The esoteric club of gentlemen discussing Bush' mind

[Wrath of Dagon]

Bush's big problems were that he was too idealistic abroad and didn't understand economics well enough at home. Of course that's a general problem with our government, and besides there's a tendency to let sleeping dogs lie until there's a crisis, at which point we take half measures. At least Bush tried to do what he thought was the right thing, regardless of his popularity, but he would've been better off if he addressed a few immediate problems, like energy independence, instead of trying to make over the world.

[Hurlshort]

Going in to Afghanistan is actually a huge deal to me, the Taliban are rotten to the core and should never be allowed to control an entire country again.

[taks]

Bush's big problems were that he was too idealistic abroad and didn't understand economics well enough at home. Of course that's a general problem with our government, and besides there's a tendency to let sleeping dogs lie until there's a crisis, at which point we take half measures.

i am quite convinced that the people advising presidents do understand economics, in spite of continually implementing policies that damage our economy. they fully realize that to control the flow of money is to control the lives of those that spend it. the only difference from one to the next is how that control is explained to the sheep.

 

At least Bush tried to do what he thought was the right thing, regardless of his popularity, but he would've been better off if he addressed a few immediate problems, like energy independence, instead of trying to make over the world.

hmm, maybe. i don't buy the energy independence thing, however. if it is a global economy, it is a global economy. special pleading for certain sectors does not impress me as something that is intellectually honest.

 

taks

[Aristes]

I agree that the presidential advisors are certainly all over the map. Of course, our presidents don't illicit trust, either.

 

That link is fascinating, Enoch.

[Meshugger]

Ok, now i have some free time:

 

- Characteristics and mannerisms: Reminds me about a carsalesman, a nice smile, no trace autharianism nor is he intimidating, he might actually make you feel really comfortable being in his presence. But in the end, you are reminded that he is looking towards his own interests. When a person of this character tries to intimidate or try to sound like a voice of authority, he usually fails utterly and thus it makes him look foolish; because deep inside, he's rebellious and very anti-autharian.

 

- Intelligence....too tired, i figure out something later.

 

Ok, i'll try to continue this time.

 

- Intelligence: This one is tricky, didn't the guy get a MD in economics at Yale?(or was it Harward? no matter). I haven't heard him taking any IQ-test or anything similar, but can one find his SAT-scores anywhere? In the end, people who are borderline savantic in behaviour (see the real Rainman for example) can have exceptional qualities in terms of intelligence. But since this is the game of politics, i think that it draws back on their character's wisdom on how to act on their intellectual capacity.

 

- Judgement: A newborn christian, with a strong set of principles. Goes well with his target audience, but bad in the game of politics and diplomacy, where compromises are the norm. This is manifested with his choice of cabinet-members, advisers and his administration. Why did he use pappys old pals? I can guess that these were the people he met earlier in his career, who also shared the same traits as him. Very strong in their principles and he felt comfortable in their presence. When judgement leans more onto principles than pragmatism, diplomatic blunders ensue. I use his administrations handling of the aftermath of the 9/11-attacks as a base for this idea of mine.

 

Hurricane Catrina also shows the weaknesses of his judgement, he simply chose people in his administration that he agreed with more than people who were actually competent in handling the matter. Bad move.

 

- Speech: Looking at older speeches when he was running for congress or as governor, he did have a pretty good ability to channel his thoughts into words. I could atleast see that there was thought and belief behind the speeches of his. These speeches were more direct and more local of course, something that he could closely relate to. When entering presidential politics, debates become more abstract in nature. It become more about concepts and less about issues that are of a practical nature. Taking into his character that was already mentioned; whenever he spoke as president, he didn't necessarily believe what he said, since the speech was written to widen an already broad audience. This showed due to his characteristics, he didn't like it for some reasons or the other, and wanted to tell it in his way, but couldn't or was adviced not to. You could literally see the conflict in his eyes, no determination, no stern voice, no inspiration.

 

He wasn't fumbling because of stupidity, he was fumbling because of he was a bad at lying.

 

- Insight: As a man of strong principles, rebellious by nature, and rely heavily on lojalty of others, his insight took the road of the world being more simpler than it really was. No grey areas, black & white and a strong sense of duty to follow through once you started something. Insight was probably his weakest area.

 

- Wisdom: He strongly believed in what he percieved to be good in man. I for instance, disagreed with many of his social policies that he thought was 'good'. The Iraqi war, and what happened before it, showed how instincticly he thought that he was doing the right thing for everyone. This guy was certainly no moral relativist, and that was his greatest foe.

 

 

To summarize, he wasn't evil, but he was a far cry from being a devout intellectual or inspirational president.

[taks]

didn't the guy get a MD in economics at Yale?(or was it Harward? no matter). I haven't heard him taking any IQ-test or anything similar, but can one find his SAT-scores anywhere?

an MA from yale (skull and bones society, as was john kerry, btw) in either something business related or political science, as i recall. he didn't rock, for sure, with a C+ average (don't quote me on this, however). his SAT scores were available at one time, somewhere around 1200 or so, which put him at least in the 125-130 IQ range.*

 

taks

 

* the SATs at the time bush took them were strongly correlated with IQ. however, as with any knowledge-based IQ test, they suffer immensely on the downside, i.e., if you don't have the knowledge required for the test, you cannot score well, even if you do have a high IQ. somewhere in the 1980s the SATs stopped being a good IQ indicator. of course, the whole IQ thing is still hotly contested and will likely always remain that way. but i digress...

Edited May 19, 2009 by taks

[Meshugger]

didn't the guy get a MD in economics at Yale?(or was it Harward? no matter). I haven't heard him taking any IQ-test or anything similar, but can one find his SAT-scores anywhere?

an MA from yale (skull and bones society, as was john kerry, btw) in either something business related or political science, as i recall. he didn't rock, for sure, with a C+ average (don't quote me on this, however). his SAT scores were available at one time, somewhere around 1200 or so, which put him at least in the 125-130 IQ range.*

 

taks

 

* the SATs at the time bush took them were strongly correlated with IQ. however, as with any knowledge-based IQ test, they suffer immensely on the downside, i.e., if you don't have the knowledge required for the test, you cannot score well, even if you do have a high IQ. somewhere in the 1980s the SATs stopped being a good IQ indicator. of course, the whole IQ thing is still hotly contested and will likely always remain that way. but i digress...

 

Awww great. I got a 'C' in my major subject, 'C' in my minor and a 'B' on my Master's of Science(Technology) thesis, thus making it a C+ overall.

 

If I am as smart as Bush, then i don't know how to react to this

[Aristes]

Actually, Meshugger, I thought you did a great job with a shorthand review of Bush. I mean, folks will be writing volumes about his presidency in the future. Trust me, when you're president, folks will be writing about you for a long time, no matter what you did in office.

 

That doesn't matter. I still found your short piece kind of touching in a strange way. I don't agree with everything in your report, but it's a good enough place to start. Really, it's probably about as good a place to finish also, since all the volumes that folks write about Bush will never really resolve any of the issues. They'll have sources and endnotes and quotations aplenty, but we've never really fully understood any of our presidents as it seems to me. Don't get me wrong, I want to have those volumes because I enjoy reading them. I just don't think they ever bring closure.

[Meshugger]

Actually, Meshugger, I thought you did a great job with a shorthand review of Bush. I mean, folks will be writing volumes about his presidency in the future. Trust me, when you're president, folks will be writing about you for a long time, no matter what you did in office.

 

That doesn't matter. I still found your short piece kind of touching in a strange way. I don't agree with everything in your report, but it's a good enough place to start. Really, it's probably about as good a place to finish also, since all the volumes that folks write about Bush will never really resolve any of the issues. They'll have sources and endnotes and quotations aplenty, but we've never really fully understood any of our presidents as it seems to me. Don't get me wrong, I want to have those volumes because I enjoy reading them. I just don't think they ever bring closure.

 

Trust me, i found Bush to be a very interesting character. There were many times when his bodylanguage or choice of words didn't really match from what i would expect from a high-ranking, governmental officer. I just never really agreed with him on anything If i had the time and resources, i would like to read more. Right now, Youtube served as my main source

Edited May 19, 2009 by Meshugger

[Walsingham]

I spit on the notion of a general quality of intellectual ability, that is what most people would call 'intelligence'. It's nonsense, like 'breeding'. I haven't time to go over the argument again now. but there is a book on the subject called Intelligence in Question that is educational and occasionally funny.

 

I do, however, know dumb when I see it. Dumb in this case is a person who thinks they know what the answer is before they've heard the question. To paraphrase Chris Rock.

[Hurlshort]

I think Mesh did a great job on his analysis.

[taks]

but there is a book on the subject called Intelligence in Question that is educational and occasionally funny.

are you sure that's the title? while i know the subject of IQ is... hmmm, controversial, at best, i recall you linking to a book once on the subject and i recall reading the reviews (not the book itself). as i recall, if the reviews were true, the author committed some egregious errors, both with the use of dubious facts and improper statistical analyses. not that his errors provide a confirmation of the concept of IQ/intelligence, but that book certainly couldn't be used as a refutation, either. i don't remember the details, so i'm only pointing out what i remember in general.

 

^meshugger: an MS is, in general, much more difficult to achieve than an MA (master of arts). in any event, who cares what your grades were... all that matters is that you get to do what you like to do and, hopefully, get paid to do it.

 

taks

[Hurlshort]

I've always supported the argument that the difference between an A and a C is not all that important. What is important is completing the degree program. That shows you can follow something through to completion. Companies don't usually look up your GPA when you apply for a job, they just want to know you finished.

[Meshugger]

I know, the latest firm that i got hired to didn't really look at my grades, and i really enjoy working there. But i still find it kinda funny that my grades were so similar

 

Anyhoo, are there any more upcoming books about the man, featuring his memos and dialogues with his staff? I have the same fascination with Teddy Roosevelt, Reagan and Kennedy.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Meshugger

[taks]

Companies don't usually look up your GPA when you apply for a job, they just want to know you finished.

grades are the only thing companies have to go on with incoming new-grads, so that determines whether or not you get the interview. an advanced degree makes it a moot point, however. every interview i had as an undergrad required i put down my GPA. not one after i got my MS had the same requirement. now that i have a phd, they don't even ask if my degree is in a relevant field.

 

taks

[taks]

i doubt many people cared about bush's grades, either. he'd have had maybe 10 more votes in both elections - cumulative - if he was a straight-A student. probably would have pissed off a few others, too, for being a smarty pants, perhaps resulting in a net loss of votes.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

but there is a book on the subject called Intelligence in Question that is educational and occasionally funny.

are you sure that's the title? while i know the subject of IQ is... hmmm, controversial, at best, i recall you linking to a book once on the subject and i recall reading the reviews (not the book itself). as i recall, if the reviews were true, the author committed some egregious errors, both with the use of dubious facts and improper statistical analyses. not that his errors provide a confirmation of the concept of IQ/intelligence, but that book certainly couldn't be used as a refutation, either. i don't remember the details, so i'm only pointing out what i remember in general.

 

^meshugger: an MS is, in general, much more difficult to achieve than an MA (master of arts). in any event, who cares what your grades were... all that matters is that you get to do what you like to do and, hopefully, get paid to do it.

 

taks

 

I'm pleased to be challenged, because I'm flattered you bothered to look! The book may be out of date, but at the time it came out my university's psychology department thought it good enough. I got the highest mark of my year on the topic, and was able to debate reasonably successfully with the professors.

 

However, since that's hardly justification, my principle objection beyond the mutability of so-called intelligence, is expertise. People we call intelligent are generally at the top of one field or another. Yet when tested we find that their excellence hardly communicates outside very narrow boundaries.

 

Anyway, I'm a bit distracted just now, but it would definitely be interesting to break this open for thorough discussion in a couple of weeks.

[Guard Dog]

I was no fan of GWB as you all know but I must give the man credit for one thing. Since leaving office he has returned to Texas, gotten on with his life, and had the dignity and class not to criticize or sling mud at political enemies including (especially) the current administration. I wish Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and **** Cheney had exhibited as much grace as Bush has.

[Hurlshort]

That reminds me of a Nixon story. In '60, the election between JFK and Nixon was extremely close. It was such a small margin, that many people were clamoring for a recount to be sure. Nixon got up and conceded instead, and when asked why, he said he didn't want to look like a poor sport. Interesting perspective from a fairly cutthroat politician.

[CoM_Solaufein]

I was more dissapointed with Bush.. USA and it's goverment had the support and sympathy of the Western world after 9/11 (probably much of the islamic world as well) and all that was sympathy was lost not 3 years later.. Bush and his administration squandered a perfect oppertunity to move towards are more united world and that's my biggest beef with him.

Same here.

 

Bush could have came out looking like a hero after 9/11 by staying focused on Bin Laden and his ilk, rebuilding New York and establishing diplomatic ties with the Middle East. But that all ended when he lied to the public about WMD in Iraq and decided to invade that country. The man went from hero to zero with that move.

[taks]

Anyway, I'm a bit distracted just now, but it would definitely be interesting to break this open for thorough discussion in a couple of weeks.

perhaps. this is something i research a bit of. more of a curiosity than anything. as i noted, btw, i only gleaned a little information from one of the reviews, which stated the author had included some facts and related analysis that i know (personally) to be flawed or highly subject to biased interpretation. at least, that's what i remember. the subject, in general, is actually rather taboo in many circles because it brings up concepts of eugenics (disastrous) and racial/cultural issues (legitimate, but politically disastrous) as well, which tends to turn discussions regarding the subject into emotional battles.

 

^lucian: bush did not lie, no matter how you want to spin it. you people really need to get off that broken hobby horse.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

^lucian: bush did not lie, no matter how you want to spin it. you people really need to get off that broken hobby horse.

 

taks

 

There you and I agree, at least. The fact that the intelligence was wrong is plain unremarkable. The fact that the reconstruction contracts were parcelled out to cronies of the Bush administration who bungled the reconstruction and thereby made the insurgency ten times stronger... THAT's a problem.

[Junai]

http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htm

[Walsingham]

http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htm

 

He got suck after about five seconds between two bubbles. Boo.

[Gorgon]

^lucian: bush did not lie, no matter how you want to spin it. you people really need to get off that broken hobby horse.

 

taks

 

There you and I agree, at least. The fact that the intelligence was wrong is plain unremarkable. The fact that the reconstruction contracts were parcelled out to cronies of the Bush administration who bungled the reconstruction and thereby made the insurgency ten times stronger... THAT's a problem.

The difference between lying and misrepresenting the truth is semantics. No Bush didn't lie, he said 'go sell this side of the story' and that's exactly what his underlings did, to the point of deliberately skewing the larger picture.

 

Also, the Bush administration does seem to have been confused as to the meaning of privatization, I'm pretty sure the point is to improve efficiency, not to hand the contracts to your republican buddies who knew the right names.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Gorgon