A friend sent this.
Mar. 13th, 2003 07:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
grinninfoolePersonally, I always thought W was just a drunk. I hadn't considered darker interpretations.
Date: Thursday, February 27, 2003 4:31 PM -0800
Bush Anything But Moronic, According to Auth or
Dark Overtones in His Malapropisms"
by Murray Whyte
When Mark Crispin Miller first set out to write "Dyslexicon:
observations on a National Disorder," about the ever-growing catalogue
of President George W. Bush's verbal gaffes, he meant it for a laugh.
but what he came to realize wasn't entirely amusing.
Since the 2000 presidential campaign, Miller has been compiling his own
collection of Bush-isms, which have revealed, he says, a disquieting
truth about what lurks behind the cock-eyed leer of the leader of the
free world. He's not a moron at all. On that point, Miller and Prime
Minister Jean Chretien agree.
But according to Mill er, he's no friend. "I did initially intend it to
be a funny book. But that was before I had chance to read through all
the transcripts," Miller, an American author and a professor of culture
and communication at New York Uni versity, said recently in Toronto.
"Bush is not an imbecile. He's not a puppet. I think that Bush is a
sociopathic personality. I think he's incapable of empathy. He has an
inordinate sense of his own entitlement, and he's a very skilled
manipulator. And in all the snickering about his alleged idiocy, this
is what a lot of people miss."
Miller's judgment, that the president might suffer from a bona fide
personality disorder, almost ma kes one long for the less menacing
notion currently making the rounds: that the White House's current
occupant is, in fact, simply an idiot.
If only. Miller's rendering of the president is bleaker than that. In
stu dying Bush's various adventures in oration, he started to see a
pattern emerging. "He has no trouble speaking off the cuff when he's
speaking punitively, when he's talking about violence, when he's
talking about revenge. "When he struts and thumps his chest, his syntax
and grammar are fine," Miller said. "It's only when he leaps into the
wild blue yonder of compassion, or idealism, or altruism, that he makes
these hilarious mistakes."
While Miller's book has been praised for its "eloquence" and "playful
use of language," it has enraged Bush supporters. Bush's ascent in the
eyes of many Americans - his approval rating hovers at near 80
percent-was the direct result of tough talk following the Sept. 11
terrorist attacks. In those speeches, Bush stumbled not at all; his
language of retribution was clear.
It was a sharp contrast to the pre-9/11 George W. Bush. Even before
the Supreme Court had to intervene in 2001 and rule on recounts in
Florida after a contentious presidential election, a corps of
journalists were salivating at the prospect: a bafflingly inarticulate
man in a position of p ower not seen since vice-president Dan Quayle
rode shotgun on George H.W. Bush's one term in office.
But equating Bush's malapropisms with Quayle's inability to spell
"potato" is a dangerous assumption, Miller says. At a pub lic address in
Nashville, Tenn., in September, Bush provided one of his most memorable
stumbles.
Trying to give strength to his case that Saddam Hussein had already
deceived the West concerning his store of weapon s, Bush was scripted
to offer an old saying: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice,
shame on me. What came out was the following: "Fool me once, shame ...
shame on ... you." Long, uncomfortable pause. "Fool me - can't get
fooled again!"
Played for laughs everywhere, Miller saw a darkness underlying the
gaffe. "There's an episode of Happy Days, where The Fonz has to say,
`I'm sorry' and can't do it. Same thing," Miller said. "What's
revealing about this is that Bush could not say, `Shame on me' to save
his life. That's a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy who is
absolutely proud of his own inflexibility and rectitude."
If what Mille r says is true - and it would take more than just
observations to prove it - then Bush has achieved an astounding goal.
By stumbling blithely along, he has been able to push his image as
"just folks" - a normal guy who screws up just like the rest of us.
This, in fact, is a central cog in his image-making machine, Miller
says: Portraying the wealthy scion of one of America's most powerful
families as a regular, imperfect Joe. But the depiction, Miller says,
is also remarkable for what it hides - imperfect, yes, but also
detached, wealthy and unable to identify with the "folks" he's been
designed to appeal to.
An example, Miller says, surfaced early in hi s presidential tenure. "I
know how hard it is to put food on your family," Bush was quoted as
saying. "That wasn't because he's so stupid that he doesn't know how to
say, `Put food on your family's table' - it's because he do esn't care
about people who can't put food on the table," Miller says.
So, when Bush is envisioning "a foreign-handed foreign policy," or
observes on some point that "it's not the way that America is all
about," Mi ller contends it's because he can't keep his focus on things
that mean nothing to him. "When he tries to talk about what this
country stands for, or about democracy, he can't do it," he said.
This, then, is why he's so close ly watched by his handlers, Miller
says; not because he'll say something stupid, but because he'll
overindulge in the language of violence and punishment at which he
excels. "He's a very angry guy, a hostile guy. He's much li ke Nixon. So
they're very, very careful to choreograph every move he makes. They
don't want him anywhere near protestors, because he would lose his
temper."
Miller, without question, is a man with a mission - and l aughter isn't
it. "I call him the feel-bad president, because he's all about
punishment and death," he said. "It would be a grave mistake to just
play him for laughs."
Copyright 1996-2002. Toronto Star
›
Date: Thursday, February 27, 2003 4:31 PM -0800
Bush Anything But Moronic, According to Auth or
Dark Overtones in His Malapropisms"
by Murray Whyte
When Mark Crispin Miller first set out to write "Dyslexicon:
observations on a National Disorder," about the ever-growing catalogue
of President George W. Bush's verbal gaffes, he meant it for a laugh.
but what he came to realize wasn't entirely amusing.
Since the 2000 presidential campaign, Miller has been compiling his own
collection of Bush-isms, which have revealed, he says, a disquieting
truth about what lurks behind the cock-eyed leer of the leader of the
free world. He's not a moron at all. On that point, Miller and Prime
Minister Jean Chretien agree.
But according to Mill er, he's no friend. "I did initially intend it to
be a funny book. But that was before I had chance to read through all
the transcripts," Miller, an American author and a professor of culture
and communication at New York Uni versity, said recently in Toronto.
"Bush is not an imbecile. He's not a puppet. I think that Bush is a
sociopathic personality. I think he's incapable of empathy. He has an
inordinate sense of his own entitlement, and he's a very skilled
manipulator. And in all the snickering about his alleged idiocy, this
is what a lot of people miss."
Miller's judgment, that the president might suffer from a bona fide
personality disorder, almost ma kes one long for the less menacing
notion currently making the rounds: that the White House's current
occupant is, in fact, simply an idiot.
If only. Miller's rendering of the president is bleaker than that. In
stu dying Bush's various adventures in oration, he started to see a
pattern emerging. "He has no trouble speaking off the cuff when he's
speaking punitively, when he's talking about violence, when he's
talking about revenge. "When he struts and thumps his chest, his syntax
and grammar are fine," Miller said. "It's only when he leaps into the
wild blue yonder of compassion, or idealism, or altruism, that he makes
these hilarious mistakes."
While Miller's book has been praised for its "eloquence" and "playful
use of language," it has enraged Bush supporters. Bush's ascent in the
eyes of many Americans - his approval rating hovers at near 80
percent-was the direct result of tough talk following the Sept. 11
terrorist attacks. In those speeches, Bush stumbled not at all; his
language of retribution was clear.
It was a sharp contrast to the pre-9/11 George W. Bush. Even before
the Supreme Court had to intervene in 2001 and rule on recounts in
Florida after a contentious presidential election, a corps of
journalists were salivating at the prospect: a bafflingly inarticulate
man in a position of p ower not seen since vice-president Dan Quayle
rode shotgun on George H.W. Bush's one term in office.
But equating Bush's malapropisms with Quayle's inability to spell
"potato" is a dangerous assumption, Miller says. At a pub lic address in
Nashville, Tenn., in September, Bush provided one of his most memorable
stumbles.
Trying to give strength to his case that Saddam Hussein had already
deceived the West concerning his store of weapon s, Bush was scripted
to offer an old saying: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice,
shame on me. What came out was the following: "Fool me once, shame ...
shame on ... you." Long, uncomfortable pause. "Fool me - can't get
fooled again!"
Played for laughs everywhere, Miller saw a darkness underlying the
gaffe. "There's an episode of Happy Days, where The Fonz has to say,
`I'm sorry' and can't do it. Same thing," Miller said. "What's
revealing about this is that Bush could not say, `Shame on me' to save
his life. That's a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy who is
absolutely proud of his own inflexibility and rectitude."
If what Mille r says is true - and it would take more than just
observations to prove it - then Bush has achieved an astounding goal.
By stumbling blithely along, he has been able to push his image as
"just folks" - a normal guy who screws up just like the rest of us.
This, in fact, is a central cog in his image-making machine, Miller
says: Portraying the wealthy scion of one of America's most powerful
families as a regular, imperfect Joe. But the depiction, Miller says,
is also remarkable for what it hides - imperfect, yes, but also
detached, wealthy and unable to identify with the "folks" he's been
designed to appeal to.
An example, Miller says, surfaced early in hi s presidential tenure. "I
know how hard it is to put food on your family," Bush was quoted as
saying. "That wasn't because he's so stupid that he doesn't know how to
say, `Put food on your family's table' - it's because he do esn't care
about people who can't put food on the table," Miller says.
So, when Bush is envisioning "a foreign-handed foreign policy," or
observes on some point that "it's not the way that America is all
about," Mi ller contends it's because he can't keep his focus on things
that mean nothing to him. "When he tries to talk about what this
country stands for, or about democracy, he can't do it," he said.
This, then, is why he's so close ly watched by his handlers, Miller
says; not because he'll say something stupid, but because he'll
overindulge in the language of violence and punishment at which he
excels. "He's a very angry guy, a hostile guy. He's much li ke Nixon. So
they're very, very careful to choreograph every move he makes. They
don't want him anywhere near protestors, because he would lose his
temper."
Miller, without question, is a man with a mission - and l aughter isn't
it. "I call him the feel-bad president, because he's all about
punishment and death," he said. "It would be a grave mistake to just
play him for laughs."
Copyright 1996-2002. Toronto Star
›
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
wow. familiar
I never thought of that perspective that Miller brings up though - seeing evidence through the characteristics of Bush's gaffes.
Sociopaths are often found at the dregs of our society because their lack of compassion is often exposed and makes them intolerably aggressive and violent towards others. Many of them of course end up in jail. But where else for a sociopath to hide successfully than in a wealthy family where good behavior is not necessarily a requirement for success in life?
I would not at all be surprised.
Re: wow. familiar
Date: 2003-03-14 08:25 am (UTC)Why did we elect this guy?
Re: wow. familiar
Date: 2003-03-14 10:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-14 05:54 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-03-14 08:27 am (UTC)The work could be better, but at least I'm getting some of it done. I need to find more study buddies.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-14 07:06 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-03-14 08:17 am (UTC)Maybe this guy really IS on to something...
Date: 2003-03-14 08:50 am (UTC)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2848001.stm
I post it here because in it Bush is quoted as follows (emphasis mine):
"President George W Bush, a committed Christi an who is sympathetic towards the anti-abortion lobby, hailed the vote. "Partial-birth abortion is an abhorrent procedure that offends human dignity, and I commend the Senate for passing legislation to ban it," he said in a prepared statement. "Today's action is an important step toward building a culture of life in America."
Uh, W, how many people have you executed?
Re: Maybe this guy really IS on to something...
Date: 2003-03-14 09:16 am (UTC)The only reassuring thing about the abortion ban vote is that my favorite senator voted against. And where the FUCK was KERRY yesterday? Taking a nap? He was one of the few not voting. Grrr... That's NOT what we elected him for...
Re: Maybe this guy really IS on to something...
Date: 2003-03-14 10:29 am (UTC)1) The only culture we have in this country can be found in a petri dish, so to say "culture of life" is oddly appropriate.
2) Where did Omniscient find this? I'd love to know...
Re: Maybe this guy really IS on to something...
Date: 2003-03-14 09:59 pm (UTC)2) dunno. Ask him.
Re: Maybe this guy really IS on to something...
Date: 2003-03-15 02:41 pm (UTC)Re: Maybe this guy really IS on to something...
Date: 2003-03-14 11:09 pm (UTC)"None. Those were criminals."
Hunh. I'm now recalling how when he was asked about the racist 'truck dragging' murder in the debate with Gore it was the only time he really came alive to my eyes. "We'll find those animals and put them to death!" Even the interviewer wasn't quite sure how to respond to the sheer bloodlust he was exzhibiting. I still remember feeling very uncomrfortable at that whole sequence, and thinking something ot the effect of "Well, this guy may not be very smart, but he's got the strength of his convictions, I suppose..."
-W
Re: Maybe this guy really IS on to something...
Date: 2003-03-14 11:29 pm (UTC)(Sorry, I couldn't help it.)
Seriously, I wonder how he'd respond to a 'death penalty for DUI' bill. That'd get not only him, but also his wife. Of course, his wife actually DID kill someone with her car....