The Biggest Show in the World
O.K. So it’s 4 a.m. and once again I’m racked with insomnia, courtesy of my head. Seven days straight with practically no sleep. Bleh. So you’re gonna get my sleep-deprived incoherent ramblings on…American Politics. Zzz…
Now, I know diddly-squat about American politics, although the BBC tells me, quite unobjectively, that it’s very important. The Race for the White House. The most powerful man in the world. Or woman, apparently.
I thought it might be interesting for you folks to see how your little goldfish bowl is seen from the outside. The world’s media is NOT objective. Quelle surprise.
According to the newspapers and the t.v. news here, the next president is going to be Democrat. Either Mrs Clinton , or Barack Obama. A white woman or a black man. That’s it. Gender, race and personalities are what hit the headlines over here. I have no idea who the Republican candidates are, or even if they exist. The UK media is predicting that the backlash against Bush will be so strong, that the Democrat candidate will win by a landslide. Who are the Republican candidates? Do they stand a snowball’s chance in hell? Personally, I think Arnold Schwarzenegger should be allowed to run. I can picture him saying “Asta La Vista Baby” to our Prime Minster (who SO deserves to be nuked by Arnie for turning this green and pleasant land into a totalitarian state.)
The U.K. media is concentrating on American personalities and celeb-backings. The U.S. policies (if they even exist) are glossed over, forgotten. Would Barack Obama actually stand a prayer without the mighty Oprah? Should Oprah be running the world instead? Maybe she does already. Now there’s a scary thought. Why do American politics appear to be run by the celebrity factor? What happened to …gasp…real policies? How do the candidates feel about global politics, green issues, energy, religion, security, science, space, healthcare? It’s all very well promising to save the planet (a sure-fire vote winner) but how will the changes in energy infrastructure be paid for? Does anyone running for president actually credit the American public with intelligent thought or do they assume Americans are soap-loving sheep who just like a bit of drama?
Is this concentrating on personality-before-policy a feature of global media-misreporting, or is this really what it’s all about? A contest between a black man who is not actually black (but pimped by a chat-show-queen), or a woman who is so dry, brittle and power-hungry that she’ll stoop to nothing to rule the world? And if it’s personality that counts, do you really want to give the global domination of the world to a woman who can’t even keep her husband in check?
From an accountant-like-me’s point of view, I'll side with the economists who say the elections should be all about the economy. If the global economy is ever going to grow, then whoever wins must find a way to reverse the catastrophic failures of the Bush presidency, notably the screwed up and overly aggressive attempts to use hard military power, and the bovine attempts at diplomacy. The world needs free trade. As far as I can tell, none of the candidates so far have given a hoot about free trade, whether it be Republicans mooting blocking immigration, or Democrats waffling on about the need to prevent jobs going offshore. Frighteningly, Mrs Clinton has even talked about re-writing the North American Free Trade agreement, which was one of Bill’s main achievements in the first place. Why is it that she appears to be forgetting her husband’s mantra of “It’s the economy, stupid?”
The only remotely objective source of information for me is, you guessed it, the blogosphere. I am following the varying political threads (with accompanying gorgeous naked laydeez) with great interest. Maybe someone out there could please do a tutorial for the non-Americans? You know, a basic idiot’s who’s who. Their policies, the world implications, and so forth. And subjective opinions too please. Who do you think should win and why?
After all, the whole world has a stake in the US elections in November. And it all depends on your vote. You’re not voting for yourselves. You’re voting for the entire planet.
So, if the world goes to hell-in-a-hand basket in 2009, I’m blaming you lot.
Lou-Lou.
Now, I know diddly-squat about American politics, although the BBC tells me, quite unobjectively, that it’s very important. The Race for the White House. The most powerful man in the world. Or woman, apparently.
I thought it might be interesting for you folks to see how your little goldfish bowl is seen from the outside. The world’s media is NOT objective. Quelle surprise.
According to the newspapers and the t.v. news here, the next president is going to be Democrat. Either Mrs Clinton , or Barack Obama. A white woman or a black man. That’s it. Gender, race and personalities are what hit the headlines over here. I have no idea who the Republican candidates are, or even if they exist. The UK media is predicting that the backlash against Bush will be so strong, that the Democrat candidate will win by a landslide. Who are the Republican candidates? Do they stand a snowball’s chance in hell? Personally, I think Arnold Schwarzenegger should be allowed to run. I can picture him saying “Asta La Vista Baby” to our Prime Minster (who SO deserves to be nuked by Arnie for turning this green and pleasant land into a totalitarian state.)
The U.K. media is concentrating on American personalities and celeb-backings. The U.S. policies (if they even exist) are glossed over, forgotten. Would Barack Obama actually stand a prayer without the mighty Oprah? Should Oprah be running the world instead? Maybe she does already. Now there’s a scary thought. Why do American politics appear to be run by the celebrity factor? What happened to …gasp…real policies? How do the candidates feel about global politics, green issues, energy, religion, security, science, space, healthcare? It’s all very well promising to save the planet (a sure-fire vote winner) but how will the changes in energy infrastructure be paid for? Does anyone running for president actually credit the American public with intelligent thought or do they assume Americans are soap-loving sheep who just like a bit of drama?
Is this concentrating on personality-before-policy a feature of global media-misreporting, or is this really what it’s all about? A contest between a black man who is not actually black (but pimped by a chat-show-queen), or a woman who is so dry, brittle and power-hungry that she’ll stoop to nothing to rule the world? And if it’s personality that counts, do you really want to give the global domination of the world to a woman who can’t even keep her husband in check?
From an accountant-like-me’s point of view, I'll side with the economists who say the elections should be all about the economy. If the global economy is ever going to grow, then whoever wins must find a way to reverse the catastrophic failures of the Bush presidency, notably the screwed up and overly aggressive attempts to use hard military power, and the bovine attempts at diplomacy. The world needs free trade. As far as I can tell, none of the candidates so far have given a hoot about free trade, whether it be Republicans mooting blocking immigration, or Democrats waffling on about the need to prevent jobs going offshore. Frighteningly, Mrs Clinton has even talked about re-writing the North American Free Trade agreement, which was one of Bill’s main achievements in the first place. Why is it that she appears to be forgetting her husband’s mantra of “It’s the economy, stupid?”
The only remotely objective source of information for me is, you guessed it, the blogosphere. I am following the varying political threads (with accompanying gorgeous naked laydeez) with great interest. Maybe someone out there could please do a tutorial for the non-Americans? You know, a basic idiot’s who’s who. Their policies, the world implications, and so forth. And subjective opinions too please. Who do you think should win and why?
After all, the whole world has a stake in the US elections in November. And it all depends on your vote. You’re not voting for yourselves. You’re voting for the entire planet.
So, if the world goes to hell-in-a-hand basket in 2009, I’m blaming you lot.
Lou-Lou.
posted by Lin at 11:19 AM
8 Comments:
Here in the U.S. the approval rating for Congress is 23% (from both Democrats and Republicans). At 32%, President Bush's approval rating is ten points higher. Both are abysmal.
And the approval ratings for mainstream media are all dropping. Demagoguery is not hard to spot. In fact, I've lost count of the number of websites and blogs whose main purpose is to uncover and highlight distorted news from both TV (BBC included) and print organizations.
As for the next President, it would be a mistake to think that party affiliation is somehow a foregone conclusion. It's not: This country's liberal and conservative bases remain evenly divided, and that conservative base isn't going to role over and vote for either of the current Democratic front runners.
As they say in the movies, it's going to be a long, hot summer.
Now it's your turn. Get the tea, (I'm having some Holiday Blend from Harney & Sons Fine Teas right now) Plump up the pillow behind your back and might I suggest some soothing jazz, maybe a nice Adrian Legg CD.
You know people - I started coming to these blogs to see nekkid chicks- but nooooo you have to start talking politics. First D. Brian started to draw me into commenting and now you too (you too, a great band :) sorry) When I have to start thinking about the serious stuff in life it usually makes my head hurt. I have belonged to the Apathy Party for toooo long now. Anyway here's my take.
1st. paragraph after..Politics.Zzz.
I think most Americans know squat about American politics.
2nd.
The world's media NOT objective. Since we are part of that world - ours isn't either - DOUBLE SURPRISE.
3rd.
I think your media is right about the next Prez. being a Democrat. One of the problems with Obama is it will take a couple of years for congress, by that I mean The Good Ole Boys, to teach him how to be a President. Kind of like when Jimmy Carter got elected and thought running the country was like running the state Georgia. I don't know if it's backlash or the fact the Republicans can't muster a viable candidate to run for Dog Catcher let alone President. You ask a very good question that I will just change the emphasis on."Who ARE the Republican candidates?"
4th.
The U.K. media isn't the only one concentrating on personalities and celeb-backing, ours seems obsessed. Why is the American politics run by the celebrity factor? I call it the People Magazine syndrome. It seems now that the public is just interested in, who slept with who, what crap or secret they can dig up (past or present), what drugs they take and here they rehab at, what they are wearing or not wearing, what toilet stall they used and what they did in that stall, etc. etc, blah blah. Can't you just imagine if we had a President like the French. People Magazine would have to run double special special whopper editions for a month or two. Obama without Oprah would be like Keith Richards without drugs. But lets not dismiss Miss Oprah too soon - she has taken a media company and a brand (her) to a multi-100's of million dollar plus a year company, that fronts a national if not world stage. Plus she has created a billion dollar wealth for herself. She has done this by her own hard work and smarts and by hiring the right people. I think she shows me more than Barack does. "...real policies. How do the candidates feel..." you should get a press pass and come and ask them because what little I pay attention to the news sound bites, nobody here keeps asking those question enough to get answers. Yes "... they assume we are soap loving sheep", that we will again believe the political "speak" they spout and yes, again after elected will go their own merry way regardless of the promises made. Clinton proved that it's tough to get the son-of-a -bitches out once they've sat their ass down in the mansion. But what will the American public do? We'll say what we do after any election "damn it, that's not what I was told when I elected you, shit, now I have to wait four more years to get that deer in the head lights look again".
5th.
...global media-misreporting, or is this really what it’s all about? Who knows. What with the Web Blogs, You Tube, etc. added to the mix and the speed in which truth and lies move about the world now it's tough to really tell. Yea, Hillary scares me, but the husband in check angle is one our media should pick up on, Thanks. One thing about Ole Bill, he knew how to relieve stress between appointments and a smart man, he left the evidence on HER dress, not HIS pants. No wonder he got elected again. Oops getting off on sex instead of politics. Did I just write "getting off on sex", of course I do, oh wait, can you get off ON sex or do you....Focus here buddy, back to exciting politics.
6th.
I generally agree with your accountant view. About Hillary re-writing N.A.F.T.A. - maybe the problem is that Bill didn't get it right the first time she explained it to him.
7th.
Objective Edjamacation via the Web. Now THAT is some scary shit. As I sit here in my rabbit hole and write this - I ponder the thought of people trying to make sense out of the regular media information, let alone the free thought Web, to make a decision. Boggles the mind. I'd rather have a beer and ponder Dark Matter.
8th.
Wow - You really know how to apply the pressure. As long as we are voting for the ENTIRE PLANET I would like pose another candidate(but as with Arnold really can't run) and one I would vote for. The Dalai Lama - if there is one person I'd like to sit and have a beer with some evening it's him - we should make him Supreme Ruler of the WORLD. If everyone would have to bide by his words, maybe then we'd have a civilized human world instead of one where it seems that hate rules and idiots keep killing innocent people and each other because the other guy doesn't like the same God as they do. Well, at least as long as they keep strapping a bomb to their ass and pushing the button, we eliminate them one by one. If only we could get OUR God to trip that trigger when they are all in the same room. Oh-oh. Sorry got off on a tangent.
9th.
Sure - as if we here in America aren't already shouldering enough guilt (probably going back to your Queen Victoria and her damn era)that now we have to suffer for the whole world. But - HEY - using myself as a model, this year I want to start doing and accomplishing things in my life instead of waiting for things to happen to me - so why wait until '09, I figure as long as we're going to fuck it up, lets start in '08.
Ah. The new slogan -
Why Wait? Do it in "08.
I like it.
Well that's the view from my window -at least for today.
Yes my head hurts, really hurts.
D.L. Wood
Well, the truth about our 2000 election is that both parties managed to nominate the only one of THEIR guys who couldn't beat the OTHER guy... my big fear for the Democrats is that we manage to do it again, and run a candidate who could somehow divert the landslide everyone is expecting.
Hillary has SO much baggage, and there is such a fetish of hatred for her among many Republicans, that I fear she could be "swift boated" or otherwise falsely vilified, at least among the media and casual voters.
So much is unknown about Obama, that it might make him an easy target. The right wing is trying to characterize him as a Muslim extremist, possibly even a "Manchurian Candidate" who will implement Sharia law and other unthinkables if he's elected. And if he can avoid this charge, he's still left running as a Black man in a country that has more latent racism than it admits to, and some other fears could be jinned up to use against him. (Hillary also has to overcome blatant and latent sexism, too, on top of everything else.)
Despite being misinformed hogwash, the negative attacks somehow pass for fact when presented to the American people on Fox News. Anyone who would not vote for a candidate because of race, sex, or faith is NOT likely to vote for a Democrat under any circumstances anyway, so these are not prospective Democratic voters to lose. However, in order for this election not to be stolen, it needs to be a landslide for the Democrats, so the candidate should be someone who will not motivate racist/sexist types to turn up to vote AGAINST, which I think Barack or Hillary might inspire.
Of course, it doesn't matter that the Republicans are fielding the most heinous slate of candidates one could imagine -- it's so bad that crackpots like Huckabee and Ron Paul are seeming relatively harmless.
It's not going to be a long hot summer, it'll be a long, hard slog...
Guys, these are the most impressive comments we've ever had! Thank you for taking the time to enlighten us. Interesting stuff.
Gary, thank you for the excellent summary (although I'm still left with the feeling that it's all going to go horribly wrong.) Anyway, you clearly should run for congress. I forsee a stunning political career ahead.
Mr Wood, awesome post, and excellent writing. WHY haven't you got your own blog? And having a beer, listening to jazz and discussing Dark Matter with the Dalai Lama sounds the coolest idea I've heard in ages. Count me in!
Thanks Lin... Maybe I will run for Congress... Oh wait! I screwed that up by shooting nude models, remember?
One last point. Years and years ago, I was visiting a Canadian friend of mine, and on the news they mentioned NAFTA. I hand't heard of it, so I asked her, "What is NAFTA?" Her reply: "It's a plan to turn Canada into a third-world country."
She was right. Didn't realize it would turn the US into one as well.
Let me simplify the whole situation with my pessimistic, existential, Hamlet-esque world view. What does it matter who the Democrats run or who the Republicans run? When Dubyah became president, he was not elected, it was a coup d'etat. The same was true for Dubyah's second term.
Sure, a Democratic landslide would make it harder to cheat and perpetrate another coup, but for reasons already expressed here, I don't see the chance of a landslide with Hillary or Barak. Elect a woman or a black man president of the United States? I don't see the U.S. citizenry doing this. Trust me, I'm a woman, and I live here, and I was married to a black man for two decades. I don't see the U.S. citizenry doing this.
Lin
Thank you for the kind words.
D.L. Wood
If only we could get Arthur Dent to run for President...oh, wait...he's British...guess we'll have to get him to run for Queen...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home