|
|
|
|
|
I am jumbled as all hell today. I have no excuse, but it gives me something else to atone for tomorrow on Yom Kippur, the Jews' annual day of begging forgiveness for our sins. I'll add it to my list. Right after not being able to send money to help Pakistan's earthquake victims because I sent a bit to help animals in Katrina's aftermath. Nothing like feeling utterly helpless to put things in perspective and make you realize just how lucky you are.
Meanwhile, I found something fun today: from the NY Times, a pdf containing correspondence between Bush and Harriet Miers, including letters, memos, even birthday cards. Offers some new insight into their friendship. A friendship which, by all means, I respect. But a friendship which, nonetheless, does not make Harriet the "best-qualified" (GW's words) person for a job she has no experience performing. Call her smart, call her loyal, call her whatever you want. But "best-qualified" is the least appropriate way to describe this woman... let's just agree on that. Loyalty does not and should not trump inexperience.
But hey, anything that pisses off large numbers of conservatives can't be all bad, right?
Better still was Harry Shearer on Monday's Le Show, pondering what exactly lies behind GW's surrounding himself with females, specifically unmarried females. Are they simply less threatening than haughty types like Rumsfeld and Cheney? Is it because, having no husbands demanding their attention, these women can remain more blindly, wholly devoted to GW and the fulfillment of his mission(s)?
Or is it just his subtle way of practicing and introducing polygamy to mainstream society? Condoleeza, Harriet, Karen Hughes, et al, being "wives" (that part is my harebrained theory, not Shearer's). Makes you wonder how GW's position on gay marriage might change if one of these oh-so-loyal female comrades suddenly announced her desire to marry Dick Cheney's daughter?
* See p. 10 of pdf to find out who uses the word "scatology" (though, sadly, there's no explaining why).
Posted by ayelet at October 12, 2005 11:42 AMI would go one further and say that Bush needs maternal figures-- strong motherly types. He is certainly not a father figure to them-- they're all usually older, much more experienced, and more disciplined than he is. I mean, if it weren't for Condi's deplorable toadying or Karen Hughes' personal politics, I would have nothing but accolades for these women and their accomplishments.
Meanwhile, our President-- a spoiled rich-boy who needs yesmen to prop him up at every available opportunity-- might find that it is easier to use women as crutches, especially ones who have a profound maternal instinct. They're the ones who don't mind sacrificing themselves for "the good of the nation", as it were.
Posted by: james at October 13, 2005 12:12 PM