From Condi to George
Jun. 30th, 2004 11:07 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sombrefan
*gags*. One of the most nauseating things I have seen in ages. But lest I be accused of bias, do read the following.
A graphologist writes:
These two working associates are very different in some aspects, but their handwriting indicates that both want to do things their own way without not being impeded. Condoleeza Rice's script is much lighter and more consistent in size than that of President Bush, but both have the continuity of letters joined within the words, indicating a wish to stay with the task and get results.
The angularity within the script suggests that they both probe for information and have the toughness to do what they want with it in the cause of implementing their plans. They will understand each other's priorities in this respect and Rice will easily slip into the mood of the president at the time. Her lighter pressured writing shows sensitivity.
This sample of George Bush's writing is very much in keeping with his normal script, with the lines sloping upwards in a can-do, positive way. He can inject the firmness of conviction when he chooses; the single-mindedness revealed in the joined-up letters shows his ability to filter out what he prefers not to see, so that he can go for his goals without distraction.
Both writers have a slight rightward slant - indicating that they are natural communicators - and Rice's letters show that she is good at making a point, talking round a subject until she has hit the mark and won people round.
This is in contrast to the pushier style of President Bush, who rides forward firmly towards his targets. The thick ink stroke, probably a felt tip or a thick-nibbed fountain pen, illustrates his earthy approach and his tendency to be black and white in his thinking, but the curved bar on the letter T, also indicates that he can think carefully when necessary and put something across in a way that will get the best reception.
The capital D in "freedom" may indicate a euphoric use of the word, but a capital in the middle of a word usually suggests a slight lack of togetherness. Both writers are "doers". Their writing has well-extended lower zones, which means they are impatient to see results. No doubt President Bush's rising lines express relief at a mission accomplished.
ยท Elaine Quigley is the chairwoman of the British Institute of Graphologists
Via the Guardian
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Shouldn't that be...
Date: 2004-06-30 06:15 am (UTC)Actually, it's another Bushism.
Date: 2004-06-30 07:56 am (UTC)Remember "My Country 'Tis of Thee," George?
It's "Ring," not "Reign." "Ring."
I think he likely MEANT "reign"
Date: 2004-06-30 08:38 am (UTC)Anyway, perhaps I'm naive, but I can't fathom why anyone would find that note nauseating. I know... war is bad. I look at it this way, though. We have a law in Texas called the "Good Samaritan" law. It states that if you come across an auto accident or something and fear the car is gonna blow, you can pull that person from the vehicle. Now, we all know that is dangerous. We could paralyze them or worse in the attempt, but the law says that if your intention was to save lives, you cannot be held accountable for anything bad that may occur in the attempt. I see this war the same way. Whether or not there were WMDs, Hussein was a powderkeg that should have been removed (though I would have preferred assassinated) ages ago. So long as part of our motivation was his removal, our reason was good. Have both parties suffered? Yes. But there is ALWAYS a high cost for doing what is right. I know many disagree, but that's my way of looking at it.
J
Do you want a list?
Date: 2004-06-30 10:47 am (UTC)I would have fewer problems with the whole war if the US stated it's reason for going after Saddam in the first place. Now it's become, "Our bad. But he was a horrible man, so it's OK." Bush knew for a fact that Saddam had no weapons. The information was fabricated in order to gain support from his constituents. In other words our President lied. He caused us to go to a land halfway around the world to enforce our will on a sovreign state. He destroyed the greatest goodwill America ever had in the eyes of the world to fulfill his daddy's destiny. Bush has taken our country which has always been hated by half the world and made us hated by 90% of the world.
The Good Samritan Laws are a good idea. Bush saying he is attacking for one reason and meaning something else is evil. What the President did is no less awful that crashing planes into civilian targets.
I am more than ashamed by our country's actions in all of this and find that I actually hate what Bush has done to us. I no longer fly our flag proudly outside my door, not even on National Holidays. Don't get me wrong, I support our trrops and what they are now forced to do in order to restore some stability to the region. Bush however is a dangerous man who doesn't even know the historic harm he has caused the world by his actions.
I agree that there can be a high cost of doing the right thing. Disagreeing with another country's leader and removing him because we say so is not a good reason. Any other country or organization may now disagree with us and attempt the same thing. That is what happened on 9/11. Bush has, in essence, made future 9/11 legal. We will be counting the costs of Bush's wrong thing for generations.
Try as I may...
Date: 2004-07-01 09:00 am (UTC)I guess where we come to a parting of ways is when you call Bush "dangerous" and talk of "enforcing our will" on a Iraq. From my perspective (since it's the only one I truly know), what we are attempting to impose (I didn't say succeeding) on Iraq is justice. It is justice that put an end to Saddam. It was just that we stay and help them stabilize to whatever degree we can. I would go so far as to say justice DEMANDED it on both counts.
I am not interested in imposing MY sense of justice over THEIR sense of justice... MY understanding of freedom over THEIR understanding of freedom. Why? Because I don't believe in terms like "my" or "their" when it comes to something as fundamental as justice or truth. Justice simply is. Something is just or it isn't. Where you and I disagree is that I call it just and you do not. It's a "so's your old man" argument that neither of us can win.
I have always, and I say this with utter sincerity, respected your opinions and will continue to. You cannot understand my viewpoint any better than I can understand yours. We are who we are... just as God made us. I find fault with your argument, but not with you. I just want that to be clear.
As for being ashamed to fly the flag, I'm truly sorry you feel that way. I don't pretend that everything we do as a nation is right or "good" or just. I have never been more ashamed of my country than when Clinton's sexual escapades were made public. Still, that is not America. America wasn't Clinton, and it isn't Bush. It's you, Grim. It's me. We'll go to the polls in November and do our best to make America what we believe it should be (for good or ill.)
As for me, I believe it is not just our right but our obligation, to bring justice to those who have none... to bring freedom to those enslaved. I mean that more than anything. If injustice were being done in England on such a scale (which I know it never will be) I would have supported taking action just as readily. Add to that the many years that Saddam has sheltered terrorists and killed innocents, and I truly can't feel any other way. But as strongly as I feel, I feel just as strongly that words and thoughts like your must be shared. America needs to THINK about who it elects. WE make two many decisions by putting a black had on any candidate but our own... on both sides. Maybe this election will find more voters and thoughtful ones at that.
J
Don't worry. I'm not trying to dig into you either.
Date: 2004-07-01 11:07 am (UTC)It still all depends upon what your definition of "is" is. But the two lies cannot be compared.