Rating: 
Summary: Dyslexia Has Nothing to do with Stupidity
Review: and it's a shame people styling themselves as liberal and intelligent are capitalizing on such an ignorant assumption. Bush's malapropisms have all made us shake our heads from time to time - but I've learned that what a leader does is at least as important as what he says, and how he says it. Apparently, the majority of Americans agree.
Rating: 
Summary: Should be required reading for all citizens
Review: This book will make you laugh until you cry. And it will also skip the laughter and take you directly to tears. Although Bush's mangled syntax is hilarious, his past behavior in business and in office is terrifyingly unethical and self-centered. I certainly hope that Mr. Miller will write a follow-up book that covers the seemingly endless "war" on terrorism, the monstrosity of the homeland security department, the failings of Enron and Worldcom, and the crash of the stock market. He predicted scandals of this sort, and I would love to hear what else he can bring to light about this administration's reactions (or non-reactions) to these global and domestic catastrophes.
Rating:
Summary: Should Be Required Reading
Review: Mark Crispin Miller's Dsylexicon is an scathing, funny, and disturbing look at our nation's president: an unitelligent, illiterate frat boy who continues to slide through life on his family's money, power, and name. But rather than just poking fun at the bumbling moron, Miller explains the potential consequences and implications of Bush's idiocy, which are world-encompassing and ultimately, terrifying. After all, Bush only gets confused and garbled when he is lying - something that he seems to do all the time. When talking about killing and hurting other human beings, our President is remarkably straight forward, clear, and explicit in his language. Bush is not only stupid, he is cruel, as Miller explains, and that is a truly dangerous combination.
Rating: 
Summary: If only something as benign as dyslexia were the problem!
Review: This is a polemic of course and will give comfort and merriment to Democrats and others who are opposed to the Bush dynasty. Curiously, as a middle of the road kind of guy, I found myself reading this almost in sympathy with George W.'s many misstatements, unconscious self-revelations, and inadvertent personality projections. Certainly he seems no different than other politicians, who are, by the very nature of their calling, forced to disdain the concrete and to avoid at all costs any sort of public candor. I learned from this book, however, that for George II, because of his natural inclination to be a comedian and to speak vividly and colorfully and to express (for laughs) the kind of gut feelings people have, which he did as an undergraduate at Yale, political speak can be difficult. When he has to think on his feet the conflict within him is greater than it is for most politicians who are just naturally as vacuous as possible. George W. wants to say what he really feels and has to continually suppress the urge. Needless to say, Bush supporters and Republicans in general will find this book humorless and not very interesting. There is however a certain underlying idea presented by Professor Miller that bares scrutiny, namely that President Bush's true feelings can be discerned by a close, analytic look at what he says and what he doesn't say. Miller gives us Freudian slips aplenty by the heir apparent to Dan Quayle, and furthers the idea put forth by journalist Gail Sheehy that George W. really is dyslexic. Bush has denied that he's dyslexic. However, he is quoted on page 102 as saying, revealingly, "That woman who knew I had dyslexia--I never interviewed her." (Meaning, I presume, she never interviewed him.) Miller characterizes this double slip of the tongue as "a dyslexic denial of dyslexia." Miller also quotes Bush as saying things like, "I don't care what the polls say. I don't. I'm doing what I think what's wrong," or, "Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness." (p. 134) These are misstatements that may suggest a troubled conscious and/or a deep-seeded desire to tell the truth perhaps like his fabled namesake, the Father of Our Country. But I think these are relatively minor matters. Politicians, whether of the right or left, Republican or Democratic, cannot tell the truth except in so far as the truth furthers their candidacy or political agenda. The idea that George W. gives himself away when he has to speak extemporaneously is more alarming. I have noticed his failure to mention certain things, like the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, a failure that may hint at what he knows. He is no longer worried about where bin Laden is perhaps because he knows where bin Laden is, but finds it politically convenient not to reveal that just yet. Furthermore, I have been troubled by Bush's failure to say much about the anthrax mailings. One suspects he knows more than he is willing to share with the public. If I can discern this much (we will see if I am right some years down the road), how much might a more sophisticated analytical team discern? One also senses the phenomenon of psychological "projection" at work in some of Bush's utterances. The persona that used to come out when he was drunk, a persona that was sometimes very ugly, is now suppressed. However sometimes this persona sneaks out when the teetotaling Bush is caught off guard. For example, after touring the Auschwitz death camp, Bush is quoted as saying (p. 82): "Boy, they were big on crematoriums, weren't they?" Presumably he was still drinking in 1987 when he spotted the Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt with his family at a restaurant in Dallas and came over and said, "You no f-ing good sonofab-, I will never f-ing forget what you wrote." (pp. 107-108) Perhaps what Bush needs to do--and is trying to do, I believe--is to follow the Reagan formula of saying nothing of substance ever, and to just read the cue cards and pronounce homilies--or if cornered, speak in vacuous tautologies. For example, on whether he'll run for president (p. 133), Bush said, "There is a lot of speculation and I guess there is going to continue to be a lot of speculation until the speculation ends." Now THAT is more like it! The book consists of a rather long opening essay critiquing not only Bush-speak, but that of former presidents, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Bush Sr., Clinton, etc., that may amuse, followed by shorter chapters focusing on various aspects of Bush's "dyslexicon," his attitude toward religion, education, the economy, etc. Miller seems earnestly concerned about the state of rhetorical candor from our leaders. He wonders if they are sufficiently educated, etc. But what I think Professor Miller needs to understand is that he needn't worry. The power barons of corporate America carefully cull all possible candidates so that by the time the presidential election rolls around, the candidates of the major parties have passed scrutiny. Naturally the things scrutinized have nothing at all to do with verbal expression. What counts is some sort of guarantee in the form of obligation to the power structure that the candidate will continue to support our system of democracy by capitalism and do nothing radical that might rock the ship of state. The Bushes and the Clintons, the Gores and the Reagans were all preselected by a largely unconscious conspiracy led by those in positions of power throughout the nation. This is the way the system works. Bush knows this. That is why his statements tend to be vague and meaningless, even dyslexic, because he knows they are not important.
Rating:
Summary: Nothing new here
Review: There is really nothing new in this book. All it does is reinforce the thinking public's perception that the election did not end in the manner the framers of the constitution intended. However, this is repeated so often, you get the feeling the author's main theme was pasted on a sticky note in front of his word processor. An enjoyable read, and I do give it 4 stars, simply because there are those out there who still believe George the II was elected honestly.
Rating:
Summary: Very engaging & enjoyable
Review: I really enjoyed this book.
It's a very easy read, I flew through it, and Miller has an engaging and witty style which brings out his intense concern with W being chosen by the supreme court as king. The quotes are all there, complete and in context, and looking at them all in one place is horrifying.
This isn't a one-note compendium of Bush howlers though. Dubya's place in the dynasty, the history of Bush I and the relationship between this Bush's administration and the Nixon one is set out. I'm an immigrant, and appreciate the context.
Miller also analyzes the way W's language changes when he gets excited - about anyone daring to criticize his father, for example, or about capital punishment. He exposes blatant lies that W used in the Gore debates, the shocking pride Bush has in his neglect of his education and his general lack of curiosity about the world. He shows the discomfort W feels in talking about issues which affect ordinary americans.
It also covers a few of the pertinent bases in W's past - alcohol, drugs, avoiding Vietnam, etc.
Miller is also concerned with the bizarre myth of US media as "liberal". It's not. I mean, the evidence is all there: Foreign news coverage in the US is STILL going down; The emergence of financial news as mainstream news; the COMPLETE lack of labor coverage; the fact that coverage of the filthy end to Election 2000 dropped off the radar completely (except in europe); the fact that so many reporters/anchors/whatever are basically extremely wealthy well-connected upper class americans (ie classic republicans); etc. I'm Irish and if anybody thinks US media is liberal, their heads would explode if they ever spent time in Europe . . . in fact, this country is far more conservative in almost every way than I ever imagined when I lived at home.
The complete disregard in the (mainly tv) media for W's stupidity, horrible speaking, lack of knowledge of the facts is covered well. As is the hypocrisy of the coverage Clinton got versus Bush 2. Miller is completely credible in that he realizes what a lot of us progressives realize - that Clinton was basically a right wing democrat and was vilified so completely simply because there was no foreign enemy for a lot of the right-wing in america to hate.
My heart hurts when I think that the vicious, hateful, lie-filled, demonizing, attitude that Miller outlines in this book, which mobilized to 'elect' King W, may now be directed against immigrants, Muslims in general, or the Europe that this administration finds so "unhelpful".
Rating:
Summary: Heh, heh
Review: This book, of course, was quite impressive. The content has been covered pretty adequately by other reviewers. I would like to point out the excellence of the links in the sources section. Especially (ahem) mine. It was one of the proudest moments of my life when I found out that Mark Crispin Miller used my Alternet article as a source....
Rating:
Summary: A Must Read for the Right and Left
Review: In his extraordinarily even-handed analysis, Miller succeeds in breaking down W's public gaffes, not only for the reader's amusement, but also to make important commentary on the American political system. His revealing critique of the amnestic nature of television as a source of news highlights the need for an increased level of responsibility among the media.
Rating:
Summary: Accurate potrait of sad scene
Review: Here we see Bush exposed for what he really is. Not the folksy, easy going, likeable bumpkin the media portays him as, but the mean spirited phony who revels in his ignorance. As the author points out, each "Bushism" listed is more than a silly little mis-step. His relishing in his own illiteracy is in fact a slap in the face to all those Americans who would have given anything to go to Yale, Andover, or Harvard, and be exposed to the wonderful experiences he seems to feel were such a chore.
Rating:
Summary: Probably the best book written so far about Bush
Review: This is, in my opinion, easily the best book on George Bush, especially in its new expanded paperback form. The subtitle of this is especially interesting: OBSERVATIONS ON A NATIONAL DISORDER. Why a national disorder? The disorder that Miller is concerned to analyze is how it was possible for a man who was revealed over and over during the past several years to be has revealed himself to be overwhelming unqualified to be president of the US, to actually become president. Miller covers all the bases here. He shows Bush as unqualified by personal disposition, by moral character, and by social and economic elitism. He points out what ought to be obvious to anyone who spends much time either listening to Bush or reading about his life: he is almost without possible debate simultaneously the most ignorant president we have ever had, the least intelligent, and most illiterate (three separate things). Whether calling Greeks Grecians, or assuming that Puerto Rico is a foreign country, or asking someone what state Wales was in, or not knowing that social security was a federal program, or knowing the names of heads of states, or, really, showing even an elementary understanding of the United States government, one comes away with a sense of horror that such a person could have become president. Bush is revealed by Miller to be a person whose ignorance has limitless depth. So, why is Bush's becoming president a national disorder? Because of a variety of factors: a national corporate news media that engages in virtually no investigative reporting, and, despite Right wing insistence of its liberalism, falls on bended knee before all conservative political figures. In particular, TV simultaneously reveals Bush to be spectacularly unqualified and undeserving of the high office he holds, and makes him seem less absurd by rendering him "likable." By failing as a nation to deal with anything resembling a real political issue, and being willing to buy almost any lie that we are handed (such as the lie that anyone but the very, very rich received a tax cut in 2001, when in fact the vast majority received only what was called a "rebate" but which was in fact an advance out of the taxes we will owe for 2002, meaning that if we got a $600 check in 2001, we will have to pay that back in 2003). No single entity is shown to be the ultimate cause of our national condition. The pliant news media, the energy and oil companies, everyday citizens who ought to demand more but have come to expect less out of their politicians, a Democratic party that fails to engage in genuine political debate, a Republican party that has become absolute masters of Orwellian doublespeak, everything has blended together to make a phenomenon such as Bush possible. Make no mistake about it: this is not a funny book. It is not a collection of "funny" errors by Bush. While it is funny that he says things like "Is our children learning?" or "Will the highways on the Internet become more few?" it actually is tragic, because these kinds of utterances are disturbingly commonplace with Bush. There is a significant difference between the new paperback edition and the original hardback. For one thing, the paperback has been expanded with around 70 pages of new text. For another, this new material focuses on Bush after 9-11. This is essential to the value of the book, for Miller does a brilliant job of showing why Bush has apparently grown as a leader. Miller points out that it would be highly unusual for anyone to show significant personal development at age 55, but especially so for someone who has a history of being intractable and mentally inflexible as Bush. So, why does Bush appear better after 9-11 than before? Miller points out that Bush has always been either trivial or close to incoherent except when talking on a the few subjects about which he has genuine interest: his ranch, baseball, football, political dirty tricks, revenge, and putting people to death via capital punishment. On all other subjects, Bush engages in the kind of verbal bumbling that we frequently associate with him. As Miller writes, "Bush is almost always clear when he's speaking cruelly." After 9-11, as Miller so ably demonstrates, Bush frequently incoherent when he talked about such subtleties as "why they hate us," but his overpowering self-confidence and (for him) eloquence in talking about how America will exact revenge on terrorism is generated by a central, core mean spiritedness.
|
