Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Bush needs a new spokesperson
Sorry to have been away for so long. Unimportant things like work have a way of intruding on the truly important aspects of life, like blogging. Anyway, I'm back, with my latest perspective.
I am often struck by the things that people say.
I listen to people, even when they don't think I'm listening. When I am teaching, I often ask people to repeat the things that they say, not because I didn't hear what they said, but because I want to make sure that I what I heard come out their mouths is what actually came out. I turn over the things that people say in my mind, and one of my primary motivations is to figure out if people really mean the things that they say.
It may be the case that most people do this. I'm not claiming any special insight. But I do wonder how often people listen to what they themselves say, to figure out if what they say is really what they mean. I'm sure that most people don't.
I bring this up because I was reading an article whose subject matter has been tied to the recent passing of President Reagan. 58 Senators recently signed a letter calling on President Bush to loosen federal restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. Although the letter was sent to Bush before Reagan's death, one of the letter's signatories, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) places the issue in context:
In the wake of the letter's receipt, the White House has made a position known through spokesman Ken Lisaius, who says that President Bush remains committed to his present policy, despite evidence that a growing number of stem cell lines have become unusable since the original policy was promulgated:
I'm quite certain that the President doesn't photosynthesize. And I'm sure that he's too busy running the free world to be out a-huntin' while Laura's out a-gatherin'. Is it too much to ask that one extra word be inserted into a quote to prevent people more radical than I am from putting one part of the quote in a more radical light than I am doing now.
I could appeal to my good friend Jody's sense of economics: what savings of time and effort are realized through the use of one extra word now over the potential headaches caused by defending a quote that later on can be...hmmm, how will it be put?
Of course, all of this assumes that this issue gets any more play on any side. We'll all have to stay tuned.
Comments(3) |
I am often struck by the things that people say.
I listen to people, even when they don't think I'm listening. When I am teaching, I often ask people to repeat the things that they say, not because I didn't hear what they said, but because I want to make sure that I what I heard come out their mouths is what actually came out. I turn over the things that people say in my mind, and one of my primary motivations is to figure out if people really mean the things that they say.
It may be the case that most people do this. I'm not claiming any special insight. But I do wonder how often people listen to what they themselves say, to figure out if what they say is really what they mean. I'm sure that most people don't.
I bring this up because I was reading an article whose subject matter has been tied to the recent passing of President Reagan. 58 Senators recently signed a letter calling on President Bush to loosen federal restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. Although the letter was sent to Bush before Reagan's death, one of the letter's signatories, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) places the issue in context:
"This issue is especially poignant given President Reagan's passing. Embryonic stem cell research might hold the key to a cure for Alzheimer's and other terrible diseases."The fact aside that those in the right-to-life movement oppose the harvesting of stem cells because it destroys the "lives" of the embryos in question, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was among 14 Republicans to have signed the letter. Hatch has characterized his support for the measure in terms of his opposition to abortion. There are those who have criticized his apparent inconsistency, and there are those who have criticized the criticism. I will leave that to other people.
In the wake of the letter's receipt, the White House has made a position known through spokesman Ken Lisaius, who says that President Bush remains committed to his present policy, despite evidence that a growing number of stem cell lines have become unusable since the original policy was promulgated:
"The president remains committed to exploring the promise of stem cell research but at the same time continues to believe strongly that we should not cross a fundamental moral line by funding or encouraging the destruction of human embryos. The president does not believe that life should be created for the sole purpose of destroying it. He does believe we can explore the promise and potential of stem cell research using the existing lines of stem cells." (Emphasis added.)Now sure, the portion of the quote that I've highlighted should certainly be considered in the context of the whole. But I still see this as lazy rhetoric.
I'm quite certain that the President doesn't photosynthesize. And I'm sure that he's too busy running the free world to be out a-huntin' while Laura's out a-gatherin'. Is it too much to ask that one extra word be inserted into a quote to prevent people more radical than I am from putting one part of the quote in a more radical light than I am doing now.
I could appeal to my good friend Jody's sense of economics: what savings of time and effort are realized through the use of one extra word now over the potential headaches caused by defending a quote that later on can be...hmmm, how will it be put?
"...taken out of context by those with opposing political agenda..."That sounds like something that would come out of a White House spokesperson's mouth.
Of course, all of this assumes that this issue gets any more play on any side. We'll all have to stay tuned.
Comments(3) |
Interesting questions: Should you make efforts to couch everything you say so carefully that it can't be misconstrued when excerpted out of context by those who wish to malign you?
Or should a plain meaning suffice?
What benefit is gained at what cost?
Or should a plain meaning suffice?
What benefit is gained at what cost?
(Played with the delete button, and umm, there apparently is no prompt. I think I'll hide the button. The following is the original comment)
Further, when what you say clearly means one thing, and those that wish you ill will distort it anyways, what's the value of the extra effort? Case in point, Rummy's speech in Singapore as portrayed by the Chicago Sun Times.
Post a Comment
Further, when what you say clearly means one thing, and those that wish you ill will distort it anyways, what's the value of the extra effort? Case in point, Rummy's speech in Singapore as portrayed by the Chicago Sun Times.
