Sure, no problem: let's say I'm a money trader, working on the stock exchange or for some other brokerage firm. In fact, in real life I briefly contemplated doing that.

I do my homework. Bush is coming to visit. He says in advance he's not going to comment on the currently very weakened Japanese economy. Excellent. I suspect that he will sign trade agreements and utter pleasant yet meaningless noises about more Sino-American cooperation, which in turn will strengthen the Japanese economy, and potentially the currency as well. I buy $5million in Yen, ready to short sell at the end of the day.

Bush turns up. Bush comments on the forthcoming 'devaluation'. The Yen drops. My brokerage firm is stuck with short term losses, and I get fired, my place snapped up by one of the thousands of brokers the economy produces every month.

It's that simple: people's livelihoods can depend on reading politics; if someonebody makes a 'boo boo', they can get fired. I don't feel particularly *sorry* for brokers and traders, as their job isn't exactly the most productive in the world, but some of them certainly lost their jobs over that. It's a cutthroat business, but it wasn't their fault.

About how someone's stupidity can kill people: let's assume there was academic research going on right now that could save many people's lives. Let's say the administration restricted and stopped that research, for reasons either unexplained or vaguely hinted at. Or let's say the administration prohibited academic discussion of the research, locking it away?
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/17/politics/17SECR.html

About the limits of freedom: George W. Bush made that comment regarding a GW Bush parody website. He filed a legal complaint against a website, using the above citation.
Source: http://www.gwbush.com/pressdallasnews.htm
http://www.rtmark.com/more/limits_to_freedom.mp3

Still care to employ hyperbole and talk about killing people?

X.

Devaluation? Did I say devaluation? I meant deflation.

Axis of Evil? Did I say that? I meant Excess of Evil.

Where can you get a good pretzel in Asia?

If you want to get the President's attention on economic issues ... meet with his National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice.

GW Bush: USA and Japan; partners in peace for 150 years
 

GW Bush:

"My trip to Asia begins here in Japan for an important reason. It begins here because for a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times. From that alliance has come an era of peace in the Pacific."

Of course Bush Sr. was shot down over the Pacific himself, AFAIK. And there were 'minor' issues prior to WW2 as well, not that we want to dwell on genocide and mass rape, mind you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/182500...01_bush_vi.ram

What's better, of course, is that the White House published a transcript of that speech, with 'a century and a' omitted. Let's keep the public as disinformed as possible?

I am sure he mis-spoke, of course. He's just human, after all.

X.

.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................words fail me.

My god.

Look, I think that it's far more likely that President Bush flubbed his lines (as we know he's prone to do). Do you really think he's forgotten about World War II? He said "century and a half" - maybe me meant "half a century"? It's not like he said "since 1850" or "for the last one hundred fifty years." Maybe it was edited because they were aware that Bush fucked it up and then wanted it to be factually correct?

There are some things that I won't make excuses for. "Youthful indiscretions" and the like. But the fact of the matter is, it's <b>well known</b> that Bush has a tendency to flub speeches that have been written for him. He does pretty alright on his own, but when he's trying to remember these words perfectly (and is under enormous pressure to do so, knowing that idiots on message boards across the world will pick apart every misspoken word he utters), he makes mistakes and flubs lines. He's a human being. President or not, he's still prone to error. Stop making a big deal about the little things.

Hey Dham,

thanks for your response.

> Look, I think that it's far more likely that President Bush flubbed
> his lines (as we know he's prone to do). Do you really think
> he's forgotten about World War II? He said "century and a
> half" - maybe me meant "half a century"? It's not like he
> said "since 1850" or "for the last one hundred fifty years."

You are completely right. I don't think anyone is disputing that. The reason why so many people are appalled by his verbal errors is because politics is a business in which you can't allow such flubs - it's that simple. I recommend 'The Bush Dyslexicon', as an illustration of the underlying issues regarding Bush's struggle with the English language.

As an aside: personally I don't think that Bush is a complete moron, just based on his verbal gaffes.

> Maybe it was edited because they were aware that Bush
> fucked it up and then wanted it to be factually correct?

Sure, that's the reason. It's also a falsification of a public record. If you're the White House office, and you release a transcript of a speech the President gave, don't you think you ought to release the actual text he spoke? This sanitization of the truth is - to me - absolutely baffling, and the actual reason why I posted the above. His error is excusable, falsifying public records isn't. To use hyperbole, what if a given government politician made a speech in which he accidentally misspoke and blamed Jews for the ills of the world, only for the 'official' record of that speech to be 'corrected'?

> it's <b>well known</b> that Bush has a tendency to flub
> speeches that have been written for him.

That might be the reason why he is ridiculed so often. A lot of people are uncomfortable having a man in charge who is unable to read some text straight off the paper. Not being American, this doesn't affect me personally, of course; I just find it interesting from a 'political science' point of view.

X.

I think the problem with flubbing lines (at least for me, because I do indeed occasionally misspeak when I'm reading something aloud) is that my mouth can only speak so fast and my brain gets ahead of it. When that happens, you're not thinking about what you're saying that instant - you're thinking about what you're going to say in a couple seconds. Just the same as not being able to spell is not a great indication of intelligence, trouble speaking isn't either.

I agree that the editing of the transcript is curious, unless a note was made of it. When I first read it, I probably misunderstood - I thought it was a transcript of what he was <b>supposed</b> to say, not what he did. My mistake.

My apologies also for misunderstanding your intent with your post - your ending can read as though it's sarcastic and I thought you were ragging on him for his verbal slip-up.

As seen in the Austin Chronicle:
"Haiku of the week:
Dubya in Japan,
English language he deflates,
but not devalues."
heheh

IIRC, standard procedure is that the "transcript", in the case of a prepared speech, is produced and released to the media just _before_ the speech is made.

(edit is that I added the last 'and')

At least he didn't barf on anybody.