Re: question regarding president bush

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> I was reflecting on some recent discussions on this board regarding the
> alleged sexual practices of the president and I wanted to try and clarify a
> bit where people are coming from and make sure that I'm not misunderstanding
> what people are putting forth.
>
> The issue came up yesterday that many individuals on this list believe or
> strongly suspect that the President of the United States derives sexual
> pleasure from watching people be tortured or perhaps from even performing
> the torture himself. I am fairly sure that this is the assertion being
> claimed and I am trying to repeat the words that were used. correct me if I
> have misunderstood the nature of the perversion with which the president is
> believed to be afflicted.

I think what we have here is a loose use of word "sadist". I think most people here know the genesis of the word; you certainly have pointed it out, anyway. However, the word has evolved to mean someone who enjoys causing pain to others, and not necessarily one who derives sexual peasure from the pain of others.

<snip Kraig, Joe and Dane reference>
> Also John Starrett, mathematician at the University of Denver, accomplished
> instrument builder and host of the world's largest repository of tuning
> resources, seemed to be open to the possibility that the president derived
> sexual pleasure from torture but was wondering if some proof could be found
> such as by analyzing videotapes of the Presideent watching executions.

No, I do not think Bush derives sexual pleasure from torture, although many do, and his position of power certainly does not make him immune. What I was pointing out is that during an interview with Larry King, when he was asked about the last words of a felon executed while he was governor of Texas, he squealed (yes, squealed) in a mocking tone "please don't kill me". Larry King was taken aback, as were almost all witnesses to the interview, by Bush's response. Bush may not delight in the death of others, but he was clearly amused, in some sick way.

(Or
> maybe John was just going along in good fun with it? Not sure if he saw it
> as a credible accusation.)

It is on tape, audio as well as video. I just cannot point to a reference at the moment.

<snip>
> These statements are among the most disturbing I have heard regarding the
> President of the United States. Clearly, if there is any truth to the
> matter, he should be immediately removed from office as such behavior is
> clearly unacceptable.

My statement above is true. As to Bush's fitness for office, clearly there are differing opinions. I think he is unfit, but not for the little incident noted above.

> Have I accurately summarized the beliefs/claims/suspicions/arguments/facts
> presented by my colleagues? Is there anything anyone would like to add on
> this subject or clarify regarding this issue?

Again, I think you are using the word "sadist" in its original sense, and most of the other parties to this discussion are using it in its modern sense.

> Thanks,
>
> Jeff

There seems to be a lot of anger here recently. I would hope that if we were all together drinking wine and jamming (hey Joe!) we would make beautiful music and would be shooting nothing but smiles. Good on you all,

John Starrett

> he squealed (yes, squealed) in a mocking tone "please don't kill me". Larry
> King was taken aback, as were almost all witnesses to the interview, by Bush's
> response.

Thank you John, this point is well taken; the details of this incident I had
not heard of but certainly it must have reasonably made an impression on
many millions of people as that is a popular show and contributed to this
widespread consensus about the president's sadistic tendencies.

> Bush may not delight in the death of others, but he was clearly
> amused, in some sick way.

Absolutely, I understand now.

> It is on tape, audio as well as video. I just cannot point to a reference at
> the moment.

It's all right - I believe you of course. I might be able to track it down.
You and Monzo are right that his reaction to such a thing is something that
speaks strongly and I would like to be able to see it myself and bring the
attention of others to it.

> Again, I think you are using the word "sadist" in its original sense, and most
> of the other parties to this discussion are using it in its modern sense.

Monzo actually enlightened me somewhat on this in his posting yesterday. I
had thought its modern sense previously, though I was aware of the
contributions of the Marquis to the word and no the nature of his life and
literary works. I was surprised when all of the dictionary references Monzo
brought out refered to its sexual element, although that did make sense to
me given the history. Then I came to think that I had been mistaken in my
understanding in the past and that the word was actually generally
understood nowadays to connotate a sexual dimension.

What you describe is very disturbing to me, I assure you and I thank you for
calling my attention to it.

- Jeff

> From: "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@...>
> To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 10:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [metatuning] question regarding president bush
>
>
> on 12/17/02 1:25 AM, X. J. Scott wrote:
>
> > Have I accurately summarized the
> > beliefs/claims/suspicions/arguments/facts
> > presented by my colleagues?
>
> Whoops! Look like I got two of the people mixed
> up and for that I apologize. In reviewing yetorday's
> posts, I see that it was Mr. Joseph Monzo who was
> the composer who was reserving judgement until he
> saw some video evidence of the President's reaction
> at execution time, and it was Mr. Starrett who,
> already having seen a videotape along those lines,
> was sure that the President derived a certain sort
> of pleasure from it.

i just posted a link to the newspaper story where
The President of the United States mocked a woman
whom he had executed while he was Governor of Texas.

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/2525/talkmagclip.jpg

earlier, i had posted some definitions of "sadism",
without claiming that Mr. President is/was a sadist.
i haven't seen any evidence forthcoming that he
ever derived any sexual pleasure from torture or
execution, which would mean that by definition he
is in fact not exactly a sadist.

but his mockery of Karla Faye Tucker's pleas for
clemency certainly shows his true feelings about
having put to death one of the convicts he had
executed, and in my opinion his behavior in that
respect was unsympathetic and inhumane at best,
and really more like abominable.

from the longer post, which you wrote first and quoted
in the one i quoted above:

> > These statements [allegations of sadism] are among
> > the most disturbing I have heard regarding the
> > President of the United States. Clearly, if there
> > is any truth to the matter, he should be immediately
> > removed from office as such behavior is clearly
> > unacceptable.

well ... what's "clearly unacceptable", and what provides
firmer grounds for deciding that "he should be immediately
removed from office", is the fact that he and his cronies
acheived a remarkably peaceful _coup d'etat_ and had him
installed as President in 2000, despite the fact that
the majority of voters of the United States of America
voted Al Gore into that office.

http://www3.niu.edu/newsplace/wh2000v.html#0d2
(under "the final count")

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/10/Bush_Lost.html

and what's with the formality of "Mr. Joseph Monzo"?
i don't like having a title prefixed to my name, i only
use "Joseph" on formal documents (and used to use it in
citations of my work) preferring "Joe", and in fact just
preferring to be referred to most of the time as ...

-monz

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> > he squealed (yes, squealed) in a mocking tone "please don't kill me". Larry
> > King was taken aback, as were almost all witnesses to the interview, by Bush's
> > response.
>
> Thank you John, this point is well taken; the details of this incident I had
> not heard of but certainly it must have reasonably made an impression on
> many millions of people as that is a popular show and contributed to this
> widespread consensus about the president's sadistic tendencies.

Of course, you have by now seen that I had the circumstances of the remark wrong, and I apologize for my lack of diligence. Since I could not recall where the interview took place, I used the web and repeated the first recounting I came across. I had actually read the piece that Monz pointed out, but alas, my memory is not one of my strong points.

<snip>

John Starrett