Nothin' Fancy Cafe
Roswell, New Mexico
Jan. 22, 2004
11:25 A.M. MST
DUBYA: I need some ribs.
Q: Mr. President, how are you?
DUBYA: I'm hungry and I'm going to order some ribs.
Q: What would you like?
DUBYA: Whatever you think I'd like.
Q: Sir, on homeland security, critics would say you simply haven't spent enough to keep the country secure.
DUBYA: My job is to secure the homeland and that's exactly what we're going to do. But I'm here to take somebody's order. That would be you, Stretch -- what would you like? Put some of your high-priced money right here to try to help the local economy. You get paid a lot of money, you ought to be buying some food here. It's part of how the economy grows. You've got plenty of money in your pocket, and when you spend it, it drives the economy forward. So what would you like to eat?
Q: Right behind you, whatever you order.
DUBYA: I'm ordering ribs. David, do you need a rib?
Q: But Mr. President --
DUBYA: Stretch, thank you, this is not a press conference. This is my chance to help this lady put some money in her pocket. Let me explain how the economy works. When you spend money to buy food it helps this lady's business. It makes it more likely somebody is going to find work. So instead of asking questions, answer mine: are you going to buy some food?
DUBYA: Okay, good. What would you like?
DUBYA: Ribs? Good. Let's order up some ribs.
Q: What do you think of the democratic field, sir?
DUBYA: See, his job is to ask questions, he thinks my job is to answer every question he asks. I'm here to help this restaurant by buying some food. Terry, would you like something?
Q: An answer.
Q: Can we buy some questions?
DUBYA: Obviously these people -- they make a lot of money and they're not going to spend much. I'm not saying they're overpaid, they're just not spending any money.
Q: Do you think it's all going to come down to national security, sir, this election?
DUBYA: One of the things David does, he asks a lot of questions, and they're good, generally.
I've just recently come to the conclusion that in order to make Amateur Psychoanalysists angry, all I have to do is throw some valid Amateur Psychoanalytical jargon back at them.
So, mister and misses Amateur Psychoanalyists, stop projecting your Amateur Psychoanalyses on me!
Psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defence mechanism in which one attributes ("projects") to others, one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud.
According to the theories of Sigmund Freud, it is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one "projects" one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, feelings—basically parts of oneself—onto someone else (usually another person, but psychological projection onto animals, inanimate objects - even religious constructs - also occurs). The principle of projection is well-established in psychology.
Oh and speaking of projection, I'm going to buy a projector!
OR build one. I haven't decided.
Star feels the need to assert his control on his surroundings due to his Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He needs the aggrandized sense of self-importance that a projector would give him. Furthermore, the need to impress others by putting this on his website is evidence that he craves social acceptance, and perhaps building a projector is the only way to achieve this.
Or maybe he just wants to watch MacGuyver blow shit up on a 100 inch screen.
So I've been sick for a few days with terrible throat-suckage. But I just got better! This very moment! Enough to wake up out of my fitful sleep and check out my webpage and myspace and all the other stupid things I do to pass the time.
When LO and BEHOLD...
Anonymous Amateur Psychoanalysis manifests itself in my comment section!
Blemish is commonly played from the Persecutor (P) by persons who have adopted a secondary existential stance of arrogance (I'm better) in order to compensate for a depressive (I'm not-OK) primary position. By constantly pointing the finger at the shortcomings, real or imagined, of others, she avoids the spotlight and having to examine her own feelings of inadequacy. This person rarely ever gives straight complements or genuine praise. There always follows the conditional modifier: "That is really quite nice, except . . . " Blemish players never feel comfortable around someone until they locate a chink in their armor, some convenient handle for fault finding. There is often a role switch, with P shifting to Rescuer mode - "I hope you don't mind honest criticism . . . I'm only trying to help you . . . " P may be so socially inept that a round of Blemish is, sadly, the only type of opening line she knows. She may show great ingenuity in the inventing of a blemish in order to follow it up with, "but that's OK, even I do that myself sometimes . . . let me show you how I deal with it . . . ," attempting to initiate a twisted form of closeness.
Chronic Blemish players are universally annoying to almost anyone without a strong uncompensated inferiority/ masochism streak. Consequently, their circle of friends is often severely limited, and relationships are generally seriously dysfunctional, mutually parasitic, power paradigms.
Payoffs - include the vindication of arrogance, keeping the conscience blind, and avoiding the effort to improve, since it is "they" who have the problems, not I.
Antithesis - these people will come under professional scrutiny during relationship therapy. Confrontation with the chronic fault finding and conditional praise is a start. Efforts should be aimed at helping the person discover/disclose the nature of the barrier to intimacy and of the not-OK in the Child.
A little research lead me to this page. A very interesting analysis of transactional verbal 'games' that people play with eachother. Neat! Very neat, actually, and full of insight that probably eluded the aformentioned anonymous poster.
We really DO dig these games, though, as humans. The link is just a small sampling of the patterns we use to hurt eachother. It's interesting though, I see a corellation in all of these 'games' that leads me to one conclusion: honesty and sincerity (especially with yourself) eliminate the need for these complex social games.
It's so easy to pigeonhole folks into this analysis or that analysis, I'm definitely guilty of that. So is the author of that webpage. What isnt easy is taking an objective viewpoint one step further, and saying, what can I do to make this better?
I've noticed a trend in my dealing with folks. It seems that I am always 'hurting' people without the malicious intent. Yet, these folks feel perfectly justified to return my ignorant hurting of their feelings with actual malice. That's so screwed up!
In their defense, it probably seems like I am some diabolical person bent on making their lives miserable. Like I sit around and think up new ways to pretend to be ignorant to their feelings. Or maybe I just don't take enough time out of my day to analyze every word I say to someone for fear of offense.
I really hope whoever posted that comment does not sincerely believe that I am a "persecutor" in some game of "blemish". It's a foolish oversimplification and far off the mark. I generally treat people the way I'd like to be treated. I think that's probably the best anyone can really do without constant vigilance. And where's the fun in always having to watch what you say?
Here are some terrible things I do to people, my explanation, and common Amateur Psychoanalysis:
1. I am honest about my feelings, whether they be bad or good.
---If you ask for my opinion, be prepared to hate me forever and never talk to me again since I'm not going to hold anything back. Unless we share an office or I want to bone you.
----Star is only 'honest' because it makes him feel superior. He can focus on the faults of others instead of the ones he truly needs to work on, such as arrogance and pride. Star is obviously depressed and in denial.
2. I do not think about what I say, when talking to 'friends'.
---If you are on that short list of folks who are known as my 'friends', know that I suck at manipulating people, because it's way too much work for me to coax someone with flattery or other such nonsense.
----Star tries to deliberately push people who are close to him away because he feels inadequate. He must use his 'lack of manipulation' as an excuse for his social shortcomings. In reality Star only cares about himself and doesnt really think about the people he hurts. He puts people down so he can rise higher and 'rescue' them and put them on the path to 'enlightenment'. This is just a form of manipulation.
3. I rarely say "I think" or "in my opinion".
---I learned in 3rd grade that these were surefire ways to weaken your position. If I am saying it, and it cannot be proven, then I obviously think it. It is obviously my opinion. It's implied. If your resolve in your opinion is so weak, perhaps you should do some more research one way or the other.
----Star is chronically insecure about his opinions and must overcompensate by stating everything as fact.
4. I try not to condescend, but I come off that way a lot.
---Oh well. I consider myself an authority on the topics I speak on (or i'm just bored), so why not speak from a position of authority? I wouldnt be disagreeing if I thought your opinion was correct. I believe all adequately supported opinions are valid (and yes, adequately supported is completely arbitrary and dependent on my own definition, but folks that really know me, know I will concede given enough data. Pride has no place in a logical discussion.)
----Star condescends as a defense mechanism. He must feel superior and so it comes out in his dialog with normal humans.