Bush lets out his inner asshole

[The Lone Ranger]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S3xeMNJMRg[/YOUTUBE]

[Watser?]

Yep, that's the one

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Yes, this is important. If it is implying that because Bush has said and done worse, we no longer need to care about whether an accusation like this is justified, I would disagree.

Oh well, I can clear that right up for you: my comment implied no such thing.

If you aren't implying that, and you agree that we are still morally obliged to care about truth when we tell stories which attack Bush, then I think you'll be happy to discuss this story on its own merits and in its own terms. My point here is that we do democracy a disservice when we sanction dishonest journalism by swallowing it, even when the victim of the dishonesty is our enemy. Poison is poison even when it's sugar-coated.

I agree thoroughly, which is why I disputed your spin about this mysterious "feminism" you allude to without factual support of any kind. Although I wouldn't necessary call your manipulating the facts to present feminism as teaching that girls shouldn't cry when adults are rude to them dishonest so much as contrived to score rhetorical points.

Yes, I can see it is difficult to defend anyone against the feelings of outrage that that version of the events is calculated to arouse. It isn't the only way to tell the story though. There are other just as truthful versions which wouldn't manipulate the audience's emotions in the same way. The moral question is whether all versions are equally acceptable, and if not, how should a fair minded person chose between them?

Could you quote, please, the "version" to which you refer? You claim the media reports are spun, so if you could quote the report itself instead of the non-media regular types posting here it might help clarify your argument.

It's certainly a PR blunder to give journalists a story that they can so easily spin into a damaging image. I don't accept that this amounts to an excuse for bad journalism, though.

Again, you'll have to quote the actual journalists instead of posters in order to make this a reasonable argument.

That's a Have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-type insinuation that begs the question under discussion, I'd say.

If I were writing an article in a newspaper that would be relevant. I'm not, though, so it's not. I'm just expressing my opinion of his personality based on what I've seen of him. The press corps has consistently presented the exact opposite impression, in fact: the Bush as "guy you want to have a beer with" meme has been the order of the day for 7 years.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by davidm

Still, the have-a-beer-with-Bush thesis was actually put to the test. A special report below:

Lone-awaited Beer with Bush Really Awkward, Voter Reports.

Oh come on, that story is clearly spun the president as someone you would not want to have a beer with. Wake up and smell the media manipulation, david, seriously.

[mindbender]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I'm stating an obvious fact that seems to have eluded you. Not a woman, a child.
The difference between a thirteen year old girl and a woman isn't always obvious. The age at which a girl discovers that tears can turn the crown crowd to her side and are a skill worth cultivating is difficult to pin down too, I think.

Mick

Thank you for posting the most sexist comment I've seen on a message board in months.

[Crumb]

Bush is the lamest of lame ducks. Not only can he not run again, but his popularity is so tanked that it is in the interest of the Republican party for him to look like a complete crackpot. No Republican wants to be associated with Bush whether they are running for president, congress, or governor so he has no political reason to maintain the facade at this point.

[Shelli]

Good points, Crumb.

[erimir]

I thought this was a joke at first. Like satire.

It reminds me of that classic episode of the Simpsons, Who Shot Mr. Burns.

Bush is just a parody of himself.

I wonder when Congress is gonna grow the balls to actually do something about these shitheads.

[mickthinks]

LOL! I can't even remember what it's like to be a woman, Sock! I'm not sure why this matters.

Mick

[mickthinks]

Thanks Livius Drusus!

I am glad we are are equally committed to a clear and dispassionate assessment of the story and the moral judgements it invites us to make. You are anxious to tackle me on a side issue, which is my spin about the mysterious "feminism" I alluded to without factual support, while I am anxious to tackle you on an issue related to the main point, which is the prejudice I think I see in "the most powerful man in the world picking on a little girl" and "a grown man making a kid cry" interpretations you have placed on this news story.

My problem with your interpretations is that they seem to assume that Bush was hostile or aggressive to the girl. I haven't read anything in the reports that supports this assumption. I think it has been cleverly insinuated so as to lead those people who are disposed to think badly of Bush to believe that he acted badly here.

I don't understand your problem with my 'spin about feminism'. I don't believe I manipulated any facts or implied that feminism teaches girls not to cry. Can you explain a bit more about what I said or implied that you want to take issue with?

Mick
* I may have missed the crucial detail of course. But side-tracking the discussion onto other issues like what feminism teaches is no substitute for supplying the detail you think I may have missed.

[mickthinks]

Could you quote, please, the "version" to which you refer?
I did quote it, Livius, so I am not sure what you're getting at here. I'll quote it again and in full;

Originally Posted by Livius Drusus

It's just a classic scenario of cowardice and meanness -- the most powerful man in the world picking on a little girl

You claim the media reports are spun, so if you could quote the report itself instead of the non-media regular types posting here it might help clarify your argument.
Why would it clarify the argument about the way members posting here have interpreted the story? I don't think I have focussed on the media's spin to the exclusion of non-media types spin, and if I appeared to it wasn't my intention. When someone offers an interpretation of a story which isn't supported by the details, it doesn't matter that much to me who put the spin on it. What matters to me is why the spin isn't seen for what it is.

If there's a specific charge of spin I have made that you aren't happy about, please point it out to me and I'll try and deal with it.

Mick

[mickthinks]

Hello again Livius!

you'll have to quote the actual journalists instead of posters in order to make this a reasonable argument.
It's not supposed to be an argument. It's an observation to make the point that PR blunders aren't necessarily moral failures that have been reportedly fairly. I'm hoping that's a point you can agree with.

Mick

[mickthinks]

Hello again Livius!

I'm just expressing my opinion of his personality
I realise that is what lies behind what you've said here, and I am not denying your rights to hold and express this opinion. I am not even disagreeing with it.

I am saying that it doesn't justify making moral judgements that are not supported by the evidence. The dispute here between us is whether this story of the girl in tears is an example of Bush being morally repugnant. It may be so in your opinion, but that opinion, as in "he used to cover up his fratboy churlishness better than this" isn't proof. It isn't even evidence. Sorry!

Mick

[mickthinks]

Hello Plant Woman!

Any man that is rude to a child enough to make them cry, is a bully. Where's the spin?
The spin is right there in the suggestion that this is a story of a man being rude and making a child cry.

Mick

[Zadalya]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I'm stating an obvious fact that seems to have eluded you. Not a woman, a child.
The difference between a thirteen year old girl and a woman isn't always obvious. The age at which a girl discovers that tears can turn the crown crowd to her side and are a skill worth cultivating is difficult to pin down too, I think.

Mick

It feels like you're going out of your way to be devil's advocate here.

[Zadalya]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I'm stating an obvious fact that seems to have eluded you. Not a woman, a child.
The difference between a thirteen year old girl and a woman isn't always obvious. The age at which a girl discovers that tears can turn the crown crowd to her side and are a skill worth cultivating is difficult to pin down too, I think.

Mick

It feels like you're deliberately over-analyzing this. Maybe I'm wrong?

[erimir]

It feels like I don't really care about what mickthinks.

[Plant Woman]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Hello Plant Woman!

Any man that is rude to a child enough to make them cry, is a bully. Where's the spin?
The spin is right there in the suggestion that this is a story of a man being rude and making a child cry.

Mick

So you believe the man was being sensitive and respectful to the 13 year old girl? Please show where he was.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I am saying that it doesn't justify making moral judgements that are not supported by the evidence. The dispute here between us is whether this story of the girl in tears is an example of Bush being morally repugnant. It may be so in your opinion, but that opinion, as in "he used to cover up his fratboy churlishness better than this" isn't proof. It isn't even evidence. Sorry!

Don't be silly. If you're going to hold forth on what qualifies as proof (nay, evidence) of "moral repugnance", then at least let us know what objective standard you're measuring the President's behavior against. So far all your comments have "proven" is that the President of the United States being callous and flippant in response to the enquiry of a young girl isn't evidence of moral repugnance to you. On the contrary, you're inclined to blame the media and/or the young girl herself for her reaction to his comment. This may be evidence of a lot of things, but only proves that your moral standards are different from mine.

[mickthinks]

Hello viscousmemories!

...let us know what objective standard you're measuring the President's behavior against.
I haven't applied any moral standards to Bush's behaviour yet, because I am disputing the assumptions other people are making about what there is to judge.

For example, your complaint is that Bush was callous and flippant. As far as I can see, the only evidence for callousness is the girl's tears. I don't think a girl's tears are sufficient to prove a charge of callousness on the man's part. And if he wasn't callous, then the flippancy on its own isn't much of a moral issue.

Yes, I'm very much inclined to blame those sections of the media which have encouraged so many good Americans to rush to rash judgement.

Mick
Don't be silly. That's a rather aggressive put-down. Do you get to talk to other people like that because you're the king of the board?

[mickthinks]

Thanks Plant Woman!

To deny rudeness isn't to assert sensitivity. For example, I pass by thousands of people every day in the streets where I live, without a care for their welfare or feelings. I don't count that as rudeness, and neither do I claim it is being sensitive and respectful. It falls in a nameless, morally neutral gap between them, as most behaviour does. I think Bush's behaviour toward the girl was probably also neither sensitive and respectful nor rude and callous.

Do you see what I mean by 'spin' now?

Mick

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Hello viscousmemories!

...let us know what objective standard you're measuring the President's behavior against.
I haven't applied any moral standards to Bush's behaviour yet, because I am disputing the assumptions other people are making about what there is to judge.

If you haven't applied any moral standards to Bush's behavior, then how were you able to determine that livius hadn't offered proof (or even evidence) that his behavior was morally repugnant?

As far as I can see, the only evidence for callousness is the girl's tears.

Maybe that reveals the important difference in our moral standards. To me, Bush's dismissive comment was the first (and most important) evidence of his moral repugnance. Not that I needed any more evidence for that conclusion.

Yes, I'm very much inclined to blame those sections of the media which have encouraged so many good Americans to rush to rash judgement.

Do you have any evidence that anyone in this thread has rushed to judgement, or are you just talking about good Americans in general?

Don't be silly. That's a rather aggressive put-down. Do you get to talk to other people like that because you're the king of the board?

So by your standards the President of the United States blowing off the enquiry a 13 yr. old girl is a-okay, but an anonymous forum admin admonishing you not to be silly is "a rather aggressive put-down"? I guess our moral standards really are pretty drastically different.

[mickthinks]

If you haven't applied any moral standards to Bush's behavior, then how were you able to determine that livius hadn't offered proof (or even evidence) that his behavior was morally repugnant?
I think there's a big difference between judging the moral repugnance of a behaviour, and recognising that a behaviour doesn't raise a moral issue. I don't think Livius has provided any evidence that Bush's behaviour here should be viewed as a moral issue.

If you can persuade me that it is a moral issue then I will be able to answer questions about what moral standards I would apply to it, and it might be worth discussing whether they were different from yours. Right now, we are still on the issue of whether the story has to be interpreted in the way you and so many others here have interpreted it.

For example, you dub Bush's comment as 'dismissive'. I'm not sure about that and even if it was, I'm not sure why that would count as morally repugnant. After all, your "Don't be silly' comment was certainly dismissive of my view. Do you then plead gulilty to being 'morally repugant'? I have to say, it never occurred to me to make so strong a charge against you. But then, you aren't my President and I don't hate you.

Mick

[mickthinks]

Hello again viscousmemories!

Do you have any evidence that anyone in this thread has rushed to judgement, or are you just talking about good Americans in general?
Nope, I've no evidence, except the gap I've indicated between the details of the story and the interpretation of those details made by the many here who support Watser's 'inner arsehole' judgement. It's just my opinion and I'm not forcing you to argue with it.

So by your standards the President of the United States blowing off the enquiry a 13 yr. old girl is a-okay, but an anonymous forum admin admonishing you not to be silly is "a rather aggressive put-down"?
You're kind of implying here that if I concede that Bush was bad to the girl, then you'll concede that you were aggressive. I think that's a self-incriminating plea bargain and I'd rather see you in court!

I guess our moral standards really are pretty drastically different.
I think you are probably right, but not in quite the way you mean. We'll see!

Mick

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I think there's a big difference between judging the moral repugnance of a behaviour, and recognising that a behaviour doesn't raise a moral issue. I don't think Livius has provided any evidence that Bush's behaviour here should be viewed as a moral issue.

Then I guess it's fortunate for her that she never claimed it was a moral issue. She described the President's behavior as inappropriate, rude, hurtful and churlish, but she didn't say anything about whether it was immoral. You're the one who framed it as a moral question:

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I am saying that it doesn't justify making moral judgements that are not supported by the evidence. The dispute here between us is whether this story of the girl in tears is an example of Bush being morally repugnant.

...and then put that strawman in liv's mouth and attacked it as unsupported by evidence:

Originally Posted by mickthinks

It may be so in your opinion, but that opinion, as in "he used to cover up his fratboy churlishness better than this" isn't proof. It isn't even evidence. Sorry!

I was just pointing out that unless one subscribes to some objective moral standard, it would be nigh impossible to provide evidence (let alone proof) that something is morally repugnant.

For example, you dub Bush's comment as 'dismissive'. I'm not sure about that and even if it was, I'm not sure why that would count as morally repugnant.

I didn't say being dismissive is morally repugnant, I said that the President being unabashedly rude to a young girl is evidence of his moral repugnance. It may not be very strong evidence, but like I also said I didn't really need any more evidence for that conclusion - I drew it years ago. This is just another drop in the bucket.

After all, your "Don't be silly' comment was certainly dismissive of my view. Do you then plead gulilty to being 'morally repugant'?

So no, I don't plead guilty on that charge. I was certainly dismissive of your view, but as I implied I don't believe I have the same behavioral obligations when posting on this forum as the President of the United States does when addressing enquiries from his constituency.