HUHHH? Yes, you read that exactly right.
Shrub has never used the term “alcoholic/ism” to label himself or his past behavior, but it’s nonetheless a good descriptive term.
This ”Listen” article from the Washington Post, pointing out his most annoying speech habits, perfectly illustrates what could be called Bush’s “dry drunk” personality. Although not connecting the dots in that particular direction, KKevin Drum does provide more good background.
Shrub himself, as far as we know, never went to Alcoholics Anonymous. Now, I don't buy into everything AA says — in large part because I’m an atheist and the religion-hidden-as-“spirituality” angle is too much. But it's not all wrong, either.
Take its description of the stereotypical alcoholic. If you understand where AA comes from, I think you can accept that as a legitimate description of a certain class of white male alcoholics, into which George W. Bush fits perfectly.
That said, while recognizing that an oft-used term in AA, "dry drunk," can be, and is, used as a control/beatdown label, it has a degree of validity, too.
And that's what you have here: George W. Bush, petulant dry drunk, doing the psychological equivalent of holding his breath until his face turns blue. It’s like a 5-year-old inhabiting a grown-up's body. Of course, I believe that's around the age his sister died, and, without justifying his behavior, there may be a serious connection.
A skeptical leftist's, or post-capitalist's, or eco-socialist's blog, including skepticism about leftism (and related things under other labels), but even more about other issues of politics. Free of duopoly and minor party ties. Also, a skeptical look at Gnu Atheism, religion, social sciences, more.
Note: Labels can help describe people but should never be used to pin them to an anthill.
As seen at Washington Babylon and other fine establishments
October 14, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment