Archive for August 22nd, 2006
It’s well known that i am a lousy writer, the length of my posts reflects that. If this is in relation to my post that’s not what i was asking. In fact i didn’t ask anything.
I did not say Bush was a psychopath, i’ve always believed that he was aware of what he was doing.
Bob says: “So if I say Bush is not a psychopath, I will get a retort about how the person I am talking to thinks Bush is awful and I am saying he is nice.”
I cant see how anyone would do that. Either they don’t understand your point or they are looking for an argument. but i can see how tiring that is to have happen repeatedly.
Comment by Sam
“It’s well known that i am a lousy writer, the length of my posts reflects that. If this is in relation to my post that’s not what i was asking.”
PLEASE Sam, PLEASE Shari, PLEASE spare me the bit about how unworthy you are of Lord Bob’s attention.
A LOT of people have asked me whether Bush was a psychopath. You seem to think this was aimed entirely at YOU.
What an ego!
But let me go beyond your specific comment.
As usual what Sam made me think of has nothing to do with Sam.
Sam’s disgusting modesty leads me to explain to readers the whole ethos of Southern thinking.
I talked about how Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina would keep saying, “I’m just a country lawyer from North Carolina.” Another senator reminded him that he was not just a Harvard Law School graduate. He was not just a cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School.
This senator said to Senator Ervin:
“Dammit, Sam, you say you are a just a country lawyer from North Carolina, but you are a MAGNA cum laude graduate of the Hravard Law School.”
And Ole Sam grinned at him and replied, “Yes, but nobody will ever know it.”
Let me explain why that reply is simple logic to a real Southerner.
In Massachusetts they say, “The Lodges speak only to the Cabots, and the Cabots speak only to God.” The Lodges and the Cabots came over onthe Mayflower, and they need speak to no one.
To a Southerner, that is an alien idea.
The Lodges and the Cabots got here after my ancestor DIED. So I have a background. I think that I am BETTER than other people.
But, unlike the Lodges and the Cabots, my background requires me to PROVE that I am better.
I think a LOT of Bob Whitaker. But as an American, I think that my genius means I can prove myself to you any time. They could not understand Sam Ervin because his whole point was, “I am real smart. ”
That did not mean Sam Ervin’s Hravard degree was real smart.
That meant SAM ERVIN is real smart.
In other words, “I, SAM ERVIN can prove he is smarter than anybody else. Harvard doesn’t have thing to do with it. I prove it to them. I can prove it, right now, to YOU.”
Can anybody even imagine that this has the slightest relationship to HUMILITY?
Compared to us, the Lodges and the Cabots bow and scrape. They admit to being snobs. Me and Senator Sam will beat you right now.
All this leads to my grudge against MY COMMENTERS putting themselves down.
Sam and Shari, Bob Whitaker approved your comments. Bob Whitaker finds your comments stimulating enough to include in Bob’s Blog.
When you apologize, you are presuming to apologize for Bob.
Thank you very much, Bob will do his OWN damned apologizing.
If you think so much of Ole Bob, why can’t you be deeply complimented by my using YOUR statements as a stimulus for all the brilliant stuff I have to say?
Get off the damned humility!
I hate to brag, but I have a lot more than any of you brat beginners to be humiliated about, and I can PROVE it!
If anybody is going to insult my commenters, I will do it.
Incidentally I notice Buchanan’s new anti immigration book is now # 1 on Amazon. At least I know Sam Francis didn’t write it. Any idea who did?
Comment by Antonio Fini
I deeply appreciate Pain’s understanding that what I say comes from REAL experience with power.
My problem with Pat is that he DID write his books.
Pat wrote this one.
When Pat took over as White House communications officer, I recommended someone to him for his staff. He told me he was hiring NO ONE.
I supported Pat for president. But my very practical, unexciting reason for thinking that Pat would ahve made a mess of being president was precisely because he is not an executive.
Please disabuse me if I get this wrong, but my impression is that Pat has never hired ANYONE. He was the highest paid columnist in America when he quit to run for president. He is an excellent writer for the market. He has a brain for the ages.
But if you are going to be the chief EXECUTIVE, none of that is useful.
Constrat Pat with Reagan.
Reagan had been head of one of the most powerful unions in America. THEN he had spent eight years as the governor of the sixth biggest economy on earth, California. THEN he became president.
The media used to bitch endlessly about how he worked forty hours a week.
But Reagan was used to being an executive. His logic was that if you have ten thousand people working for you in the Executive Office of the President and YOU have to work more than forty hours a week, you are doing something wrong.
As Chief Executive your JOB is to be an EXECUTIVE, not to impress people with how hard you work.
People would say to me, “Reagan only works forty hours a week.”
My reply was, “Look, this is a man who has a Red Phone which isn’t red by him every hour of every day. He may have have to make a decision that will kill half of humanity when that phone rings.”
“Now tell me,” I would say, “When the President picks up that Red Phone, do you REALLY want his hand to be shaking with fatigue?”
I am biased, since my job was always top-level staff. My professional preference is that the top guys leave the fatigue to US. That’s what we’re for.
To answer your question, Buchanan wrote the book himself. He does everything himself. And that is one reason Buchanan cannot be a national leader.
Many plays start with a single person on the stage.
I feel sorry for them.
When you go to a live play you are with people and all the talk has been very real. Five
minutes after the play starts you are into it. But when that one actor goes on stage you
are still very much in the real world, and that actor has a hard time making you into into
I had the same sensation every time I went into John Ashbrook’s office. He was a newpaper
publisher by profession, so he just kept doing the corresponce while a staffer told him what
he was there about. So I wold knock on the door, not wait for any resposne, and stand there
in front of his desk while he never looked up. While I talked he would be writing.
Usually he never even lifted his head while I was there.
This was his standard procedure. He heard every word I said. I watched him finish up two
or three letters, look, make corrections or sign, while I stood there for no more than five
minutes giving him the story.
He would make comments and ask me questions as I spoke, just as if he were looking at me. If he had called me into his office, he would give his directions while working.
I had to know when he was finished. He told me what I wanted. I seldom had to ask questions, but if I did, he would answer them all straight and short.
I had to know when I had gottent he answers I needed. If I told him him what I wanted to do, he would say OK or sometimes not even reply. He always remembered. Then I would leave.
If I left before we finished, he would have stopped me. The fact that I walked out meant I had gotten what I wanted. I was a senior staffer. I was expected to know when I had gotten what I wanted.
He never once called me back.
We did plenty of talking, but after hours or in his home district. When congress was in sesssion and he had pile of correspondence, my job was to get whatever else came up done, period, and bother him as little as possible.
This experience shook up the most hardened staffers. While I was there he took over the Education and Labor Committee staff, so experienced people had to see him for the first time.
Normally when a senior staffer walked into a congressman’s office, he would sit down and the senator or congressman would look at him and suspend other activity. So I would try to warn people new to working for Ashbrook about this srange experience.
Almost invariably they would say something like, “Bob, I’ve been on the Hill X years. I know how to talk to a congressman.”
Every one of them came back talking about what a STRANGE experience it was. A couple asked me why I didn’t WARN them. This is why Jack Anderson wrote a column saying that John Ashbrook was the hardest man in the House of Representatives to work for.
I didn’t have a problem with it once I got the drift. I was senior staff. I was also very busy myself. I didn’t want to waste my time, and, more important, I didn’t want to waste HIS.
They would knock on the door and wait. Finally someone wold tell them to go on in. Then they would stand there waiting to be asked to sit. After theys stood there a full minute, John would say, “So what’s up?” and continue doing his work.
You see, John could walk and chew gum at the same time, whichis why he was never eleced tot
he Leadership. They were used to dealing with Gerald Ford, who was.
I have often said that Bill Clintonishte perfect example of a psychopath. I have been asked if Bush is one.
I did not answer, not becuase I don’t know the answer, but because I am desperately weary of explaining that just because I give somebody credit for something, it does not mean that I am endorsing them.
I know that Churchill was a good speaker, but I hate that bastard more than any other single person in history. He took baths regularly, and I am silling to admit it, but that does not mean I love him.
So if I say Bush is not a psychopath, I will get a retort about how the person I am talking to thinks Bush is awful and I am saying he is nice.
Actually I think Bush will have a worse time at Judgement than Bill Clinton or Ted Bundy will. ZThe Catholic Church actually has a dotrine called Invincible Ignorance, where a person is INCAPABLE of understanding that some things are wrong. A psychopath, like a child, is a moral innocent.
So let me tell you why I know Bush is not a psychopath.
I watched him the first time that his orders actually led to a couple of soldiers being killed. He was shaken when he went to the press conference, thought he tried not to show it.
Ther is a particular reaction in a person who gets shot at personally. That is, not when the general exchange of bullets and explosions of shrapnel are occurring, but when someone shoots at HIM, personally. The most battle-hardened et is shaken by that experience the first time.
It is the same when you know that YOUR orders led to soebody actually getting killed. Neither reaction makes sense.
If you have been putting yourself in firefights, someone is going to eventually shoot at YOU. If you are constantly giving orders to people to go in armed, somebody will eventually get killed. So neither emotion makes any sense at all.
Emotions do not make sense.
Clinton could send a division in to certain death and he would wail and cry at the press conference, but I could tell it was a show. Bush was shaken at two deaths at his orders.
No, Bush is not a psychopath. His evil is genuinely, PERSONALLY evil.
Does anybody know the kind of etymolgy book I’m looking for?
What I want is a book that dfoes not say “oggel” comes from oglymachtisudezoozze in gorgian, but onehtat talks about words like “cop.”
It is now a common noun, a common verb, a copper is also a word. It comes from the huge hat the police in the first regular police force in London were forced to wear.
Polie at first had no uniform. Then it was niice hat they would stop being police when troble broke out. So they were required to wear high hats. But since high hats were prettycommon, they were STILL able to keep from being identified when somebody needed help when things were getting rough.
So they had to wear those bottle-shaped hats and a huge piece of copper, a medallion, was put onthem so there was no way they could hide what they were.
Policemen had a lousy reputation fiftyyears after the Lodon Bobbies (named for the founder of the force, whose first name was Robert) were formed. Matk Twain was in Pompeii in 1868 and praised the courage of a Roman soldier who stood at his post until he was burned to death by the lava:
“If he had been a policeman, he would have died there, too. He would have been asleep.”
Mark Twain also desribed the endless number of cemeteries and the millions of burials under Paris. In fact, he coinced the term “the silent majority of Paris”, and silent majority became a modern political ter,.
So it went from “find a copper” to a cop to an arrrest becoming a “cop.”
The most likelu explanation of Yankee, is the word “Anglais,” a none-too-friendly designation by French Canadians for an Englishman.
The word “awful” used to be a compliment. Henry VIII could have described somthing as “awful and aritifical” and meant it as a compliment. Artificicial comes from artifice, made by men, art. But now we use aweSOME because awful means bad awe.
Is there a little book on fun stuff like this?
By the way, you could refer to Koreans as The Chosen People, but DON’T. Chosen was the name the Japanese gace Korea when it was under Japanese rule. Koreans were treated like dogs by the Japanese, and thet do NOT like to be referred as Chosen.