The unwanted massage or the unwanted grabbing the circumference of the bare upper arm while moving in to talk real close? I feel like I get the upper arm grab a lot more often.
The unwanted touching of the bare upper arm is a tactic, sure, like the unwanted massage. But the armtouching is mostly unobtrusive, whereas the massage is a public, territorial display.
arthegall, wolfson is notorious for his shunning of the punctuation mark-quotation mark rules, and maintains (if I understand correctly) that punctuation should only be included in the quote if it is part of the quoted material.
I think any logical person must agree, usage rules be damned.
Do you think he refers to "Tony" and "Vlad" in public statements?
I think I've heard him use "Tony"? And, to my mind, the arm grab is not in the same realm as the "massage." I can imagine anyone grabbing a guy's arm (I'm sure I have); not true about the unasked-for "massage."
It wouldn't seem completely odd for a man to grab another man's bare arm while talking close, but an uninvited massage would almost always raise eyebrows. Work that into the calculation as you see fit.
I touch people's arms on a relatively frequent occasion, both male and female friends. However, I would never in a million years do the unwanted massage thing.
I hear you in 27, but the arm grab feels pretty territorial in practice. I'm not so much talking about touching or grazing but the actual full-handed grab around your entire upper arm. It doesn't feel all that unobtrusive when done by someone you don't know.
But the armtouching is mostly unobtrusive, whereas the massage is a public, territorial display.
It may be unobtrusive, but it can be territorial too. I know I've been in a situation where I was chatting with someone else at a party, and a variant of the arm move got pulled. I felt like I was being peed on.
You know, bringin' the dignity back to the White House. I imagine when he decided to run for Prez, he said something like, "It's just so hard to make new friends after college." Now all the world's leaders will be his buddies, or he'll bomb their asses!
So what's skeezier: The unwanted massage or the unwanted grabbing the circumference of the bare upper arm while moving in to talk real close?
Both off the charts, and I've been accutely uncomfortable whenever I've seen it. Obvious intrusions.
I don't think I've ever done an unwanted touching like this, and unlike some faux pas, can't even understand where it comes from. I've probably much more often failed to make a wanted touching.
29 -- Yeah , it's funny. Roughly, "Bush: Love-Attack on Merkel! From Behind he sneaks impishly up on Chancellor Merkel, surprises her with a blitz-massage."
36: Right, but it's a flirty thing, isn't it? So receptiveness to the armtouching (I'm staying away from "armgrabbing," which sounds like a citizen's arrest) depends on receptiveness to the armtoucher. It's one of those gestures to encroach on someone's private space in order to see if there's any receptiveness to that idea. You know as soon as you do that (or place your hand on her hip, or whatever it is the kids do) whether you're welcome. (Am I wrong that it's not always unwelcome?)
I know I've been in a situation where I was chatting with someone else at a party, and a variant of the arm move got pulled.
That I can see. I was thinking more of a one-on-one thing. I don't know if armtouching is the right move, but at some pont someone's gotta touch someone.
I know a guy at school who leans way in when talking to me and clasps my knee with a firm hand. If he's trying to make me pay attention to what he's saying, it's not working. I go into "holyfuckimgonnagetmolested" mode.
I actually think the video makes it come off somewhat better. She appears to smile at the very end, which makes the episode appear a bit more juvenile than creepy.
And lord knows 'juvenile' is what I look for in a president.
45: Really? The virulence of her reaction (I inpreted the body language of that shrug to say "What the fuck? Get the fuck off me.") makes it clear how unwelcome it was, and how weird.
45: I'm not sure what that's proof of. Women have to smile when powerful doltish guys do doltish invasive things. She can't just tell her bodyguards, "After him, boys!"
Obviously the real question is, which is skeezier--the unwanted massage/grope of an important world leader, or the consensual blow job from an intern?
(Also, the video makes it absolutely clear that not only is she offended, she's downright startled. Too bad her security people didn't shove him to the ground.)
Yeah, the after shrug-off smile is well known to us all. "I know I just made a gesture that suggests I hate this person, but I don't, really. No hard feelings." GAH.
The folks talking about the territoriality thing are exactly right. I don't think this is so much an "I'm going to fuck her" thing as it is an unconscious "she's mine" thing.
I read it as a way of putting her in her place and showing his dominance. Making her uncomfortable while also putting her in a position where she has to play nice and pretend nothing creepy just happened? Total power move.
I love her little arms-up fuck-off gesture. And how the vid is labelled: "Der stürmische US-Präsident
George W. Bush beim G8-Gipfel" -- stürmische indeed.
Sommer, I know I came down on the size of arm-grab-is-totally-skeezy before, but I'm gonna have to say the sneak attack massage is way worse here. I think the determining factor is "ability to get the fuck out of the situation."
With the arm grab, it's skeezy and possessive, but you can easily pull away/cockpunch. Whereas with the massage, as the Chancellor noted, especially when seated, leaves little room for immediate escape.
On further examination, it seems that the Blitz-Massage occurred during some sort of break/transitional period. Totally unsupported hypothesis is that is supposed to be some "encouraging" gesture that Bush provided on his way to the pisser, a patronizing "you're doing good!"
67: She "noted" in the somewhat futile wave-off. It did get Bush to walk away, but only because he choose to, not because she physically got him off her.
65 - They aren't necessarily the same thing, but they all suck. You can have:
* Asserting ownership/territory to others (I control her and I want you all to know it)
* Asserting control to her (I have more power than you here and I want you to know it)
* Patronizing (Awww...isn't it so cute you think your opinion counts!)
And other equally annoying sentiments or a combination of above.
Aren't we being a bit uncharitable here? Perhaps he noticed from across the table that her shoulders looked particularly tense. Perhaps she gave him the come-hither look. She could be a frigid, manipulative cock tease -- well couldn't she? We should always bear in mind, in a situation like this, that the woman may be to blame.
Eh, now I'm thinking #62 is right, and that it's less bad than I thought. (The video is probably dispositive, but I refuse to watch it.) I was wrong--I actually do give male friends the one-scrunch massage; it's like a greeting or a signal of our friendship. But I only do it to friends, and (I think) I only do it to male friends.
It remains inappropriate because (a) it trivializes what's going on--Bush and Merkle are world leaders addressing major problems, not BFF at a barbeque, and (b) it just is different when a guy does it to a woman--the implied move is always out there, hovering. But, yeah, I can imagine Bush doing it to "Tony."
Can you imagine someone trying that with Margaret Thatcher? Merken doesn't radiate .... whatever it is that Thatcher radiated.
When I was in Taiwan there was a teacher who couldn't talk to a young woman without putting his hand on her, usually on her shoulder or arm, often after backing her against a wall.
It's legal there, but his nickname with the office staff was "hairy-hands". He had been a minister in an obscure dissident religious sect, and was in Taiwan because they didn't extradite Americans at that time. Fill in the blanks.
I've always suspected that W's sole qualification for leadership is his ability to act the role of Top Dog. The power-touching; the smirk; the first-naming (there was a bit of concern in the press about his effusiveness over "Vladimir" as Putin was dismantling the independent media in Russia, but apparently nobody cares anymore); the nicknaming of course. By now it's entirely unconscious I'm sure.
What's always scared me is how that sort of thing can seem so reassuring in times of crisis. People who aren't paying attention to world events can easily get a sense of how things are going by checking the behavioral cues of a leader; and since people who desperately avoid paying attention to world events now run the country, W's Leader of the Pack aura is probably the reason he won in 2004.
The fact that it's world leaders at the G8 makes it more unbelievable, but not a worse offense.
If a man walked up to a female co-worker and started rubbing her shoulders in the middle of meeting at my office, that would clearly be inappropriate, no matter what the circumstances.
Y'know, the more I think about it, this scene could have been pulled straight out of the American version of The Office, where Bush is Steve Carell's character and Angela Merkel is his boss, Jan.
It remains inappropriate because (a) it trivializes what's going on--Bush and Merkle are world leaders addressing major problems, not BFF at a barbeque, and (b) it just is different when a guy does it to a woman--the implied move is always out there, hovering.
Even if it's not a sexual move (which, given everyone's age and chaperonage, I'm presuming this wasn't, mostly) it is a really screwy claim of intimacy and power. You massage your male friends -- you've got a tight enough relationship that you can presume that they consent to be touched by you in a friendly way. You don't massage your male professional peers with whom you don't have a close personal relationship; if you did they'd think you were an inappropriate freak.
This kind of stunt acts as a claim of superior status -- Bush gets to decide whether or not he wants to touch Chancellor Merkel. Her status is so low that she doesn't get input on whether it's okay or not.
You don't massage your male professional peers with whom you don't have a close personal relationship; if you did they'd think you were an inappropriate freak.
Agree entirely; I was too lazy to make that explicit.
63 triggered a train of thought that culminated in the mental image of George W. Bush having the "Hang in there, baby!" kitten poster hanging on the wall of the Oval Office.
From Taylor Marsh's comments section, here's a bit from the State Department's transcript of Bush and Merkel's press conference during her state visit in May:
"I'm looking forward to taking the Chancellor upstairs to my private residence after this press availability to continue our discussions and to have a dinner that is a continuation of a personal relationship that is developing..."
Did anyone else hear the press conference Bush gave while meeting with the Chancellor in Germany, and referred to her, in one of his answers, as "Angela?"
Ooh, that doth irk. Same with 'Condi' and 'Hillary'. How cute! She has a job in politics!
Love-attack on Merkel! From behind the American president creeps up on Angela Merkel, surprising her with a Blitz-massage!
Good lord. Handzoff the allien and watchen the blinken lights.
I think that the sexual harassment angle isn't the main one here. I think that it's violation of personal space and inappropriate familiarity (and would be to a guy too), disrespect for a head of state, and inappropriate behavior for a formal or semi-formal occasion. It's true that he'd have been less likely to do the same thing to a guy, and it's true that the same behavior would have been offensive if Merkel was office staff, but the other factors multiply the significance of the event, which would be more or less equally bad even without the sexual element.
He's a head of state, she's a head of government. Germany has a president. Chancellor, which is Merkel's position, is prime minister. But John's point is completely valid, and the significance is multiplied.
I actually have had some experience with this type of shoulder massage thing. My grandfather, who grew up in Texas, has done it to me on occasion. I'm really not sure what it signifies, I would guess some sort of "patriarchal benevolence" sort of thing. You might see it done to junior/female family members, I would guess. I imagine, if Bush is saying something, that it's to someone else standing beside him, and not addressed to the massagee. I imagine it's mostly just domininance. If it has to do with sexism, it's to the extent that Bush would feel compelled to be more formal for longer around a man than a woman.
It's a gesture that probably isn't really seen outside of those from the deep south, among men over 40 years old.
Also, it would probably be expected coming from Bush toward some of his trusted staff, especially male, and especially if they were considerably younger than him.
Most of the physical fights I got into as a youth involved that specific kind of touching. I wish Merkel had punched Bush out or poured a glass of water over his head.
It was always obvious that Bush was this worst sort of Bully and coward. Anyone who voted for him...never mind.
it reminds me of my favorite show, the late great arrested development. there was a long-running gag where the semi-idiot son would start giving unwanted shoulder massages to family members, totally freaking them out.
I don't see the point of distinguishing between the three possibilities in 65; I mean, I do in a theoretical way, but in terms of the act itself, surely it conveys all three of those, whatever he might have thought he was doing.
And I'm pretty sure he didn't think he was doing anything, really. And that he (along with most of the American electorate) simply won't be able to see what's wrong with the gesture, regardless of how obviously offended Merkel is.
Do you think he refers to "Tony" and "Vlad" in public statements?
Well, we know Bush addresses Blair with "Yo, Blair!" when he thinks the mics are off.
Given his behavior on this trip (National Lampoon's Presidential Vacation!) and these photos, I think the chances that Bush is drinking again are high.
The skeezy neck massage is the skeeziest skeeze ever skeezed by a skeeze.
Conversation just concluded with my German friend over the phone brings up a new point I hadn't considered: Merkel is pretty newly-elected, and this is (so my friend asserts), only the second time that she and Bush have met at all, the first time being for like an hour.
That makes it even worse. It would be a lot different if he were doing it to Blair, which he's worked with extensively (as far as diplomatic relations go, anyway) in the last few years.
crap that kitten scared me. mostly in a happy warm fuzzy way. but also with a sad realization that things on the internet change sometimes when you're gone for months. it almost shakes my faith in my mattiocentric understanding of the universe.
103: Bush also refers to "Kofi" here and elsewhere. It takes nothing away from the accurate observation that use of diminuatives for women is blatantly and offensively sexist to also note that Bush is not exactly in the habit of being formal in how he refers to anyone, be it Poot-poot or Turd Blossom.
I wouldn't be completely surprised if Bush took a basketball to one of these shindigs and started bouncing it off someone's face to see if he can make them cry. A little surprised. But not for it being out of character.
I find the idea that Bush would be drinking alcohol while on tv, in front of endless photographers, in the middle of the G8, to be a bit unlikely. Color me naive.
"I find the idea that Bush would give the German Chancellor a neck massage to be a bit unlikely, too."
I don't at all, myself.
That Bush could get away with drinking alcohol, in the face of all that scrutiny: what, all the intel services of the world are going to just not notice? And it's not going to leak and be speculated upon and reported?
A tad implausible. Want to speculate that he had a couple some night in the WH? Go for it. But in the middle of a G8 meeting, he orders beer, and only some blogger notices?. [roll eyes]
It's actually a dinner, or looks to be, and I doubt it would be a big deal at all were it not for the fact that Bush professes to be a teetotaller.
I would be surprised if there weren't drinks at the G8. I'm sure the other heads of state have wine with meals, etc. The intel services of the world would be unlikely to make a big deal of it.
There have been all sorts of rumors over the past few years about Bush falling off the wagon; it's not the unlikeliest of scenarios.
"I doubt it would be a big deal at all were it not for the fact that Bush professes to be a teetotaller."
Of course not. But he does.
"There have been all sorts of rumors over the past few years about Bush falling off the wagon; it's not the unlikeliest of scenarios."
Besides the point. That only bloggers would notice is. Who is it that would be serving Bush this Buckler without anyone noticing? Oh, wait, it was noticed by bloggers, but not by the Secret Service and the FSB?
What Bush drinks is not a casual matter for the Secret Service.
But in the middle of a G8 meeting, he orders beer, and only some blogger notices?. [roll eyes]
I wasn't asserting that, so let's roll our eyes together. In fact, I wasn't asserting anything. I was just reading about Bush groping the German Chancellor and generally behaving like a frat boy while looking at a picture of him standing next to a brown bottle with a shitfaced look on his face and asking myself--as I do these days--what's up with that?
132: I have to say that I think this is pretty silly -- I don't think you can tell from a still if someone is drunk, and I think the strong odds are Bush isn't. But the rational version claim isn't that no one but some intrepid blogger noticed Bush was drinking: it's that everyone in the inner circle (SS agents, other attendees at the G8 meeting) to the extent they know, is keeping a lid on it. The error would have been letting the beer bottle get photographed, not letting the attendees see it.
neither is it a casual matter for the secret service to call the Times about Bush's dietary secrets.
It might be a Buckler--if you had followed the link, you would understand that is a non-acoholic drink--and it might not be. I don't understand why you are so opposed to the possibility that Bush could have ordered a beer--is it because you lack a post of your own to link to on the subject?
"But the rational version claim isn't that no one but some intrepid blogger noticed Bush was drinking: it's that everyone in the inner circle (SS agents, other attendees at the G8 meeting) to the extent they know, is keeping a lid on it."
Let me re-emphasize: the Secret Service checks out days in advance what the President is going to be eating and drinking. Either the Russians would have had to have had beer on hand that the Secret Service would have had to anticipate that Bush might ask for, and thus they're in long-term cover-up mode over his secret drinking, or the Secret Service would have had to have otherwise days in advance, as per SOP, procured the beer for Bush to have on hand, same same. Thus Bush is regularly drinking, and the Secret Service is covering it up, and therefore in a foreign setting they'd be aware that foreign intel organizations would be perfectly well aware of this, and the Secret Service would colloborate with the rest of the U.S. national security apparatus in deliberately, in advance, planning for Bush to engage in said public drinking.
I dunno about SOP, but is it really all that impossible that at a reasonably high security event, riddled with other heads of state, that they might have had beer on hand that the SS considered safe enough for Bush to drink? I literally do not know that this is or is not the case, but I hadn't realized, if it's true, that everything the President eats and drinks overseas is purchased/prepared/otherwise controlled by the SS.
I remember hearing some news wonk talking, before the summit, when Bush was visiting Germany, about his "close relationship" with Merkel, and wondering whether the WH was trying to push this in the media as evidence that not everyone in the world hates Bush. If that's the case, I see him having homed in on the idea of rubbing her shoulders as just another bit of evidence that they're cool like that. I haven't watched the video, just seen the pictures linked in the original post, but I'd buy that line of numbskull thinking. "Hey, I want folks to know I've got a friend, I'll just go rub her shoulders to show it off. What can possibly go wrong?"
Also, I'd just like to note that the temptation to make the cock jokes is strong. Hell, they're not even jokes, just dirty re-readings of innocuous statements. "Massaging Bush?" "Head of state?" My inner Beavis is going wild. FffffIRE!
I'd also like to note that I have a creepy female co-worker who's into the spontaneous backrubs. The first time she did it, many years ago, I turned sideways in my seat and said as politely as I could through the screaming creepies, "Thank you, but I really don't like being touched that way by a stranger." She acquiesced, but she has thought ever since that those of us who respond in that way are somehow stuck up.
1. I assume that Bush has begun drinking again simply because he says he hasn't. Six years of watching the man has convinced me that every day is Opposite Day for Dubya and if his lips are moving, he's almost certainly lying.
2. The image people would never be careless enough to let him drink in so public a venue as this. While his handlers can't keep him from talking with food in his mouth, they can surely control what gets put on the table in a highly photographed event.
3. I really don't give a damn whether he's getting drunk. That would be the least of his sins by a huge, huge margin and it would at least be one that I share with him.
Gary, if the same sorts of people who knew that FDR could not walk in 1939 knew that Bush occasionally tied one on today, would you be one of those people?
Ok, time to divert conversation to The West Wing. First episode of Season Two, Pres. Bartlet is on the car with the head of his Secret Service team, Ron Butterfield after the attempt on Charlie and Zoe's life. No one is as of yet aware that Bartlet's been hit. How can Ron refuse Bartlet's order that he, Ron, go to the hospital to get his own hand (which had been shot) checked out rather than take Bartlet to the White House immediately? I mean, I understand why it's a good thing that Secret Service agents can ignore order's from the Presdient during attacks against him, but how is it possible?
Just because I got here late, and didn't get a program: this nascent spat really is about whether he was drinking at that event? Not whether he's drinking again, but about that event, right?
140: Seriously? Bush has dinner with Blair, Blair eats what his cook makes, Bush eats food brought in coolers from the US? When Bush was buying ribs in that stupid press conference whenever it was, if he bought a can of Coke it wasn't just what was in the cooler, it had been previously supplied by the SS?
I'm not saying I find this impossible --if you have something to point me at I'll believe it, but it seems unlikely. Particularly the first: it seems incredibly undiplomatic to say to an ally: "Ally you may be, but we don't trust your security enough to eat the food you serve yourselves."
Blair isn't a teetotaller -- presumably there was beer around in case he (or any other world leader) asked for one with dinner. It just seems fantastic to me that the security precautions applicable to the other world leaders at the G8 wouldn't be viewed as sufficient to protect Bush.
"Gary, if the same sorts of people who knew that FDR could not walk in 1939 knew that Bush occasionally tied one on today, would you be one of those people?"
I have trouble making sense of the question. That FDR could not walk without aid, and used a wheelchair, was, in fact, reported at times in the newspapers of the day. That it was not is a complete myth. (That pictures of him in the wheelchair weren't published isn't a myth.) He wasn't publically photographed in the chair out of a sense of decorum and image, and for political reasons, but not because it was a complete secret.
It was extremely important to FDR to not be seen as a "cripple" for political reasons, because it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, in that era, to be elected if he was popularly seen as physically weak or incapable.
His disability was little-known, because there was no tv, and because radio and newspapers, let alone newsreels, were very discreet and cooperative in those news. But it wasn't a secret.
Alistair Cook once estimated that only 5 Americans in 100 knew that FDR couldn't really walk, but that makes for hundreds of thousands of people who did know.
If Bush is drinking again, he has to keep it secret. He's branded himself as recovering. He wouldn't be drinking a beer, and anyway, he couldn't get a buzz on less than 3-4 beers minimum.
If he's drinking secretly, the Secret Service will cover for him. They probably wouldn't have covered for Clinton, but they hated Clinton (or some of them did) and probably don't hate Bush. Being discreet is a big part of their job. So all that remains is getting the booze to Bush. The logistics of that shouldn't be hard. Nobody needs to know, either.
"How can Ron refuse Bartlet's order that he, Ron, go to the hospital to get his own hand (which had been shot) checked out rather than take Bartlet to the White House immediately?"
Because Ron knows that Bartlett isn't going to fire him or punish him for disobeying.
"When Bush was buying ribs in that stupid press conference whenever it was, if he bought a can of Coke it wasn't just what was in the cooler, it had been previously supplied by the SS?"
No, it was checked by them. Look, I'll give you cites on longstanding SS SOP on food and drink, if you like, but I'd be slightly annoyed to find it necessary. I'm not making this up; it's elementary fact of Secret Service procedures.
I mean, they weld down manholes days in advance almost anywhere Bush goes. They're kinda serious about trying to keep him from being killed or injured, and that includes poison and biowarfare. Honest. Pinky-swear.
My only points are: (1) it is certainly possible that Bush had a beer on the table, though I think it's more likely to have been a Buckler; (2) the information problem set forth in "(1)" is shared equally among all of us, including Gary; (3) nobody should ever write "[rolls eyes]".
"Particularly the first: it seems incredibly undiplomatic to say to an ally: "Ally you may be, but we don't trust your security enough to eat the food you serve yourselves.""
And yet it's absolutely SOP. Because the Secret Service is precisely in the job of not trusting other countries.
And undiplomatic? I'm thinking you may have forgotten the Chilean incident? Or any of various other incidents in which other countries have been offended because the Secret Service insisted that Bush's armored limousine had to be imported, or that Service agents had to have automatic weapons, and so on and so on and so on.
Here and here is a piece on the past weekend's procedures. Presidential crap is secret.
The White House Military Office is the agency responsible for securing the president's ability to function as America's chief executive and commander in chief. The WHMO provides the president's communications capability, transportation, medical care, and even his food.
As the director of the medical unit, Tubb runs a staff of about 25 of the nearly 2,000 people assigned to the White House Military Office. Tubb said that’s a lot of people to take care of the health and needs of one person, even if that person is the president.
[...]
The second priority of the medical unit is something Tubb refers to as protective medical support.
“That’s working hand-in-hand with all the emergency action elements of the White House Military Office so that the unique responsibilities of the president can be conducted no matter where and no matter when,” Tubb said.
[...]
“We’re at our best when the president doesn’t have to think about what we do because it’s ingrained and a part of his life,” Rosenker said. “The president can have great confidence in using his equipment. He knows his airplane and helicopter will fly, he knows his food will be secure, and he knows his phones will all work. We don’t want to be noticed, because if we’re noticed, maybe something is wrong. Our high level of professionalism is just the way we do our daily business.”
Already after his arrival Tuesday evening, there were half-amused reactions to a report - in the teletext service of ORF television - that all the president's food had been specially flown in and chemically tested, and even his toilet paper came from the US base at Ramstein in Germany.
I mean, I understand why it's a good thing that Secret Service agents can ignore order's from the Presdient during attacks against him, but how is it possible?
The Secret Service is charged with protecting the President (among other things), but they're not employed by him personally; they're employed by the Department of Homeland Security. Technically speaking, I they're not in his direct chain of command. Not that he doesn't wield a lot of indirect influence -- he's the president, of course -- but security decisions just aren't his domain.
The Secret Service is going to oversee everything. If it's in the U.S. and there's other heads of state there, they're responsible for the other heads of state, too. And they're not going to be trusting other security departments to do their job for them. These guys prep for weeks before the President goes anywhere.
Well, okay. So they watched the bar setup, given that Bush's cokes would be coming from there. Is it beyond possibility that they also made sure the beer delivery was secure, despite the fact that they weren't expecting Bush to have any? Or that they know that Bush drinks sometimes, and secured the beer delivery as well?
I don't know why I'm arguing this, given that I don't think the picture is any evidence at all that he's drinking, but the idea that SS security procedures make it impossible seems goofy to me. They'd have to know, but what does that have to do with anything?
I don't think it would make it impossible for the President to have a beer. Especially if it was known he was drinking now and then before the G8. While the President isn't in charge of the Service, the last thing they would need is him sneaking behind their back because he wanted a beer.
But in general, I find the fact that Bush's handlers would be so incautious to allow him to have a beer on the table, in public, at a highly televised event. Or that the only person to notice would be a wee blogger.
Re. the unlikelihood of them letting him have a beer in a photograph--isn't it pretty much equally unlikely that they'd let him be drinking something that looked like a beer in a photograph? What I don't get is why he isn't drinking out of a glass. That bottle on the table looks totally incongruous.
156: The Department of Homeland Security isn't, even nominally, an independent agency. It's a Cabinet-level executive department. Bush could give Chertoff any non-illegal order, and Chertoff would have to follow it. Chertoff can, in turn, give orders to the director of the secret service.
From the moment a trip is discussed in the White House, secret service agents begin looking at the various security scenarios. Plans are worked and re-worked, taking in changing intelligence information.
Advance teams of agents are then dispatched to the various destinations on the president's itinerary.
When the president does finally turn up, he does so with a small air force, a massive entourage and a motorcade of armour-plated vehicles. These include the president's bullet-proof limo, a military ambulance and a communications van packed with state-of-the art devices.
Around 250 heavily-armed secret service agents, dozens of advisers and teams of sniffer dogs escort Mr Bush on most foreign trips. White House cooks join government political aides.
"When the president travels, the White House travels with him from the cars he drives, the water he drinks, the gasoline he uses, the food he eats," says John Barletta, former secret service agent for Ronald Reagan, who organised overseas visits.
[...]
Last year, his visit to Chile sparked a diplomatic incident when a state banquet had to be cancelled after Chilean officials objected to the US security arrangements.
The US Secret Service insisted on checking all guests, including the president of the Chilean Senate and the heads of each branch of the Chilean armed forces and their wives for weapons, before allowing them to dine near Mr Bush at the presidential palace.
"They'd have to know, but what does that have to do with anything?"
The CIA and many other U.S. intel and military organizations would also have to be aware that the President was compromising national security by drinking in public at a summit where all the foreign intel agencies would be entirely aware of it, and submitting the President and the U.S. to blackmail.
This would not be, as I said, a casual thing. Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others, would all have to be signing off on it. Maybe they're all in on the Presidential Summit Drinking Conspiracy together.
I just weigh the odds, which is where I started. Do you know how many people were involved in the preliminary advance discussions of how to handle Soviet bugging at Yalta and the other summits?
Could Bush have a drink in private at the White House? Could be. At a g8 summit, on live tv, in front of a jillion photographers and security agents of the 8 largest countries of the world?
160: Again, I don't think that picture demonstrates anything at all. I don't have a strong opinion on whether he's drinking (or if it's a problem. I could imagine a world in which he made a big fuss about being a teetotaller, and it wasn't true, but he still wasn't an alcoholic.) but, just for the sake of argument, how much control over him do his handlers have? If a waiter asks what he'd like to drink with dinner, and he says he'll have a beer, (and the SS is satisfied with the safety of the beer supply), who tells the waiter not to bring it?
I agree with assorted commenters that the shoulder massage is more Bush's way of asserting his superior status than it is sexual harassment. It's similar in that respect to his bizarre practice of rubbing bald men’s heads (scroll down to 4/26/04 post, “The Teenager in Chief”) and his fondness for giving people stupid nicknames. It only works one way, of course: the rubbees don't get to massage his shoulders or rub his head, and the only acceptable nickname with which one can address Bush is “Mr. President.”
Peeing on somebody is just friendliness.
If you’re a female lobster, peeing in a male lobster’s face is foreplay, as Trevor Corson explains in his book, “The Secret Life of Lobsters How Fishermen and Scientists Are Unraveling the Mysteries of Our Favorite Crustacean.”
I'm pretty sure Chertoff could tell Bartlet/Bush to stuff it, though, if what the President was asking would seriously compromise his own safety. The President's just not in charge of his own security arrangements. There's no way he could be; he's got a country to run.
162: Everyone would have to know, but would they have to agree beforehand? If he asked for a beer at the G8 summit, I'd think it would be a sign that he'd really lost sight of security, reasonable behavior, etc., but I also think someone would probably bring him one. And I'd expect an ad hoc conspiracy of silence from those present.
I don't see any reason to think that this is what happened or that he's drinking at all, but if he were drinking in an uncontrolled fashion, I don't see his having a beer at a public event as something that couldn't happen because too many people would have to sign off on it.
(This assumes 'drinking in an uncontrolled fashion' which makes it seem likely that he wouldn't be able to keep a lid on it, and we'd be not all that far from having the story really break. And I'm not expecting that to happen. But I don't think it's completely of the table as a possibility.)
"The CIA . . . would also have to be aware that the President was compromising national security by drinking in public at a summit where all the foreign intel agencies would be entirely aware of it, and submitting the President and the U.S. to blackmail."
This is a little overwrought. The table was set out for dinner. It would not be compromising national security for Bush to have a beer at dinner; it would merely be evidence that, contrary to his public stance, he drinks. All the other dignitaries at the G8 summit drink alcohol, and many of them probably drink alcohol while at the summit, particularly at meals. I don't quite see how national security fits into this.
169: Another world leader now knows that Bush drinks. They then ask Bush to do something he doesn't want to. He says no. They say, "I've personally seen you drink alcohol, have documentary evidence for same, and am willing to say so, while providing the evidence, on American television." Bush then either does what the person wants, reveals the information he (Bush) has to blackmail the other world leader, or lets the world leader go ahead and announce it. I guess assassination is also an option.
And the spin machine says, yes he had a drink poured out of politeness to the host's hospitality. The Republican blogs go on about how he's a regular guy. And that's that. Probably not something that's going to realistically lead to a blackmail situation. Especially since what, they'd have to confiscate all network tapes in order to create a situation wherein there is an opportunity for blackmail. (Can't be blackmail if it isn't secret.)
170: Bush lies about everything, large and small. David Corn wrote a whole book devoted exclusively to that subject, "The Lies of George W. Bush." Why should Bush care if yet another lie of his is revealed? He can't run for reelection, and he hasn't come close to being impeached for any of the other lies. (None of them come close to lying about getting blowjobs, of course, which is an impeachable offense iff you're a Democrat.)
Back to the West Wing. I certainly agree that it's really stupid for the President to be in charge of his own security arrangements. But as a matter of separation of powers, of course the President is in charge of his own security. Other than problems with independent agencies, which don't apply here, and problems with civil service protections, which I'm fairly sure don't apply here, given the lost fight over civil service protections for DHS employees; the President can fire anyone in the Executive branch.*
*I honestly don't know what happens if the President says, "hey V.P., resign" and the V.P. says, "Nothing doing." There's probably an obvious answer that I'm missing though.
"Maybe being kissy with other people's kids is more normal in Russia than it is here...."
Not according to anything I've read (unless the tummy-licker is ploughed via vodka -- that is, specifically about kissing/licking kids on the stomach), and not according to the way it was treated in the Russian media, which was pretty much the way people here think of it: he did what? Like a kitten?
178: The VP remains in place. VP is an elected, rather than appointed position -- the fact that candidates now run as slates doesn't mean that the president can fire the veep.
(This is off the top of my head. I may be wrong, but I'm sure.)
"This is off the top of my head. I may be wrong, but I'm sure."
As a matter of law, I believe you are right. As a matter of practicality, it would become a matter of politics if the Veep continued to resist. I'm inclined to think that ultimately either Congress would have to impeach and convict the Veep or not.
It is not just a coincidence that "Putin" is the concatenation of the English words "put" and "in". (In … their stomachs!) Nor is it just a coincidence that the first syllable is rendered approximately as "poot", which, I submit, is the very sound of eggs being deposited into a child's stomach.
180, 185: Yup. The vice president's constitutional status is identical to that of the president. Both were (allegedly) elected. Nothing besides death, resignation, or impeachment/conviction/removal from office can stop them from serving out the remainder of their terms of office.
That was just odd. Maybe being kissy with other people's kids is more normal in Russia than it is here, but it sure did look strange.
I prefer to think of them - the kid and his belly eggs - as living a life of magical adventures. I see a montage of the kid's belly leading him into mischief that all comes out OK in the end - like, he unmasks Old Man Ivanovich from the failed goat farm down the road and exposes his crazy scheme to counterfeit a free press. Why'd you have to go and weird it up with the whole eating him to inherit his kingdom thing, SB? I object to the childification of the cannibal monarchy in this way.
Can I note that, since the majority of 178 was not devoted to me expressing ignorance on a point of Constitutional structure, but rather having suggested that Cala, and possibly mrh, were making a mistake about same, my question still stands. Gary's answer that Ron guessed Bartlet was smart enough not to fire him is reasonable I guess.
Cruising into Houston on Interstate 10, the Trailblazer runs into a traffic jam. This makes Kinky cranky. He gripes about the traffic. He gripes about Houston. He calls his campaign headquarters to gripe about the next item on his schedule -- taping an ad for the Houston Comets, a women's professional basketball team.
"I don't like basketball and I don't like women's basketball," he grumbles into his cellphone. "If it was roller derby, it would be different."
He listens for a while, puffing away. "All right, I'll do it," he says, "and in September you'll have your candidate in a mental hospital."
He hangs up, then starts trying to figure out what to say in this ad. It's got to be something different, something funny, something . . . Kinky. He tries out a few jokes but rejects them. Then it comes to him -- the perfect line. He starts grinning mischievously.
The Trailblazer pulls into a parking garage beneath the Toyota Center, where the Comets play. A young woman leads Kinky into a TV studio and sits him down behind a fake anchorman desk. It's the Comets' 10th anniversary, she explains, and Texas celebrities are taping greetings that will be played at the arena during games.
The cameraman gives him the signal.
"Hi, folks, it's Kinky Friedman, here to wish the Houston Comets a happy tenth anniversary." He pauses, then leans forward and jabs his cigar at the camera. "Houston Comets basketball -- it's not just for lesbians anymore!"
I could be making a mistake, w/d. The only reason I think that I'm not is that the Secret Service personnel remain relatively constant between administrations, barring retirement and new hires.
210 is so, so right; I've heard over and over that Texas doesn't give its governer much power anyway, and electing Kinky would go far towards proving that.
Also, every time this thread refreshes, I read 4 ("Hataz need to let a President preside.") as making a comment about some perhaps middle-eastern person named Hataz. Ahmed al-Hataz? Avi Ben-Hataz? Damn you, Smasher!
If Bush wants to drink, he drinks. It's not hard to cover up. The SS will cooperate. Very few people will know for sure, and they won't talk. There are a lot of tricks to hide drinking, and Bush could easily be uding them.
Drinking a beer at a banquet is not a trick to hide drinking, though, except that if it can be proven to be an NA beer it might be a decoy. Drinking beer is a very poor choice for a secret alcoholic.
The alternative is that Bush doesn't need alcohol to be fucked up, because the Jesus buzz is enough for him. So this last week was a religious practice, sort of like speaking in tongues and snake handling.
The alternative is that Bush doesn't need alcohol to be fucked up, because the Jesus buzz is enough for him.
The dude's either on medication, still drinking, or has a mental illness. Nobody gets significant facial contusions and bruises on a regular basis the way he does. Somethings going on. We'll probably find out years later the way we found out Reagan was likely suffering from Alzheimers while still in office.
I always figured the real reason it always takes so long for him to respond to events when he's down on the ranch is he goes down there to fall off the wagon in a big way and it takes him about four days to sober up enough to be seen.
Remember the tsunami? Katrina? Things have a bad habit of happening when the President needs to go clear brush, get all kinds of bruises and cuts doing it, but oddly enough he never gets tan from the West Texas sun. It's all a great strange miracle.
Like hell it is. I for one don't like fucking strangers touching me. Someone who puts their hands on me from behind without warning better be ready to get knocked down.
He wasn't a stranger.
Of course Bush is a dick, but people give other people spontaneous shoulder massages all the time. Sure one can read patronizing into it, but it's not like he gave her le headbutt.
(Fuck, I never thought I'd be defending Bush about anything, because I hate him from the depth of my gonads. But really, to see this as a reason why he's a dick is stoopid -- he's been a dick in too many other ways to seize on this stoopid thing as some Great And Final Proof of His Dickheadedness.)
Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but to me someone I've met a couple times in formal settings is not necessarily someone who should feel they can come up behind me unannounced and start giving me a massage.
I hate to have anyone touch me. I have a huge personal space bubble. People who touch me uninvited, even people who I have known for years, get the same treatment Merkel gave him. If I want a massage, I pay a masseur.
He has met with Merkel exactly once prior to this incident, for about an hour. She is a world leader. Touching her without invitation in a formal setting is a grotesque violation. And if you look at her face, it's clear she is not happy.
And no, he wasn't being friendly. That is the sort of gesture that harrassers make- she can't get away, she doesn't know it's coming, she certainly didn't invite it, but if she objects he was 'just being friendly'. It's a form of dominance.
Like hell it is. I for one don't like fucking strangers touching me."
I wouldn't knock anyone down, because I'm very nonviolent, but it would give me the heebiejeebies, and I might instinctly jump and lurch away. I'd almost surely instantly hunch my shoulders and more or less leap away. And feel kinda creeped out.
How Merkel took it, on the other hand, I dunno, since not everyone is me, and I'm not inclined to read too much into a picture of someone I don't know (not inclined to check a video at dialup speeds, given the way it would jam my system, and my fairly low level of interest).
I did ask myself why I cared about this as much as I did, given the other, much more serious things I already didn't like about Bush. One reason is that it's an extension of his cute, demeaning, frat-boy way of treating people -- the wisecracks, the nicknames, etc. It's completely asymmetrical -- Bush demands respect, you don't joke around with him or call him by his nickname (which is "Shrub"), and you don't come up from behind and rub his shoulders.
The second thing is that this was so inappropriate that it was so inappropriate to context that you have to wonder whether the man with the nuclear trigger in his hand isn't losing it, the way Nixon almost did. Or whether he's a competent adult any more.
There are a few cultures and subcultures where this kind of grabbing is cool -- the Deadhead world, Burning Man, parts of Hollywood, etc. Merkel is not part of any of those cultures.
"It's like an awkward scene from 'The Office,' where Steve Carell's character Michael Scott, the smarmy manager everyone secretly loathes but who himself believes to be the funniest and most likable and naturally gifted guy in the room, walks up to one of his female employees and grabs a mango and cracks a grossly inappropriate joke about vaginas and laughs hard, slaps everyone on the back, and then takes a big, gross bite of the mango."
It's a big enough deal. It's disrespectful to another head of state, whom he doesn't know that well. They're not longtime college buddies at a barbeque!
Another vote for 'unsolicited shoulder massages from acquaintances are not always welcome'. Living in Samoa killed me -- it's a very touchy-feely affectionate place (same-sex only; men don't touch women or vice versa) and my students were always leaning on me, touching me, rubbing my shoulders... perfectly well meant, absolutely appropriate in context and I had the hardest time not jumping and pulling away constantly.
Personal space extends out to about 3ft and I believe invading that space is still a defence under law for accusations of grevious bodily harm. 'He wis leaning towards me in a pleasant and friendly manner, yer honour. I had no choice but to thump him'
Ooh, I should move to Scotland. I hate being touched by people unless it's in, ahem, certain situations. The practice of hugging and kissing hello and goodbye in the States is way out of control. (There was a long thread on this here somewhere, but don't have time to look.)
High-fiving would be a good substitute. But the optimum solution would be for our culture to adopt the custom of bowing.
It's funny, NY is very crowded -- on the subway, someone leaning on me because there's no room doesn't bother me at all. If they could be giving me room and they don't, on the other hand, I want them dead. There's an Auden poem I think I've posted here before:
I'm kidding about the defence under law thing, btw.
However, it is true that people aren't touchy-feely and what passed for comfortable personal space is quite large.
someone leaning on me because there's no room doesn't bother me at all. If they could be giving me room and they don't, on the other hand, I want them dead.
By the way, does anyone know how to format verse without the skipped lines? The <br /> tag skips a line afterwards, and I don't know how else to break lines.
Some thirteen inches from my nose
The frontier of my person goes
And all the empty space between
Is private pagus or demesne.
Stranger, unless with bedroom eyes
I beckon you to fraternize
Beware of rudely crossing it.
I have no gun, but I can spit.
No formatting is necessary, just type "enter" at the end of each line.
This following has one set of [p][em][/em][/p] tags around the entire passage and [br /] at the end of every line. Without the break tags, it will ignore the carriage returns and run it all together.
Some thirteen inches from my nose
The frontier of my person goes
And all the empty space between
Is private pagus or demesne.
Stranger, unless with bedroom eyes
I beckon you to fraternize
Beware of rudely crossing it.
I have no gun, but I can spit.
Yeah, I think a lot of people need to realize that Bush probably, genuinely, has a lot more southern attitude about personal space than other people, so his action, from his standpoint, is much less of a violation than it is from most people's (include the Chancellor's). So, I think he's really only guilty of not caring enough about his position, and the formality of the situation, to follow the situationally appropriate social norms instead of his native ones.
Yeah, the one that says it's ok to patronizingly touch women you don't know. Saying it's "southern" doesn't make it any less patronizing, sexual harrassy, and creepy.
259: I don't think it's as simple as that. There were seven other world leaders sitting there, but he decides to lay hands on the one woman there. I'm southern and am physically affectionate with my friends, but certainly not with a woman I have only ever met once before.
Hey, people, I found a place. On 60th and 1st Ave. (Yes, that's right by Scores, why do you ask?)
The people seem extremely cool and easy to live with. And the landlord provides whatever pieces of furniture I might need! Like bookcases, armoire, desk, chairs, etc. All from Ikea, but whatevs; I'm not picky.
It's not seen as patronizing, though. To the same extent, anyway. The way Bush did it was probably still somewhat creepy and patronizing, but the point is that your perception of its creepiness is probably exaggerated since you're unfamiliar with that attitude.
pdf, in that case Bush should at least have been briefed that this quaint local custom wouldn't fly north of the Mason-Dixon line or anywhere outside America. No, he shouldn't have needed briefing. I'm surprised Chirac didn't challenge him to rapiers at dawn.
It's a neighborhood that works for me. And it's in Manhattan. And has good train options available. And the neighborhood is completely safe and features all the stuff one needs from a neighborhood. There's a giant Food Emporium across the street, for instance.
One thing that occurred to me last night about living in Manhattan, is that you always have the option of walking home if all else fails. A 20 minute walk beats waiting for the train for 20 minutes any night.
264: oy, physically affectionate contact on appropriate areas of the body when both parties are expecting it and signal they are willing, fine. people coming up behind you when you have no way of getting away, surprising you, and trying to massage you?? in public??
however southern he is, obviously you have to modify your behavior when you interact with other people, esp. if they aren't from your culture, and you pay attention to their signals.
for example, not being george bush, i don't go through the room and kiss every single person goodbye when i leave a party in america (though maybe i would be very popular if i tried?). also i don't shoulder massage angela merkel. CREEPY.
those of you with tvs, out of curiosity, does he know how to pronounce her name?
(it's with a hard 'g')
Shouldn't 21 be "Champaign," Kriston?
Posted by arthegall | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 10:59 AM
13: I have (as a young lad) tried the unwanted massage move, but never the upper arm grab; so I am motivated to believe the arm grab is worse.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 10:59 AM
The unwanted massage or the unwanted grabbing the circumference of the bare upper arm while moving in to talk real close? I feel like I get the upper arm grab a lot more often.
The unwanted touching of the bare upper arm is a tactic, sure, like the unwanted massage. But the armtouching is mostly unobtrusive, whereas the massage is a public, territorial display.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:01 AM
arthegall, wolfson is notorious for his shunning of the punctuation mark-quotation mark rules, and maintains (if I understand correctly) that punctuation should only be included in the quote if it is part of the quoted material.
I think any logical person must agree, usage rules be damned.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:02 AM
I don't speak a lick of German, but I'm finding that coverage amusing all the same.
Bush: Liebes-Attacke auf Merkel!
Von hinten schleicht er verschmitzt an Kanzlerin Angela Merkel (CDU) heran, überrascht sie mit einer Blitz-Massage.
"einer Blitz-Massage" heh heh heh.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:02 AM
21: It's early in the day, but sure. Thank you.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:02 AM
Do you think he refers to "Tony" and "Vlad" in public statements?
I think I've heard him use "Tony"? And, to my mind, the arm grab is not in the same realm as the "massage." I can imagine anyone grabbing a guy's arm (I'm sure I have); not true about the unasked-for "massage."
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:02 AM
It wouldn't seem completely odd for a man to grab another man's bare arm while talking close, but an uninvited massage would almost always raise eyebrows. Work that into the calculation as you see fit.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:04 AM
Pwned again.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:04 AM
Apo grabbed SCMT's bare comment.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:05 AM
I touch people's arms on a relatively frequent occasion, both male and female friends. However, I would never in a million years do the unwanted massage thing.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:06 AM
I hear you in 27, but the arm grab feels pretty territorial in practice. I'm not so much talking about touching or grazing but the actual full-handed grab around your entire upper arm. It doesn't feel all that unobtrusive when done by someone you don't know.
Posted by Sommer | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:08 AM
But the armtouching is mostly unobtrusive, whereas the massage is a public, territorial display.
It may be unobtrusive, but it can be territorial too. I know I've been in a situation where I was chatting with someone else at a party, and a variant of the arm move got pulled. I felt like I was being peed on.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:08 AM
Peeing on somebody is just friendliness. I think you're reading too much into that move.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:10 AM
You know, bringin' the dignity back to the White House. I imagine when he decided to run for Prez, he said something like, "It's just so hard to make new friends after college." Now all the world's leaders will be his buddies, or he'll bomb their asses!
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:10 AM
So what's skeezier: The unwanted massage or the unwanted grabbing the circumference of the bare upper arm while moving in to talk real close?
Both off the charts, and I've been accutely uncomfortable whenever I've seen it. Obvious intrusions.
I don't think I've ever done an unwanted touching like this, and unlike some faux pas, can't even understand where it comes from. I've probably much more often failed to make a wanted touching.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:11 AM
29 -- Yeah , it's funny. Roughly, "Bush: Love-Attack on Merkel! From Behind he sneaks impishly up on Chancellor Merkel, surprises her with a blitz-massage."
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:12 AM
36: Right, but it's a flirty thing, isn't it? So receptiveness to the armtouching (I'm staying away from "armgrabbing," which sounds like a citizen's arrest) depends on receptiveness to the armtoucher. It's one of those gestures to encroach on someone's private space in order to see if there's any receptiveness to that idea. You know as soon as you do that (or place your hand on her hip, or whatever it is the kids do) whether you're welcome. (Am I wrong that it's not always unwelcome?)
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:12 AM
I know I've been in a situation where I was chatting with someone else at a party, and a variant of the arm move got pulled.
That I can see. I was thinking more of a one-on-one thing. I don't know if armtouching is the right move, but at some pont someone's gotta touch someone.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:13 AM
I know a guy at school who leans way in when talking to me and clasps my knee with a firm hand. If he's trying to make me pay attention to what he's saying, it's not working. I go into "holyfuckimgonnagetmolested" mode.
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:14 AM
I actually think the video makes it come off somewhat better. She appears to smile at the very end, which makes the episode appear a bit more juvenile than creepy.
And lord knows 'juvenile' is what I look for in a president.
Posted by skippy | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:14 AM
42 -- I should think you (of all people) 'd be rather fond of the unwanted arm-touch. Am I wrong?
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:14 AM
44: (That is, while seated.)
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:15 AM
If you're in a sitaution where you can't get out of the armgrab, you should offer a blowjob.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:15 AM
45: Really? The virulence of her reaction (I inpreted the body language of that shrug to say "What the fuck? Get the fuck off me.") makes it clear how unwelcome it was, and how weird.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:15 AM
She appears to smile at the very end
This is known as diplomacy.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:16 AM
45: I'm not sure what that's proof of. Women have to smile when powerful doltish guys do doltish invasive things. She can't just tell her bodyguards, "After him, boys!"
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:17 AM
Well, I suppose I could clarify that I think it comes off better than what I was imagining it to look like from the initial stills.
In and of itself it's still off the charts bizarre.
Posted by skippy | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:17 AM
Obviously the real question is, which is skeezier--the unwanted massage/grope of an important world leader, or the consensual blow job from an intern?
(Also, the video makes it absolutely clear that not only is she offended, she's downright startled. Too bad her security people didn't shove him to the ground.)
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:18 AM
Maybe she's smiling to the person next to her to try and detract from the embarrassment of what just happened.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:18 AM
45: No way. What else is she going to do but smile? Elbow him in the nuts?
On preview, pwned by 50 and 51.
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:19 AM
Yeah, the after shrug-off smile is well known to us all. "I know I just made a gesture that suggests I hate this person, but I don't, really. No hard feelings." GAH.
The folks talking about the territoriality thing are exactly right. I don't think this is so much an "I'm going to fuck her" thing as it is an unconscious "she's mine" thing.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:23 AM
I read it as a way of putting her in her place and showing his dominance. Making her uncomfortable while also putting her in a position where she has to play nice and pretend nothing creepy just happened? Total power move.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:27 AM
at some pont someone's gotta touch someone.
This might be the fatal flaw in my standard "staring wistfully from across the room" strategy.
Perhaps an intermediate step could be to use one of those toy grabber/pincer claw things. Ease slowly into actual human contact.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:28 AM
I was about to write substantially the same thing as 57, and then I hit refresh.
So yeah, it's a "you may be a world leader, but I'm a man and I run a bigger country than you and aw, hang in there!"
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:28 AM
I love her little arms-up fuck-off gesture. And how the vid is labelled: "Der stürmische US-Präsident
George W. Bush beim G8-Gipfel" -- stürmische indeed.
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:29 AM
Sommer, I know I came down on the size of arm-grab-is-totally-skeezy before, but I'm gonna have to say the sneak attack massage is way worse here. I think the determining factor is "ability to get the fuck out of the situation."
With the arm grab, it's skeezy and possessive, but you can easily pull away/cockpunch. Whereas with the massage, as the Chancellor noted, especially when seated, leaves little room for immediate escape.
Posted by Heather | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:30 AM
On further examination, it seems that the Blitz-Massage occurred during some sort of break/transitional period. Totally unsupported hypothesis is that is supposed to be some "encouraging" gesture that Bush provided on his way to the pisser, a patronizing "you're doing good!"
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:30 AM
I am desperate to know what he's saying as he does that. "You gotta relax, babe," or, "Hang in there, sweet thing."
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:31 AM
58 -- you could also throw fish at her.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:31 AM
Aren't 56 and 57 basically the same thing?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:31 AM
65: As are 62 and 63. I think this means we're all on the same page about this one.
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:33 AM
as the Chancellor noted
Did she make a statement about this scene? Or are you talking about something else?
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:34 AM
This is a transcript froma Bush/Blair conversation yesterday where they thought they were off-mic.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g8/story/0,,1822966,00.html
Very interesting, but, in tin-foil hat mode, I want to know who the "he" is they are referring to at the end. When they say:
"Blair What does he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine, if we get a solution in Israel and Palestine, Iraq goes in the right way ...
Bush Yeah, yeah, he is sweet.
Blair He is honey. And that's what the whole thing is about. It's the same with Iraq."
Seriously. That is some freaky shit.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:34 AM
This behavior is of a piece with his practice of bestowing jokey nicknames on reporters.
Posted by dagger aleph | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:35 AM
53: At least Clinton had the good sense to skeeze off-camera.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:35 AM
I can't believe that the average German voter is going to be happy about this video.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:35 AM
67: She "noted" in the somewhat futile wave-off. It did get Bush to walk away, but only because he choose to, not because she physically got him off her.
Posted by Heather | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:36 AM
72: You could have left the last word off that comment.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:37 AM
Excellent point.
Posted by Heather | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:38 AM
68: Freakydeaky. Our prez and Blair are basing international policy on chummy-chums chats about what some honey-like personage has predicted.
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:39 AM
65 - They aren't necessarily the same thing, but they all suck. You can have:
* Asserting ownership/territory to others (I control her and I want you all to know it)
* Asserting control to her (I have more power than you here and I want you to know it)
* Patronizing (Awww...isn't it so cute you think your opinion counts!)
And other equally annoying sentiments or a combination of above.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:39 AM
"I want to know who the "he" is they are referring to at the end"
CW seems to have yesterday decided Annan.
I thought the part where he told Hu that he didn't have far to go to go home, etc., was pretty Bush-league typical.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:39 AM
And Heather totally gets a fruit basket for using "cockpunch" in her grand Unfogged delurking.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:40 AM
Well it's totally and adopted word, as you know, but I've loved it and taken good care of it since it and I first met.
Posted by Heather | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:41 AM
re: 77
The Guardian seemed to think 'he' meant Assad. The Independent thought Annan.
Neither makes total sense to me in the context in which it's placed. Certainly Assad seems wierd. Annan is a possibility.
I wondered if there was some other person they had in mind. Putin? Cheney?
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:42 AM
I was guessing that "he" was Putin.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:42 AM
Aren't we being a bit uncharitable here? Perhaps he noticed from across the table that her shoulders looked particularly tense. Perhaps she gave him the come-hither look. She could be a frigid, manipulative cock tease -- well couldn't she? We should always bear in mind, in a situation like this, that the woman may be to blame.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:43 AM
Eh, now I'm thinking #62 is right, and that it's less bad than I thought. (The video is probably dispositive, but I refuse to watch it.) I was wrong--I actually do give male friends the one-scrunch massage; it's like a greeting or a signal of our friendship. But I only do it to friends, and (I think) I only do it to male friends.
It remains inappropriate because (a) it trivializes what's going on--Bush and Merkle are world leaders addressing major problems, not BFF at a barbeque, and (b) it just is different when a guy does it to a woman--the implied move is always out there, hovering. But, yeah, I can imagine Bush doing it to "Tony."
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:43 AM
"Vlad" is "Pootie-poot."
Can you imagine someone trying that with Margaret Thatcher? Merken doesn't radiate .... whatever it is that Thatcher radiated.
When I was in Taiwan there was a teacher who couldn't talk to a young woman without putting his hand on her, usually on her shoulder or arm, often after backing her against a wall.
It's legal there, but his nickname with the office staff was "hairy-hands". He had been a minister in an obscure dissident religious sect, and was in Taiwan because they didn't extradite Americans at that time. Fill in the blanks.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:44 AM
I've always suspected that W's sole qualification for leadership is his ability to act the role of Top Dog. The power-touching; the smirk; the first-naming (there was a bit of concern in the press about his effusiveness over "Vladimir" as Putin was dismantling the independent media in Russia, but apparently nobody cares anymore); the nicknaming of course. By now it's entirely unconscious I'm sure.
What's always scared me is how that sort of thing can seem so reassuring in times of crisis. People who aren't paying attention to world events can easily get a sense of how things are going by checking the behavioral cues of a leader; and since people who desperately avoid paying attention to world events now run the country, W's Leader of the Pack aura is probably the reason he won in 2004.
Posted by Rah | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:46 AM
The fact that it's world leaders at the G8 makes it more unbelievable, but not a worse offense.
If a man walked up to a female co-worker and started rubbing her shoulders in the middle of meeting at my office, that would clearly be inappropriate, no matter what the circumstances.
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:48 AM
Assad.... Annan. Annan.... Assad. You say tomato.... I say it's broccoli, and the hell with it.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:48 AM
Oops, and my first post-grand-delurking typo. Do I still get the fruit? I'd hate for this to all be for nothing...
Posted by Heather | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:49 AM
Y'know, the more I think about it, this scene could have been pulled straight out of the American version of The Office, where Bush is Steve Carell's character and Angela Merkel is his boss, Jan.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:51 AM
86 -- Yeah, I could totally see writing the woman up for inappropriate behavior.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:52 AM
It remains inappropriate because (a) it trivializes what's going on--Bush and Merkle are world leaders addressing major problems, not BFF at a barbeque, and (b) it just is different when a guy does it to a woman--the implied move is always out there, hovering.
Even if it's not a sexual move (which, given everyone's age and chaperonage, I'm presuming this wasn't, mostly) it is a really screwy claim of intimacy and power. You massage your male friends -- you've got a tight enough relationship that you can presume that they consent to be touched by you in a friendly way. You don't massage your male professional peers with whom you don't have a close personal relationship; if you did they'd think you were an inappropriate freak.
This kind of stunt acts as a claim of superior status -- Bush gets to decide whether or not he wants to touch Chancellor Merkel. Her status is so low that she doesn't get input on whether it's okay or not.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:53 AM
In fact, Steve Carell is the obvious choice to play Bush in the movie version of this presidency.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:54 AM
You don't massage your male professional peers with whom you don't have a close personal relationship; if you did they'd think you were an inappropriate freak.
Agree entirely; I was too lazy to make that explicit.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:55 AM
Would it have been cool for Bush to punch Blair on the shoulder, hard, after making Blair flinch?
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:58 AM
First he'd give Prodi a wedgie, and then he and some mates could kick the shit out of Kofi in the shower.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 12:09 PM
92: Nuh-h. Will Farrel.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 12:11 PM
63 triggered a train of thought that culminated in the mental image of George W. Bush having the "Hang in there, baby!" kitten poster hanging on the wall of the Oval Office.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 12:23 PM
Maybe we could devise some kind of world-leader-specific sexual harassment training video.
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 12:29 PM
I actually do give male friends the one-scrunch massage while playing "Ask."
Also, I predict that The Economist, whatever its myriad problems, will have funny coverage of this.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 12:37 PM
While we're at it, we could also make one on war crimes.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 12:38 PM
From Taylor Marsh's comments section, here's a bit from the State Department's transcript of Bush and Merkel's press conference during her state visit in May:
"I'm looking forward to taking the Chancellor upstairs to my private residence after this press availability to continue our discussions and to have a dinner that is a continuation of a personal relationship that is developing..."
Seriously.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 12:38 PM
100 (!) to 98.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 12:39 PM
Did anyone else hear the press conference Bush gave while meeting with the Chancellor in Germany, and referred to her, in one of his answers, as "Angela?"
Ooh, that doth irk. Same with 'Condi' and 'Hillary'. How cute! She has a job in politics!
Love-attack on Merkel! From behind the American president creeps up on Angela Merkel, surprising her with a Blitz-massage!
Good lord. Handzoff the allien and watchen the blinken lights.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 12:57 PM
I think that the sexual harassment angle isn't the main one here. I think that it's violation of personal space and inappropriate familiarity (and would be to a guy too), disrespect for a head of state, and inappropriate behavior for a formal or semi-formal occasion. It's true that he'd have been less likely to do the same thing to a guy, and it's true that the same behavior would have been offensive if Merkel was office staff, but the other factors multiply the significance of the event, which would be more or less equally bad even without the sexual element.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 1:03 PM
He's a head of state, she's a head of government. Germany has a president. Chancellor, which is Merkel's position, is prime minister. But John's point is completely valid, and the significance is multiplied.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 1:07 PM
28: Yeah, I know... (I've been lurking for a while). It was a lame attempt at a joke, but... yeah.
Posted by arthegall | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 1:10 PM
It would have been perfect if she stood up and bitch-slapped him....
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 1:12 PM
I actually have had some experience with this type of shoulder massage thing. My grandfather, who grew up in Texas, has done it to me on occasion. I'm really not sure what it signifies, I would guess some sort of "patriarchal benevolence" sort of thing. You might see it done to junior/female family members, I would guess. I imagine, if Bush is saying something, that it's to someone else standing beside him, and not addressed to the massagee. I imagine it's mostly just domininance. If it has to do with sexism, it's to the extent that Bush would feel compelled to be more formal for longer around a man than a woman.
It's a gesture that probably isn't really seen outside of those from the deep south, among men over 40 years old.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 1:18 PM
Also, it would probably be expected coming from Bush toward some of his trusted staff, especially male, and especially if they were considerably younger than him.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 1:21 PM
Hey, is apostropher (the blog) offline or something?
Did you go and move it and not tell me???
That's no way to treat a sidekick!!!
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 1:31 PM
My hosting company has had some hardware issues off an on over the past couple of days. They promise that it's almost all reolved.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 1:35 PM
Most of the physical fights I got into as a youth involved that specific kind of touching. I wish Merkel had punched Bush out or poured a glass of water over his head.
It was always obvious that Bush was this worst sort of Bully and coward. Anyone who voted for him...never mind.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 1:36 PM
it reminds me of my favorite show, the late great arrested development. there was a long-running gag where the semi-idiot son would start giving unwanted shoulder massages to family members, totally freaking them out.
gwb = buster bluth.
Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 1:45 PM
I don't see the point of distinguishing between the three possibilities in 65; I mean, I do in a theoretical way, but in terms of the act itself, surely it conveys all three of those, whatever he might have thought he was doing.
And I'm pretty sure he didn't think he was doing anything, really. And that he (along with most of the American electorate) simply won't be able to see what's wrong with the gesture, regardless of how obviously offended Merkel is.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 1:45 PM
Do you think he refers to "Tony" and "Vlad" in public statements?
Well, we know Bush addresses Blair with "Yo, Blair!" when he thinks the mics are off.
Given his behavior on this trip (National Lampoon's Presidential Vacation!) and these photos, I think the chances that Bush is drinking again are high.
The skeezy neck massage is the skeeziest skeeze ever skeezed by a skeeze.
Posted by Paul | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 1:49 PM
Conversation just concluded with my German friend over the phone brings up a new point I hadn't considered: Merkel is pretty newly-elected, and this is (so my friend asserts), only the second time that she and Bush have met at all, the first time being for like an hour.
That makes it even worse. It would be a lot different if he were doing it to Blair, which he's worked with extensively (as far as diplomatic relations go, anyway) in the last few years.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 1:50 PM
crap that kitten scared me. mostly in a happy warm fuzzy way. but also with a sad realization that things on the internet change sometimes when you're gone for months. it almost shakes my faith in my mattiocentric understanding of the universe.
Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 1:51 PM
75, 78, etc: full transcript.
103: Bush also refers to "Kofi" here and elsewhere. It takes nothing away from the accurate observation that use of diminuatives for women is blatantly and offensively sexist to also note that Bush is not exactly in the habit of being formal in how he refers to anyone, be it Poot-poot or Turd Blossom.
I wouldn't be completely surprised if Bush took a basketball to one of these shindigs and started bouncing it off someone's face to see if he can make them cry. A little surprised. But not for it being out of character.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 1:55 PM
116--Oh yes. And she governs with a razor-thin margin, as well. Bush did her absolutely no favors with this little gesture of affectionate dominance.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 1:55 PM
I only looked at the first picture, Paul, (the second was of people in space flight) but I agree with your assesment.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 1:57 PM
I only looked at the first picture
My mistake there. "... these photos ..." s/b "this photo."
Posted by Paul | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 2:03 PM
Blair, which he's worked with extensively
s/b "Blair, to whom he's dictated UK foreign policy." He owes Blair a hell of a lot more than a backrub. Blair's earned a "happy release."
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 2:04 PM
OTOH, a commenter here suggests that Bush's bottle in that photo is a minimally-alcoholic Buckler beer.
Maybe. That doesn't give me a lot of comfort.
Posted by Paul | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 2:11 PM
It wasn'tthe bottle (which I only barely noticed) that made me think he had fallen off the wagon. It was something about the way his face looked.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 2:17 PM
"Maybe. That doesn't give me a lot of comfort."
He'd just asked for a Diet Coke.
I find the idea that Bush would be drinking alcohol while on tv, in front of endless photographers, in the middle of the G8, to be a bit unlikely. Color me naive.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 2:21 PM
Diet Coke in a brown bottle? Could be. No point in making too much of a single photo. But I'd probably believe it was a Buckler sooner.
I find the idea that Bush would be drinking alcohol while on tv, in front of endless photographers, in the middle of the G8, to be a bit unlikely
I find the idea that Bush would give the German Chancellor a neck massage to be a bit unlikely, too.
Posted by Paul | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 2:26 PM
I doubt you see staff massaging Bush.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 2:35 PM
"I find the idea that Bush would give the German Chancellor a neck massage to be a bit unlikely, too."
I don't at all, myself.
That Bush could get away with drinking alcohol, in the face of all that scrutiny: what, all the intel services of the world are going to just not notice? And it's not going to leak and be speculated upon and reported?
A tad implausible. Want to speculate that he had a couple some night in the WH? Go for it. But in the middle of a G8 meeting, he orders beer, and only some blogger notices?. [roll eyes]
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 2:37 PM
A glass of orange juice with vodka, Gary. You're obviously not an alcoholic.
And I admire you for that.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 2:39 PM
It's actually a dinner, or looks to be, and I doubt it would be a big deal at all were it not for the fact that Bush professes to be a teetotaller.
I would be surprised if there weren't drinks at the G8. I'm sure the other heads of state have wine with meals, etc. The intel services of the world would be unlikely to make a big deal of it.
There have been all sorts of rumors over the past few years about Bush falling off the wagon; it's not the unlikeliest of scenarios.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 2:46 PM
127- Are we going to bring Cheney into this and start making Dick/Bush massage jokes too?
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 2:54 PM
"I doubt it would be a big deal at all were it not for the fact that Bush professes to be a teetotaller."
Of course not. But he does.
"There have been all sorts of rumors over the past few years about Bush falling off the wagon; it's not the unlikeliest of scenarios."
Besides the point. That only bloggers would notice is. Who is it that would be serving Bush this Buckler without anyone noticing? Oh, wait, it was noticed by bloggers, but not by the Secret Service and the FSB?
What Bush drinks is not a casual matter for the Secret Service.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 2:56 PM
But in the middle of a G8 meeting, he orders beer, and only some blogger notices?. [roll eyes]
I wasn't asserting that, so let's roll our eyes together. In fact, I wasn't asserting anything. I was just reading about Bush groping the German Chancellor and generally behaving like a frat boy while looking at a picture of him standing next to a brown bottle with a shitfaced look on his face and asking myself--as I do these days--what's up with that?
Posted by Paul | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:01 PM
132: I have to say that I think this is pretty silly -- I don't think you can tell from a still if someone is drunk, and I think the strong odds are Bush isn't. But the rational version claim isn't that no one but some intrepid blogger noticed Bush was drinking: it's that everyone in the inner circle (SS agents, other attendees at the G8 meeting) to the extent they know, is keeping a lid on it. The error would have been letting the beer bottle get photographed, not letting the attendees see it.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:03 PM
neither is it a casual matter for the secret service to call the Times about Bush's dietary secrets.
It might be a Buckler--if you had followed the link, you would understand that is a non-acoholic drink--and it might not be. I don't understand why you are so opposed to the possibility that Bush could have ordered a beer--is it because you lack a post of your own to link to on the subject?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:09 PM
"But the rational version claim isn't that no one but some intrepid blogger noticed Bush was drinking: it's that everyone in the inner circle (SS agents, other attendees at the G8 meeting) to the extent they know, is keeping a lid on it."
Let me re-emphasize: the Secret Service checks out days in advance what the President is going to be eating and drinking. Either the Russians would have had to have had beer on hand that the Secret Service would have had to anticipate that Bush might ask for, and thus they're in long-term cover-up mode over his secret drinking, or the Secret Service would have had to have otherwise days in advance, as per SOP, procured the beer for Bush to have on hand, same same. Thus Bush is regularly drinking, and the Secret Service is covering it up, and therefore in a foreign setting they'd be aware that foreign intel organizations would be perfectly well aware of this, and the Secret Service would colloborate with the rest of the U.S. national security apparatus in deliberately, in advance, planning for Bush to engage in said public drinking.
That could happen.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:13 PM
you're right Gary, that's just totally unbelievable.
I mean it's not like we ever had a president who kept secret his inability to walk over the course of some 12 years.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:18 PM
I dunno about SOP, but is it really all that impossible that at a reasonably high security event, riddled with other heads of state, that they might have had beer on hand that the SS considered safe enough for Bush to drink? I literally do not know that this is or is not the case, but I hadn't realized, if it's true, that everything the President eats and drinks overseas is purchased/prepared/otherwise controlled by the SS.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:18 PM
I remember hearing some news wonk talking, before the summit, when Bush was visiting Germany, about his "close relationship" with Merkel, and wondering whether the WH was trying to push this in the media as evidence that not everyone in the world hates Bush. If that's the case, I see him having homed in on the idea of rubbing her shoulders as just another bit of evidence that they're cool like that. I haven't watched the video, just seen the pictures linked in the original post, but I'd buy that line of numbskull thinking. "Hey, I want folks to know I've got a friend, I'll just go rub her shoulders to show it off. What can possibly go wrong?"
Also, I'd just like to note that the temptation to make the cock jokes is strong. Hell, they're not even jokes, just dirty re-readings of innocuous statements. "Massaging Bush?" "Head of state?" My inner Beavis is going wild. FffffIRE!
I'd also like to note that I have a creepy female co-worker who's into the spontaneous backrubs. The first time she did it, many years ago, I turned sideways in my seat and said as politely as I could through the screaming creepies, "Thank you, but I really don't like being touched that way by a stranger." She acquiesced, but she has thought ever since that those of us who respond in that way are somehow stuck up.
Posted by Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:18 PM
137: "I mean it's not like we ever had a president who kept secret his inability to walk over the course of some 12 years."
Well, no, we didn't. If you think FDR's disability was "secret" as opposed to not emphasized on the front page, you are misinformed.
Not to mention that press attitudes have changed since 1945.
"138: ...if it's true, that everything the President eats and drinks overseas is purchased/prepared/otherwise controlled by the SS."
You need to strikeover "overseas" there.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:25 PM
1. I assume that Bush has begun drinking again simply because he says he hasn't. Six years of watching the man has convinced me that every day is Opposite Day for Dubya and if his lips are moving, he's almost certainly lying.
2. The image people would never be careless enough to let him drink in so public a venue as this. While his handlers can't keep him from talking with food in his mouth, they can surely control what gets put on the table in a highly photographed event.
3. I really don't give a damn whether he's getting drunk. That would be the least of his sins by a huge, huge margin and it would at least be one that I share with him.
4. This, absolutely.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:28 PM
Gary, if the same sorts of people who knew that FDR could not walk in 1939 knew that Bush occasionally tied one on today, would you be one of those people?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:30 PM
Ok, time to divert conversation to The West Wing. First episode of Season Two, Pres. Bartlet is on the car with the head of his Secret Service team, Ron Butterfield after the attempt on Charlie and Zoe's life. No one is as of yet aware that Bartlet's been hit. How can Ron refuse Bartlet's order that he, Ron, go to the hospital to get his own hand (which had been shot) checked out rather than take Bartlet to the White House immediately? I mean, I understand why it's a good thing that Secret Service agents can ignore order's from the Presdient during attacks against him, but how is it possible?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:33 PM
Just because I got here late, and didn't get a program: this nascent spat really is about whether he was drinking at that event? Not whether he's drinking again, but about that event, right?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:35 PM
140: Seriously? Bush has dinner with Blair, Blair eats what his cook makes, Bush eats food brought in coolers from the US? When Bush was buying ribs in that stupid press conference whenever it was, if he bought a can of Coke it wasn't just what was in the cooler, it had been previously supplied by the SS?
I'm not saying I find this impossible --if you have something to point me at I'll believe it, but it seems unlikely. Particularly the first: it seems incredibly undiplomatic to say to an ally: "Ally you may be, but we don't trust your security enough to eat the food you serve yourselves."
Blair isn't a teetotaller -- presumably there was beer around in case he (or any other world leader) asked for one with dinner. It just seems fantastic to me that the security precautions applicable to the other world leaders at the G8 wouldn't be viewed as sufficient to protect Bush.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:41 PM
It's more about Gary rolling his eyes within brackets than anything else, personally.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:41 PM
"Gary, if the same sorts of people who knew that FDR could not walk in 1939 knew that Bush occasionally tied one on today, would you be one of those people?"
I have trouble making sense of the question. That FDR could not walk without aid, and used a wheelchair, was, in fact, reported at times in the newspapers of the day. That it was not is a complete myth. (That pictures of him in the wheelchair weren't published isn't a myth.) He wasn't publically photographed in the chair out of a sense of decorum and image, and for political reasons, but not because it was a complete secret.
It was extremely important to FDR to not be seen as a "cripple" for political reasons, because it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, in that era, to be elected if he was popularly seen as physically weak or incapable.
His disability was little-known, because there was no tv, and because radio and newspapers, let alone newsreels, were very discreet and cooperative in those news. But it wasn't a secret.
Alistair Cook once estimated that only 5 Americans in 100 knew that FDR couldn't really walk, but that makes for hundreds of thousands of people who did know.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:54 PM
I hear that Bush ate a pig that someone else prepared. And that he liked it.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:56 PM
If Bush is drinking again, he has to keep it secret. He's branded himself as recovering. He wouldn't be drinking a beer, and anyway, he couldn't get a buzz on less than 3-4 beers minimum.
If he's drinking secretly, the Secret Service will cover for him. They probably wouldn't have covered for Clinton, but they hated Clinton (or some of them did) and probably don't hate Bush. Being discreet is a big part of their job. So all that remains is getting the booze to Bush. The logistics of that shouldn't be hard. Nobody needs to know, either.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 3:59 PM
Gary, I'd be highly interested in evidence that FDR's disability was reported in newspapers during his presidency.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:02 PM
"How can Ron refuse Bartlet's order that he, Ron, go to the hospital to get his own hand (which had been shot) checked out rather than take Bartlet to the White House immediately?"
Because Ron knows that Bartlett isn't going to fire him or punish him for disobeying.
"When Bush was buying ribs in that stupid press conference whenever it was, if he bought a can of Coke it wasn't just what was in the cooler, it had been previously supplied by the SS?"
No, it was checked by them. Look, I'll give you cites on longstanding SS SOP on food and drink, if you like, but I'd be slightly annoyed to find it necessary. I'm not making this up; it's elementary fact of Secret Service procedures.
I mean, they weld down manholes days in advance almost anywhere Bush goes. They're kinda serious about trying to keep him from being killed or injured, and that includes poison and biowarfare. Honest. Pinky-swear.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:03 PM
My only points are: (1) it is certainly possible that Bush had a beer on the table, though I think it's more likely to have been a Buckler; (2) the information problem set forth in "(1)" is shared equally among all of us, including Gary; (3) nobody should ever write "[rolls eyes]".
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:07 PM
"Particularly the first: it seems incredibly undiplomatic to say to an ally: "Ally you may be, but we don't trust your security enough to eat the food you serve yourselves.""
And yet it's absolutely SOP. Because the Secret Service is precisely in the job of not trusting other countries.
And undiplomatic? I'm thinking you may have forgotten the Chilean incident? Or any of various other incidents in which other countries have been offended because the Secret Service insisted that Bush's armored limousine had to be imported, or that Service agents had to have automatic weapons, and so on and so on and so on.
Here and here is a piece on the past weekend's procedures. Presidential crap is secret.
Food:
More: More, from Deutsche Presse-Agentur: Do I need to give more cites?Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:32 PM
I mean, I understand why it's a good thing that Secret Service agents can ignore order's from the Presdient during attacks against him, but how is it possible?
The Secret Service is charged with protecting the President (among other things), but they're not employed by him personally; they're employed by the Department of Homeland Security. Technically speaking, I they're not in his direct chain of command. Not that he doesn't wield a lot of indirect influence -- he's the president, of course -- but security decisions just aren't his domain.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:33 PM
"Bush has dinner with Blair, Blair eats what his cook makes, Bush eats food brought in coolers from the US?"
I didn't say that. But the Secret Service will test the food, and be in the kitchen watching it being prepared.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:34 PM
The Secret Service is going to oversee everything. If it's in the U.S. and there's other heads of state there, they're responsible for the other heads of state, too. And they're not going to be trusting other security departments to do their job for them. These guys prep for weeks before the President goes anywhere.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:37 PM
Well, okay. So they watched the bar setup, given that Bush's cokes would be coming from there. Is it beyond possibility that they also made sure the beer delivery was secure, despite the fact that they weren't expecting Bush to have any? Or that they know that Bush drinks sometimes, and secured the beer delivery as well?
I don't know why I'm arguing this, given that I don't think the picture is any evidence at all that he's drinking, but the idea that SS security procedures make it impossible seems goofy to me. They'd have to know, but what does that have to do with anything?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:38 PM
I don't think it would make it impossible for the President to have a beer. Especially if it was known he was drinking now and then before the G8. While the President isn't in charge of the Service, the last thing they would need is him sneaking behind their back because he wanted a beer.
But in general, I find the fact that Bush's handlers would be so incautious to allow him to have a beer on the table, in public, at a highly televised event. Or that the only person to notice would be a wee blogger.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:44 PM
What I want to know is, if someone--say Blair--walked up behind Bush and grabbed his shoulders, what would the Secret Service do?
And does the answer change if they have reason to believe that the grabber has been drinking?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:49 PM
Re. the unlikelihood of them letting him have a beer in a photograph--isn't it pretty much equally unlikely that they'd let him be drinking something that looked like a beer in a photograph? What I don't get is why he isn't drinking out of a glass. That bottle on the table looks totally incongruous.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:50 PM
156: The Department of Homeland Security isn't, even nominally, an independent agency. It's a Cabinet-level executive department. Bush could give Chertoff any non-illegal order, and Chertoff would have to follow it. Chertoff can, in turn, give orders to the director of the secret service.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:56 PM
Just one more:
"They'd have to know, but what does that have to do with anything?"
The CIA and many other U.S. intel and military organizations would also have to be aware that the President was compromising national security by drinking in public at a summit where all the foreign intel agencies would be entirely aware of it, and submitting the President and the U.S. to blackmail.
This would not be, as I said, a casual thing. Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others, would all have to be signing off on it. Maybe they're all in on the Presidential Summit Drinking Conspiracy together.
I just weigh the odds, which is where I started. Do you know how many people were involved in the preliminary advance discussions of how to handle Soviet bugging at Yalta and the other summits?
Could Bush have a drink in private at the White House? Could be. At a g8 summit, on live tv, in front of a jillion photographers and security agents of the 8 largest countries of the world?
What are the odds?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:57 PM
160: Again, I don't think that picture demonstrates anything at all. I don't have a strong opinion on whether he's drinking (or if it's a problem. I could imagine a world in which he made a big fuss about being a teetotaller, and it wasn't true, but he still wasn't an alcoholic.) but, just for the sake of argument, how much control over him do his handlers have? If a waiter asks what he'd like to drink with dinner, and he says he'll have a beer, (and the SS is satisfied with the safety of the beer supply), who tells the waiter not to bring it?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 4:58 PM
I agree with assorted commenters that the shoulder massage is more Bush's way of asserting his superior status than it is sexual harassment. It's similar in that respect to his bizarre practice of rubbing bald men’s heads (scroll down to 4/26/04 post, “The Teenager in Chief”) and his fondness for giving people stupid nicknames. It only works one way, of course: the rubbees don't get to massage his shoulders or rub his head, and the only acceptable nickname with which one can address Bush is “Mr. President.”
Peeing on somebody is just friendliness.
If you’re a female lobster, peeing in a male lobster’s face is foreplay, as Trevor Corson explains in his book, “The Secret Life of Lobsters How Fishermen and Scientists Are Unraveling the Mysteries of Our Favorite Crustacean.”
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:00 PM
I'm pretty sure Chertoff could tell Bartlet/Bush to stuff it, though, if what the President was asking would seriously compromise his own safety. The President's just not in charge of his own security arrangements. There's no way he could be; he's got a country to run.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:01 PM
Can we all just agree that TOILSEC would be a hilariously terrible detail to be assigned to?
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:02 PM
162: Everyone would have to know, but would they have to agree beforehand? If he asked for a beer at the G8 summit, I'd think it would be a sign that he'd really lost sight of security, reasonable behavior, etc., but I also think someone would probably bring him one. And I'd expect an ad hoc conspiracy of silence from those present.
I don't see any reason to think that this is what happened or that he's drinking at all, but if he were drinking in an uncontrolled fashion, I don't see his having a beer at a public event as something that couldn't happen because too many people would have to sign off on it.
(This assumes 'drinking in an uncontrolled fashion' which makes it seem likely that he wouldn't be able to keep a lid on it, and we'd be not all that far from having the story really break. And I'm not expecting that to happen. But I don't think it's completely of the table as a possibility.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:06 PM
165: Which is why Ron refused Bartlet's order. It was a stupid order.
(That's my favorite episode of the West Wing, by the way.)
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:06 PM
"The CIA . . . would also have to be aware that the President was compromising national security by drinking in public at a summit where all the foreign intel agencies would be entirely aware of it, and submitting the President and the U.S. to blackmail."
This is a little overwrought. The table was set out for dinner. It would not be compromising national security for Bush to have a beer at dinner; it would merely be evidence that, contrary to his public stance, he drinks. All the other dignitaries at the G8 summit drink alcohol, and many of them probably drink alcohol while at the summit, particularly at meals. I don't quite see how national security fits into this.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:09 PM
169: Another world leader now knows that Bush drinks. They then ask Bush to do something he doesn't want to. He says no. They say, "I've personally seen you drink alcohol, have documentary evidence for same, and am willing to say so, while providing the evidence, on American television." Bush then either does what the person wants, reveals the information he (Bush) has to blackmail the other world leader, or lets the world leader go ahead and announce it. I guess assassination is also an option.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:13 PM
And the spin machine says, yes he had a drink poured out of politeness to the host's hospitality. The Republican blogs go on about how he's a regular guy. And that's that. Probably not something that's going to realistically lead to a blackmail situation. Especially since what, they'd have to confiscate all network tapes in order to create a situation wherein there is an opportunity for blackmail. (Can't be blackmail if it isn't secret.)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:17 PM
A bit of googling suggests that there's actually some question as to whether Putin is a teetotaler or if he just doesn't drink much.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:19 PM
170: Bush lies about everything, large and small. David Corn wrote a whole book devoted exclusively to that subject, "The Lies of George W. Bush." Why should Bush care if yet another lie of his is revealed? He can't run for reelection, and he hasn't come close to being impeached for any of the other lies. (None of them come close to lying about getting blowjobs, of course, which is an impeachable offense iff you're a Democrat.)
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:24 PM
Putin only drinks alcohol out of kids' bellybuttons.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:24 PM
It's the only way they do it in Tennessee.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:26 PM
That was just odd. Maybe being kissy with other people's kids is more normal in Russia than it is here, but it sure did look strange.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:27 PM
the kid's quote was the best part. He now refuses to wash his stomach.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:29 PM
Back to the West Wing. I certainly agree that it's really stupid for the President to be in charge of his own security arrangements. But as a matter of separation of powers, of course the President is in charge of his own security. Other than problems with independent agencies, which don't apply here, and problems with civil service protections, which I'm fairly sure don't apply here, given the lost fight over civil service protections for DHS employees; the President can fire anyone in the Executive branch.*
*I honestly don't know what happens if the President says, "hey V.P., resign" and the V.P. says, "Nothing doing." There's probably an obvious answer that I'm missing though.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:31 PM
"Maybe being kissy with other people's kids is more normal in Russia than it is here...."
Not according to anything I've read (unless the tummy-licker is ploughed via vodka -- that is, specifically about kissing/licking kids on the stomach), and not according to the way it was treated in the Russian media, which was pretty much the way people here think of it: he did what? Like a kitten?
Just look at the stories presently under this simple link.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:32 PM
178: The VP remains in place. VP is an elected, rather than appointed position -- the fact that candidates now run as slates doesn't mean that the president can fire the veep.
(This is off the top of my head. I may be wrong, but I'm sure.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:33 PM
Putin reproduces by orally depositing his eggs into the abdominal cavities of human young.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:33 PM
Fer instance:
I mean?Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:34 PM
"He now refuses to wash his stomach."
But, mom!
He probably wishes Putin had kissed him behind his ears.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:35 PM
Of course the kid won't wash his stomach. The eggs are in control now.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:35 PM
"This is off the top of my head. I may be wrong, but I'm sure."
As a matter of law, I believe you are right. As a matter of practicality, it would become a matter of politics if the Veep continued to resist. I'm inclined to think that ultimately either Congress would have to impeach and convict the Veep or not.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:40 PM
It is not just a coincidence that "Putin" is the concatenation of the English words "put" and "in". (In … their stomachs!) Nor is it just a coincidence that the first syllable is rendered approximately as "poot", which, I submit, is the very sound of eggs being deposited into a child's stomach.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:41 PM
I'm inclined to think that ultimately either Congress would have to impeach and convict the Veep or not.
True, and applicable to many situations.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:43 PM
I'll refer back to my 20: 11,000 people asking him why he kissed a kid on the stomach means a lot of people not asking him why he's an autocrat.
And nope, nothing in Russian tradition about kissing kids on the stomach. It's just odd.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:43 PM
Am I the only one who wonders whether the people at yandex ever talked to the people at yahoo (before the yahoo front page redesigns)?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:46 PM
nope, nothing in Russian tradition about kissing kids on the stomach.
Those bastards told it was customary before going into The Hermitage. I've been bamboozled!
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:46 PM
180, 185: Yup. The vice president's constitutional status is identical to that of the president. Both were (allegedly) elected. Nothing besides death, resignation, or impeachment/conviction/removal from office can stop them from serving out the remainder of their terms of office.
That was just odd. Maybe being kissy with other people's kids is more normal in Russia than it is here, but it sure did look strange.
True, although it definitely beats mohels with herpes sucking babies’ dicks.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:50 PM
Also, Vladimir. As in, another famous parasite/impaler. Literally translated, therefore, Putin's name is "The Impaler/Parasite Puts In."
As opposed to putting out, which is what German Chancellors are supposed to be for.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:51 PM
I've been bamboozled!
Schnookered is, I believe, the technical term.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:51 PM
Poot, poot. Now go, my child, until you return to eat me and inherit my kingdom.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:52 PM
And don't wash your stomach, lest you remove the marking scent which protects you.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:54 PM
192 made me snort.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:56 PM
It all comes back to Zogg.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 5:57 PM
Yay! I finally made someone snort!
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 6:02 PM
I prefer to think of them - the kid and his belly eggs - as living a life of magical adventures. I see a montage of the kid's belly leading him into mischief that all comes out OK in the end - like, he unmasks Old Man Ivanovich from the failed goat farm down the road and exposes his crazy scheme to counterfeit a free press. Why'd you have to go and weird it up with the whole eating him to inherit his kingdom thing, SB? I object to the childification of the cannibal monarchy in this way.
Posted by Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 6:03 PM
200!
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 6:04 PM
McManly, the cannibal monarchy are sick. And wrong. It isn't Standpipe's fault--he just tells it like it is.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 6:06 PM
Why'd you have to go and weird it up with the whole eating him to inherit his kingdom thing, SB?
Because, Pants, where I come from, we have respect for these things called "facts".
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 6:06 PM
Especially the ones that come with scare quotes.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 6:08 PM
Don't snort the eggs.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 6:12 PM
Scare quoted facts are the most "factual" of all.
Can I note that, since the majority of 178 was not devoted to me expressing ignorance on a point of Constitutional structure, but rather having suggested that Cala, and possibly mrh, were making a mistake about same, my question still stands. Gary's answer that Ron guessed Bartlet was smart enough not to fire him is reasonable I guess.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 6:15 PM
Don't snort the eggs.
This is always good advice.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 6:18 PM
For one thing, brains are not their ideal "sustenance."
Posted by Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 6:20 PM
Oh, that was so clearly right I didn't bother commenting on it; I'm all about the nitpicking.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 6:20 PM
Threadjacking, another Kinky Friedman for Guv profile, including this anecdote:
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 6:48 PM
If I lived in Texas I would totally vote for Kinky.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 6:54 PM
I could be making a mistake, w/d. The only reason I think that I'm not is that the Secret Service personnel remain relatively constant between administrations, barring retirement and new hires.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 7:17 PM
210 is so, so right; I've heard over and over that Texas doesn't give its governer much power anyway, and electing Kinky would go far towards proving that.
Also, every time this thread refreshes, I read 4 ("Hataz need to let a President preside.") as making a comment about some perhaps middle-eastern person named Hataz. Ahmed al-Hataz? Avi Ben-Hataz? Damn you, Smasher!
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 7:21 PM
If Bush wants to drink, he drinks. It's not hard to cover up. The SS will cooperate. Very few people will know for sure, and they won't talk. There are a lot of tricks to hide drinking, and Bush could easily be uding them.
Drinking a beer at a banquet is not a trick to hide drinking, though, except that if it can be proven to be an NA beer it might be a decoy. Drinking beer is a very poor choice for a secret alcoholic.
The alternative is that Bush doesn't need alcohol to be fucked up, because the Jesus buzz is enough for him. So this last week was a religious practice, sort of like speaking in tongues and snake handling.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 7:25 PM
If Putin lived in Providence, he would totally go to "Legs and Eggs".
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 7:25 PM
It bugs me that people keep referring to the secret service as the SS.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 7:33 PM
Freak.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 7:34 PM
"It bugs me that people keep referring to the secret service as the SS."
You shouldn't let a few bad apples in the Schutzstaffel spoil things for everyone.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 8:36 PM
Would "Legs and Eggs" not make for an excellent Mineshaft meetup? Just sayin'.
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 8:56 PM
The alternative is that Bush doesn't need alcohol to be fucked up, because the Jesus buzz is enough for him.
The dude's either on medication, still drinking, or has a mental illness. Nobody gets significant facial contusions and bruises on a regular basis the way he does. Somethings going on. We'll probably find out years later the way we found out Reagan was likely suffering from Alzheimers while still in office.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 9:01 PM
I always figured the real reason it always takes so long for him to respond to events when he's down on the ranch is he goes down there to fall off the wagon in a big way and it takes him about four days to sober up enough to be seen.
Remember the tsunami? Katrina? Things have a bad habit of happening when the President needs to go clear brush, get all kinds of bruises and cuts doing it, but oddly enough he never gets tan from the West Texas sun. It's all a great strange miracle.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 10:39 PM
Look, Bush is the worst prez that ever lived, but for fuck's sake, he was just being friendly.
I'd take a shoulder massage from Satan. A shoulder massage is always welcome, and Bush knows it, which is probably the only good thing he knows.
Posted by Adam Ash | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:01 PM
A shoulder massage is always welcome
Like hell it is. I for one don't like fucking strangers touching me. Someone who puts their hands on me from behind without warning better be ready to get knocked down.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:07 PM
One announces oneself loudly and clearly before giving gswift a reacharound.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:15 PM
221: Gswift is right, Adam. You're wrong on this one.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:16 PM
He wasn't a stranger.
Of course Bush is a dick, but people give other people spontaneous shoulder massages all the time. Sure one can read patronizing into it, but it's not like he gave her le headbutt.
(Fuck, I never thought I'd be defending Bush about anything, because I hate him from the depth of my gonads. But really, to see this as a reason why he's a dick is stoopid -- he's been a dick in too many other ways to seize on this stoopid thing as some Great And Final Proof of His Dickheadedness.)
Posted by Adam Ash | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:19 PM
He wasn't a stranger.
Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but to me someone I've met a couple times in formal settings is not necessarily someone who should feel they can come up behind me unannounced and start giving me a massage.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:28 PM
Merkel seems to agree with gswift, judging from the video.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:30 PM
One announces oneself loudly and clearly before giving gswift a reacharound.
Especially in crowded areas like the subway.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:31 PM
Or the Mineshaft.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:31 PM
I hate to have anyone touch me. I have a huge personal space bubble. People who touch me uninvited, even people who I have known for years, get the same treatment Merkel gave him. If I want a massage, I pay a masseur.
He has met with Merkel exactly once prior to this incident, for about an hour. She is a world leader. Touching her without invitation in a formal setting is a grotesque violation. And if you look at her face, it's clear she is not happy.
And no, he wasn't being friendly. That is the sort of gesture that harrassers make- she can't get away, she doesn't know it's coming, she certainly didn't invite it, but if she objects he was 'just being friendly'. It's a form of dominance.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:43 PM
I give up. I'm not going to hate Bush for giving Angela Merkel a shoulder massage -- I'll just hate him for murdering over a 100,000 Iraqi civilians.
Posted by Adam Ash | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:47 PM
The delightful thing is that one can hate him for both!
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:55 PM
"A shoulder massage is always welcome
Like hell it is. I for one don't like fucking strangers touching me."
I wouldn't knock anyone down, because I'm very nonviolent, but it would give me the heebiejeebies, and I might instinctly jump and lurch away. I'd almost surely instantly hunch my shoulders and more or less leap away. And feel kinda creeped out.
How Merkel took it, on the other hand, I dunno, since not everyone is me, and I'm not inclined to read too much into a picture of someone I don't know (not inclined to check a video at dialup speeds, given the way it would jam my system, and my fairly low level of interest).
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-18-06 11:55 PM
It's a super-low-res, 4-second video, fwiw.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 1:25 AM
Adam, I don't hate Bush for this, it's just another thing that makes me roll my eyes at him.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 1:26 AM
I did ask myself why I cared about this as much as I did, given the other, much more serious things I already didn't like about Bush. One reason is that it's an extension of his cute, demeaning, frat-boy way of treating people -- the wisecracks, the nicknames, etc. It's completely asymmetrical -- Bush demands respect, you don't joke around with him or call him by his nickname (which is "Shrub"), and you don't come up from behind and rub his shoulders.
The second thing is that this was so inappropriate that it was so inappropriate to context that you have to wonder whether the man with the nuclear trigger in his hand isn't losing it, the way Nixon almost did. Or whether he's a competent adult any more.
There are a few cultures and subcultures where this kind of grabbing is cool -- the Deadhead world, Burning Man, parts of Hollywood, etc. Merkel is not part of any of those cultures.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 5:35 AM
Hey look! Mark Morford agrees with me!
"It's like an awkward scene from 'The Office,' where Steve Carell's character Michael Scott, the smarmy manager everyone secretly loathes but who himself believes to be the funniest and most likable and naturally gifted guy in the room, walks up to one of his female employees and grabs a mango and cracks a grossly inappropriate joke about vaginas and laughs hard, slaps everyone on the back, and then takes a big, gross bite of the mango."
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 5:51 AM
It's a big enough deal. It's disrespectful to another head of state, whom he doesn't know that well. They're not longtime college buddies at a barbeque!
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 6:00 AM
"They're not longtime college buddies at a barbeque!"
They have keys to the special NATO Leaders' bathroom and pool/game room, though.
Also, they've received the same mind-programming at Trilateral Commission meetings.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 6:23 AM
I bet that special NATO leaders' bathroom has awesome TOILSEC.
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 6:51 AM
Another vote for 'unsolicited shoulder massages from acquaintances are not always welcome'. Living in Samoa killed me -- it's a very touchy-feely affectionate place (same-sex only; men don't touch women or vice versa) and my students were always leaning on me, touching me, rubbing my shoulders... perfectly well meant, absolutely appropriate in context and I had the hardest time not jumping and pulling away constantly.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 6:51 AM
Scotland, I believe, is the anti-Samoa.
Personal space extends out to about 3ft and I believe invading that space is still a defence under law for accusations of grevious bodily harm. 'He wis leaning towards me in a pleasant and friendly manner, yer honour. I had no choice but to thump him'
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 7:36 AM
Ooh, I should move to Scotland. I hate being touched by people unless it's in, ahem, certain situations. The practice of hugging and kissing hello and goodbye in the States is way out of control. (There was a long thread on this here somewhere, but don't have time to look.)
High-fiving would be a good substitute. But the optimum solution would be for our culture to adopt the custom of bowing.
Posted by dagger aleph | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 7:54 AM
Personal space extends out to about 3ft and I believe invading that space is still a defence under law for accusations of grevious bodily harm.
Now we're talking.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 7:57 AM
I'll be moving to Scotland next week.
It's funny, NY is very crowded -- on the subway, someone leaning on me because there's no room doesn't bother me at all. If they could be giving me room and they don't, on the other hand, I want them dead. There's an Auden poem I think I've posted here before:
Some thirteen inches from my nose
The frontier of my person goes
And all the empty space between
Is private pagus or demesne.
Stranger, unless with bedroom eyes
I beckon you to fraternize
Beware of rudely crossing it.
I have no gun, but I can spit.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 7:58 AM
High-fiving would be a good substitute.
I can't find your original makes-me-burst-out-laughing high five comment. *pout*
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 8:06 AM
The practice of hugging and kissing hello and goodbye in the States is way out of control.
Oh, how you would hate living in the South.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 8:06 AM
I'm kidding about the defence under law thing, btw.
However, it is true that people aren't touchy-feely and what passed for comfortable personal space is quite large.
someone leaning on me because there's no room doesn't bother me at all. If they could be giving me room and they don't, on the other hand, I want them dead.
Exactly!
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 8:08 AM
247: I shade southern on these matters, too. McGrattan, DA, gswift, and LB--soulless robots.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 8:11 AM
I have no gun, but I can spit
Better: "I have no mouth, and I must spit."
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 8:11 AM
High-fiving would be a good substitute. But the optimum solution would be for our culture to adopt the custom of bowing.
People used to shake hands at a range of about 30 - 40 inches. Given half a chance I still do.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 8:12 AM
By the way, does anyone know how to format verse without the skipped lines? The <br /> tag skips a line afterwards, and I don't know how else to break lines.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 8:15 AM
If you're in a situation where you can't avoid hugging and kissing hello...
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 8:17 AM
252 --
Some thirteen inches from my nose
The frontier of my person goes
And all the empty space between
Is private pagus or demesne.
Stranger, unless with bedroom eyes
I beckon you to fraternize
Beware of rudely crossing it.
I have no gun, but I can spit.
No formatting is necessary, just type "enter" at the end of each line.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 8:20 AM
However I'm pretty sure you will need to put [em] and [/em] around each line separately, if indeed you want the quatation to be italicized.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 8:21 AM
Or the quotation.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 8:22 AM
Or, if you want formatting, like italics, encase the entire thing in <p></p> tags.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 8:22 AM
This following has one set of [p][em][/em][/p] tags around the entire passage and [br /] at the end of every line. Without the break tags, it will ignore the carriage returns and run it all together.
Some thirteen inches from my nose
The frontier of my person goes
And all the empty space between
Is private pagus or demesne.
Stranger, unless with bedroom eyes
I beckon you to fraternize
Beware of rudely crossing it.
I have no gun, but I can spit.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 8:26 AM
Yeah, I think a lot of people need to realize that Bush probably, genuinely, has a lot more southern attitude about personal space than other people, so his action, from his standpoint, is much less of a violation than it is from most people's (include the Chancellor's). So, I think he's really only guilty of not caring enough about his position, and the formality of the situation, to follow the situationally appropriate social norms instead of his native ones.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 8:43 AM
Also, 236 gets it right.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 8:47 AM
southern attitude about personal space
Yeah, the one that says it's ok to patronizingly touch women you don't know. Saying it's "southern" doesn't make it any less patronizing, sexual harrassy, and creepy.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 8:49 AM
259: I don't think it's as simple as that. There were seven other world leaders sitting there, but he decides to lay hands on the one woman there. I'm southern and am physically affectionate with my friends, but certainly not with a woman I have only ever met once before.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 8:53 AM
Hey, people, I found a place. On 60th and 1st Ave. (Yes, that's right by Scores, why do you ask?)
The people seem extremely cool and easy to live with. And the landlord provides whatever pieces of furniture I might need! Like bookcases, armoire, desk, chairs, etc. All from Ikea, but whatevs; I'm not picky.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 8:53 AM
It's not seen as patronizing, though. To the same extent, anyway. The way Bush did it was probably still somewhat creepy and patronizing, but the point is that your perception of its creepiness is probably exaggerated since you're unfamiliar with that attitude.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 8:54 AM
re: 263
Excellent!
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 8:56 AM
262: Break Tia's heart, why don't you?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 9:00 AM
Once a woman shows you her secret weiner, it's all good.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 9:02 AM
Joe, Fantastic! Is that a smart address?
pdf, in that case Bush should at least have been briefed that this quaint local custom wouldn't fly north of the Mason-Dixon line or anywhere outside America. No, he shouldn't have needed briefing. I'm surprised Chirac didn't challenge him to rapiers at dawn.
Posted by OneFatEnglishman | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 9:03 AM
It's a neighborhood that works for me. And it's in Manhattan. And has good train options available. And the neighborhood is completely safe and features all the stuff one needs from a neighborhood. There's a giant Food Emporium across the street, for instance.
One thing that occurred to me last night about living in Manhattan, is that you always have the option of walking home if all else fails. A 20 minute walk beats waiting for the train for 20 minutes any night.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 9:06 AM
It's not seen as patronizing, though.
Eh, I'm not so sure I believe that. It's roughly equivalent to him rubbing Kofi Annan's afro during a break at the UN.
"C'mon now, I do that all the time down in Crawford. It don't mean a thing."
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 9:06 AM
It's totally patronizing. It's a Type-A thing to do, to establish your dominance over someone.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 9:08 AM
I want Bush's successor, during a transition-time press conference, to suddenly and without warning grab the outgoing president's crotch.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 9:14 AM
272 -- you're speaking of Hillary?
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 9:18 AM
[Can you imagine someone trying that with Margaret Thatcher?]
IIRC, Mitterand (spelled wrong, bite me) put his hand on her thigh once.
Posted by dsquared | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 9:22 AM
dsquared, do I get to bite you if it's spelled correctly?
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 9:26 AM
264: oy, physically affectionate contact on appropriate areas of the body when both parties are expecting it and signal they are willing, fine. people coming up behind you when you have no way of getting away, surprising you, and trying to massage you?? in public??
however southern he is, obviously you have to modify your behavior when you interact with other people, esp. if they aren't from your culture, and you pay attention to their signals.
for example, not being george bush, i don't go through the room and kiss every single person goodbye when i leave a party in america (though maybe i would be very popular if i tried?). also i don't shoulder massage angela merkel. CREEPY.
those of you with tvs, out of curiosity, does he know how to pronounce her name?
(it's with a hard 'g')
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 07-19-06 9:27 AM
Wait! There