(no subject)

[geekchick]

He and Cheney certainly are changing the tone of discourse.

Adam, Brendan, and I rose our banner (the More Trees, Less Bush one) and he turned to wave to our side of the road. His smile faded, and he raised his left arm in our direction. And then, George W. Bush, the 43rd president of the United States of America, extended his middle finger.

Read that last sentence again.
I got flipped off by George W. Bush.

Comments

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

I'd love to see if someone got a picture of that.

Classy. Sheesh.

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

Such class, such je ne sais quoi :P

I'm with indyansel - I want pix!!!

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

Interesting... I wonder if this and Cheney's outburst are signs that thhey think things are look bad for re-election.

Or it could just be their natural reaction to anyone disagreeing with them - which would be a bad sign for all sorts of reasons!

[geekchick]

Well, it could just be a sign of being cranky and tired of seeing protestors. Except for the fact that they do everything possible to keep him from ever seeing anyone who disagrees with him, that is.

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

I've met a few politicians in the UK and, while they are quite happy to tear into each other in the Commons and in debate, they are actually pretty personable with one another in private.

This doesn't seem to be what's happening with Cheney and Bush. If they're flipping off the electorate and telling other politicians to fuck themselves, this suggests a vast cultural gulf between the two sides - that there are *no* agreed fundamentals. That's what I'm finding scary. The 'political classes' are not singing to the same tune but with different parts, but from completely different song sheets.

[geekchick]

I've met a few politicians in the UK and, while they are quite happy to tear into each other in the Commons and in debate, they are actually pretty personable with one another in private.

I think that does happen to some extent here as well, but I don't get the impression that this is the case with Bush or Cheney. My impression is more "civil in public, nasty in private" (see the example of them being caught on an open mike calling a reporter an asshole). Part of why I suppose I don't find it hard to believe that perhaps Georgie really did flip off some protestors, especially if he thought it might not be seen.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

But Bush has been abusive in public. I forget when (during, IIRC his father's re-election campaign) he walked up to a reporter, eating in a reataurant, with his wife and child (aged somewhere between 6-8) and started calling him an asshole, or a fucker, or some such.

So, this isn't unprecedented, just something one thinks his handlers (who must have one hell of a job) would have trained him out of.

TK

[pdx42.livejournal.com]

That is so cool. It brings a tear to my eye. This is a moment you will cherish forever.

[geekchick]

I only wish I could've been there to see it, it would give me that warm fuzzy feeling inside. The picture, alas, isn't very good and you can't see much of anything.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I hope someone got a photo, or a videotape of it.

Not that I think it impossible (in fact from what I've read of the man, I think it quite possible) but I find it unlikely. He is a politician, and what happens on the floor of the Senate, or in his office ("Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out") is one thing, but on the campaign trail... that's another.

I'd love it to be true, because it shows a sense of frustration, of anger and desperation, which I would love to be certain of.

The accounts of the West Wing being more like Nixon's, in '74, are heartening, but not as much as a public break down would be.

And the response, "Yeah, we like Jesus. We go to church,", we all ought to use it. Take some wind out of that sort's sails, and let us get back to what we went to the event to do.

TK

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

The original poster put up the photo and says it's "poor quality," and I can't see anyone at all in the bus, let alone someone flipping someone else off.

[geekchick]

I can see a figure in the bus, but no details.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I saw that photo... Unless Bush is stading in the bus well, he isn't in the picture, and odds are he'd be further back.

So I doubt any useful image is likely to come from that photo.

TK

[geekchick]

I've been keeping my eye on http://www.electoral-vote.com/ ; I was quite pleased to see that up until today VA had been listed as "Barely Bush", meaning <5% lead in the polls. He seems to have squeaked in to 5% in the last update though, which isn't as cheering, but isn't unexpected.

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

It's so thrilling knowing I'm voting for a non-republican president while living in Indiana. Almost feels like a waste of a vote.

Have I mentioned I don't like the electoral college? :-)

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

It's better than a straight vote.

I know it doesn't seem like it, and there are things to be said for a proportional casting of a states electoral votes.

It is a tad archaic, and less effective than when it was created (when the college was created the idea was that people would vote for electors, and those electors would be people the trusted to cast a vote, representing them).

These days the parties put up slates of electors, and (with the exception of Maine, which has two electoral districts) the party which gets the most votes, in the popular election, gets them all.


Back in the say it would have taken weeks, even months, for the totals to come in, and there were great opportunties for the vote being tampered with, lost, damaged etc (these days we merely have companies like Diebold offering computers which can be tampered with... punch cards are fine... optical readers are probably better).

Amusingly, nothing mandates an elector vote for anyone. The vote belongs to them, and if they wanted to vote for thier grandmother, then that vote would count (G.W. Bush 245, J. Kerry 292, Sadie Hawkins 1).

TK

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

I know how the EC works. I just don't like it for the present age. If we're going to vote for the president as the people, use the popular vote. If we're going to elect as states, give each state one and only one vote, and have each state's popular votes cast that.

Just my opinion.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

If each state gets one vote, Bush wins, by a landslide.

And Clinton doesn't win his first term, and, and, and...

I, being a believer in a republic/representative democracy, am not a big believer in the idea that a plebiscite is a good thing.

For supporting evidence, I point to the finances of the State of california.

But the idea that Delaware, or Kansas, or Alaska, ought to have an equal say to Ohio, or New York, or Florida, that bothers me more.

If Maine is equal in stature, when it comes to electing president, than I, as a Californian, am only equal to roughly 1/35 of a resident of Maine when it comes to voting.

What states do you think are going to get Presidential favor in such a system? It's a lot more productive to keep the residents of Hawaii, Maine, Missouri, Montana, North; and South Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Kansas, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island and Maine happy; instead of paying much attention to NY and California and Texas. That less than 20 million people, for 13 votes, vs. trying to keep some 66 million content, and getting 3.

TK

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

Your argument confirms why I don't like the idea, but I stated it nonetheless to show how a true "states elect the president" system ought to work. I prefer pure popular vote myself. The current EC does not represent the people equally, nor does it represent the states fairly.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Running those numbers is much more heartening than the straight polls of how many people like him.

I get (as of today)

Kerry 292
Bush 246

So the swing states matter, a lot.

TK

[geekchick]

So the swing states matter, a lot.

Indeed.

Going back through the previous days, it's interesting to see how the numbers change. And to see the comments about how strange it is that Fox News polls consistently show Bush ahead by some large number, even when all the other state polls show exactly the opposite. Coincidence, I'm sure. *ahem*

[firinel.livejournal.com]

Maybe I'm just cynical about *everything* but I find it a little difficult to believe, and it struck me as odd that so many people are assuming it to be true and linking to it. Maybe you know the people personally, though and have reason to trust them?

[geekchick]

No, I don't know the person in question, I got the link elsewhere. I don't find it any harder to believe than Cheney telling someone to "f**k yourself" on the floor of the Senate though.

[firinel.livejournal.com]

*nods* I simply find it harder to believe because there is no proof.

[geekchick]

Quite understandable. I wouldn't be willing to swear that it's true myself, but somehow I just don't have a hard time imagining that it might be.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Well,

I ask questions for a living, and spend no small amount of my time, and effort, teaching the asking of questions (hrmn... when I consider what I did before what I do now, I've been doing that for the better part of 20 years, where does the time go... as someone once said to me, "Terry, I'm the same age I ever was, when did they all get so young?" But I digress).

Which means that I am aware of how the shaping of a question can determine the outcome. I suspect Fox (for reasons the reader may infer for himself) of having bad questions.

In my more generous moments I attribute this to blindness.

In my more cynical moments, I suspect them of trying to shape opinion, rather than merely report it.

But I'll let you decide.

TK

[geekchick]

Not having seen for myself the Fox polls in question, I'm not sure if it's the way the questions are asked or if it's a function of Fox's demographic. I would be surprised to ever see Fox's polls agreeing with CNN's polls, for example. Neither possibility would surprise me.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

If Fox polls are limited to the demographic of those who watch Fox, then they aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

That would make a self selecting sample, and the skew is off the charts.

If the regular viewership were who the asked, the results would be even worse than they are getting now, so I ascribe it to poor questions.

Example: "Do you think George Bush knowingly lied to the American people about the reasons for the war in Iraq"

vs.

Do you think the reasons for the war in Iraq were adequately justification.

Both of those could be used to describe the attitude of the American populace toward going to war... but they get very different answers.

One of the easiest ways to skew a result is to ask a yes/no question (or, with more certainty of result, as a negative question).

What I do find interesting (and why I am not trumpeting the results I got yesterday from that site) is the people who aver Kerry Has No Chance, and who look at the percentage numbers, not the EC. I have no desire to make them agitate any more firmly than they do for a Bush victory.

Especially when I see a 266-205 set up, as a base for the states in play. Kerry, for all the talk of a horserace, is a couple of lengths ahead.

If, God between us and Evil, Bush should win, he still can't claim a mandate, and the odds are he has a much rougher time of it in the House and Senate.

TK

[geekchick]

when I consider what I did before what I do now, I've been doing that for the better part of 20 years

Now I'm curious; what did you do before? (If you'd rather not say here, that's cool.)

The first time I said "I've been doing X for 20 years." I nearly had to stop in mid-sentence since it seemed impossible for me to be old enough to have been doing anything for 20 years other than breathing. Weird moment, that.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Before I joined the Army, and learned to ask questions the way I do now, I was a journalist.

If I'd been able to find a job that met the bills (without moving to Kansas, or Spearfish, South Dakota) I might still be doing that.

It's made for some interesting moments, like the class I gave (before I went to Basic) on how to deal with the press.... I changed at least one captain's mind on them, which counts as a win in my book.

TK

p.s. Yeah, it still seems strange that I can look back at twenty years of being, basically, adult.

[geekchick]

Before I joined the Army, and learned to ask questions the way I do now, I was a journalist.

Huh. You just continue getting more and more interesting.

That sounds a lot like a flirt I suspect, and that's probably not completely untrue, but really it's just meant as a simple statement of fact.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Hrmn... my electronic ears must be going deaf, because I missed the flirty aspect (more fool me, and a pity).

But, don't let that stop you, I like being flirted with.

And I understand the sentiment. No man is made, all of a piece, and for all that I am fairly open about things, I am not writing an autobiography, so little surprises will keep coming out.

Another person who reads me said much the same thing when she found out I cook.

It's the little things which make the person.

TK

[geekchick]

Heh. From now on I'll use the little-known <Flirt></Flirt> tags for such things then, just in case. ;)

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I guess those equal the soulful look from downcast eyes? Perhaps the fleeting brush of fingers on the back of the hand.

Or is that more full-throated, the flash of thigh as one rises from the chair?

Inquiring minds want to know.

TK

[geekchick]

Inquiring minds want to know.

<flirt>*ahem*</flirt>

*wanders off whistling a little tune*

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Got my attention (and you thought I was going to need prompting... now I need to figure out what to do, apart from thinking of how those look in motion).

Makes me wish I was still at Walter Reed....

TK

Subtlety, thy name is not GeeCee...

[geekchick]

Well, you did start it. I'm merely escalating responding in kind. ;)

Re: Subtlety, thy name is not GeeCee...

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Now, I'm not objecting (no, not in the least, enjoying immensely, in fact, the attentions of an intelligent, and from what I can see; taking the animicon as tolerably representaive, and the legs as read, an attractive woman) to being flirted with.

But, I protest the accusation of instigator (I'm not denying, flat out... but I ain't copping to it neither).

Forget the post where you said you felt flirty, I'll even set aside, but not forget, the post where you told me not to wait for you to declare a mood, look above... I'll help.

"That sounds a lot like a flirt I suspect, and that's probably not completely untrue..."

So, I'll plead that I was invited to flirt... and merely wondered what level of flirting I was getting into. Big League it turns out, and me lacking practice at typed flirtations (they want subtlety, and seem to quickly move past banter to silliness, or steaminess... neither of which is bad, but I like a sublte game of intonation, careful looks and innuendo... and a flash of leg... I am a man, after all, and we're all pigs, right?).

TK

Re: Subtlety, thy name is not GeeCee...

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

My.... I'm flattered.

I went to look at a certain .org site (the glory of non-html e-mail, I can see where things come from) and it's not really up, but you used it for me.

I may not be worthy.

But I'll try.

TK

Re: Subtlety, thy name is not GeeCee...

[geekchick]

No, you're right. I did in fact start the whole darn thing the other night. I would probably be the original instigator.

But!

I think you deserve a fair share of the credit blame, since, and I quote:
Or is that more full-throated, the flash of thigh as one rises from the chair?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Now how on EARTH could I possibly resist such an opening? Really? =)

Re: Subtlety, thy name is not GeeCee...

[geekchick]

On a more serious note, I hope I haven't made you uncomfortable; 'twas not my intention at all. Mind if I ping you off-journal?

Re: Subtlety, thy name is not GeeCee...

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Well...

Culpa. It isn't as if I didn't ask for it...

Begs a question (a couple actually) because in the flesh I tend to be much less overt in such things.

I'm pondering this because I'm in a different discussion, on a listserve group, on tone of typer, and there is also the buffer of the keyboard, and the lack of immediate risk of rejection (in flirting across the copper line of the internet), so perhaps I am bolder (though it isn't that I'm not bold... I like flirting, it's just that where there is interest, I am much more reticent of exposure).

Then again, I'm wondering just what you're doing up and blogging/internetting at almost quarter after two in the morning. I can think of far better ways to spend your time than typing to me.

TK

Re: Subtlety, thy name is not GeeCee...

[geekchick]

in the flesh I tend to be much less overt in such things.

As do I. Believe it or not. =) As well as quite oblivious. (I found out a little while ago that the woman I thought I'd been blatantly flirting with with no response had thought that I wasn't interested in her, because she also thought she was blatantly flirting with me and I didn't respond.)

I'm wondering just what you're doing up and blogging/internetting at almost quarter after two in the morning.

Chronic insomnia and an internal clock that thinks that 3 AM is a perfectly reasonable time to go to bed and usually resists even a moment before. Plus, I'm having fun. =)