PDA

View Full Version : Bush is not dumb



patfromlogan
5th November 04, 10:39 PM
to quote that cool guy; me:


Are you familiar with the book Bush On the Couch, Inside the Mind of the President, by by Justin A. Frank, M.D? He was interviewed by local radio, fucking scary. I'd rather have Bush be just dumb. He is somewhat dysfunctional, but Bush is not dumb. He's dysfunctional. As the author of Couch put it, "A few people ask me, "Gee, was Bush on your couch?" And I reply, no, it's a metaphor, I'm a psychiatrist that wrote a book analyzing Bush, he was not my patient. And President Bush is one of those people."

The real creepy thing about US/Bush is that we know he is a goof ball (it takes one add/one brick shy of a load/one taco less than a combo plate - to know another) and we are the enablers.

We have become a nation of enablers. It seems that the entire U.S. political system treats George W. Bush like he's some drunk who's behavioral problems covered up by his family and "enables" the problem to get worse.

Or as Goofball put it himself, "Redefining the role of the United States from enablers to keep the peace to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be an assignment." -George W. Bush, Jan. 2001


To elaborate. Bush Sr was a tall (6'4") BMOC,successful athlete and scholar. And a war hero. And successful business man. Bush Jr was a squirt, C student and head of the party frat. And took the easy way out of Vietnam (with daddy's help), and even quit going to the National Guard. And a business failure.

And the family is VERY ODD. They talk about family values, but they don't practice what they preach (well if family values = gays, guns, and abortion, maybe this is a weak argument). When Bush Jr sister died, they didn't even have a Texas family funeral, and Jr didn't even go. When mommy Bush's own mother died, she didn't attend the funeral. And where was Sr? Living in Manhattan with his long time mistress. He hardly saw his family for years on end. His backgound is really fucked, and I feel sorry for him, but I feel a lot more sorry that this ex-druggy alchy born again narrow minded nut is the President. But I agree, he is not dumb. He has been smart enough to cover up his own sex affairs, and he is always misunderestimated.
He's not stupid, just uneducated and dysfunctional/dyslexic, and a pompous smirky smug twerp and maybe even a frog blower-upper.


http://www.zwire.com/site/myzwire.cfm?BRD=1091&dept_id=343157&newsid=13081981&PAG=461&rfi=9
In the book, Dr. Frank talks with compassion about President Bush's numerous psychological issues. He notes that Bush is, unfortunately, the kind of individual who won't go for therapy, because he fears that introspection and analysis will reveal deep-seated anxieties, things that would undermine his self-assured persona.
The problem is, left untreated, an individual with pathology like Bush's "wrecks whatever it is they get involved with or they burn out," says Dr. Frank, speaking from his home in Washington, D.C. "He needs someone to intervene, to say 'get treatment.' (People like this) are out of touch with their destructiveness."

Dr. Frank will speak about the President's mental health when he reads from and signs Bush on the Couch at Chestnut Tree Books in the Princeton Shopping Center Oct. 11.
A psychotherapist and clinical professor of psychiatry at George Washington University Medical Center in Washington, D.C., Dr. Frank has had a private practice in the nation's capital for 30 years, specializing in family issues. He approaches the President's neuroses as a family therapist, taking into consideration unresolved issues with his parents — Barbara and George Herbert Walker Bush — even going back to Barbara's troubles with her own mother. Dr. Frank utilizes applied psychoanalysis — analyzing someone not personally available for a consultation — following the lead of Sigmund Freud.
Dr. Frank believes the deepest source of the President's problems comes down to severe anxiety, which has its roots in his younger sister's death more than 50 years ago. His dysfunctional family mishandled the tragedy, leaving the young George bewildered and anxious, "under-nurtured and emotionally hobbled," as Dr. Frank writes.
In the spring of 1953, his sister Robin was diagnosed with leukemia and Barbara Bush took her to be treated at Sloan-Kettering Hospital in New York, thousands of miles away from the family home in Texas. Young George wasn't told why his mother was absent for such long periods of time, nor was his sister's illness discussed with him. Robin would come home, but be in fragile health and her older brother was simply told not to play with her.
When she died in October 1953, the parents attended a small memorial service in Rye, N.Y., before flying back to Texas.
"George learned of his sister's illness only after her death, when his parents returned to Texas, where the family remained while the child's body was buried in a Connecticut family plot." Dr. Frank writes. "There was no funeral."
Still, the issue was not addressed until much later, after young George had been experiencing nightmares. And then, in Barbara Bush's typical style, the family was urged to put on a happy face and place the misfortune behind them. Dr. Frank speculates that this non-communicative way of dealing with such a tragedy set the stage for President Bush's lack of empathy — which we see in the dismantling of a number of domestic programs and environmental laws, among other things.
"Without an instructive example of how to experience grief, George W. was deprived of the opportunity to learn how to mourn, which a child typically learns by watching his parents go though the process... mourning is necessary for psychological growth," Dr. Frank writes. "The capacity to feel sorrow is a prerequisite for the ability to be compassionate, to feel concern for others.
How ironic, then, that this child should grow up to occupy the presidency at his nation's greatest moment of grief — the period of deep shock that followed Sept. 11, 2001.
Yet Bush remains immensely popular, which might reflect the growing lack of introspection among the populace — preferring a sound-byte to a complex thought and a sarcastic retort to sympathy.
"People like Bush for a variety of reasons," Dr. Frank says. "One of the things he does is that he's able to invoke anger in others, getting other people to express their passion. Another part of his technique is playing the 'regular guy.' But you need to recognize how 'non-regular' he is. He's extraordinarily wealthy and powerful. He has a ranch where he doesn't ride a horse — he rides an SUV but he dresses like a cowboy. And he's not a regular guy in terms of his need for control and rigorous schedules."
Dr. Frank remarks that Bush also likes to present himself as a strong guy, someone who doesn't take any guff — from reporters, from other politicians as well as leaders of other countries. The author questions this persona, too.
"If he was strong he would have been able to go in front of the 9/11 commission without Cheney and he could debate with (John) Kerry without having all these rules in place," Dr. Frank says.
He adds that Bush disarms his detractors by being a bully, especially in his sporadic press conferences where he sometimes insults or teases reporters to divert attention from the original question or to bluff his way through complex issues.
He adds that we, as a nation, are complicit in allowing someone so troubled to govern us — we're enablers, just like a family turning a blind eye to an alcoholic parent. But Bush supporters don't want to see his flaws.
"One of the things that happens with an alcoholic is that the family finds excuses for the alcoholic's behavior," Dr. Frank says. "And there are a variety of ways to enable. It's not only that we're a nation of enablers but also that we don't want to acknowledge that this is a problem. So, we dumb ourselves down like children of alcoholics. For example, we don't pay attention to the fact that the war in Iraq is (going so badly)."

http://www.zearle.com/when_i_started_hating_bush.htm = good site for bush haters. I'm above such rants myself.

Phrost
5th November 04, 10:42 PM
You forgot to mention Prescott Bush, the Skull and Bones, Bootlegging, and the Nazis.

patfromlogan
5th November 04, 10:45 PM
Just don't take it seriously and don't think about it and shut your mind and keep it shut, just like the guy you voted for, MY FOIL HAT IS ON AND I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

Phrost
5th November 04, 10:49 PM
No, seriously, you left them out. That backstory is much more entertaining and frightening.

patfromlogan
5th November 04, 10:52 PM
http://www.zearle.com/bush_oblivious_x.jpg

You know, I could talk about Kerry's problems, I could talk about my problems, but these people with the closed minds that seem to want to imitate lobotomized sheep, can't open their little frozen brains one iota. By the way, I am no big Democrat type, and I didn't vote for Kerry. It seems people who voted for Bush have to look like this:

http://milkfactory.typepad.com/milkfactory/see_no_evil.jpg

patfromlogan
5th November 04, 10:53 PM
Fuck, I just read your post. Are you serious? Uh, sorry if I'm DRINKING and PISSED. :icon_neut

http://i3.yesasia.com/assets/westernbook/95/518/p1003051895.jpg

is on my list, right now I'm getting horrified reading:

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/04/13/books/clarke-cover.184.jpg

Quote from Clarke, "...expected to go back to a round of meetings examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were, what we could do about them in the short term. Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting al Qaeda. Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq."

Phrost
5th November 04, 11:18 PM
Make sure you order them through the little Amazon link to the left of the screen here, so I can get even more fabulously wealthy!

(That was sarcasm, for some of you who might read this post at a later date and take me seriously. We just started breaking even and I've never had any intention of this being a "for profit" website.)

bushi51
6th November 04, 12:33 AM
I voted for Bush because the Illuminati told the CIA to make me via radio waves delivered to my brain. The only reason this happened was because my wife used my tin foil hat to wrap the leftover chicken.

Matsufubu
6th November 04, 08:36 AM
Make sure you order them through the little Amazon link to the left of the screen here, so I can get even more fabulously wealthy!

(That was sarcasm, for some of you who might read this post at a later date and take me seriously. We just started breaking even and I've never had any intention of this being a "for profit" website.)

You only just started breaking even because you spend all the millions you generate from Bullshido on champagne, limos, ho's and SCARS classes.

Deadpan Scientist
6th November 04, 11:48 AM
http://www.westword.com/issues/2004-10-21/news/sports.html



Bush is more interested in mountain biking (on a $3,000 carbon-fiber Trek) and Kerry prefers long road rides; he's ridden several centuries on his $8,000 Serotta. Bush is the more serious runner, having started jogging in 1972. His best marathon time, 3:44:52, is impressive, and his best 10K time averaged seven-minute miles.

GWB is actually quite an athlete. I read a news story that said he needed to special order his secret service bodyguards because many could not keep up with him (on his ranch in Texas)

patfromlogan
6th November 04, 12:08 PM
http://www.westword.com/issues/2004-10-21/news/sports.html


GWB is actually quite an athlete. I read a news story that said he needed to special order his secret service bodyguards because many could not keep up with him (on his ranch in Texas)

???

How is this related to the topic?

Deadpan Scientist
6th November 04, 12:20 PM
To elaborate. Bush Sr was a tall (6'4") BMOC,successful athlete and scholar. And a war hero. And successful business man. Bush Jr was a squirt, C student and head of the party frat.


Falsehood.

Deadpan Scientist
6th November 04, 12:21 PM
Also: damn those frats at yale are out of control.

(Chuckles)

patfromlogan
6th November 04, 12:23 PM
Oh ok, then the point is that after stopping substance abuse, the smaller non-athletic guy started working out.

patfromlogan
6th November 04, 12:58 PM
Did you see the bio on him and Kerry? According to the public tv show he was in the party house, and partied plenty, and while not a good student, he made contact with and knew more people than any other student. His charm and charisma are not in doubt. Mental health is the issue.

On the radio (npr) interview, Dr. Frank got a little emotional himself. He said he had opposed various policies in the past, but even in the worst days of Reagan or Nixon, he never felt disturbed or frightened about the mental health and reliability of a president to do their job.

Deadpan Scientist
6th November 04, 01:41 PM
Mental health is the issue.




Then why were you taking pot shots at his "athleticism"?

Deadpan Scientist
6th November 04, 01:44 PM
But I agree, he is not dumb. He has been smart enough to cover up his own sex affairs, and he is always misunderestimated.


Care to enlighten us as to what exactly "misunderestimated" means?

patfromlogan
6th November 04, 02:03 PM
The mis... is a Bush quote, therefore an attempt at humour, "They misunderestimated me."

The "pot shots at his athleticism," were directed to his love/hate/jealous/inferiority complex
regarding his father. His father was a college jock, Jr wasn't. Toward his father he has a sense of personal inferiority arising from his father's successes and the conflict between the desire to be noticed and the fear of being humiliated.

He, and the people around him KNOW on some level that he is a bit ill (I'm not saying he's likely to have a breakdown...) and that the "Let's roll," "Bring it on," bravado statements hide his fears, and therefore the people around him are in a position to try and boost his ego. Everyone needs people to give feedback and support, Bush's needs represent (IMHO) a dysfunctional self-doubting fearful man.

And did I mention ANGER!!!! He is on one level very pissed off, and anxious to express it. Off camera he is the very definition of vitriol, according to an eye witness (an electrician who was still on stage after the crowd left and Bush and crew were bullshitting about those fucking environmentalists in Santa Barbara and how those assholes wouldn't let the off shore drilling... and so forth - the electrician was shocked).


Bravado:
Defiant or swaggering behavior: strove to prevent our courage from turning into bravado.
A pretense of courage; a false show of bravery.
A disposition toward showy defiance or false expressions of courage.

Deadpan Scientist
6th November 04, 04:35 PM
Your obsession with a freudian analysis of Bush means you're actually in love with Bush Jr.

Also, you've been trying to recover from your mother's rejection of your sexual advances in favor of your father your entire life as evidenced by your obsession with martial arts(training to fight your father to win your mother's hand).

Deadpan Scientist
6th November 04, 04:36 PM
Also, my degree is in neuroscience. Imagine what someone that studied this horsecrap(psychology) for 8 years could do.

Wounded Ronin
6th November 04, 07:40 PM
I'll bet Freud could kick your ass, especially if he had his lit cigar.

Deadpan Scientist
6th November 04, 07:41 PM
He's dead.

PWNED

Jenfucius
6th November 04, 07:49 PM
at least bush isn't a pussy, like kerry. oh what's up, democratic bitches?

patfromlogan
6th November 04, 10:29 PM
Your obsession with a freudian analysis of Bush means you're actually in love with Bush Jr.

Also, you've been trying to recover from your mother's rejection of your sexual advances in favor of your father your entire life as evidenced by your obsession with martial arts(training to fight your father to win your mother's hand).


Also, my degree is in neuroscience. Imagine what someone that studied this horsecrap(psychology) for 8 years could do.


1 As you age, you'll perhaps become more open minded. Or not, there are lots of scientists (and specially engineers) who have narrow limited vision.
2 If you think psychology is horsecrap, I hope you or your loved ones never need help.
3 Denial of mental illness = living a lie, or enabling.
4 Writing this is more boring than watching the Jazz (ha ha Kobe, that skinny Russian owned you, eh?)
5 You have no rebuttal to Bush on the Couch and it's premis.

Acually, denial is what many do all the time. I may be crazed, inconsistent, and have a good side kick, but I don't live in denial of my or other's faults. I have a degree of self knowledge and I'm not afraid to try as hard as I can to know what is really going on, in myself, my family, and my nation. I read books about secret police, spies, cia, nsa, war, and John Le Carre rules... sorry, but must go w/o the brilliant essay that I was going to enlighten you with.

Deadpan Scientist
6th November 04, 10:44 PM
Oh I don't deny mental illness. I just think that psychology totally fails in providing any worthwhile insight into the actualy physical mechanisms or treatment of mental illness.

Deadpan Scientist
6th November 04, 10:48 PM
Look pat, I once wrote a 10 page essay involving a psychological deconstruction of AUSTIN POWERS (in Austin Powers 2). You can do this stuff with anything.

Deadpan Scientist
6th November 04, 10:49 PM
BTW, that was my rebuttal.

Matsufubu
7th November 04, 02:35 PM
All this sexual tension between you two is giving me a boner.

Shug
7th November 04, 04:27 PM
at least bush isn't a pussy, like kerry. oh what's up, democratic bitches?

Lynch anyone recently?

patfromlogan
7th November 04, 04:50 PM
Jesus Brand,

patfromlogan
7th November 04, 04:51 PM
your mental illness

patfromlogan
7th November 04, 04:52 PM
is showing up.

Deadpan Scientist
7th November 04, 04:56 PM
Shug, we are trying desparately to increase the level of political discourse going on at bullshido. While Jen's comments are...immature and immaterial, two wrongs do not make a right. Your premise that republicans are racist and in support of lynchings is just as absud. I would like to ask both you and jen to think more about what you are posting, and try to provide something other than a knee-jerk response.

patfromlogan
7th November 04, 05:18 PM
To be serious, this reminds me of college English. My brother was a A student. When faced with doing a paper, he'd glance through the book, looking for something that repeated. Like windows, clothing, of behaviors. And then note the seven times windows was used in the novel and write up some bullshit. And get another A.

However this doesn't prove that symbolism is bullshit, just as your writing a paper doesn't really show that psychology lacks worth. Symbolism is not restricted to literature classes. It is everywhere. The red of revolution and the white of conservatism are real symbols; as seen when years ago the Pope (dressed in white) had crowds waving white flags by the rightwing in Nicaragua, and red flags by the leftists in El Salvador. Another example is my church; it meets in a room with big windows. The JW's meet in a cinder block/steel doored bld with out ONE window. Of course they have all the answers and don't need to look outward. Another example is the Mormons; their church office bld dwarfs their temple in SLC.



and since this thread is on Bush, I'll even maybe go back a tiny bit to the topic.

Battle of Symbols by John Fraim
The book observes the response of the American symbolism industry to the events of 9/11. As Fraim notes, the events of 9/11 offered a rare opportunity to observe how American symbols are created (by Madison Avenue advertising and Hollywood entertainment), communicated (by New York media) and managed (by Washington public relations). One of the more hopeful outcomes of 9/11 was the instigation of an international dialogue about the power of symbols. From this continuing dialogue America and the world have gained a new awareness of the growing power of symbols. Whether this awareness will lead to a new understanding of symbols on a national and global scale is one of the most important questions facing America (and the world) today.

http://cemail2.ce.ntu.edu.tw/photo/tower/tower4bWashington%20Monument,%20Washington%20D.C.% 20(%20169m%20).jpg
Phallus with red tip (that watches over the capital)

http://www.suchislifeusa.net/bushhat.jpg
Cowboy?

Deadpan Scientist
7th November 04, 05:21 PM
Oh I don't deny mental illness. I just think that psychology totally fails in providing any worthwhile insight into the actualy physical mechanisms or treatment of mental illness.


This is why psychology is useless.

patfromlogan
7th November 04, 05:52 PM
OK Your point is taken.

I have two friends (women I bonded with in our youth), both Phds that go on forever on psychology, the relationship of and between the brain, chemicals, behavior, physical appearance, human development, nuture/nature, write papers on this stuff, go to conferences, and when they go on and on their friends and spouses usually go have a beer and talk about the Jazz, or mt biking (or martial arts). Or why Bush is an asshole, and Cheney and Wolfowitz the dark lord's evil agents on earth and the acendency of the anti-christ.

They would take you on in that psychology "totally fails." I could get them your email if this is really anything you wish to pursue. Their terms include the classifying of the various arguments into categories. and sub branches of those categories. I would just say that I have seen a gradual increase in the understanding of behavior, brain chemistry, and genetics.

Rather than psychology, I'm personally more into the evolutionary biological explanations of human behavior. And that the three million years of hunter/gatherer vs 10,000 years of agriculture vs 100+ years of electricity/internal combustion, the inherent conservatism of group behavior and the need for humans to realize that things just aren't the way they used to be.

patfromlogan
7th November 04, 06:03 PM
Anyway, your point is that psychology is worthless, therefore there's no point in analyzing Bush's behavior? That is a bit weak, IMHO. There are obvious influences in individual human's development. To ignore both Bush's family history (both Walker and Bush's WW1 era arms merchants with spy/underworld connection), as, as far as I can acertain, 51% of American voters have done, and to ignore his obvious speech and thinking difficulties is perhaps a blissfully ignorant position, but it is still willfull ignorance.

Judah Maccabee
7th November 04, 06:03 PM
Oh I don't deny mental illness. I just think that psychology totally fails in providing any worthwhile insight into the actualy physical mechanisms or treatment of mental illness.

Ever flipped through the DSM-IV?

Deadpan Scientist
7th November 04, 06:24 PM
Anyway, your point is that psychology is worthless, therefore there's no point in analyzing Bush's behavior? That is a bit weak, IMHO.

I'm saying that the analysis presented could be applied to pretty much every male. It says nothing specifically about Bush Jr.

For thousands of years sons have ben trying to outdo their fathers.

Deadpan Scientist
7th November 04, 06:25 PM
Ever flipped through the DSM-IV?
Do you understand the difference between psychiatry and psychology?

Deadpan Scientist
7th November 04, 06:32 PM
Pat, I'm saying psychology doesn't provide any worthwhile answers on the molecular level as to the basis of mental illness. Information on that level is necessary for developing good drugs and treatments.

patfromlogan
7th November 04, 08:11 PM
Do you understand the difference between psychiatry and psychology?

Then I should point out that Justin A. Frank, M.D., is a clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry at George Washington University Medical Center.

supercrap
7th November 04, 08:14 PM
They done misunderestimated me!

Ah hyuk!

patfromlogan
7th November 04, 08:31 PM
Question by email: I'm not a Bush fan, but your approach does seem like shooting fish in a barrel. By applying various psychological symptoms and neuroses from such an external standpoint, couldn't you make virtually anyone look a little crazy?

Justin Frank:

Yes I could make anyone look crazy. And I'm a target for that as well. We all are.
I hope that if you read the book you will see that I am not just pulling out all the psychiatric stops to "get" Bush. His behavior calls for examination.


http://www.larouchepub.com/other/interviews/2004/3133dr_justin_frank.html

What kind of reception have you received so far, from the book?

Frank:"Well, the main criticism—it's been not well-promoted by my publisher, unfortunately. But the main reception I've been getting has been really positive from everybody who's read it, and not so positive from people who haven't read it. Because the idea of it is problematic to two different groups of people. One is the psychiatry community—psychiatric and psychoanalytic—and the other, of course, is the Republicans. The Republicans have fairly much dismissed it, and they write these occasionally vituperative comments at Amazon.com, saying it is a terrible book, but none of them has read it, although it does bring the rating down."


http://www.unknownnews.net/insanity061704.html

A new book by a prominent Washington psychoanalyst says President George W. Bush is a "paranoid meglomaniac" as well as a sadist and "untreated alcoholic." The doctor's analysis appears to confirm earlier reports the President may be emotionally unstable.

Dr. Justin Frank, writing in Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President, also says the President has a "lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions ... [and] pumping his fist gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad."

Even worse, Dr. Frank concludes, the President's years of heavy drinking "may have affected his brain function -- and his decision to quit drinking without the help of a 12-step program [puts] him at far higher risk of relapse."

Dr. Frank's revelations comes on the heels of last week's Capitol Hill Blue exclusive that revealed increasing concern by White House aides over Bush's emotional stability.

Aides, who spoke only on condition that their names be withheld, told stories of wide mood swings by the President who would go from quoting the Bible one minute to obscenity-filled outbursts the next.

Bush shows an inability to grieve -- dating back to age 7, when his sister died. "The family's reaction -- no funeral and no mourning -- set in motion his life-long pattern of turning away from pain [and hiding] behind antic behavior," says Frank, who says Bush may suffer from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

Other findings by Dr. Frank:

. His mother, Barbara Bush -- tabbed by some family friends as "the one who instills fear" -- had trouble connecting emotionally with her son, Frank argues.

. George H.W. Bush's "emotional and physical absence during his son's youth triggered feelings of both adoration and revenge in George W."

. The President suffers from "character pathology," including "grandiosity" and "megalomania" -- viewing himself, America and God as interchangeable.

Dr. Frank has been a psychiatrist for 35 years and is director of psychiatry at George Washington University. A Democrat, he once headed the Washington Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

In an interview with The Washington Post's Richard Leiby, Dr. Frank said he began to be concerned about Bush's behavior in 2002.

"I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching everything he did and reading what he wrote, and watching him on videotape. I felt he was disturbed," Dr. Frank told Leiby. Bush, he said, "fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated."


Justin Frank: I think that the Bush who proudly shows off Saddam's handgun to visitors is the same Bush who proudly pranced aboard the aircraft carrier last year declaring that the war in Iraq was over. His behavior is similar to that of an eight-year-old boy playing superman and believing that he won a war all by himself, that he captured Saddam by himself. The behavior is "disconnected" not only from current events, but from a fundamental understanding of self.

Deadpan Scientist
7th November 04, 10:58 PM
Then I should point out that Justin A. Frank, M.D., is a clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry at George Washington University Medical Center.

Do you understand the difference between psychiatry and psychology?

Please note that this man has never examined GWB.

Deadpan Scientist
7th November 04, 11:22 PM
Question by email: I'm not a Bush fan, but your approach does seem like shooting fish in a barrel. By applying various psychological symptoms and neuroses from such an external standpoint, couldn't you make virtually anyone look a little crazy?

Justin Frank:

Yes I could make anyone look crazy. And I'm a target for that as well. We all are.
I hope that if you read the book you will see that I am not just pulling out all the psychiatric stops to "get" Bush. His behavior calls for examination.


pat, do you understand that this is what I am saying

patfromlogan
8th November 04, 01:04 AM
Of course I understand and in turn I would point out and ask for your understanding and acknowledgment that Dr. Frank is well aware of the pitfalls and dangers in what he has done.

Deadpan Scientist
8th November 04, 01:11 AM
He said it right there. I'm not sure why he bothered to write the book.

Omar
8th November 04, 08:58 AM
Brandeissansoo's respoinse is symptomatic of why Bush won and Kerry lost.

People, on average, are stupid. The aknowledgement of complexities in an issue and the fact that no one is infallible is typically contrued as an assertion of incompetence. On the other hand, irrational faith in one's convitions is typically interpreted as intelligence and often even "principled behavior". Therefore, a man who is able to keep an open mind and change his opinion as new information is presented is punshished for the behavior and labeled "unprincipled" or "weak" or people say he "flip flops" or "lacks backbone" or "conviction" but a person who keeps his mind closed to new information and makes simplistic but strong sounding statements is generally more well recieved. He is "strong", full of conviction", or "principled" or "has moral values".

So we as a society reward close mindedness and dogma but punish openminded analysis of issue from multiple perspectives.

I feels that Brandeissansoo's replies on this thread have been very illustrative of this point.

Ronin
8th November 04, 09:25 AM
People, on average, are stupid. The aknowledgement of complexities in an issue and the fact that no one is infallible is typically contrued as an assertion of incompetence. On the other hand, irrational faith in one's convitions is typically interpreted as intelligence and often even "principled behavior". Therefore, a man who is able to keep an open mind and change his opinion as new information is presented is punshished for the behavior and labeled "unprincipled" or "weak" or people say he "flip flops" or "lacks backbone" or "conviction" but a person who keeps his mind closed to new information and makes simplistic but strong sounding statements is generally more well recieved. He is "strong", full of conviction", or "principled" or "has moral values".

So we as a society reward close mindedness and dogma but punish openminded analysis of issue from multiple perspectives.



While, on the surface, you seem to make a very good point, it is a tad simplistic when applied to the "real world".
Fact is, being open minded is great, but not having a firm stand on anything, isn't.
Being a person of principles and full of conviction is "comforting" to many people, why? because you KNOW what you got.
No one cares that much for the "unpredictable", its a great value to have in the MA, NOT in politics.

Being opne to new information and being able to adapt and change to make use of that information for the best, is a great asset, yet, there still must be some consitency as to WHAT that person will do with this "new info".

People need stability in goverment, they need to be able to "predict" what their leaders will do.
They need to say that they/their leader stands for THIS.

We have enough grey areas in our lives that, when voting, we don't want to vote for another one.

Deadpan Scientist
8th November 04, 09:26 AM
The aknowledgement of complexities in an issue and the fact that no one is infallible is typically contrued as an assertion of incompetence. On the other hand, irrational faith in one's convitions is typically interpreted as intelligence and often even "principled behavior". Therefore, a man who is able to keep an open mind and change his opinion as new information is presented is punshished for the behavior and labeled "unprincipled" or "weak" or people say he "flip flops" or "lacks backbone" or "conviction" but a person who keeps his mind closed to new information and makes simplistic but strong sounding statements is generally more well recieved. He is "strong", full of conviction", or "principled" or "has moral values".


I totally agree. In the realm of politics this is exactly how the world operates. (I also think that politicians SHOULD be able to change their stances on issues without punishment)

In science, it's the complete opposite.

I'm not sure where you're getting that I'm close-minded.

liuzg150181
8th November 04, 09:37 AM
brandeissansoo :I think Jen's just trolling like his old self~~~
:new_tomat

Brandeissansoo's respoinse is symptomatic of why Bush won and Kerry lost.
Sad.....


People, on average, are stupid. The aknowledgement of complexities in an issue and the fact that no one is infallible is typically contrued as an assertion of incompetence. On the other hand, irrational faith in one's convitions is typically interpreted as intelligence and often even "principled behavior". Therefore, a man who is able to keep an open mind and change his opinion as new information is presented is punshished for the behavior and labeled "unprincipled" or "weak" or people say he "flip flops" or "lacks backbone" or "conviction" but a person who keeps his mind closed to new information and makes simplistic but strong sounding statements is generally more well recieved. He is "strong", full of conviction", or "principled" or "has moral values".
Pure convictions are for idiots.
Everyone of us makes stupid mistakes now and then,but it takes a wise and courageous person to learn from the truth,know the error,admit it and amend it.
For example:
Kerry:"Yes!!!Iraq is having WMD,let's attack Saddam to save the world!"
Then Kerry found out that he was made sucker and decided to change for the right one
Kerry:"Damn!!!Iraq doent have WMD after all,we have made a stupid mistake!"
In the end,he was accused of being wishy-washy.........



So we as a society reward close mindedness and dogma but punish openminded analysis of issue from multiple perspectives.

I feels that Brandeissansoo's replies on this thread have been very illustrative of this point.
Because human beings being far from perfect feels very insecure with regards to changes,it also hurts their ego that they are made sucker,therefore defense mechanism,in the disguise of so-called "convictions"/"principle" etc., sets in.Lastly from what i read from books and magazines and internet forums US educational system sucks ass nowadays.

Perhaps the God that created our world was dismayed by all these flaws that human beings could not understand the complexity of his creation and resigned to "Deism lite",so much so that the God had decided to leave us.

patfromlogan
8th November 04, 10:30 AM
He said it right there. I'm not sure why he bothered to write the book.

As Spock might say, "This is not logical. Awareness of the contradictory elements would tend to increase the probability of the implementation and the veracity of Dr Frank's thesis."

I'm trying to think of a good analogy. Like if I was teaching n00bs side kick defense and knowing I have a decent side kick, and knowing I could just blow them away if I go fast/hard, I am more careful teaching because of that awareness.

Jolly_Roger
8th November 04, 10:43 AM
Pat, I'm saying psychology doesn't provide any worthwhile answers on the molecular level as to the basis of mental illness. Information on that level is necessary for developing good drugs and treatments.


That's why there exists psychoanalysis.

Deadpan Scientist
8th November 04, 10:44 AM
Justin Frank: Yes I could make anyone look crazy.


Pat, it's pretty obvious this book was either a personal therapy, or perhaps just a way to scam money from people that don't like Bush. The "psychological analysis" of Bush's actions could be applied to almost everyone, and the author agrees with me, and you posted it yourself. What exactly is your argument?

Deadpan Scientist
8th November 04, 10:49 AM
That's why there exists psychoanalysis.
Psychoanalysis does not provide any useful answers in regards to the molecular basis of mental illness.


Do you know what qualifications you need to call yourself a psychoanalyst?

patfromlogan
8th November 04, 12:34 PM
Pat, it's pretty obvious this book was either a personal therapy, or perhaps just a way to scam money from people that don't like Bush. The "psychological analysis" of Bush's actions could be applied to almost everyone, and the author agrees with me, and you posted it yourself. What exactly is your argument?


The quotes below are from http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1033904,00.html
My argument is that Bush is a fruit cake. I think I covered my thoughts, see my and Omar's posts above. And as his younger brother, Jeb said, "A lot of people who have fathers like this feel a sense that they have failed." I think that was in ref. to the big painting of Sr at their high school, Andover. And the article also has: "...it was not all his father's fault. There was also his insensitive and domineering mother.

Barbara Bush is described by her closest intimates as prone to "withering stares" and "sharply crystalline" retorts. She is also extremely tough. When he was seven, Bush's younger sister, Robin, died of leukaemia and several independent witnesses say he was very upset by this loss. Barbara claims its effect was exaggerated but nobody could accuse her of overreacting: the day after the funeral, she and her husband were on the golf course.

She was the main authority-figure in the home. Jeb describes it as having been, "A kind of matriarchy... when we were growing up, dad wasn't at home. Mom was the one to hand out the goodies and the discipline." A childhood friend recalls that,"She was the one who instilled fear", while Bush put it like this: "Every mother has her own style. Mine was a little like an army drill sergeant's... my mother's always been a very outspoken person who vents very well - she'll just let rip if she's got something on her mind." According to his uncle, the "letting rip" often included slaps and hits. Countless studies show that boys with such mothers are at much higher risk of becoming wild, alcoholic or antisocial.

On top of that, Barbara added substantially to the pressure from his father to be a high achiever by creating a highly competitive family culture. All the children's games, be they tiddlywinks or baseball, were intensely competitive - an actual "family league table" was kept of performance in various pursuits. At least this prepared him for life at Andover, where emotional literacy was definitely not part of the curriculum. Soon after arriving, he was asked to write an essay on a soul-stirring experience in his life to date and he chose the death of his sister. His mother had drilled it into him that it was wrong when writing to repeat words already used. Having employed "tears" once in the essay, he sought a substitute from a thesaurus she had given him and wrote "the lacerates ran down my cheeks". The essay received a fail grade, accompanied by derogatory comments such as "disgraceful". "


Does this sound like your mommy? Do you really believe that "The "psychological analysis" of Bush's actions could be applied to almost everyone...?"



Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4636.shtml

"No President has ever done more for human rights than I have" http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/153985p-135485c.html
Remember when he freed the slaves and passed the civil rights act?

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." Jack Brubaker, Lancaster New Era [Lancaster, PA] July 16, 2004

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories ... and we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, we found them." San Jose Mercury-News May 31, 2003

(and from the same article, "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason," Wolfowitz So Wolfy isn't crazy, he's just admitted to deceit.)


http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/5434637.htm
President Bush announced the attack in a four-minute television speech to the nation.... Minutes before the speech, an internal television monitor showed the president pumping his fist. "Feels good," he said.
Doesn't this seem a teensy bit ODD? It's not prof wrestling for Christ's sake. I cannot envision any *sane* leader marking the beginning of a war by pumping his fist and saying, “Feels good.” Whata fuck.




The Wastrel exounded a few days ago on this theme:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1329254,00.html

I have been examining videos of his first 1994 debate with Ann Richards, the Governor of Texas, who he was about to supplant, and of his 2000 debates with Al Gore. In his one and only debate with Richards a decade ago, Bush was fluent and disciplined; with Gore, he had lost some of that polish but was still articulate, with frequent invocations of his supposed 'compassionate conservatism'.

It is thus hard to avoid the conclusion that Bush's cognitive functioning is not, for some reason, what it once was. I am not qualified to say why this is so. It would not be surprising if he was under enormous stress, particularly after the 9/11 atrocities in 2001, and I gather this could explain much, if not everything. But I have heard wild speculation in Washington that he is suffering from a neurological disorder, or that the years of alcoholism might finally be taking their toll on his brain.

patfromlogan
8th November 04, 12:45 PM
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/images/bushbook.jpg



More stuff on President Fruit Cake:


From http://www.willthomas.net/911/Bush/

Pattern Recognition
" Is The 'President' Nuts?" asks Carol Wolman, M.D. "Many people, inside and especially outside this country, believe that the American president is nuts, and is taking the world on a suicidal path." [Counterpunch Oct. 2, 2002]

A board-certified psychiatrist in practice for 30 years, Dr. Wolman feels compelled to understand the "psychopathology" of man "under tremendous pressure from both his family/junta, and from the world at large." Dr. Wolman wonders if GW is suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder, as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Fourth Edition:

"There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others: 1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; 2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure; 5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others; 7) lack of remorse by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated or stolen from others."

Dry Drunk
GW Bush is highly regarded for "kicking" the twin demons of cocaine and alcohol addiction. If he is still off both wagons and there is no proof that isn't – such a triumph, encouraged and aided by his wife, is commendable.

When probing the mysteries of GW's brain chemistry, a key point to ponder is that damage done to brain cells from drug abuse is permanent and irreversible.

Quaker and university professor Katherine van Wormer co-authored the definitive, 2002, Addiction Treatment. This expert writes that "George W. Bush manifests all the classic patterns of what alcoholics in recovery call 'the dry drunk'. His behavior is consistent with being brought on by years of heavy drinking and possible cocaine use." [Counterpunch Oct. 11, 2002]

"Dry drunk," explains the professor, "is a slang term used by members and supporters of Alcoholics Anonymous and substance abuse counselors to describe the recovering alcoholic who is no longer drinking - one who is dry, but whose thinking is clouded."

Such an individual is 'dry' but not truly sober. Such individuals tend to go to overboard. A good example of Bush' "polarized thinking" is his call for "crusades" based on "infinite justice" for "evil-doers" comprising an "axis of evil".

Bush's "obsessive repetition" also remind this professor, "of many of the recovering alcoholics/addicts I had treated." Van Wormer worriers, "His power, in fact, is such that if he collapses into paranoia, a large part of the world will collapse with him."

Paranoia? Impatience? Rigid judgmental outlook? Grandiose behavior? Childish behavior? Irresponsible behavior? Irrational rationalization? Projection? Overreaction? these are all "dry drunk" traits.

Van Wormer observers that Bush's pompous pledge: "We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction" is a projection from the world's leading rogue state preparing to attack with nuclear weapons.

"Bush's tendency to dichotomize reality" should be emphasized. Prof. van Wormer describes this is as either/or reasoning - "either you are with us or against us". A White House spokesperson puts it this way: "The President considers this nation to be at war, and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason.'' [Capitol Hill Blue Jan, 22, 2003]


BUSH'S BINGES – HISTORY IMPACTS THE PRESENT
Bush's binges were legendary. Van Wormer describes "years of binge drinking starting in college, at least one conviction for DUI in 1976 in Maine, and one arrest before that for a drunken episode involving theft of a Christmas wreath." She adds:

"The Bush biography reveals the story of a boy named for his father, sent to the exclusive private school in the East where his father's reputation as star athlete and later war hero were still remembered. The younger George's achievements were dwarfed in the school's memory of his father. Athletically he could not achieve his father's laurels, being smaller and perhaps less strong. His drinking bouts and lack of intellectual gifts held him back as well. His military record was mediocre as compared to his father's as well. [He went AWOL] "

In Fortunate Son, Bush himself explained: "Alcohol began to compete with my energies ... I'd lose focus". Though he once said he couldn't remember a day he hadn't had a drink, he quickly added the giveaway phrase that he didn't believe he was "clinically alcoholic".

Van Wormer notes that "Bush drank heavily for over 20 years until he made the decision to abstain at age 40. About this time he became a 'born again Christian' – going as usual from one extreme to the other." When asked in an interview about his reported cocaine use, he answered reasonably, "I'm not going to talk about what I did 20 to 30 years ago".

One motive driving Dubya could be his need "to prove himself to his father - to achieve what his father failed to do - to finish the job of the Gulf War, to get the 'evildoer' Saddam." Adds van Wormer, "His drive to finish his father's battles is of no small significance, psychologically."


Brain Damage
According to Van Wormer, "scientists can now observe changes that occur in the brain as a result of heavy alcohol and other drug abuse. Some of these changes may be permanent."

Van Wormer characterizes this damage as "barely noticeable but meaningful." Researchers have found that brain chemistry irregularities caused by long bouts of drinking or drug abuse cause "messages in one part of the brain to become stuck there. This leads to maddening repetition of thoughts."

One of these powerful "stuck" thoughts, says van Wormer, is that "President Bush seems unduly focused upon getting revenge on Saddam Hussein ('He tried to kill my Dad'), leading the country and the world into war, accordingly."

Grandiosity is another major trait of former addicts brain-damaged by their addiction. Bush has reversed the successful, five-decade old U.S. policy of containment and no first strikes. Now he says, Americans can attack anyone, anywhere at any time with any weapons of their choosing – including banned cluster bomb munitions, radioactive explosives and nuclear bombs.


AN AGENT OF ARMAGEDDON?
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, a person suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, "Has a grandiose sense of self-importance-exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements."

Sound familiar?

This personality is preoccupied with fantasies of power and being loved. Such a person requires "automatic compliance". He or she is "exploitative" of others, "lacks empathy, is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others." And also "shows arrogant, haughty behavior or attitudes."

"This set of characteristics," says Dr. Wolman, not too reassuringly, "may describe Rumsfeld and Cheney better than Dubya."

For those who, like Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stieglitz, warn that Bush "has been captured by a small group of ideologues,” Dependent Personality Disorder describes someone who "has difficulty making everyday decisions without an excessive amount of advice and reassurance from others." [CBC Feb. 10, 2003]

From a Jungian perspective, writes Dr. Wolman, "Dubya may be identifying with an archetype – something out of Revelations, perhaps, whereby he sees himself as an instrument of God's will to bring about Armageddon." Concurs Katherine van Wormer, "To fight evil, Bush is ready to take on the world, in almost a Biblical sense."


A PRESIDENTIAL PATHOLOGY
Is Bush's belligerence bent on securing another oil fix? Katherine van Wormer believes that a Portland peace protestor's sign, "Drunk on Power" nailed it. Says this quiet Quaker, "The drive for power can be an unquenchable thirst, addictive in itself."

Senator William Fulbright agrees. His bestseller, The Arrogance of Power defined power politics as the pursuit of power. "The causes and consequences of war may have more to do with pathology than with politics," Fulbright wrote.

A key "dry drunk" trait is impatience. Bush, who often describes himself as "a patient man", is not. Just four weeks after inspectors went into Iraq, he called for obliterating Baghdad. "If we wait for threats to fully materialize", Bush pointed out to West Pointers, "we will have waited too long". Translations: It's okay to attack projections of our own fearful imaginings – in case those phantom threats someday become real.


*edit* removed a bunch....

Omar
8th November 04, 06:39 PM
Ronin,

You're right. I was being a tad simplistic. But I was trying really hard to be concise and not write an essay like the one above this post from Pat. And I agree we need principled leaders and as a restaurant manager and now a school teacher I have learned the importance of the appearance of competence. That's one of the main reasons I was so dissaopointed in Kerry's winning the Democratic primary. I almost voted for him back when he ran against Clinton but having seen him on TV....*ech* He was like Al Gore all over again. He has as much charisma as a paper napkin. Early on this time around I was really pulling for Dean. He was the only one of the candiddates in my opinion who had quick concise answers for everything in the early debates. He didn't beat around the bush and I thought he'd have been great. The problem, I think, with him is that he ended up coming off a bit cold and a bit of an intellectual snob. Me, also a bit of an intellectual snob, kind of licked that. Later I started leaning towards Clark just out of pragmatic considerations for what you just posted. I figured Bush would have a tough time playing the "I'm tougher than you" game with an army general.

We lost....feh. I was only half joking on the other thread when I said I'd stay in Red China for another 4 years. Bush scares me. I was scared of him back when he was a republican primary candidate. I thought the amount of corporate support he had was staggering. I had never seen a wat chest anything like his before. His backers were just like a perfect list of everything I am opposed to. He managed to take a different position from me on nearly every single issue. No president in history has done that before.

brandeissansoo,

This morning, looking back at the thread I can see I was being a bit reactionary. From my statements to Ronin you can see how I feel about Bush. So, sorry to imply that you were being close minded.

Omar
8th November 04, 06:40 PM
p.s. to Brand,

Also my Dad's a shrink so . . .

Do I really have to explain why I might have taken issue with the content of your posts?

Deadpan Scientist
8th November 04, 06:55 PM
The quotes below are from http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1033904,00.html
My argument is that Bush is a fruit cake.

Well I'm glad to have your professional opinion.

Also I think it's really dishonest to be posting this stuff as your justification for him being "a fruit cake". The author comes out and says that these and similar things could be said about nearly every man on earth.

Other "psychological" arguments in this vein have the same problem. Do you understand? While specifics may be different, the overriding principle is the same.

Deadpan Scientist
8th November 04, 07:00 PM
p.s. to Brand,

Also my Dad's a shrink so . . .

Do I really have to explain why I might have taken issue with the content of your posts?

My view on talk therapy: It's paid for advice. It can be helpful to people that are confused about their emotions or their lives.

However psychoanalysis fails to bring anything to the table in terms of basic science as to the basis of disease. There are better methods(neurobiology) for the study of brain function.

Omar
9th November 04, 12:36 AM
lol...I wasn't expecting you to make the distinction. That was actually one of the specific things that was bugging me about your repeated emphasis on how psychology can not explain the neurochemical whatever about various disorders. I kept thinking..."so?...."

One real annoying thing (to me) about "talk therapy" is the new wave of "personal coaches" out there. People stting themselves up like Tony Robbins to make a fortune by just sort of being a paid supportive friend. As long as you are carefull to call yourself a coach and not a therapist then there are no legal certifications required. Anyone can do it.

Also, my Dad has sometimes commented with a bit of sadness on the irony that psychoanalysis is where the money is at but psychotherapy is what is actually usefull. Analysts get paid the big buck to help someone "understand their problems" but understanding does not necessarily lead to solutions. I'm an enourmous fan of Erickson and I don't think any of the case studies of his I read about involved him helping a patient understand their problem. He just told them stuff or gave them stuff to do to FIX their problem.

Psychological theripy needs the patient to understand it's mechanisms no more than medical therapy in most cases.***warning!!!*** <------personal opinion with no documentation to site!!!

Deadpan Scientist
9th November 04, 12:48 AM
Most of the time when people go to "shrinks" or psychiatrists, they are not mentally ill. They are looking for a personal coach.

Also, the term psychoanalyst is not controlled. You don't even have to have graduated high school to call yourself a psychoanalyst.