexic, however, that condition can't account for all his verbal slips, which are so many and so various as to indicate a range of disabilities, including simple ignorance.
Though no W supporter, I disagree with this statement. While he's definately guilty of a few embarassing gaffes, on the whole, I think he speaks quite well. More than once, while expecting to be outraged, he's made me laugh. They were simple little jokes that he probably didn't come up with, but they worked.
Though most would disagree with me, I think W has a bit of that Clinton magic in him. When speaking, he somehow manages to come off as "one of the guys".
No matter what you think of him, one doesn't get to be president by being stupid. He may be dyslexic and unlearned, but underneath it all lies a ruthless brilliance.
posted by aladfar at 1:00 PM on July 31, 2001
posted by mapalm at 1:02 PM on July 31, 2001
I don't know. I have to restrain myself from shutting the radio off when I hear him talking. The slow pace just drives... me... nuts. That and he really does make a lot of slips and glaring grammatical errors that kind of downgrade the whole experience for me.
posted by binkin at 1:04 PM on July 31, 2001
Maybe not, but being the son of a President seems to do the trick...(oh, and the fact that the Supreme Court was stacked in your favor - thanks Dad and Uncle Ronnie).
posted by mapalm at 1:05 PM on July 31, 2001
Joking, right? He goes on and on...and doesn't say anything. Nothing. Zilch. Hey, come to think of it, that's how most pols and media folk come off as well - guess that's just the vapid culture we live in here in America. Read a newspaper from another country. Listen to newscasts. Talk to people in bars - and one thing becomes painfully clear: substantive debate on issues affecting our lives are hard to find in America. Bush is just playing the same game.
posted by mapalm at 1:10 PM on July 31, 2001
I don't buy the Chauncy Gardner interpretation of George W. Bush at all. I can't think of a more underwhelming off-the-cuff speaker in modern presidential history. He always looks like a person fumbling for an answer after a long night cramming for a test.
posted by rcade at 1:12 PM on July 31, 2001
posted by moz at 1:34 PM on July 31, 2001
Didn't happen.
posted by brucec at 1:46 PM on July 31, 2001
Isn't possible that the author is wrong and Bush is just a poor public speaker?
posted by obfusciatrist at 2:02 PM on July 31, 2001
posted by Postroad at 2:14 PM on July 31, 2001
Because sometimes a president has to be able to use the office as a bully pulpit, persuading the country in hard times that an unpopular course of action is the right one.
posted by rcade at 2:28 PM on July 31, 2001
Not likely - I've worked too many places where the secretaries knew how to sign the bosses' name.
I, for one, delight in having a President who has clearly visible puppet strings. Ooh, look, Oil Industry is making Dubya dance! Ain't that cute!
The White House really should just get a life-size Dubya cutout and attach a pen to its hand. At least the cutout wouldn't habitually embarrass itself. And at least people would know the true depth of our President, and look beyond that for who's really in charge.
Or maybe they'd just pose with the cutout and shut up. Sigh.
posted by solistrato at 2:43 PM on July 31, 2001
posted by mapalm at 2:50 PM on July 31, 2001
I don't know. I have to restrain myself from shutting the radio off when I hear him talking.
Apparently, reactions to someone's speaking ability are quite different depending on if you're watching them or if you're listening to them. Your posture, your intonation, your facial expressions, and other non-verbal communication factors weigh much more heavily than what you're actually saying. Over the radio, this is also true, but as there are less non-verbal cues, the actual message becomes more important. (So says Bert Decker in his book You've Got to Be Believed to Be Heard)
posted by annekef at 3:29 PM on July 31, 2001
Not sure what that is supposed to mean, unless....
anyone here a former cokehead?
posted by hincandenza at 3:37 PM on July 31, 2001
That's part of what this guy is talking about.
posted by Ptrin at 3:37 PM on July 31, 2001
Among friends, that's fine; but it's when negotiations rest upon fine details, tone and tenor, that you have to worry. And, whatever you say of Clinton, he was good at that to the point of absurdity: the lawyer's training that helped out in situations such as the Northern Ireland negotiations was also there when he was quibbling about the meaning of "is" to Kenneth Starr.
posted by holgate at 4:30 PM on July 31, 2001
And very, very few of them have come across as stupid and frightening as this one.
posted by Ptrin at 5:39 PM on July 31, 2001
posted by gyc at 5:57 PM on July 31, 2001
posted by Ptrin at 7:33 PM on July 31, 2001
Yep.
Oh wait, that was Goose in Top Gun.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 9:02 PM on July 31, 2001
I don't see why we're arguing about fighter pilots. We're discussing GWB, who spent most of his Texas National Guard duty AWOL, tossing back highballs and doing lines of coke off of hooker's asses while munching on aborted fetuses and consulting with Azothoth, Dread Lord of Genocide.
...
I went too far there, didn't I?
posted by solistrato at 9:20 PM on July 31, 2001
Frightening in what way? What was done under Clinton that was ever cause for alarm for any conservative? He lived up to his bargain with campaign contributors, paving the way for "freer trade", stamping out his own ignition for socialized health care. He was a lackey in every sense to multi national corporations as Bush is. Only, much more likable, statesmanlike and seemingly fascinated by international affairs. No ground was ever claimed by the liberals during his tenure. What scares the right so much about Clinton (even to this day)?
posted by crasspastor at 9:51 PM on July 31, 2001
It's either that he actually likes to have sex (the horror!) or that people weren't horrified that he liked to have sex, I think.
posted by lia at 11:42 PM on July 31, 2001
Not far enough, my good man.
'...doing lines of coke off of hookers' asses' got my attention, though, I'll tell ya! One hopes the air-con was cranked up at the time.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:42 PM on July 31, 2001
*sigh* ... yet another reason to consider Bush less-than-intelligent: he doesn't know the proper body part of the proper sex industry worker to snort his coke off. Sheesh, what a dumbass!
posted by hincandenza at 12:22 AM on August 1, 2001
posted by clavdivs at 6:36 AM on August 1, 2001
LBJ = Civil Rights Act. A major piece of legislation to those not of the white sheet persuasion. Much more important than Star Wars I'd say.
LBJ = Medicare, Medicaid. Ask granny if she appreciates that. Or does it count when it doesn't benefit some corporate master?
Need more? There's lots the man did, and I never even cared for him personally. Does his party affiliation negate his achievements in your eyes? Or are you just opposed to human rights, especially if they trump property rights?
posted by nofundy at 7:14 AM on August 1, 2001
Iceman: "man, now you will never be president"
Mav: "THIS ISNT ABOUT MY OLE MAN(cries)
jez. learn to debase a president with real teeth.
(my point, this shit is silly)
DID HIS DAUGHTER MEET THE QUEEN IN JEANS? (now that says volumes, not some frothing Tim Burton harangue)
Lbj did what he was told, that fuck. anyone who pulls his penis out in front of whitehouse aides and says "does ho chi mihn have anything like this" is a loon. why do you think he stepped down? (fucking smartest thing he ever did) i know shrub is short in the smarts dept. BUT he is president, i look at what it took to get there, then place a judgement. (I dont like Cheney, place the evil eye his way, that man is dangerous folks.) to be a fighter pilot requires skill and intelligence. he could not have faked being a pilot.(holy shit, know im scared, what if it was mirrors?)
posted by clavdivs at 7:17 AM on August 1, 2001
posted by clavdivs at 7:32 AM on August 1, 2001
posted by clavdivs at 10:44 AM on August 1, 2001
posted by clavdivs at 10:52 AM on August 1, 2001 [1 favorite]
The Bushes have denied that story, which originated in the British tabloids.
posted by rcade at 12:04 PM on August 1, 2001
Prezdent:"elephant ears? is that india?"
posted by clavdivs at 2:17 PM on August 1, 2001
The Times may not be as good a paper as it used to be, but it's certainly no tabloid.
posted by holgate at 2:37 PM on August 1, 2001
posted by crustbuster at 3:57 PM on August 1, 2001
posted by gyc at 4:25 PM on August 1, 2001
No more so than Al Gore and his "Look for the Union Label" comment, which the right seized on in their usual frenzy of delusional behavior. Don't you remember how that was supposed to prove yet again how Al Gore was a constant liar (never mind that he made that comment as a joke, to the laughter of the union audience he was speaking to- something that doesn't come across if you quote it without inflection or context)? Well, this proves yet again that Bush is stoopid- why should Bush get the benefit of the doubt any more than Gore and his many supposed "lies" or the times he was misquoted? Consistency's a bitch that way....
Repeat after me: Gore was the liar and stiff, Bush the guy you'd like to have a beer with, but who was dumb. Geez, didn't you read the media's script on this one, man...?
posted by hincandenza at 4:51 PM on August 1, 2001
« Older MSN blocks its subscribers | The War on Drug Wars. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Our local NPR station has a call-in program on weekdays, and they had a gentleman from a self-identified conservative news organization. His main purpose seemed to be defending Dubya from allegations of stupidity, and at one point he said "Look, do you really want a smart, intellectually curious president? I don't think so. You want someone who makes up his mind and gets the thing done without weighing the issues too much since that slows down the process." Not a direct quote, but that was the gist. Personally, I find that attitude frightening. Yeah, God forbid a world leader should get bogged down in "issues"....
posted by binkin at 11:34 AM on July 31, 2001