Index pagina
Geschiedenis
Ook leuke sites
Zeg het anders priveWij kunnen er helaas ook niets aan doen!
 





 

 

04/30/2006: "Bush bepaalt zelf wel wanneer hij grappen maakt"

2bushes (10k image)

Bush heeft zichzelf vandaag weer eens flink voor lul gezet. Opzich niets nieuws, ware het niet dat het dit keer expres was. Samen met een perfecte look-a-like betrad hij het podium voor een toespraak over zichzelf.

Klik op meer !!!

In die toespraak stak hij de draak met zichzelf door de media te verwijten dat zijn toespraken integraal worden uitgezonden. "Hoe durfen ze om zomaar niet in mijn uitspraken te knippen", aldus de verontwaardigde man waarbij niemand eigenlijk wist of het de echte Bush was of de kloon. Ook nam hij de hak met het verwijt dat hij de president zou zijn met het laagste IQ in de geschiedenis van Amerika. Dat zal wel te maken hebben met de uitspraak van sommige woorden zoals, "nuclear", dat door de andere Bush werd herhaald als "nuclaer".

verder hekelde Bush de lage waardering die Bush en zijn regering in de internationale gemeenschap krijgen. Al vond hij dat dat zijn leven niet mocht beďnvloeden. "Screw them", aldus één van de Bushes.

De actie zorgde vooral voor grote hilariteit in de vooral met pers gevulde zaal. De bijeenkomst werd afgesloten door een knuffel van de Bushes. Bush heeft zichzelf vandaag weer eens voor gek gezet. Dubbelop. Met deze actie van vandaag heeft hij namelijk bewezen nooit op de kalender te kijken. Eén April is namelijk allang geweest.

11 Reacties


Peter?
terug van weggeweest?

zei: Bas op 30/04/2006 om: 18:44u

Als je iemand verwijt dat hij niet goed met zijn taal uit de voeten kan, staat het een beetje lullig, als je zelf de mist in gaat bij een Nederlandse zegswijze: "nam hij de hak met het verwijt" moet zijn "nam hij zichzelf op de hak met het verwijt." Maar goed, dat soort slordigheid is algemeen tegenwoordig.

zei: Kees op 30/04/2006 om: 22:26u

Bovendien is het 'op zich', en niet 'opzich'.

zei: Opzichter op 30/04/2006 om: 22:27u

wat ik ervan gezien heb op tv was best geinig. die man heeft in elk geval gevoel voor humor, ijzersterk om zo'n performance te maken, gedurfd. zie het jan peter niet zo gauw doen. smile

zei: vikkie op 30/04/2006 om: 23:56u

Eerlijk gezegd denk ik niet dat 'die man' zelf gevoel voor humor heeft, maar eerder de pr-mensen die het voor hem hebben bedacht: 'Heej George, weet je wat goed voor je image zou zijn?'

zei: Wiske op 01/05/2006 om: 07:56u

Speciaal voor alle taalpuristen

big grin

zei: Bolus op 01/05/2006 om: 09:32u

Ff voor alle duidelijkheid, Peter zit nog steeds vast in P.I. Groot Bankenbosch. Via wat duistere weggetjes bereiken zijn artikelen toevallig iemand, die deze weer kan plaatsen op zijn naam op De Vrije. Vandaar smile Taalfoutjes behoren toe aan de betreffende schrijver die dit artikel voor hem geplaatst heeft.

zei: Steungroep Peter op 01/05/2006 om: 16:07u

ach, het is geen goede pr-stunt om de aandacht van de werkelijkheid af te leiden en daar heeft bush wel baat bij me dunkt

zei: che op 01/05/2006 om: 21:47u

Peter's dagboek deel 2 is onlangs online gezet. Lees en amuseer! wink

zei: bladvuller op 02/05/2006 om: 19:09u

Klik op de naam 'Bladvuller' en je komt in het dagboek terecht. op de site www.ravagedigitaal.org

zei: aanvulling bladvuller op 02/05/2006 om: 19:10u

Hum,
Ik ontving zojuist de volgende email van Ken Knabb over dit onderwerp.

Datum: Wed, 3 May 2006 09:53:17 -0700
Van: Bureau of Public Secrets
Antwoorden aan:Bureau of Public Secrets
Onderwerp: Colbert skewers Bush
Aan: Bureau of Public Secrets

[NOTE: Yesterday I sent out the message below to a few dozen friends. The
response was so enthusiastic, and so many of them said they hadn't even been aware of the event, that I am sending it out to my larger, more general emailing list. Apologies for duplicate mailings. --Ken Knabb]

[NOTE ALSO: The fact that much of the mass media did not even mention this
astonishing event, or dismissed it with a few contemptuous sentences, is one more demonstration of the media complicity Colbert was satirizing. And the fact that online video clips of his performance have now been seen by several million people is one more indication that the Internet and other alternative means of communication are in the process of making the mass media increasingly irrelevant.--KK]


Comedian Stephen Colbert's keynote speech at the White House Correspondents'
Association dinner last Saturday may represent a new stage in the crumbling of the Bush regime's image from within the dominant spectacle itself. The following link gives a Windows Media clip of the last 15 minutes --
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/WH-Dinner-Colbert.wmv . The entire talk
(about 25 minutes) can be viewed in three parts here --
http://youtube.com/results?search=colbert%20bush%20cspan&sort=title_sort .
It's a bizarre experience because most of the audience was decidedly not sympathetic. Not only was Bush himself sitting a few feet away at the same table along with various other political bigwigs, but the major portion of the audience was the very journalists who with rare exceptions have treated the Bush regime with kid gloves over the last five years, and who were satirized almost as scathingly as Bush himself. So some of Colbert's funniest remarks are received with a deafening silence, and the rare moments of laughter are brief and uneasy, the audience obviously not having expected such a scandal and wondering how they were supposed to take it.

The following article, which originally appeared at the Salon.com website,
gives some information and commentary on the event, but is also of interest because the author makes a somewhat dubious and confused, but not totally inappropriate, link between Colbert's methods and the subversive tactics of the situationists.

On the latter, see:

"A User's Guide to Détournement"
http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/detourn.htm

"Détournement as Negation and Prelude"
http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/3.detourn.htm

"The Situationists and the New Forms of Action Against Politics and Art"
http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/11.newforms.htm

*

The Truthiness Hurts

Stephen Colbert's brilliant performance unplugged the Bush myth machine -- and left the clueless D.C. press corps gaping.

By Michael Scherer

May 1, 2006 Make no mistake, Stephen Colbert is a dangerous man -- a bomb thrower, an assassin, a terrorist with boring hair and rimless glasses. It's a wonder the Secret Service let him so close to the president of the United States.

But there he was Saturday night, keynoting the year's most fawning celebration of the self-importance of the D.C. press corps, the White House Correspondents' Association dinner. Before he took the podium, the master of ceremonies ominously announced, "Tonight, no one is safe."

Colbert is not just another comedian with barbed punch lines and a racy vocabulary. He is a guerrilla fighter, a master of the old-world art of irony. For Colbert, the punch line is just the addendum. The joke is in the setup. The meat of his act is not in his barbs but his character -- the dry idiot, "Stephen Colbert," God-fearing pitchman, patriotic American, red-blooded pundit and champion of "truthiness." "I'm a simple man with a simple mind," the deadpan Colbert announced at the dinner. "I hold a simple set of beliefs that I live by. Number one, I believe in America. I believe it exists. My gut tells me I live there."

Then he turned to the president of the United States, who sat tight-lipped just a few feet away. "I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound -- with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world."

It was Colbert's crowning moment. His imitation of the quintessential GOP talking head -- Bill O'Reilly meets Scott McClellan -- uncovered the inner workings of the ever-cheapening discourse that passes for political debate.
He reversed and flattened the meaning of the words he spoke. It's a tactic that cultural critic Greil Marcus once called the "critical negation that would make it self-evident to everyone that the world is not as it seems."
Colbert's jokes attacked not just Bush's policies, but the whole drama and language of American politics, the phony demonstration of strength, unity and vision. "The greatest thing about this man is he's steady," Colbert continued, in a nod to George W. Bush. "You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday."

It's not just that Colbert's jokes were hitting their mark. We already know that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that the generals hate Rumsfeld or that Fox News lists to the right. Those cracks are old and boring. What Colbert did was expose the whole official, patriotic, right-wing, press-bashing discourse as a sham, as more "truthiness" than truth.

Obviously, Colbert is not the first ironic warrior to train his sights on the powerful. What the insurgent culture jammers at Adbusters did for Madison Avenue, and the Barbie Liberation Organization did for children's toys, and Seinfeld did for the sitcom, and the Onion did for the small-town newspaper, Jon Stewart discovered he could do for television news. Now Colbert, Stewart's spawn, has taken on the right-wing message machine.

In the late 1960s, the Situationists in France called such ironic mockery "détournement," a word that roughly translates to "abduction" or "embezzlement." It was considered a revolutionary act, helping to channel the frustration of the Paris student riots of 1968. They co-opted and altered famous paintings, newspapers, books and documentary films, seeking subversive ideas in the found objects of popular culture. "Plagiarism is necessary," wrote Guy Debord, the famed Situationist, referring to his strategy of mockery and semiotic inversion. "Progress demands it. Staying close to an author's phrasing, plagiarism exploits his expressions, erases false ideas, replaces them with correct ideas."

But nearly half a century later, the ideas of the French, as evidenced by our "freedom fries," have not found a welcome reception in Washington. The city is still not ready for Colbert. The depth of his attack caused bewilderment on the face of the president and some of the press, who, like myopic fish, are used to ignoring the water that sustains them. Laura Bush did not shake his hand.

Political Washington is accustomed to more direct attacks that follow the rules. We tend to like the bland buffoonery of Jay Leno or insider jokes that drop lots of names and enforce everyone's clubby self-satisfaction.
(Did you hear the one about John Boehner at the tanning salon or Duke Cunningham playing poker at the Watergate?) Similarly, White House spinmeisters are used to frontal assaults on their policies, which can be rebutted with a similar set of talking points. But there is no easy answer for the ironist. "Irony, entertaining as it is, serves an almost exclusively negative function," wrote David Foster Wallace, in his seminal 1993 essay "E Unibus Pluram." "It's critical and destructive, a ground clearing."

So it's no wonder that those journalists at the dinner seemed so uneasy in their seats. They had put on their tuxes to rub shoulders with the president. They were looking forward to spotting Valerie Plame and "American Idol's" Ace Young at the Bloomberg party. They invited Colbert to speak for levity, not because they wanted to be criticized. As a tribe, we journalists are all, at heart, creatures of this silly conversation. We trade in talking points and consultant-speak. We too often depend on empty language for our daily bread, and -- worse -- we sometimes mistake it for reality. Colbert was attacking us as well.

A day after he exploded his bomb at the correspondents dinner, Colbert appeared on CBS's "60 Minutes," this time as himself, an actor, a suburban dad, a man without a red and blue tie. The real Colbert admitted that he does not let his children watch his Comedy Central show. "Kids can't understand irony or sarcasm, and I don't want them to perceive me as insincere," Colbert explained. "Because one night, I'll be putting them to bed and I'll say ... 'I love you, honey.' And they'll say, 'I get it. Very dry, Dad. That's good stuff.'"

His point was spot-on. Irony is dangerous and must be handled with care. But America can rest assured that for the moment its powers are in good hands.
Stephen Colbert, the current grandmaster of the art, knows exactly what hem was doing.

Just don't expect him to be invited back to the correspondents dinner.


Messages such as this are sent out every month or so, usually announcing the latest additions to the BPS website, but occasionally (as in the present case) providing other information or commentary about current events. If you do not wish to receive such announcements, please reply to this message with "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the Subject line.


BUREAU OF PUBLIC SECRETS
P.O. Box 1044, Berkeley CA 94701, USA
http://www.bopsecrets.org

"Making petrified conditions dance by singing them their own tune."

zei: x op 03/05/2006 om: 20:58u


Powered by Greymatter