Weather, breaking news politics!

[brigdh]

Ugh, rain and rain and rain and gray and I haven't slept and I have to go to an extra class today woooooooe.

Seriously, though, if I'm going to talk about the weather, perhaps I should mention that it's in the 60s. In November. Oh, New York, keep this up and I will have whole new reasons to love you. I am terribly pleased by not yet having to break out sweaters and gloves.

...oh my God! Rumsfeld just resigned! I have to go listen to Bush give a speech now.

Comments

[darkelf105.livejournal.com]

Glad you posted, or I wouldn't have known. That is really good news.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

It just happened a few minutes ago, so I'm not surprised if the news hasn't spread yet. My flist is all about it- the top four or five posts each say the same thing: Rumsfeld gone!

[vom-marlowe.livejournal.com]

Thank you for posting that! Such good news, on top of other good news, today. Yeah! It's going to be 85 here in Missouri today; since I love blustery November weather, this is making me cranky (sixties, I adore).

So, can I ask a dumb question about that music meme thingy? Are we supposed to post music to your journal, in the comments there, or in kessie's journal? (Of course, I have now ruined my anonymity.)

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

I know! I'm so happy today!

Dude, 85? I am incredibly jealous; that's the kind of weather I love. We should trade places, clearly.

*laughs* Not dumb at all. You post them to the comments in that journal, as a reply to the screenname you want to get the music (so you'd post anything for me under mine, anything for kessie under hers, and so on).

[p-zeitgeist.livejournal.com]

Dude. You're braver than I am. I'm waiting for somebody I can stand listening to to tell me what he said.

Billmon, maybe. Or Olbermann.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Is he always this, um, condescending to the reporters? I usually watch clips on other news shows instead of press conferences themselves, and I find it hard to believe that anyone who's been in politics for a significant amount of time, regardless of their particular stance, could be this terrible at diplomacy. I keep thinking of ways he could phrase his reponses to questions that would make him sound less... angry, less like he's offended by the very thought people would question him, and yet he always takes the least eloquent path.

[weirdquark]

I think Bush has a long history of being offended by people questioning him.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Heh.

He's just so arrogant! And rude! How do you possibly get away with that in a situation where the whole point is to convince people do be on your side?

[p-zeitgeist.livejournal.com]

Without even seeing or hearing it, I can tell you that the answer is yes. Notoriously. It's part of what makes him so unpleasant to listen to.

It's also a continuing mystery of politics. My own hypothesis is that his supporters don't mind it because they talk the same way, with the same angry, condescending certainty in their stumbling and simplistic answers, so that they hear their own voices coming out of Bush's mouth. It's only a guess, really, but it's also the only way I can account for anyone in the country continuing to support him after his first month or two in office. It's like listening to an unusually stupid drunk in a bar, or a worse-than-the-norm kindergarten teacher.

As I said, these days I hide until it's over. Usually I'm stuck listening to soundbytes from it later, but that's never as agonizing as having to hear the whole thing.

Did he say anything of substance? Is it safe to come out now?

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes. That's exactly what it's like- I couldn't think of how to describe it, but you've got it. The absolute assurance in himself, paired with an assumption that he doesn't need to bother to explain.

Did he say anything of substance? Is it safe to come out now?

Given that it's now nearly five hours later (ah, school, why must you take me away from the clearly more important internet), you've probably heard it all already. I have to say though, that I found the most offensive part where he read off this message to the 'terrorists', that they shouldn't see this election as a concession. As though some random jihadist would care about the difference between Lamont and Lieberman.* It seemed such blatant terror-mongering to me, and so clearly aimed at American voters rather than anyone else.

*I assume- I hope- that you realize I'm not saying "All the Arabs just want to destroy every American!" but rather that, if your main cause of complaint is your country being invaded and your home being bombed, I doubt relatively minor differences of policy will mean anything to you, particularly until or if we start seeing changes in action.

[p-zeitgeist.livejournal.com]

No, you're right, it's tremendously offensive. It assumes that "the terrorists" are a bunch of faceless spear carriers, cartoon characters who have no will or thoughts of their own beyond their supposed bloodthirsty delight in the success of anyone Bush doesn't like, and their supposed terror of Bush's continued political success. Vote for the Bushies, or the thing under the bed will get you!

Actually, this is part of what bothers me about this administration's entire approach. I swear to God, I think Bush and his inner circle think of themselves, and of this country, as a kind of global Mary Sue. Everyone else is supposed to recognize that we're the best! Don't they know we're always right?! Don't they see our sparkly emerald eyes and lustrous flowing blond hair? And as with any Mary Sue, the roles of all other characters are reduced to reflecting our glory, in their various Good or Evil ways. The mystery is that it never occurs to anyone why denying everyone else on the planet the simple right to be central to their own stories might tend to annoy them and be bad for diplomacy.

-- Okay, I'll stop now. You can probably tell I've got a whole long rant about this, can't you?

One truly weird thing about the claim that "the terrorists" might be encouraged by the results of this election, though, is that it has seemed obvious to me right along that al Quaeda, at least, strongly prefers for Bush to remain in power. He's been great for them, and all indications have been that Osama bin Laden, an intelligent man who knows the West well, knows it. Why, why is this not wildly obvious to everyone?

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

The mystery is that it never occurs to anyone why denying everyone else on the planet the simple right to be central to their own stories might tend to annoy them and be bad for diplomacy.

God, you have the best metaphors. But yes, that's exactly what it's like, and it drives me crazy, not just from the administration, but many of the regular people I talk to. There's such an emphasis on the centrality of the American narrative that everyone else becomes reduced to the point of ridiculousness (what the hell, freedom fries? That was totally useful). It's not only stupid in and of itself, but it's a mentality that makes any real progress toward improving things nearly impossible. If you're not willing to grant other people real motivations and goals, how could even begin to guess at what will be helpful or detrimental? But often even suggesting that people do things because they perceive them as a good thing to do, or that they have a reasoning, means you "sympathize with the terrorists".

I feel that many us of probably have a whole rant about this.

He's been great for them,

Yes. It's like that recent report that showed how the Iraq war has actually made things unsafer. It's obvious, and yet has seemed to have been entirely dismissed or forgotten already.