http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2002-2006 by the authors Sun, 27 Apr 2003 14:43:00 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/26/150549.php#comment-8570 Kriselda - Perhaps your initial instincts should be trusted rather more than how easily you're incited to anger by reading a weblog post. I'd worry more about real actions than off-the-cuff anecdotes without an audio record to provide context and nuance. The entire outrage seems to be over a three-word sentence "Hes' my man," which is exactly the sort of thing that carries a cultural connotation well beyond its literal meaning. And frankly, I was horribly fascinated with the guy as well. He was fascinating to watch as I tried to determine why on earth he was saying what he was saying. As far as levity in the midst of war goes, he was indeed my man as well. 8^) ]]> 8570@blogcritics.org Sun, 27 Apr 2003 14:43:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/26/150549.php#comment-8566 I've been thinking more about this - another positive aspect of Bush's reaction is that it shows he hasn't dehumanized the Iraqis, the enemy in time of war, and that he has the capacity to see humor, and apparently even feel soem affection for someone emblematic of the other side. This is about as far away as WW2 propaganda against the "yellow peril" and the "evil huns" as it gets. ]]> 8566@blogcritics.org Sun, 27 Apr 2003 13:16:43 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/26/150549.php#comment-8534 I understood fully what you said. I think you're overreacting and looking for things to jump on Bush for. The people in his meetings probably "popped out" with him to watch, too, and had a good laugh with him about it. Really - this isn't a big deal. It's not a small deal - it's not a "deal" at all. It's nothing. ]]> 8534@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Apr 2003 19:21:58 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/26/150549.php#comment-8526 Sorry, Eric - my comments were in response to Tom Johnson, not you. And yes, there are times when a bit of immaturity can be helpful, I'm just not sure that it's necessarily a good quality in a President - or at least not to the extent in which it seems to exist in this particular President. It's one of those "time and place for everything" things, you know? I wouldn't have a problem with him wanting to watch this guy and have people telling him when he was going to be on when he was, say, just working in his office, or between meetings, or other times like that. In this case, however, he specifically said that he'd "pop" out of *meetings* or "turn" to watch the TV - and that's just not something I think is necessarily appropriate. ]]> 8526@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Apr 2003 16:26:44 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/26/150549.php#comment-8515 K, I have no problem with the Wheaton link and I think bringing the idea up was important, just saying "immaturity" in some forms isn't necessarily bad. ]]> 8515@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Apr 2003 16:02:07 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/26/150549.php#comment-8514 Maybe he was a "break" from the serousness of the war, but for the President to be leaving meetings or putting a meeting on hold so he could watch the guy is pretty pathetic, really. I'd like to think that the business of the country is a bit more important to the President than whether or not he gets to catch an idiot on TV. As for my linking to Wheaton, if you read the first part of my post again, you might notice this statement: "but after reading Wil Wheaton's entry on the subject, I have to agree". I linked to Wheaton, not because he's at all famous, but because it was his comment that led directly to my looking at the story from a different perspective. If it had been Joe Schmoe who was furious and who's comment had prompted my own reaction, I'd've written my entry the exact same way, but with Joe Schmoe's name and link in it instead of Wheaton's. ]]> 8514@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Apr 2003 15:59:57 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/26/150549.php#comment-8513 You're right - some of us, hopefully a lot of us - see this as nothing to get upset about. There's nothing "petty, indulgent and juvinile (sic)" about it. The DisInfo Minister was an important example of what Iraq was about, and a hilarious break from the seriousness of the war. And once again, I see we're giving more credence to a "celebrity's" view than is warranted. Why not link to some other random blogger who thought something similar? You obviously picked Wheaton because, somehow, this cements your point. If Wheaton says it, it must be right. Right? My God, this is so dumb. Bush successfully carried out the war on Iraq, and all you anti-Bush people can do is nitpick. It really does make you all look very small, paranoid, and childish. What will you do when Bush gets elected again? Oh, that's right, more childish nitpicking. ]]> 8513@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Apr 2003 15:48:25 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/26/150549.php#comment-8510 K, great post, although a "manchild" may be exactly what we need. Just for fun, look into the concept of "neoteny": "childlike" isn't the same as "childish" ]]> 8510@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Apr 2003 15:17:43 EDT