http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Wed, 5 Sep 2007 07:19:32 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/10/25/160429.php#comment-628507 David Owen, former-Labour foreign secretary, founder of the British Social Democrat Party (now merged into the Liberal Democrats) and a bit of an international player I think, in the sort of "special envoy to" role, is also pushing a <a href="http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/96/5/325">"Bush is mentally ill"</a> theory at the moment. He was a doctor before his political career, and reckons both Bush and Blair suffer from The Hubris Syndrome, (the title of his book), which he claims is common in powerful people. Might make a good review/discussion. 628507@blogcritics.org Wed, 5 Sep 2007 07:19:32 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/10/25/160429.php#comment-628491 I think what you have written is worthy in this respect: it shows that you are thinking about a very important person and some very important events. I also appreciate you admission that you really have not yet put your finger on the key to understanding the President. I appreciate your humble candor. However, we must also admit that from then on all is to some degree just speculation. (In order to avoid that impression, cite hard evidence to bolster your pronouncements. In some cases I read speculations and prejudices when I was hoping for insight.) Your comments also remind me of Reagan's biographer, Edmund Morris, who also commented that he never really understood Ronald Reagan. It seems to me that when one is deeply motivated by a very spiritual relationship with God, secularists,New Agers, materialists, liberal theologians, atheists, agnostics, etc., don't have a clue nor are they capable of understanding someone who has been smitten by God. Such commentators focus on the outer appearances, the outer acts, and outer words, the weaknesses and deficiencies, but they fail to understand the deeper meanings and motivations of such men. These erstwhile observers adhere to different principles,different presuppositions, different paradigms from the men they are writing about. To cite Bush as being ideologically motivated without any analysis of one's own bent is, well,a bit disingenuous, a tad bit hypocritical. In spite of that criticism, I found that your comments contained much value. Keep them coming... 628491@blogcritics.org Wed, 5 Sep 2007 03:47:10 EDT