The Big Bully

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Troll-free Private Saloon : One Thread

September 6, 2002

The Big Bully

by Rebecca Knight

Some things are just flat out wrong. On some issues there is no gray area, there is only black or white, right or wrong. There is no maybe about it. It is simple really. Perhaps the golden rule is the greatest guide ever. It should certainly guide policy decisions dealing with the rights and wrongs relating to the human condition. Some people just don't get this concept. Most likely they never will because they are self-consumed, greedy, and power hungry.

One should always consider how decisions made impact the lives of others, especially in the political arena. This is the concept that the Bush administration and many other politicians just don't care about. It is lost for them in the earliest stages of their careers, assuming they ever had it in the first place. It is lost through the corrupting influence of power and big money. Temptations of such magnitude are almost impossible to resist. It takes a strength of character that most politicians simply do not possess. Once under this influence, decisions are no longer based on what is best for the American people. Unhealthy compromises are made and what should be based on right or wrong is lost in the process.

I'm talking about compassion. The type of consideration for the plight of others less fortunate that is sorely lacking in almost every policy decision and legislative move taken by the Bush administration. Oh, Bush ran a campaign of promised "compassionate conservatism" all right, but it was just a smoke screen to secure the votes of those easily duped by rhetoric.

Bush promotes himself as a "good ole boy" that people find easy to relate to. In reality, he is all spin and no substance. He is all smoke and mirrors. He is all "ole boy" with very little "good" for the masses. He may be the most self-absorbed, indolent, incurious lightweight to ever occupy the White House.

Don't make the mistake of believing that George W. Bush is dumb or stupid. Dumb can be defined as "conspicuously unintelligent." Stupid can be defined as "slow to learn or understand." Bush is definitely perceived as being conspicuously unintelligent and slow to learn or understand because of his pattern of speech, poor vocabulary, and inability to process thoughts quickly enough when unscripted. This is more an indication of poor preparation, lack of attention to detail, laziness and absolutely no intellectual curiosity.

But don't let Bush's obvious intellectual failings confuse the issue. He does have certain qualities that have served him well. He is crafty, cagey, and clever. These are not admirable qualities. They are qualities used by the "big bully" types of the world to dominate the less fortunate. Bush is like the big kid who steals the little kid's lunch money on the way to school. Then the bully dares the little kid to do something about it. These Bush qualities are slightly below the surface, but they can be detected through his smirks and that certain gleam in his eye. It's like he is thumbing his nose at America and saying, yes, I am here and I can do what I want. What are you going to do about it?

Simply put, George W. Bush reached his level of incompetence by being a part of the monied elite. Those connections served him well. Think about it. What has he ever accomplished through hard work, intellectual challenge, commitment to task, or ingenuity? Well educated? Nope, skimmed by with C averages and more than a little help from Poppy's money. Successful businessman? Nope, failed oil businesses and a baseball scam making him a millionaire come to mind. Military man? Nope, got into the Texas Air National Guard through favoritism and ran out on his commitment. Successful politician? It would appear so, but in reality he did not achieve his lofty positions as a governor or president through accomplishment -- he achieved them by deception. Bush is more than a little bit lucky. How else could someone of such intellectual inconsequence be sitting in the Oval Office?

Why would someone so lacking in intellectual curiosity even want a position like president of the United States? Ahhhh, there's the question at the heart of the matter. There's the conundrum. There's the paradox. Perhaps the answer lies in his lack of intellectual curiosity and a deeply seeded need to prove something. Perhaps he sought the most powerful position in the world to prove to himself and to his detractors that he is not an intellectual lightweight.

Or perhaps he pursued a political career because he saw in it the ideal set-up, the perfect arena for his con man personality. He has found his niche and he is using it to the max. Bush discovered in politics the perfect opportunity to present a facade to the masses, con them into voting for him, and then coast along allowing others to do the critical thinking and work while he reaps the undeserved glory.

Yes, George W. Bush is a man of great wealth and privilege. What is so sad is that it is all wasted on him due to selfishness. There have been other leaders of great wealth who used their influence for the betterment of America. The Roosevelts and the Kennedys come to mind. Bush demonstrates none of their qualities. After all, he squandered his early adulthood as a hard drinker and party animal.

Well, George, you can only get away with conning the masses for so long. Oh, yes, like the big bully you are where you wanted to be. You got America's lunch money, so to speak, but it has accomplished nothing for you. Why? Smoke and mirrors can only do so much. In order to be widely accepted and respected there must be an underlying depth of character, a truly believable compassion, and an inherent desire to lead this nation to greater heights for the betterment of its people. These are the qualities that are lacking in Bush and they cannot be faked.

Bush surrounded himself with masters of political manipulation during campaign 2000 and they succeeded through lies and deception. Once in office, Bush put those folks to work as his advisors and brought in others possessing similar manipulative skills for appointed positions, many of whom are controversial and surrounded by their own personal scandals. These people have the same character failings as George W. Bush, but they are extremely good at what they do. They are spinmeisters to the point of contortionism. They all seem to possess the same bullying personalities. Think about Ashcroft, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove. See what I mean?

The problem is that the American people are being used as pawns in Bush the bully's power struggles. His policy decisions are harming the people in incremental steps. The man who lacks intellectual curiosity and compassion either does not see this or does not care. Most likely it is the latter.

Incurious George has spent forty-two percent of his presidency at leisurely destinations. He has amassed an amazing $114.8 million dollars at 48 GOP fundraising events this year alone. He has completed fifteen rounds of golf during his presidency, but held only six press conferences. These are telling statistics. They say a lot about what this president has on his mind, or more significantly, what he does not have on his mind. It is obvious his presidency is one of slight of hand. His hands touch the critical issues only slightly - just enough to get by. Considering his history, this is not surprising.

Where has this led the nation? Down - straight down. The hallmarks of the Bush administration to date are a return to deficit spending and massive national debt, recession, unemployment, massive tax cuts mainly benefiting the wealthy, bumbling intelligence against terrorism, devastating cuts in social and environmental programs, scandalous involvement in corporate machinations, a secretive war on terrorism, domestic anthrax attacks, incomprehensible infringements on civil liberties, terrorist alerts, nonexistent foreign policy, and threats of war against as many as sixty nations. This is not a pretty picture.

Why doesn't Congress do something about these issues? The bullies, Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld, are all stonewalling Congress. They would do away with Congressional oversight. No, they don't want Congress to look into the Justice Department's administration of the Patriot Act, Enron, 9/11, the war on terror, threats of war against Iraq, Harken, Halliburton, etc. Just get out of their way and let them do what they want!

So what can we do about it America? Are we going to let the big bullies steal our lunch money? Silence isn't golden when it comes to obvious political shenanigans. We can speak up, write letters, get active in the Democratic Party, call your elected officials, and most importantly vote! We still have the power of our votes. We have critically important elections coming up in November. Vote for the candidates most likely to support the issues you care about and vote for the candidates most likely to oppose the oppressive Bush regime.

Throw the bums out!

http://www.buzzflash.com/southern/2002/09/06_southern.html

-- Cherri (whatever@who.cares), September 06, 2002

Answers

EXCELLENT.

-- Two Thumbs Up! (you nailed it @ keep it up. you go girl), September 07, 2002.

Thank you for returning, Cherri. Carrying the lamp of truth is a lonely, thankless job in this land of Philistines.

Keep the faith, baby. We shall prevail.

-- (pugs @ ass licking.contest), September 07, 2002.


(you nailed it @ keep it up. you go girl)

Hey trollboy, only wymen are allowed to say "you go girl". Are you a girlyboy? Bwawahaha.

-- (BS detector @ work.again), September 07, 2002.


BS detec, Equality goes both ways, he can say it to me ANY TIME.

-- Cherri (whatever@who.cares), September 07, 2002.

"only wymen are allowed to say "you go girl""?

Bwaahahaa, okay Hitler, whatever you say, NOT! You must be a typical pug, still living in a narrow-minded chauvinistic tuffguy world of delusion.

Here's a newsflash for you dimnut. If it ever sinks in you better try to translate it to Neanderthalese for your hero Dumbya, he needs help in this area too, "big time". ROTFL...

Too Much 'Macho' Not Good for a Marriage: Study

Thu Aug 29,11:10 AM ET

By Alison McCook

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Married men who are overly and stereotypically "masculine"--too driven, emotionally closed off, and focused on work rather than family--tend to have wives who are relatively unhappy and dissatisfied with the marriage, new study findings show.

Men who possess traits that are considered to be stereotypically male--consumed by success and power, uncomfortable showing affection toward other men, attuned to work over family--are in a state of gender role conflict, according to study author Matthew J. Breiding of the University of Notre Dame in Indiana.

While possessing some of these traits is normal, when men have too many, or express them in an over-the-top way, their relationships with others--including their wives--will be affected, Breiding explained in an interview with Reuters Health.

Adopting a gender role to a rather extreme degree is what "gets a man into trouble," Breiding said.

Previous studies have shown that men who have gender role conflict also tend to show certain behaviors that can be difficult for others, such as hostility, dominance and anger. In addition, these men may hesitate to open up emotionally to their wives--all of which can affect the health and happiness of a marriage, according to Breiding.

In the new study, Breiding and Dr. David A. Smith asked 59 married couples to complete a scale designed to measure the husband's level of gender role conflict. The husband filled out one scale for himself, while his wife completed one on him. Spouses then indicated how content they were in their marriages and whether they felt depressed or unhappy.

The investigators found that the higher the state of gender role conflict in the husband--according to him or his wife--the less happy the wife was in the marriage. Such couples also tended to have more disagreement over marital issues, and the wives were more likely to be depressed.

Husbands were also negatively affected by gender role conflict, but not to the degree that their wives were, the authors note.

Breiding and Smith presented their findings this month during the 110th annual meeting of the American Psychological Association in Chicago, Illinois.

In the interview, Breiding explained that men likely develop their gender role conflict from influences such as role models and messages from media and others that stress the importance of success in work, rather than in relationships.

He noted that a woman may also influence how her husband perceives his gender role and, therefore, may in part be responsible for the husband's potentially destructive self-image. "Certainly, I think the wives can have a reciprocal influence," he said.

Breiding added that his results can also be interpreted in a positive light, since there are apparently many men out there who are not in a state of gender role conflict and have happy, mutually satisfying marriages.

More and more men are "receiving different messages of what it means to be a man," Breiding explained. "That can have a transformative effect on how they interact with their wives and other male friends."

-- lol (stupidity is @ not. a virtue), September 07, 2002.



Too Much 'Wimpy' Not Good for a Marriage: Study

Thu Aug 29,11:10 AM ET

By Alison McGeek

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Married men who are overly and stereotypically "feminine"--too sensitive, emotionally leaking, and focused on touchy-feelings rather than the traditional male virtues of strength and protection--tend to have wives who are relatively horny and frustrated with the marriage, new study findings show.

Men who possess traits that are considered to be stereotypically female--consumed by hysteria and weeping, uncomfortable showing strength toward other men, attuned to OCD over family--are in a state of gender role conflict, according to study author Matthew J. Breiding of the University of Notre Homme in Indiana.

While possessing some of these traits is normal, when men have too many, or express them in an over-the-top way, their relationships with others--including their wives--will be affected, Breiding explained in an interview with Reuters Health.

Adopting a female gender role to a rather extreme degree is what "gets a man into trouble," Breiding said.

Previous studies have shown that men who have female-gender role conflict also tend to show certain behaviors that can be difficult for others, such as wussiness, passiveness and pouting. In addition, these men may hesitate to open up sexually to their wives--all of which can affect the health and happiness of a marriage, according to Breiding.

In the new study, Breiding and Dr. David A. Smith asked 59 married couples to complete a scale designed to measure the husband's level of female-gender role conflict. The husband filled out one scale for himself, while his wife completed one on him. Spouses then indicated how content they were in their marriages and whether they felt depressed or unhappy.

The investigators found that the higher the state of female gender role conflict in the husband--according to him or his wife--the less happy the wife was in the marriage. Such couples also tended to have more disagreement over marital issues, and the wives were more likely to be horny.

Husbands were also negatively affected by gender role conflict, but not to the degree that their wives were, the authors note.

Breiding and Smith presented their findings this month during the 110th annual meeting of the American Sissyological Association in Chicago, Illinois.

In the interview, Breiding explained that men likely develop their female-gender role conflict from influences such as role models and messages from Oprah, Phil Donahue, Barbra Streisand and others that stress the importance of wimpiness, rather than manliness.

He noted that a man may also influence how his wife perceives her gender role and, therefore, may in part be responsible for the wife's potentially destructive self-image. "Certainly, I think the husbands can have a reciprocal influence," he said.

Breiding added that his results can also be interpreted in a positive light, since there are apparently many women out there who are not in a state of gender role conflict and have happy, mutually satisfying marriages. Breiding concluded that women need a man of substance, not an Alan Alda type "sensitive" wimp who provides nothing to lean on.

More and more men are "receiving feminique messages of what it means to be a man," Breiding explained. "That can have a transgender effect on how they interact with their wives and other male friends."

-- (LOL @ girly.boy), September 07, 2002.


Wow, that is almost bordering on creativity, something which pugs are usually incapable of!

Oh, that's right, you copied it from the original article. Nevermind.

-- lol (nice@try.dimnut), September 07, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ