The always enjoyable Shankar Vedantam has unearthed some new research suggesting that the most aggressive drivers are those who have lots of bumper stickers and other “territorial markers”:

It does not seem to matter whether the messages on the stickers are about peace and love—“Visualize World Peace,” “My Kid Is an Honor Student”—or angry and in your face—“Don’t Mess With Texas,” “My Kid Beat Up Your Honor Student.”

[snip]

Szlemko and his colleagues at Fort Collins found that people who personalize their cars acknowledge that they are aggressive drivers, but usually do not realize that they are reporting much higher levels of aggression than people whose cars do not have visible markers on their vehicles.

Drivers who do not personalize their cars get angry, too, Szlemko and his colleagues concluded in a paper they recently published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, but they don’t act out their anger. They fume, mentally call the other driver a jerk, and move on.

“The more markers a car has, the more aggressively the person tends to drive when provoked,” Szlemko said. “Just the presence of territory markers predicts the tendency to be an aggressive driver.”

Calm down Roger. I know it’s Friday but your sap is rising way too fast.

I paid sufficient attention the first time, but I made the leap of faith that if the CAPTAIN did it, he was still supporting his commander-in-chief.

Not worth quibbling over. Have it your way. So, the CAPTAIN was no supporter, and “event organizers” are not supporters either. Are suspenders supporters ? (just a question)

I would think it would be obvious the reason they were sensitive to religion was the earlier photos of Obama in Kenyan headgear, and the internet myths of him being Muslim, and the Rev. Wright fracas. It probably “is” obvious and the only reason you continue to shout race and religion is to be creepy yourself.

If Obama is seen in a photo with a bunch of turbaned folk in the bandstands it would look extremely bad. However, if he is seen with Ma and Pa Whitebread, or better yet, young (white) Suzy College and Peter Twentysomething, that might contribute positively to his youthful energetic image.

You might say, that should not matter. I agree, but the reason they have photo ops in the first place is that appearances do matter. They matter a lot.

I doubt if those young ladies forced to sit with the ordinary folk (horrors) were the loyal but outraged and indignant Dems you disingenuously suggest.

They were either immature twerps or else Republican plants deliberately staged as agent provocateurs, a cheap parlor trick designed to embarass and ensnare the hapless Democrats.

The Democrats, mired in their own political correctness, fell for it. You and I both know you nasty Republican thugs would have in the same situation said to hell with it, no apologies, we did nothing wrong, it was all in your imagination, just a big misunderstanding.

I don’t for the life of me know which is worse, misguided political correctness or the lack of correctness. Both nauseating.

No ding dong....I said the banner was put up by the ships CAPTAIN to congratulate the ships CREW.

I said nothing about “supporters”. I didn’t even use words which, if broken down and reassembled could be arranged to say “supporters”

The people at the Obama ralley weren’t “supporters” anyway...they were event organizers. And while all campaigns try to manage their image, this is the first time I’ve heard of them being so glib about pulling someone off stage because they’re race or religion my be seen as offensive. That’s just creepy.

Just like the DNC using racial and gender restrictions to control the image of it’s convention. It shows how willing these sick bastards are to stamp people based on how they appear.

Even a thick skulled idiot could understand what this says about how such people will govern.

You say the banner was put up by supporters. Obama’s photo shoot was arranged by his supporters too.

Bush landed on the carrier, showed up in a flight jacket. If that was accidental, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. It was scripted to be a “victory” celebration to be broadcast to the public, to the world (which it was).

There is simply no doubt in my mind whatsoever that both parties very carefully arrange every single public event as scripted as humanly possible in order to send out a political message.

This is the age of the photo op. Bush was a master of it, just as he was a master of saying the inane, and just as his peeps were masters at getting him to avoid the embarassment of hostile press conferences.

The rules of engagement are: put your man with a friendly audience, arrange the background to send out a subliminal message, be that trusted leader or man of the people, don’t say anything contreversial, make sure the photos are flattering and suitable for the 6pm news, accompanied by brief concise soundbites that reinforce that message. Keep it simple. Keep on message. Don’t stray off into any tangents or anything complicated.

The entire political campaign becomes one big advertisement with smiling confident people selling themselves every chance they get.  They do appear human, but that is carefully scripted too.

These must be the same fake democrat campaigners who keep getting their pics taken in rooms with walls festooned with Che posters.

Sneaky Rovian plotsters!

Ed,

First, Bush wasn’t running for office. Second, the notorious banner was put up by the ships captain to congratulate his crew and lastly, even if it were a prop set up by Rovian tricksters to fool the hick folk into believing.....ummm.....let’s see...that the mission was accomplished?? which at that point everyone assumed it was because they didn’t have the benefit of armchair hindsight like philosopher comedians…

It would come to be seen as a stupid thing to claim but, in no way compares to the transcendent ones deciples choosing and rejecting filler people based on their racial prop worthiness in order to project what is apparently a false image of their chocolate Barney Fife demigod.

It’s nice to know what they see as really important.

“First, consider the two women were obviously not the most loyal Democrats. Most likely just immature, but someone could have paid them $5 a piece to embarass the Democrats.”

How would that be relevant, even if true?  The fact of the matter is, whether these folks were Democrats or Venusians, the Obamans wanted them OUT of the picture.  Seems the calculation was “mmm… wait a minute; don’t want those Muslim-looking women right behind Big O there - that won’t look good.  Move them out of the shot, `k?”

Because they’re afraid it might be damaging to O’s image and electability if it looks like “swarthy people in headcoverings” support Obama.

Whether they were “real” Dems or not again is immaterial.  Even “real” Dems, I submit (perhaps especially real Dems) would be surprised and offended to be told to move to different seats because we don’t want you hijab-wearing women to ruin our nice little photo-op.

The Dems generally don’t need the help of paid outsiders to embarrass themselves.

R. Smith,

No obsession with proving you wrong. I disagree 90% of the time, but that leaves 5-10% in perfect agreement.

What does Bush’s speech have to do with Obama’s speech ? They are both photo ops. Am I not stating the obvious ?

Both are so carefully composed you just know some junior staffer arranged the setting like a flower arrangement, but with a political intent, to send a message.

The Reps like to use patriotic themes. The Dems like to show Obama as a man of the people.

It has zero to do with racism. In fact I wonder if the Obama camp apologizing was a mistake.

First, consider the two women were obviously not the most loyal Democrats. Most likely just immature, but someone could have paid them $5 a piece to embarass the Democrats. Hell, for $50, any of us could wear a turban and quote from the Kuran.

If I were a real Democrat I would not have run to the media claiming discrimination because I couldn’t get into “special” seating.

You think those kind of hijinks don’t happen in politics ?

Second, I think by wallowing in political correctness the Dems just highlight their weaknesses. The Reps in that same situation would have just stonewalled and denied any wrongdoing, and quickly it would have blown over as people lost interest in it.

It will probably blow over quickly regardless. I think voters are beginning to wise up that politics today is some kind of twisted game of gotcha.

Bill,

I was just being agreeable with you. What exactly were YOU being ?  Your usual loveable self ?

Ed,

Do you realize that your obsession with proving me wrong makes you say the silliest things? It’s nice to know I have the power to make you make a fool of yourself!

Racist demagog vs politician evading a question...hmmmm....

And what does Bush’s giving a speech in front of a banner have to do with political ops folk assigning people value based on their race and using them as propaganda props? Or is it that racially catagorizing people is no different than someone wearing makeup?

Wow...valuing people based on race...that IS the change I’ve been hoping for....

In the comments to Bart’s post titled “Ban Knives Now (II)”, Ed wrote:

“Saying that everyone does it does not make it right.”

Boy, you said it Bill.

I think Roger’s condemnation of Obamanizing might stick if I had not previously observed the very same thing coming from the GOP.

George Bush was/is master of the photo-op, whether it be the deck of an aircraft carrier, dancing with African Africans, or shaking hands with officials down in New Orleans. I have so many memories of the president exiting a helicopter it must be permanently burned into memory for all time.

Memories of him answering tough questions at press conferences not so much.

Frankly, you have to wonder if all this image sizzling is bad or whether it is simply an honest explanation of how politics works.

It goes way back to the days when Nixon’s makeup made him look sick on TV, when George Bush senior twiddled with his watch during a debate. Image counts. It matters. I do wish it didn’t but it does.

To pretend it does not count is to pretend politics is not about image. 

I don’t which image is more obnoxious, the image of Obama attending Rev. Wright shouting “kill the honky, kill the honky” * - (not the actual words) or the image of McCain with his trademark goofy grin evading even the simplest question. 

Image matters. I wish it did not.

Those damn Rethuglican pukes are so racist!

Post Your Comments: