Two weeks ago, everybody was crazy about Sarah.
Today, we know her.
Today, Kathleen Parker, a very Conservative editorialist -- I already mentioned her --, someone who called sexist people who criticized Sarah Palin, someone who talked about media persecution, someone who loved Sarah, is starting to, well, see a bit more clearly.
She authored a paper entitled "Palin should bow out," in which she simply asks Sarah to give up, to leave the ticket, five weeks before Election Day.
Parker is waking up because this week "a more complicated picture has emerged." She is referring to the financial crisis and suggesting that it might not be enough for Palin to be "introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick."
So apparently, the financial crisis is just recent, and before it emerged, being a hockey mom was enough to be Vice-President of the United States.
More than the financial crisis, I think that this week's interview of Palin by Katie Couric is striking the last blow. Watching these interviews is just embarrassing. I mean, it is embarrassing for me who is not even voting in this election, so just imagine how it must feel when you are a smart Republican (yes, there are a few). It must be simply unbearable to see their VP candidate once again argue that she is qualified to deal with Russia because it is Alaska's neighbor. The first time she said that, you could forgive her. When she repeats it every time she has an opportunity, she just does not look quite bright. Parker still argues that Palin has "common sense" but I don't think that arguing this ridiculous point over and over again is a proof of common sense. It is just dumb.
So now, Parker is calling Sarah "a problem." She was boosting the Republican party three weeks ago, and today she is a problem, a hindrance, for the Republican party.
Parker confesses that she was "delighted" when Sarah appeared. "Palin's narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire." There lies the rub. This election should not be about fun. It is kind of a serious job. And call me elitist if you want but, yes, I think you need to have more than a BA in journalism to fill in the position honorably. Any body with her qualifications would not dare apply to any high-rank position in a corporation and she dares apply to the second to highest-rank position in a country which has a lot of huge crises to solve! What the heck!
So, although she hates saying it, Parker says it. She watches the interviews "with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted."
Parkers adds: "Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there's not much content there." And then she gives examples of circumvoluted nonsensical answers given by Palin, answers you can hear on youtube or CBS and a slight caricature of which is brilliantly performed by Tina Fey (see my blog, or youtube, or Saturday Night Live website).
Parker's most brilliant line must be the already proverbial: "If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself."
Parker adds: "If Palin were a man, we'd all be guffawing."
She concludes thus: "McCain can't repudiate his choice for running mate." If she was his choice. I won't be surprised to learn soon that he was pressured by the party into picking her.
Parker's final words: "Only Palin can save McCain, her party and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first. Do it for your country."
Well, it's gonna take some Democrats to defend Palin before long.
Next Thursday is the VP debate, unless the McCain campaign pulls out another stunt to get out of it.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Who won the first debate?
Yesterday morning, on the web, there was an ad claiming "McCain won the debate."
Only one problem: the debate took place last night. That ad appeared even before John confirmed that he would attend to debate, thereby suspending the suspension of his campaign. The unbearable suspense was over.
If John won the debate before the debate, who won the debate after the debate actually took place?
Well, that's not an easy one.
My first gut feeling was that John won the debate. Not because the policies he advocated are better, but because I think he said what people wanted to hear.
Barack exposed policies that I think more efficient, more intelligent and less simplistic. But that is exactly why he might have lost the debate. We know how most voters work.
A few random facts, first about the style of the candidates, then about the contents of what they said.
John never looked at Barack. He was speaking about "Senator Obama" in the third person, addressing and looking only at the moderator. He never looked at the camera -- that is the American people and myself.
Barack talked about "John" and he looked at him, using "you" instead of "he." A couple of times, he looked at me -- that is into the camera.
John did not blunder -- except on the name of Ahmadinejahd, but I don't think that counts -- as he had done for the previous two weeks every time he attempted to talk about the economy.
Barack said several times that he agreed with John, or that John was right, etc.
First conclusions: John did much better than I had seen him do before. However, he looked contemptuous, never looking at his opponent, never addressing him. Many commentators thought he looked angry. I did not perceive it that way, but I might be wrong. To me, his avoiding to look at Barack made him look strong, straight in his boots, an unflinching tough guy. A commander-in-chief kind of guy. This is exactly why John might have won the debate. Many people want to see a tough guy in the White House these days.
Barack did not look as lecturing as he might have. He actually appeared rather gentlemanly. Maybe too much. There is no doubt the Republicans are going to rehash today that Barack said he agreed with John about ten times. They will of course ignore the fact that everytime he agreed with John, it was to better bring up a distinction, a point about which they were in fundamental disagreement.
I don't think Barack was punchy enough, especially during the first part of the debate dealing with the economy. He let John talk about government spending without telling him what I think he should have told him: It is not about how much the government spends, it is about how and where the government spends.
By the way, it was quite ironic to hear them talk about how bad government spending is just when the government is about to spend $700 billion dollars to bail out Wall Street.
Content-wise, given the fact that John really sucks at economics, I think he won the part of the debate dealing with the economy. Again, not because I think his policies are better -- on health care, for example, he repeated that a governmental health care system would be bad because "the government should not be between the doctor and the patient" (oh my god! I can't hear that crap anymore; Keith, make me come to your show so that I can explain a few things about a governmental health care system) and that families should be able to choose their health care plan (meaning they can choose between daylight robbery and shameless rip-off) -- not because his policies are better -- I was saying before ranting -- but because he was simplistic enough for people to understand what he was saying.
On foreign policy, though, Barack was brilliant. Maybe too brilliant, too savvy, with too much in-depth analysis. He demonstrated that he knows the world as it is, but I am not sure people want to hear that Ahmadinejahd is not the most powerful man in Iran. I think people want to hear that Ahmadinejahd is a bastard and he should be hanged.
However, Barack probably scored points -- with undecided voters, not with Republican voters -- when he drove home that John was wrong about the war in Iraq: When you said the war would be quick and easy, you were wrong; when you said we would find weapons of mass destruction, you were wrong; when you said Al Qaeda was in Iraq, you were wrong.
That was probably the strongest Obama moment.
Barack was also politically smarter when he advocated for more diplomacy, saying that the US need to sit with rogue states and talk.
John tried to ridicule the idea that the US President should sit with people like Ahmadinejahd without pre-conditions.
Barack made clear he is not talking about the President himself inviting Ahmadinejahd "for tea," but a US representative sitting with an Iranian representative. One of his strong lines was when he said that "without preconditions" means that the US can't tell Iran or Pakistan, We will meet with you only after you have done exactly what we want you to do.
Untill the Americans understand that point, they will be unsafe, and the world will be full of "people who don't like us," as John said again. At some point, the Americans are going to have to wonder why there are so many people who don't like them. Barack emphasized that when he said several times that the US is not respected anymore as it used to be.
There were many other points worthy of commentary during this debate, but I am ranting and it's not coming back to me right now.
Just one last point. Although Barack advocated more diplomacy in US foreign policy, he still appeared like he would not hesitate to go to war against Iran or Pakistan if needs be. The US seems to be doomed to be a bellicose nation. Barack even agreed with John that Iran is building nuclear weapons. To my knowledge -- but I am no expert and please comment and talk me down if you know better -- Iran's building nuclear weapons has not been proved more strongly than Iraq's WMD yet. As far as I know, all we know about Iran's nuclear activities is that they are civilian programs, which should be fine.
More fundamentally, I think there is a problem when the country with the most powerful nuclear arsenal orders another country not to have any nuclear activities.
Anyway, if you have seen the debate, please leave comments, hightlight things that I have not mentioned, give me your input.
Next Thursday, it's VP debate day. Joe Biden, the most savvy of them all about the world at large, vs. Sarah Palin, who can see Russia from her bedroom.
By the way, just a quick note about Sarah (it's hard to resist talking about her): more and more Republicans are embarrassed at the interview she gave to Katie Couric this week (you can see bits of it on my facebook or on CBS website). One Conservative female editorialist even said: "If BS [bullshit] was currency, Sarah Palin could bail out Wall Street herself."
Adishats!
Only one problem: the debate took place last night. That ad appeared even before John confirmed that he would attend to debate, thereby suspending the suspension of his campaign. The unbearable suspense was over.
If John won the debate before the debate, who won the debate after the debate actually took place?
Well, that's not an easy one.
My first gut feeling was that John won the debate. Not because the policies he advocated are better, but because I think he said what people wanted to hear.
Barack exposed policies that I think more efficient, more intelligent and less simplistic. But that is exactly why he might have lost the debate. We know how most voters work.
A few random facts, first about the style of the candidates, then about the contents of what they said.
John never looked at Barack. He was speaking about "Senator Obama" in the third person, addressing and looking only at the moderator. He never looked at the camera -- that is the American people and myself.
Barack talked about "John" and he looked at him, using "you" instead of "he." A couple of times, he looked at me -- that is into the camera.
John did not blunder -- except on the name of Ahmadinejahd, but I don't think that counts -- as he had done for the previous two weeks every time he attempted to talk about the economy.
Barack said several times that he agreed with John, or that John was right, etc.
First conclusions: John did much better than I had seen him do before. However, he looked contemptuous, never looking at his opponent, never addressing him. Many commentators thought he looked angry. I did not perceive it that way, but I might be wrong. To me, his avoiding to look at Barack made him look strong, straight in his boots, an unflinching tough guy. A commander-in-chief kind of guy. This is exactly why John might have won the debate. Many people want to see a tough guy in the White House these days.
Barack did not look as lecturing as he might have. He actually appeared rather gentlemanly. Maybe too much. There is no doubt the Republicans are going to rehash today that Barack said he agreed with John about ten times. They will of course ignore the fact that everytime he agreed with John, it was to better bring up a distinction, a point about which they were in fundamental disagreement.
I don't think Barack was punchy enough, especially during the first part of the debate dealing with the economy. He let John talk about government spending without telling him what I think he should have told him: It is not about how much the government spends, it is about how and where the government spends.
By the way, it was quite ironic to hear them talk about how bad government spending is just when the government is about to spend $700 billion dollars to bail out Wall Street.
Content-wise, given the fact that John really sucks at economics, I think he won the part of the debate dealing with the economy. Again, not because I think his policies are better -- on health care, for example, he repeated that a governmental health care system would be bad because "the government should not be between the doctor and the patient" (oh my god! I can't hear that crap anymore; Keith, make me come to your show so that I can explain a few things about a governmental health care system) and that families should be able to choose their health care plan (meaning they can choose between daylight robbery and shameless rip-off) -- not because his policies are better -- I was saying before ranting -- but because he was simplistic enough for people to understand what he was saying.
On foreign policy, though, Barack was brilliant. Maybe too brilliant, too savvy, with too much in-depth analysis. He demonstrated that he knows the world as it is, but I am not sure people want to hear that Ahmadinejahd is not the most powerful man in Iran. I think people want to hear that Ahmadinejahd is a bastard and he should be hanged.
However, Barack probably scored points -- with undecided voters, not with Republican voters -- when he drove home that John was wrong about the war in Iraq: When you said the war would be quick and easy, you were wrong; when you said we would find weapons of mass destruction, you were wrong; when you said Al Qaeda was in Iraq, you were wrong.
That was probably the strongest Obama moment.
Barack was also politically smarter when he advocated for more diplomacy, saying that the US need to sit with rogue states and talk.
John tried to ridicule the idea that the US President should sit with people like Ahmadinejahd without pre-conditions.
Barack made clear he is not talking about the President himself inviting Ahmadinejahd "for tea," but a US representative sitting with an Iranian representative. One of his strong lines was when he said that "without preconditions" means that the US can't tell Iran or Pakistan, We will meet with you only after you have done exactly what we want you to do.
Untill the Americans understand that point, they will be unsafe, and the world will be full of "people who don't like us," as John said again. At some point, the Americans are going to have to wonder why there are so many people who don't like them. Barack emphasized that when he said several times that the US is not respected anymore as it used to be.
There were many other points worthy of commentary during this debate, but I am ranting and it's not coming back to me right now.
Just one last point. Although Barack advocated more diplomacy in US foreign policy, he still appeared like he would not hesitate to go to war against Iran or Pakistan if needs be. The US seems to be doomed to be a bellicose nation. Barack even agreed with John that Iran is building nuclear weapons. To my knowledge -- but I am no expert and please comment and talk me down if you know better -- Iran's building nuclear weapons has not been proved more strongly than Iraq's WMD yet. As far as I know, all we know about Iran's nuclear activities is that they are civilian programs, which should be fine.
More fundamentally, I think there is a problem when the country with the most powerful nuclear arsenal orders another country not to have any nuclear activities.
Anyway, if you have seen the debate, please leave comments, hightlight things that I have not mentioned, give me your input.
Next Thursday, it's VP debate day. Joe Biden, the most savvy of them all about the world at large, vs. Sarah Palin, who can see Russia from her bedroom.
By the way, just a quick note about Sarah (it's hard to resist talking about her): more and more Republicans are embarrassed at the interview she gave to Katie Couric this week (you can see bits of it on my facebook or on CBS website). One Conservative female editorialist even said: "If BS [bullshit] was currency, Sarah Palin could bail out Wall Street herself."
Adishats!
Friday, September 26, 2008
How did John sleep?
Wow!
It is difficult to keep track with this campaign when blogging about it is not the only thing you have to do. I’m no Meghan McCain.
Tonight is the big night. The first debate between Barack and... well... an empty chair. At least, that’s the state of our knowledge this morning of September 26, 2008.
Two days ago, as I already wrote, John decided to “suspend” his campaign to go to Washington to save the world economy. Well, he said suspend, but he did not really suspend his campaign, no, we kept seeing his surrogates on TV who explained that he had “suspended” his campaign. Actually, we saw John in person saying quite a lot why he was “suspending” his campaign.
Of course, everybody knows now that the very “suspension” of his campaign was one more brilliant campaign stratagem.
When I say brilliant, that is of course to the measure of the Palin-pick standard of political brilliance.
I am writing this during the commercial breaks of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, who just described John as the only man who overreacts at an event which is ten days old.
That is exactly what this “campaign suspension” looks like.
So anyway, he suspended his campaign and asked for a delay of the debate due to take place on Friday night.
Suspense!!!! (over the suspension...)
The truth is probably, of course, than John does not want to debate. Because he does not really know what he is talking about, as is made obvious by the big perspiration drops rolling down his temples during the interviews he dares give.
You know, I will have to write a blog about the Republican ticket interviews, because I have never quite seen something like that anymore. Sarah Palin, in particular, is quite something. Yesterday, again, she said to Katie Couric of CBS that she has foreign policy experience because Russia is Alaska’s neighbor, and when the Russians violate American airspace, they will be over Alaska first. I mean, you don’t get better than that. Or maybe you could by saying that from Alaska, you can see Russia. Oh, wait a minute. She did that already.
The truth is also that John faces an incredible dilemma. He says the Paulson bailout plan (the government spends $700 billion dollars to save the economy) is a bad plan because the taxpayers should not have to pay this kind of money. That is basically the general opinion. A poll yesterday showed that a bit less than a third of the Americans favor the plan, a bit more than a third do not, and about a third are undecided. If such a huge measure does not get immediate widespread enthusiastic support, it is not a good sign. On Thursday morning in the very Conservative Oklahoman – my new Bible – where the readers’ letters are usually about how you should love America or leave it, or about how the President should be very very Christian, or how abortion is murder etc, etc, well, on Thursday, all the letters were about how the taxpayers should not have to save Wall Street.
Just a sign.
The interesting thing is that from both sides, they are against this plan for different reasons: on the left, they obviously do not want rich businessmen who benefited from years of Republican deregulations to be saved from their blunders and on the right, they see this plan as Socialism, which to them is synonymous with Soviet policies (cf. Previous posts).
So here is John’s conundrum. Either he does not sign the plan as a Senator and a majority does not sign it and the economy collapses; he does not sign the plan but the plan passes and is successful and he was not one of the saviors; he does sign the plan and he alienates the base who does not want the plan and his fellow Republicans who consider that regulating the market is Stalinist socialism.
Yesterday, at the beginning of the afternoon, Congressmen were saying that they were about to hit a deal. Two hours later, one of them came out of the room and announced that they were far from a deal yet, that there were some fundamental disagreements.
What happened in the meantime?
John arrived to Washington.
I’m not kidding.
In any case, all this is very exciting. Kind of in a pathetic way, but exciting all the same. I have never seen such a campaign, and apparently, a lot of people feel the same.
Really, my non-intellectualized gut feeling when I see McCain interviewed is that he knows he is fighting a lost battle. He knows there is no way he can win, so he is attempting the craziest moves: he picks a VP running mate who literally stutters when asked a serious question, whose body language clearly, unmistakebly shows she has no clue about anything except moose-hunting (I mean really, I can’t describe it but please view some of interviews on the net if you don’t have access to US TV channels), and whose lies and manipulations of investigations and pork-barrel politics are unveiled every single day; he approves ads saying that Obama wants to teach kindergartners sex education; then for ten days of a major economic crisis, he keeps saying the US economy is fundamentally strong before he finally declares he suspends his campaign to go solve this major crisis.
The cynical interpretation of all that is that while he is doing all those crazy things, the press is talking about him, and on November 4th, a big proportion will vote for the guy whose name is the most familiar.
This is working. When you look at this campaign, and when you add it to a very unpopular President who blundered during eight years, and you put on top of that an economic crisis, which historically is never good for the incumbent, then you would think that the margin between the two candidates would be 20 percentage points. Instead, they are in a dead heat. And not because Obama is running a bad campaign, like only our very own French Socialists know how to run.
It is quite unbelievable.
Well, I am looking forward to tonight.
Sleep well, John.
It is difficult to keep track with this campaign when blogging about it is not the only thing you have to do. I’m no Meghan McCain.
Tonight is the big night. The first debate between Barack and... well... an empty chair. At least, that’s the state of our knowledge this morning of September 26, 2008.
Two days ago, as I already wrote, John decided to “suspend” his campaign to go to Washington to save the world economy. Well, he said suspend, but he did not really suspend his campaign, no, we kept seeing his surrogates on TV who explained that he had “suspended” his campaign. Actually, we saw John in person saying quite a lot why he was “suspending” his campaign.
Of course, everybody knows now that the very “suspension” of his campaign was one more brilliant campaign stratagem.
When I say brilliant, that is of course to the measure of the Palin-pick standard of political brilliance.
I am writing this during the commercial breaks of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, who just described John as the only man who overreacts at an event which is ten days old.
That is exactly what this “campaign suspension” looks like.
So anyway, he suspended his campaign and asked for a delay of the debate due to take place on Friday night.
Suspense!!!! (over the suspension...)
The truth is probably, of course, than John does not want to debate. Because he does not really know what he is talking about, as is made obvious by the big perspiration drops rolling down his temples during the interviews he dares give.
You know, I will have to write a blog about the Republican ticket interviews, because I have never quite seen something like that anymore. Sarah Palin, in particular, is quite something. Yesterday, again, she said to Katie Couric of CBS that she has foreign policy experience because Russia is Alaska’s neighbor, and when the Russians violate American airspace, they will be over Alaska first. I mean, you don’t get better than that. Or maybe you could by saying that from Alaska, you can see Russia. Oh, wait a minute. She did that already.
The truth is also that John faces an incredible dilemma. He says the Paulson bailout plan (the government spends $700 billion dollars to save the economy) is a bad plan because the taxpayers should not have to pay this kind of money. That is basically the general opinion. A poll yesterday showed that a bit less than a third of the Americans favor the plan, a bit more than a third do not, and about a third are undecided. If such a huge measure does not get immediate widespread enthusiastic support, it is not a good sign. On Thursday morning in the very Conservative Oklahoman – my new Bible – where the readers’ letters are usually about how you should love America or leave it, or about how the President should be very very Christian, or how abortion is murder etc, etc, well, on Thursday, all the letters were about how the taxpayers should not have to save Wall Street.
Just a sign.
The interesting thing is that from both sides, they are against this plan for different reasons: on the left, they obviously do not want rich businessmen who benefited from years of Republican deregulations to be saved from their blunders and on the right, they see this plan as Socialism, which to them is synonymous with Soviet policies (cf. Previous posts).
So here is John’s conundrum. Either he does not sign the plan as a Senator and a majority does not sign it and the economy collapses; he does not sign the plan but the plan passes and is successful and he was not one of the saviors; he does sign the plan and he alienates the base who does not want the plan and his fellow Republicans who consider that regulating the market is Stalinist socialism.
Yesterday, at the beginning of the afternoon, Congressmen were saying that they were about to hit a deal. Two hours later, one of them came out of the room and announced that they were far from a deal yet, that there were some fundamental disagreements.
What happened in the meantime?
John arrived to Washington.
I’m not kidding.
In any case, all this is very exciting. Kind of in a pathetic way, but exciting all the same. I have never seen such a campaign, and apparently, a lot of people feel the same.
Really, my non-intellectualized gut feeling when I see McCain interviewed is that he knows he is fighting a lost battle. He knows there is no way he can win, so he is attempting the craziest moves: he picks a VP running mate who literally stutters when asked a serious question, whose body language clearly, unmistakebly shows she has no clue about anything except moose-hunting (I mean really, I can’t describe it but please view some of interviews on the net if you don’t have access to US TV channels), and whose lies and manipulations of investigations and pork-barrel politics are unveiled every single day; he approves ads saying that Obama wants to teach kindergartners sex education; then for ten days of a major economic crisis, he keeps saying the US economy is fundamentally strong before he finally declares he suspends his campaign to go solve this major crisis.
The cynical interpretation of all that is that while he is doing all those crazy things, the press is talking about him, and on November 4th, a big proportion will vote for the guy whose name is the most familiar.
This is working. When you look at this campaign, and when you add it to a very unpopular President who blundered during eight years, and you put on top of that an economic crisis, which historically is never good for the incumbent, then you would think that the margin between the two candidates would be 20 percentage points. Instead, they are in a dead heat. And not because Obama is running a bad campaign, like only our very own French Socialists know how to run.
It is quite unbelievable.
Well, I am looking forward to tonight.
Sleep well, John.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Katie and Sarah
Just a quick note.
I've just seen Katie Couric interviewing Sarah Palin.
Katie asked Sarah several times to give her examples of John McCain pushing for more economic regulations in his 26-year career in Washington.
Sarah weaseled out of the answer.
Katie insisted.
Sarah answered: "Well, I'm gonna find some and I will get them right back to ya."
That was a homage to her running mate's answer to the question "How many houses do you own?"
I've just seen Katie Couric interviewing Sarah Palin.
Katie asked Sarah several times to give her examples of John McCain pushing for more economic regulations in his 26-year career in Washington.
Sarah weaseled out of the answer.
Katie insisted.
Sarah answered: "Well, I'm gonna find some and I will get them right back to ya."
That was a homage to her running mate's answer to the question "How many houses do you own?"
John our hero
On Friday, the first presidential debate between John and Barack was supposed to take place.
However, John has just announced that he would suspend his campaign on Thursday in order to go to Washington to help solve the economic crisis. He is asking to postpone the debate.
After the brilliant Palin move, here is John's brilliant let-us-solve-the-crisis-before-campaigning move.
Either Barack will refuse, and he will look like the bad guy since Oh my God, the presidential campaign is more important for him than the millions of Americans suffering from the crisis.
Or Barack will accept, and the debate is not going to take place on time, which might be slightly relieving to John.
All this does not matter anyway, because John is here to save us. He's going to Washington and everything is gonna be okay. Be relieved, World, John is going to solve the crisis that his cronies and his party's political philosophy have entailed. A bipartisan Congressional commission is working on it right now, examining the presidential bill of an appropriation of $700 billion to bailout the economy, but they probably do not know what they are doing.
John, on the contrary, these last two weeks, has shown his economic expertise, by saying the economy is fundamentally strong, by calling for a 9/11 Commission of the economy, etc, etc.
Go get'em, Johnny! As you keep saying, you have taken on tougher guys!
However, John has just announced that he would suspend his campaign on Thursday in order to go to Washington to help solve the economic crisis. He is asking to postpone the debate.
After the brilliant Palin move, here is John's brilliant let-us-solve-the-crisis-before-campaigning move.
Either Barack will refuse, and he will look like the bad guy since Oh my God, the presidential campaign is more important for him than the millions of Americans suffering from the crisis.
Or Barack will accept, and the debate is not going to take place on time, which might be slightly relieving to John.
All this does not matter anyway, because John is here to save us. He's going to Washington and everything is gonna be okay. Be relieved, World, John is going to solve the crisis that his cronies and his party's political philosophy have entailed. A bipartisan Congressional commission is working on it right now, examining the presidential bill of an appropriation of $700 billion to bailout the economy, but they probably do not know what they are doing.
John, on the contrary, these last two weeks, has shown his economic expertise, by saying the economy is fundamentally strong, by calling for a 9/11 Commission of the economy, etc, etc.
Go get'em, Johnny! As you keep saying, you have taken on tougher guys!
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Ronald lives on
"In this present crisis, the government is not the solution to our problem. The government is the problem."
This statement, by Ronald Reagan, lives on today and is one of those sloganish statements used over and over again to avoid addressing the issues that would make the government, and the country, better.
Again, from a French point of view, I cannot help screaming how ignorant people are, and how paradoxical their stances are, when they say on TV or write in the press about the evils of big government.
Every day, I insist, every single day, you hear or read someone equating big government to Communism. Again, this morning, a reader of The Oklahoman writes: "They're slowly but surely taking over in the pretext of liberalism (communism). We have a presidential candidate who's preaching the old communist axiom "We are going to take from the haves and give to the have nots." He goes on by quoting Norman Matoon Thomas, a six-time candidate for president from the Socialist Party of America who said: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." This reader also recommends reading The Communist Manifesto before casting one's ballot.
Beware, Communism is still creeping!
Because these people are afraid of big government, they reject any kind of regulation of the free market.
When this deregulation results is the major crisis happening today, they do not regret. To the following question: "In your time in Congress, you have supported deregulation of the economy. Do you regret that now?" John McCain has answered: "No, I think deregulation has probably helped the economic growth of this country."
This interview took place two days ago, between the bailouts of major Wall Street corporations and the Secretary of the Treasury asking Congress for a $700 billion check for more bailouts.
Now, when I am really pissed off at hearing or reading this kind of stuff, I scream how stupid people are. But that is probably unfair. The common people do not know what they are talking about, just like I do not know what I am talking about when I start talking about the economy.
People just know what they are being told. If you keep telling them the US is the greatest country on earth, with the greatest economy, a country where everything is possible, where anybody can live the American Dream, why wouldn't they believe that? When the lies are flattering, you don't question them.
What is truly fascinating is that any Conservative who would read this blog -- if there are some, please leave a comment -- would call me a dangerous Communist.
There is no middle of the road in what I hear or read about small and big government. What they are truly talking about is no government and dictatorship.
When you tell them that a bigger government could provide for free health care for everybody, they don't say "Oh great! Let's have that." No, their reaction is "Yeah, but in Canada and in France, where you have universal health care, you wait for six months to see your doctor, and you don't find your medicine when you need it."
This is the common belief. And apart from when I write a letter to a newspaper, I never read or hear anywhere that this is simply not true.
Just in case a Conservative reads this, let me repeat it: I live in France, and when I need to see my doctor, I call him and I see him before the day is over. After the consultation, I give him 21 euros (about $15 today) which is reimbursed to me within two weeks. I then go to the pharmacy. They give me my medicine, and I give them a few cents. The first time my American wife went to the pharmacy for her and her daughter's asthma and allergy medicine, she expected to pay $150. Instead, she was asked for 12 cents.
By the way, for all that, I pay less than $100 a month and that covers my wife and my three children.
If that is big government, if that is Stalinism, I say Yeah!!!
I want to see people on Fox News tell that story. I want to go on Fox News and tell that story! Fox News, call me if you dare!
The most fascinating, of course, is that people say and write this nonsense, and then they act in very paradoxical ways.
When Hurricane Ike was about to strike the coast of Texas, people were asked to leave their homes because they were in danger.
40% of the residents of under-sea-level Galveston Island, which was about to be completely devastated, decided to ignore the authorities and stayed. After Ike has struck, billions of dollars of federal money are being spent to rescue and rebuild.
Nobody would criticize the government for doing that. Nobody with a sane mind would say "Let the evil government out of this. People and business are going to take care of themselves!"
Well, the health care in this country is under the destructive action of Hurricane Private Insurance Corporation. Many more people are in danger because of lack of health care than because of hurricanes. So the government needs to act on it as it acts -- or should act -- after hurricanes.
I think the government is the problem when it does not do anything for the governed.
You the people have asked enough what you could do for your country. It might be time again to ask what the country can do for you.
A TV commentator brilliantly summed it up last night: if you believe the government is the problem, don't run for government.
This statement, by Ronald Reagan, lives on today and is one of those sloganish statements used over and over again to avoid addressing the issues that would make the government, and the country, better.
Again, from a French point of view, I cannot help screaming how ignorant people are, and how paradoxical their stances are, when they say on TV or write in the press about the evils of big government.
Every day, I insist, every single day, you hear or read someone equating big government to Communism. Again, this morning, a reader of The Oklahoman writes: "They're slowly but surely taking over in the pretext of liberalism (communism). We have a presidential candidate who's preaching the old communist axiom "We are going to take from the haves and give to the have nots." He goes on by quoting Norman Matoon Thomas, a six-time candidate for president from the Socialist Party of America who said: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." This reader also recommends reading The Communist Manifesto before casting one's ballot.
Beware, Communism is still creeping!
Because these people are afraid of big government, they reject any kind of regulation of the free market.
When this deregulation results is the major crisis happening today, they do not regret. To the following question: "In your time in Congress, you have supported deregulation of the economy. Do you regret that now?" John McCain has answered: "No, I think deregulation has probably helped the economic growth of this country."
This interview took place two days ago, between the bailouts of major Wall Street corporations and the Secretary of the Treasury asking Congress for a $700 billion check for more bailouts.
Now, when I am really pissed off at hearing or reading this kind of stuff, I scream how stupid people are. But that is probably unfair. The common people do not know what they are talking about, just like I do not know what I am talking about when I start talking about the economy.
People just know what they are being told. If you keep telling them the US is the greatest country on earth, with the greatest economy, a country where everything is possible, where anybody can live the American Dream, why wouldn't they believe that? When the lies are flattering, you don't question them.
What is truly fascinating is that any Conservative who would read this blog -- if there are some, please leave a comment -- would call me a dangerous Communist.
There is no middle of the road in what I hear or read about small and big government. What they are truly talking about is no government and dictatorship.
When you tell them that a bigger government could provide for free health care for everybody, they don't say "Oh great! Let's have that." No, their reaction is "Yeah, but in Canada and in France, where you have universal health care, you wait for six months to see your doctor, and you don't find your medicine when you need it."
This is the common belief. And apart from when I write a letter to a newspaper, I never read or hear anywhere that this is simply not true.
Just in case a Conservative reads this, let me repeat it: I live in France, and when I need to see my doctor, I call him and I see him before the day is over. After the consultation, I give him 21 euros (about $15 today) which is reimbursed to me within two weeks. I then go to the pharmacy. They give me my medicine, and I give them a few cents. The first time my American wife went to the pharmacy for her and her daughter's asthma and allergy medicine, she expected to pay $150. Instead, she was asked for 12 cents.
By the way, for all that, I pay less than $100 a month and that covers my wife and my three children.
If that is big government, if that is Stalinism, I say Yeah!!!
I want to see people on Fox News tell that story. I want to go on Fox News and tell that story! Fox News, call me if you dare!
The most fascinating, of course, is that people say and write this nonsense, and then they act in very paradoxical ways.
When Hurricane Ike was about to strike the coast of Texas, people were asked to leave their homes because they were in danger.
40% of the residents of under-sea-level Galveston Island, which was about to be completely devastated, decided to ignore the authorities and stayed. After Ike has struck, billions of dollars of federal money are being spent to rescue and rebuild.
Nobody would criticize the government for doing that. Nobody with a sane mind would say "Let the evil government out of this. People and business are going to take care of themselves!"
Well, the health care in this country is under the destructive action of Hurricane Private Insurance Corporation. Many more people are in danger because of lack of health care than because of hurricanes. So the government needs to act on it as it acts -- or should act -- after hurricanes.
I think the government is the problem when it does not do anything for the governed.
You the people have asked enough what you could do for your country. It might be time again to ask what the country can do for you.
A TV commentator brilliantly summed it up last night: if you believe the government is the problem, don't run for government.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Of Moose and women, of fish and men
Well, I have been away from my blog for a week, and the campaign is unrecognizable.
Last week, we were talking lipstick on pigs, sex education to kindergartners, sexist persecution, etc., etc.
Since last week, capitalist deregulations have entailed apocalyptic disasters on the market, and that revealed a lot about the candidates.
With the current major financial crisis, the McCain campaign cannot decently continue launching attacks based on Barack's lipstick on a pig comment. Even by Republican standards, that would be shockingly cynical. Besides, Barack talks about the economy this week. In the wake of the bailouts of Lehman Bros. and AIG and of the erratic course of the Dow Jones, he actually tries to address the issues. Oh, he probably won't do miracles, but he is making a lot of sense especially when he claims that the Republican philosophy of economics is at least partly responsible for what is happening.
So John has to address the issues too. And he is trying. He has even admitted in a radio interview that No, Barack Obama did not call Sarah Palin a pig. Good. A bit late, but good. That's a start away from the swiftboating of the previous weeks. For my numerous French readers who would not be familiar with swiftboat campaigning, the expression comes from the 2004 election during which an allegedly independent group of Vietnam veterans broadcast an ad claiming that Kerry -- who claimed he had been part of a heroic swift boat company in Nam -- had not really been there. These were pure lies, and Kerry lost. He had been swiftboated.
Well, that is what the McCain campaign had been doing before the financial crisis and before Karl Rove -- yes, the vicious and cynical Karl Rove, King of Swiftboating who sole-handedly put Bush in the White House twice -- that very same Karl Rove said on Fox News -- yes, Fox News, aka Fixed News, this Conservative nest of hard-hitting journalists who interview Sarah Palin's hairdresser to find out how hard Sarah works when she is waiting her turn at the salon, without complaining, just waiting patiently like all of us -- that McCain ads had not really past the 100%-true test.
Mind-blowing.
Anyway, John is also trying to talk about the economy now. And it is not pretty. The thing is, he does not look very confident when he talks about the economy. He stutters that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" on the very day the Dow Jones plunges. And you can almost see big drops of sweat on his temples. And his body language is so awkward when he is asked to explain and when he says he meant by "fundamentals" the American workers, "the best workers in the world," and so when Barack criticizes him for this comment about the fundementals of the economy, well, he really criticizes the American workers.
And you can't believe he just said that. But then, if you haven't broken your TV, you observe him for one more second and you realize that he does not believe he just said that either. He is at a loss. He does not know what to do. He is leading a smear campaign because that is what Republicans do, that's all, but he knows he should be better.
But he has a huge problem. He cannot defend any economic policy, because the Republican economic policy is the cause of the current mess. So, what can he do? Give up the fight before Election Day.
John is a moose at bay.
Talking about moose, what about Sarah? Well, she has given some interviews finally. With journalists that she picked. And she also looks very much like she does not know what she is talking about, although this comes less as a surprise. She was asked what she though of the Bush doctrine. Well, she thought nothing, because she did not know what the Bush doctrine was.
I am not being elitist here, I think it is okay for anyone of us not to know what the Bush doctrine is -- I knew only because I mentioned it in one of my classes -- but when you run for Vice President of the US, I think it is a clear, red-alert sign that you are not fit for the job when you don't know that the Bush doctrine, the doctrine that is running your country, is about preemptive strikes on countries deemed rogue countries.
She keeps claiming that she did not blink when she was asked to be on the ticket, that she would not blink in case of a new terrorist attack. She would not blink. What does it mean not to blink? Does it show courage or dumb foolhardiness? I think that the President and the Vice-President of the most powerful country in the world should blink a lot, and I think Bush and Cheney should have blinked a bit more six years ago.
Blink, baby, blink.
Oh boy, there is so much more to say about this past week.
Todd, Sarah's husband has been subpoenaed in the context of allegations that Sarah might have abused her power in having her brother-in-law fired.
Todd refused to comply with the subpoena.
The media have just started investigating why some people in Alaska call Todd the shadow governor. Apparently, he plays a big role in his wife's governing. Official state email are copied to him and he attends official meetings.
John said that more offshore drilling would be environmentally good because the fish love those rigs, there are a lot of fish around the rigs, so drilling would be good not only for our cars but for our meals too.
This is not a joke.
A few weeks ago, a Republican surrogate had claimed that Sarah's pipeline in Alaska was a good thing environmentally speaking because the caribou and the moose come huddling against the warm pipeline.
I thought I had heard the most stupid things ever in the 2007 French electoral campaign. Well, I was wrong.
Last week, we were talking lipstick on pigs, sex education to kindergartners, sexist persecution, etc., etc.
Since last week, capitalist deregulations have entailed apocalyptic disasters on the market, and that revealed a lot about the candidates.
With the current major financial crisis, the McCain campaign cannot decently continue launching attacks based on Barack's lipstick on a pig comment. Even by Republican standards, that would be shockingly cynical. Besides, Barack talks about the economy this week. In the wake of the bailouts of Lehman Bros. and AIG and of the erratic course of the Dow Jones, he actually tries to address the issues. Oh, he probably won't do miracles, but he is making a lot of sense especially when he claims that the Republican philosophy of economics is at least partly responsible for what is happening.
So John has to address the issues too. And he is trying. He has even admitted in a radio interview that No, Barack Obama did not call Sarah Palin a pig. Good. A bit late, but good. That's a start away from the swiftboating of the previous weeks. For my numerous French readers who would not be familiar with swiftboat campaigning, the expression comes from the 2004 election during which an allegedly independent group of Vietnam veterans broadcast an ad claiming that Kerry -- who claimed he had been part of a heroic swift boat company in Nam -- had not really been there. These were pure lies, and Kerry lost. He had been swiftboated.
Well, that is what the McCain campaign had been doing before the financial crisis and before Karl Rove -- yes, the vicious and cynical Karl Rove, King of Swiftboating who sole-handedly put Bush in the White House twice -- that very same Karl Rove said on Fox News -- yes, Fox News, aka Fixed News, this Conservative nest of hard-hitting journalists who interview Sarah Palin's hairdresser to find out how hard Sarah works when she is waiting her turn at the salon, without complaining, just waiting patiently like all of us -- that McCain ads had not really past the 100%-true test.
Mind-blowing.
Anyway, John is also trying to talk about the economy now. And it is not pretty. The thing is, he does not look very confident when he talks about the economy. He stutters that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" on the very day the Dow Jones plunges. And you can almost see big drops of sweat on his temples. And his body language is so awkward when he is asked to explain and when he says he meant by "fundamentals" the American workers, "the best workers in the world," and so when Barack criticizes him for this comment about the fundementals of the economy, well, he really criticizes the American workers.
And you can't believe he just said that. But then, if you haven't broken your TV, you observe him for one more second and you realize that he does not believe he just said that either. He is at a loss. He does not know what to do. He is leading a smear campaign because that is what Republicans do, that's all, but he knows he should be better.
But he has a huge problem. He cannot defend any economic policy, because the Republican economic policy is the cause of the current mess. So, what can he do? Give up the fight before Election Day.
John is a moose at bay.
Talking about moose, what about Sarah? Well, she has given some interviews finally. With journalists that she picked. And she also looks very much like she does not know what she is talking about, although this comes less as a surprise. She was asked what she though of the Bush doctrine. Well, she thought nothing, because she did not know what the Bush doctrine was.
I am not being elitist here, I think it is okay for anyone of us not to know what the Bush doctrine is -- I knew only because I mentioned it in one of my classes -- but when you run for Vice President of the US, I think it is a clear, red-alert sign that you are not fit for the job when you don't know that the Bush doctrine, the doctrine that is running your country, is about preemptive strikes on countries deemed rogue countries.
She keeps claiming that she did not blink when she was asked to be on the ticket, that she would not blink in case of a new terrorist attack. She would not blink. What does it mean not to blink? Does it show courage or dumb foolhardiness? I think that the President and the Vice-President of the most powerful country in the world should blink a lot, and I think Bush and Cheney should have blinked a bit more six years ago.
Blink, baby, blink.
Oh boy, there is so much more to say about this past week.
Todd, Sarah's husband has been subpoenaed in the context of allegations that Sarah might have abused her power in having her brother-in-law fired.
Todd refused to comply with the subpoena.
The media have just started investigating why some people in Alaska call Todd the shadow governor. Apparently, he plays a big role in his wife's governing. Official state email are copied to him and he attends official meetings.
John said that more offshore drilling would be environmentally good because the fish love those rigs, there are a lot of fish around the rigs, so drilling would be good not only for our cars but for our meals too.
This is not a joke.
A few weeks ago, a Republican surrogate had claimed that Sarah's pipeline in Alaska was a good thing environmentally speaking because the caribou and the moose come huddling against the warm pipeline.
I thought I had heard the most stupid things ever in the 2007 French electoral campaign. Well, I was wrong.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Reality-making rhetoric
Native Americans believe in the creative power of language. Words create the world. The world comes into being by being spoken. In the beginning was the word. The Judeo-Christian culture is also based on this principle. Sociologists and philosophers like Pierre Bourdieu or Michel Foucault have demonstrated how language can impose definitions of the world.
This dimension of language is fundamental to politics, whatever side you are on. Both Democrats and Republicans keep repeating the US is the greatest country on earth. It does not matter that this expression is absolutely meaningless. The greatest country in what respect? For landscape beauty? One of the greatest for sure. Individual freedoms? Undoubtedly among the greatest, yes, although the recent years have done nothing to maintain the US to the top of the chart. Health care? One of the worst actually. And getting worse and worse. Knowledge of the world outside its borders? Very bad, very bad indeed. Environmental issues? One of the worst too, unquestionably. For diplomacy? Not too great, no. The US is actually one of the most bellicose nations in the world.
So, what does it mean?
Yesterday, at a forum at Columbia University, John McCain was asked the question. Does it mean the Americans are better than the rest of the world? John answered that “the US is the only country I know that believes that all men are equal.” Well, he was right to qualify that statement with “I know.” It is the only country he knows believes all men are equal. He does not know much about other countries, then. So I guess he is less qualified than his running mate as far as foreign policy is concerned. Because I know a lot of countries that believe all men are equal. Let me think... er... well, France would be one of them. And many others, of course.
I guess he does not even know the US very much either, for that matter. When I read the readers’ letters in a local newspaper like The Oklahoman, for example, I understand that many Americans do not believe that all men are equal.
When John uttered this stupid statement he referred, once again, to the Founding Fathers. John, I know Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that all men were equal, but John... how shall I put?... er... Jefferson, and most of the other people you call Founding Fathers, had slaves.
You might not have heard of slavery, but that was not the best episode in the history of the greatest country on earth.
Oh, and by the way, until the middle of the 20th century, people were in segregated schools and it took the Supreme Court to change that because apparently the federal government had a hard time believing that all men were equal.
Yes, I know, they were separate but equal. But that was a huge bunch of hypocritical crap, right?
So, anyway, all this does not matter anyway. What is important is how many times they repeat the same lies. After a while, the lies become reality.
Even though all politicians are guilty of this, the Republicans in this campaign seem to elevate this practice to art.
The media are persecuting Sarah and her family.
The mayor of a small Alaska town has huge responsibilities.
Sarah has always opposed pork barrel politics.
Barack is sexist.
The US is winning the war in Iraq.
John and Sarah are mavericks and reformers.
Barack wants to teach kindergarten children about sex education.
Abortion is murder.
Andrew Rice – running in Oklahoma for the US Senate – opposes traditional marriage.
All these simplistic statements are lies. But they are simplistic, easy to understand, they have a great impact, and they are what most Americans will remember from this campaign because they simply don’t have time – or the willpower – to get informed at a deeper level.
So, if they repeat those statements enough, every day, all day long, on all channels, every time they are interviewed whatever the questions they are being asked, those statement will become reality. Not truth, but reality. That is to say they will become the context that will determine how the voters are going to act. People’s actions will not be determined by true conditions and circumstances but by the conditions and circumstances that will be real to them. In their limited world, Andrew Rice does not oppose an amendment – called Traditional Marriage Amendment – to the Oklahoma Constitution that would state that a marriage is a union between two human beings of different gender; in most people’s limited but real world, Andrew Rice opposes traditional marriage.
This is reality-making rhetoric and this is what this campaign is about.
And it works.
It has worked before.
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaeda is in Iraq.
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaeda is in Iraq.
Let’s go to war then.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Pigs and lipstick
It is quite un-f***ing-believable -- I'm sorry but that's how I feel -- but, today, American politics were about pigs and lipstick.
For my far-away friends, let's recap briefly.
In her convention speech, Sarah told a joke: What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick.
Today, in a rally where Barack wanted to convey the idea that John McCain's policy would be the same as Bush's, no matter what he says and how many times he claims he represents change, he said "You can put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig."
As you know, this is a colloquial expression, a very old phrase, funny, colorful, and very clear.
Well, apparently, it was not clear to everybody, or so they want us to believe. The Republicans have been acting outraged all day, complaining that Barack has called Sarah a pig.
Yep. And that's all they talk about, on all channels, all day long. And I am sure the newspapers will talk some more about it tomorrow.
I just can't believe the abysmal level this campaign has reached. That must be a historical campaign, and not only because there is black man and a woman running.
I have to say, again from my French point of view, and from someone who is really not a couch potato -- oops, I hope I am offending no one with my metaphors -- that I quite appreciate some of the journalists who really don't let their interviewees get away with dodging the questions. Tonight, for example, MNSBC Chris Matthews repeated over and over again the question he posed to his Republican guests: "Do you really believe Obama called Palin a pig?" "Well, what I know is..." was usually how the answers started.
The winner, tonight, is Mary Fallin (R), US Senator from Oklahoma. In his speech, Barack had elaborated on his metaphor by saying "you can wrap an old fish with a paper that says Change all over, it is still gonna stink."
Well, guess what. Mary Fallin, a brilliant Republican mind, not only thinks that Obama called Palin a pig, but she also thinks he called McCain an old stinking fish.
If I were not holding a gun in my mouth, I would burst out laughing.
I promise, if I survive my rage, I will soon write a post about political issues. It's been a while.
For my far-away friends, let's recap briefly.
In her convention speech, Sarah told a joke: What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick.
Today, in a rally where Barack wanted to convey the idea that John McCain's policy would be the same as Bush's, no matter what he says and how many times he claims he represents change, he said "You can put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig."
As you know, this is a colloquial expression, a very old phrase, funny, colorful, and very clear.
Well, apparently, it was not clear to everybody, or so they want us to believe. The Republicans have been acting outraged all day, complaining that Barack has called Sarah a pig.
Yep. And that's all they talk about, on all channels, all day long. And I am sure the newspapers will talk some more about it tomorrow.
I just can't believe the abysmal level this campaign has reached. That must be a historical campaign, and not only because there is black man and a woman running.
I have to say, again from my French point of view, and from someone who is really not a couch potato -- oops, I hope I am offending no one with my metaphors -- that I quite appreciate some of the journalists who really don't let their interviewees get away with dodging the questions. Tonight, for example, MNSBC Chris Matthews repeated over and over again the question he posed to his Republican guests: "Do you really believe Obama called Palin a pig?" "Well, what I know is..." was usually how the answers started.
The winner, tonight, is Mary Fallin (R), US Senator from Oklahoma. In his speech, Barack had elaborated on his metaphor by saying "you can wrap an old fish with a paper that says Change all over, it is still gonna stink."
Well, guess what. Mary Fallin, a brilliant Republican mind, not only thinks that Obama called Palin a pig, but she also thinks he called McCain an old stinking fish.
If I were not holding a gun in my mouth, I would burst out laughing.
I promise, if I survive my rage, I will soon write a post about political issues. It's been a while.
Who is sexist?
In her acceptance speech at the Republican convention, Sarah told the following joke: What is the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick.
I think that if a man had told that story, and more precisely a man from the Democratic party, he would have been accused of sexism.
I know that as a fact because you just need to criticize Sarah to be accused of being a sexist.
And that is precisely what is sexist. Sarah is not a woman. She is a politician and she runs for the Vice-Presidency. So, she should be criticized for what she does wrong, and praised for what she does right – Good luck! – as any other candidate. Her record should be scrutinized, as should the record of all other candidates, and she should not be treated with any more deference – her campaign declared that she would give interviews only when the media will treat her with respect and deference – than the other candidates.
The Republicans are claiming they are making history by putting the first woman on the ticket. That is sexist. She should be on the ticket for her competence, experience and political honesty. Obviously, that is not the case. She is on the ticket because she is a woman. This is sexist.
Sarah is presented as a “mom,” supporters say she is a “babe.” Isn’t that a bit sexist?
At the convention, you could see buttons saying things like “We have the hottest VP” or “Such state for the Hot Chick.” This is amazingly sexist.
The Republicans are claiming that American women will vote for Sarah because she is a woman. Apparently then, American women are too dumb to base their vote on political or social issues, or even on ideology. American women vote for a woman. That is incredibly sexist and insulting.
If I am writing, right now, that I think this VP pick is more and more mind-boggling because everyday some new damning information is revealed about Sarah’s incompetence, am I being sexist?
Well, too bad. Let’s be sexist for a while.
Sarah is a dangerous religious fundamentalist who believes that gay should be prayed away, that the war in Iraq – and I assume any war against Muslim Arabs – is a God’s plan, and that creationism, sorry intelligent design – in which phrase intelligent refers to the designer and not the designed – should be taught at school.
Sarah is a dishonest politician who, as a Governor, supported lobbying Washington for earmarks and who now is lying about it, every day, in every speech.
She is a dishonest Governor who billed her state for per diem money when she was staying at home.
As a woman hunter and gun owner, she is no more nor less violent than a man hunter and gun owner.
I think that if a man had told that story, and more precisely a man from the Democratic party, he would have been accused of sexism.
I know that as a fact because you just need to criticize Sarah to be accused of being a sexist.
And that is precisely what is sexist. Sarah is not a woman. She is a politician and she runs for the Vice-Presidency. So, she should be criticized for what she does wrong, and praised for what she does right – Good luck! – as any other candidate. Her record should be scrutinized, as should the record of all other candidates, and she should not be treated with any more deference – her campaign declared that she would give interviews only when the media will treat her with respect and deference – than the other candidates.
The Republicans are claiming they are making history by putting the first woman on the ticket. That is sexist. She should be on the ticket for her competence, experience and political honesty. Obviously, that is not the case. She is on the ticket because she is a woman. This is sexist.
Sarah is presented as a “mom,” supporters say she is a “babe.” Isn’t that a bit sexist?
At the convention, you could see buttons saying things like “We have the hottest VP” or “Such state for the Hot Chick.” This is amazingly sexist.
The Republicans are claiming that American women will vote for Sarah because she is a woman. Apparently then, American women are too dumb to base their vote on political or social issues, or even on ideology. American women vote for a woman. That is incredibly sexist and insulting.
If I am writing, right now, that I think this VP pick is more and more mind-boggling because everyday some new damning information is revealed about Sarah’s incompetence, am I being sexist?
Well, too bad. Let’s be sexist for a while.
Sarah is a dangerous religious fundamentalist who believes that gay should be prayed away, that the war in Iraq – and I assume any war against Muslim Arabs – is a God’s plan, and that creationism, sorry intelligent design – in which phrase intelligent refers to the designer and not the designed – should be taught at school.
Sarah is a dishonest politician who, as a Governor, supported lobbying Washington for earmarks and who now is lying about it, every day, in every speech.
She is a dishonest Governor who billed her state for per diem money when she was staying at home.
As a woman hunter and gun owner, she is no more nor less violent than a man hunter and gun owner.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Jesus (!) Sarah
Okay, so, I think I'm going to have to stop this blog. You seem I am trying to be kind of funny -- more or less successfully for sure -- as I report what I perceive of this campaign. But if the candidates keep being as funny as Sarah is these days, it is going to be tough for me. I can't keep up. I mean, I'm no Keith Olberman nor Jon Stewart.
Yesterday, some videos of Sarah at church, shot only a few months ago, were released. The messages were pretty clear.
Sarah was saying that the pipeline she wanted built was the work of God, so she was exhorting her co-parishioners to pray for its construction.
She also said that the war in Iraq was a mission from God. She exhorted her co-parishioners to "pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that's what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
In an incredible part of the video -- that you have to go see on youtube -- she is talking about her pastor who prayed for her to be elected governor of Alaska, and she explains how bold that pastor was because he was not praying saying "If such is your will, make sure she is elected," he was praying saying "Lord, make her way, and let her do that next step." And Sarah concludes "And that's exactly what happened." By the way, some Republicans criticize Barack Obama because he acts as if he is the Messiah.
Then she gives the mike to a fellow parishioner who calls this a "prophetic declaration." And, without Sarah trying to stop him but on the contrary with Sarah nodding at his side, this guy continues explaining that "there are some things about the natural resources about the state, there are some things that God wants to tap into to be a refuge for the lower 48 [the 48 US states south of Alaska] and I believe Alaska is one of the refuge state in the last days, and hundreds of thousands of people are gonna come to the state to seek refuge and the church has to be ready to minister to them"
So, a bit of explanation here might be necessary for my French pagan friends, not that you don't understand but you are probably saying to yourself what I have been saying to myself "okay, I heard that, I think I understand, but I must be wrong, I must be misunderstanding, that's just too crazy." So, yes, this guy is actually saying that the state of Alaska is going to be a refuge for the true Christians on the day of the Armaggedon, "in the last days," the days of the apocalypse.
Okay, I am a French pagan for sure, but I don't mean any disrespect for any religious belief whatsoever, really...
...
Oh, come on, man, Alaska chosen by God as a refuge for the saved!!??
Okay, I'm not saying anything.
So, granted, it is a religious belief, that's okay, it doesn't hurt anyone, blah blah blah.
However, there is a serious problem in having a Governor claiming that the war in Iraq is a mission from God, and asking her co-parishioners to pray for a political project such as a pipeline. The problem is called Separation of Church and State Endangered. I think Sarah needs to be seriously questioned and asked whether she believes in the separation of church and state, and how her faith is going to influence her actions as a Vice-President.
I find this basic principle of democracy seriously endangered in the US today as never before. The decisions that the Supreme Court has taken in that respect in the recent years have not always been unanimous and making sure that the Supreme Court keeps defending the separation of church and state is one of the stakes of this election. Several Justices are getting very old. The next president might have several opportunities to appoint a new Justice to a Supreme Court which is dangerously leaning towards 18th century ideology.
Many people keep referring to the Founding Fathers as Christians who made sure the freedom of religion would be secured and they take that to mean that it is okay for a vice-presidential candidate to say the kind of things Sarah said to her co-parishioners.
The problem is, the Founding Fathers secured freedom of religion and separation of church and state because they wanted to protect the state from lunatics. Get a load of this, my Republican friends -- if I have any out there -- most of the Founding Fathers were deists. What is a deist? Well, I like Diderot's definition: a deist is someone who has not lived long enough to become an atheist.
Finally, it was also revealed that Sarah once encouraged her co-parishioners to pray away the gay, to pray so that gay people would be converted into straight people. Did I mention 18th century ideology earlier? Sorry, I meant 16th.
The Republicans keep complaining -- in the media -- that the media are too mean to Sarah. Well, I think they are way, way too nice.
As I am writing this, the Washington Post is releasing a poll showing that a majority of women are now supporting the McCain/Palin ticket. I have an eye on the images the TV shows of today's REpublican rally, and apart from the campaign-manufactured McCain/Palin signs, I can see a lot of home-made signs praising Palin: "Palin Power," "Women for Palin," etc., etc.
This is not funny anymore. It is becoming quite scary indeed.
Yesterday, some videos of Sarah at church, shot only a few months ago, were released. The messages were pretty clear.
Sarah was saying that the pipeline she wanted built was the work of God, so she was exhorting her co-parishioners to pray for its construction.
She also said that the war in Iraq was a mission from God. She exhorted her co-parishioners to "pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that's what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
In an incredible part of the video -- that you have to go see on youtube -- she is talking about her pastor who prayed for her to be elected governor of Alaska, and she explains how bold that pastor was because he was not praying saying "If such is your will, make sure she is elected," he was praying saying "Lord, make her way, and let her do that next step." And Sarah concludes "And that's exactly what happened." By the way, some Republicans criticize Barack Obama because he acts as if he is the Messiah.
Then she gives the mike to a fellow parishioner who calls this a "prophetic declaration." And, without Sarah trying to stop him but on the contrary with Sarah nodding at his side, this guy continues explaining that "there are some things about the natural resources about the state, there are some things that God wants to tap into to be a refuge for the lower 48 [the 48 US states south of Alaska] and I believe Alaska is one of the refuge state in the last days, and hundreds of thousands of people are gonna come to the state to seek refuge and the church has to be ready to minister to them"
So, a bit of explanation here might be necessary for my French pagan friends, not that you don't understand but you are probably saying to yourself what I have been saying to myself "okay, I heard that, I think I understand, but I must be wrong, I must be misunderstanding, that's just too crazy." So, yes, this guy is actually saying that the state of Alaska is going to be a refuge for the true Christians on the day of the Armaggedon, "in the last days," the days of the apocalypse.
Okay, I am a French pagan for sure, but I don't mean any disrespect for any religious belief whatsoever, really...
...
Oh, come on, man, Alaska chosen by God as a refuge for the saved!!??
Okay, I'm not saying anything.
So, granted, it is a religious belief, that's okay, it doesn't hurt anyone, blah blah blah.
However, there is a serious problem in having a Governor claiming that the war in Iraq is a mission from God, and asking her co-parishioners to pray for a political project such as a pipeline. The problem is called Separation of Church and State Endangered. I think Sarah needs to be seriously questioned and asked whether she believes in the separation of church and state, and how her faith is going to influence her actions as a Vice-President.
I find this basic principle of democracy seriously endangered in the US today as never before. The decisions that the Supreme Court has taken in that respect in the recent years have not always been unanimous and making sure that the Supreme Court keeps defending the separation of church and state is one of the stakes of this election. Several Justices are getting very old. The next president might have several opportunities to appoint a new Justice to a Supreme Court which is dangerously leaning towards 18th century ideology.
Many people keep referring to the Founding Fathers as Christians who made sure the freedom of religion would be secured and they take that to mean that it is okay for a vice-presidential candidate to say the kind of things Sarah said to her co-parishioners.
The problem is, the Founding Fathers secured freedom of religion and separation of church and state because they wanted to protect the state from lunatics. Get a load of this, my Republican friends -- if I have any out there -- most of the Founding Fathers were deists. What is a deist? Well, I like Diderot's definition: a deist is someone who has not lived long enough to become an atheist.
Finally, it was also revealed that Sarah once encouraged her co-parishioners to pray away the gay, to pray so that gay people would be converted into straight people. Did I mention 18th century ideology earlier? Sorry, I meant 16th.
The Republicans keep complaining -- in the media -- that the media are too mean to Sarah. Well, I think they are way, way too nice.
As I am writing this, the Washington Post is releasing a poll showing that a majority of women are now supporting the McCain/Palin ticket. I have an eye on the images the TV shows of today's REpublican rally, and apart from the campaign-manufactured McCain/Palin signs, I can see a lot of home-made signs praising Palin: "Palin Power," "Women for Palin," etc., etc.
This is not funny anymore. It is becoming quite scary indeed.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Words, words, words
On the New York Times website, there is a very interesting graph showing how many times a number of given words have been used by both sides of the presidential campaign per 25,000 words spoken. The graph simply shows facts, but they are quite revealing if you take pains at a simple superficial analysis of them.
One of the most recurrent words in both campaigns is Change. The Democrats have used it 89 times, by far the word they use the most. It makes perfect sense. They are the opposition. The current Bush administration is very unpopular. So the Democrats need to convey the message that if they are elected, the voters' life is going to change for the better. This is a classic message of the opposition, here and anywhere else.
It is, however, more original to hear this word used a lot by the party which is leading the country. The Republicans have used Change 30 times per 25,000 words; it is the third most used word by them after God (43 times) and Taxes (42 times). Even more striking is that the word Reform(s) has been used much more by the Republicans than by the Democrats: 22 times to 6.
During the convention speeches, John McCain and Sarah Palin have indeed emphasized that their victory would bring change to Washington, although the country is led by a fellow Republican. This, of course, reveals the urgent need for McCain to separate himself from Bush, unpopular among the Republicans as well as among the rest of the population. It is an urgent need, but it is going to be a difficult trick to pull. JoeBarack Obiden need to constantly associate McBush in their campaign and remind people that change cannot be that significant from a Republican administration to a Republican administration. It is cruelly ironic than the name of Bush has only been used 7 times by the Republicans, who have never mentioned Dick Cheney's name. I don't have previous data of the same kind, but this has to be a historical record low. Even Al Gore, who ran in 2000 and who tried to separate himself from Bill Clinton's sex scandal, has probably cited his White House mate more often.
The Democrats have used the name of Bush 46 times and 6 times the name of Cheney.
Because promoting change is hardly making any sense for the Republicans, John and Sarah are campaigning a lot about their character. The word Character have been used 17 times by the Republicans and 3 times by the Democrats. Indeed, John is incessantly -- to the point of nausea during the convention -- depicted by himself and his supporters as a courageous and honorable POW who suffered for his country for so long. His biographical video at the convention and the speeches of some of his supporters -- Romney, Giuliani, Graham -- have told in graphic detail the five years he spent in a Vietnamese cell and the wounds he endured.
Sarah is constantly referred to as a mother, more precisely as a hockey mom, an expression used 4 times by the Republicans. It seems few but it is arguably a lot in a political campaign. This campaign should be about economic and social issues more than about the character of the candidates. Basing an electoral campaign on character could be risky because it is necessarily hypocritical. While portraits of John and Sarah emphasize their honor, courage, independence, morals, their opponents could highlight what the Republicans leave behind about their candidates: John cheated on his first wife, for example, which should be damning to the Conservatives who tried to impeach Bill Clinton and who politically killed John Edwards.
But the Democrats do not do that. They actually try to focus on policies, however simplistically. They have used the terms Economy 32 times (used 15 times by the Republicans), Health care 34 times (15 times by the Republicans), Energy 49 times (against 26), Jobs 39 times (against 18).
They are doing what they should do, but I am not sure they are doing what works to win an election.
Quite surprisingly, both sides have talked about immigration, Iran, terrorism very little. The campaign is not over, of course, and these themes will probably appear in the speeches. For now, they are overshadowed by what is causing trouble in the Americans' everyday life, the price of gas and milk.
Immigration was used 3 times by the Democrats and only once by the Republicans; Iran, 5 by the Dems, 2 by the Reps; Terrorism or Terrorists, 8 times by each side.
Neither side has talked much of terrorism. However, one side has indecently used images of the 9/11 attacks during the party convention. I let you guess which one.
One of the most recurrent words in both campaigns is Change. The Democrats have used it 89 times, by far the word they use the most. It makes perfect sense. They are the opposition. The current Bush administration is very unpopular. So the Democrats need to convey the message that if they are elected, the voters' life is going to change for the better. This is a classic message of the opposition, here and anywhere else.
It is, however, more original to hear this word used a lot by the party which is leading the country. The Republicans have used Change 30 times per 25,000 words; it is the third most used word by them after God (43 times) and Taxes (42 times). Even more striking is that the word Reform(s) has been used much more by the Republicans than by the Democrats: 22 times to 6.
During the convention speeches, John McCain and Sarah Palin have indeed emphasized that their victory would bring change to Washington, although the country is led by a fellow Republican. This, of course, reveals the urgent need for McCain to separate himself from Bush, unpopular among the Republicans as well as among the rest of the population. It is an urgent need, but it is going to be a difficult trick to pull. JoeBarack Obiden need to constantly associate McBush in their campaign and remind people that change cannot be that significant from a Republican administration to a Republican administration. It is cruelly ironic than the name of Bush has only been used 7 times by the Republicans, who have never mentioned Dick Cheney's name. I don't have previous data of the same kind, but this has to be a historical record low. Even Al Gore, who ran in 2000 and who tried to separate himself from Bill Clinton's sex scandal, has probably cited his White House mate more often.
The Democrats have used the name of Bush 46 times and 6 times the name of Cheney.
Because promoting change is hardly making any sense for the Republicans, John and Sarah are campaigning a lot about their character. The word Character have been used 17 times by the Republicans and 3 times by the Democrats. Indeed, John is incessantly -- to the point of nausea during the convention -- depicted by himself and his supporters as a courageous and honorable POW who suffered for his country for so long. His biographical video at the convention and the speeches of some of his supporters -- Romney, Giuliani, Graham -- have told in graphic detail the five years he spent in a Vietnamese cell and the wounds he endured.
Sarah is constantly referred to as a mother, more precisely as a hockey mom, an expression used 4 times by the Republicans. It seems few but it is arguably a lot in a political campaign. This campaign should be about economic and social issues more than about the character of the candidates. Basing an electoral campaign on character could be risky because it is necessarily hypocritical. While portraits of John and Sarah emphasize their honor, courage, independence, morals, their opponents could highlight what the Republicans leave behind about their candidates: John cheated on his first wife, for example, which should be damning to the Conservatives who tried to impeach Bill Clinton and who politically killed John Edwards.
But the Democrats do not do that. They actually try to focus on policies, however simplistically. They have used the terms Economy 32 times (used 15 times by the Republicans), Health care 34 times (15 times by the Republicans), Energy 49 times (against 26), Jobs 39 times (against 18).
They are doing what they should do, but I am not sure they are doing what works to win an election.
Quite surprisingly, both sides have talked about immigration, Iran, terrorism very little. The campaign is not over, of course, and these themes will probably appear in the speeches. For now, they are overshadowed by what is causing trouble in the Americans' everyday life, the price of gas and milk.
Immigration was used 3 times by the Democrats and only once by the Republicans; Iran, 5 by the Dems, 2 by the Reps; Terrorism or Terrorists, 8 times by each side.
Neither side has talked much of terrorism. However, one side has indecently used images of the 9/11 attacks during the party convention. I let you guess which one.
My Obama sign
In France, we don't practice political yard signs and bumper stickers. So, since I'm spending six months in the US during an electoral campaign, I was very excited at the idea of putting signs in my yard -- really my in-laws' yard -- and bumper stickers on my car -- really my in-laws' car -- supporting my candidate -- really my in-laws' candidate.
So I did.
Less than a week later, my in-laws received an email from the president of the neighbors' association reminding them that the neighborhood covenant -- equivalent to contrat de syndic -- forbids all political signs! In the land of freedom!? I am sure that it did not help that my sign was an Obama sign in an Oklahoma yard.
For a minute, I thought of going to buy a gun at the local Wal-Mart -- equivalent to French Carrefour -- to go on a killing spree. But I reasoned myself and thought of what the Founding Fathers would have done.
And I think they would have put the sign in their bedroom, against the window with a view on the street.
Me alive, the freedom of speech will not be infringed upon!
Friday, September 5, 2008
John the funny Mavrick
Before I start, I need to tell you two autobiographical anecdotes. If I understood one thing during this campaign, it is that it has to be about the biography of the candidates or their partners or any other people providing they allow to avoid addressing real issues. I don't have a video showing you my life with tear-pulling music playing in the background, but I can tell you a few anecdotes about my theater experience so that you understand what happened yesterday during John's acceptance speech.
There is kind of a tradition in theater to play tricks on your fellow actors at the last performance. It can be quite difficult to handle on the spur of the moment, but it is funny once you have passed -- more or less successfully -- the hurdle. For example, as I was playing a character who at some point unfolds a piece of paper where I was supposed to have written down a few notes to remember, my friends had replaced the paper I usually unfolded with one filled with obscenities about one colleague we did not like who was in the audience. In another play, my partner Yves and I were now and then having a drink of fake whiskey. For the last performance, our director Fred had replaced the fake whiskey with real whiskey. You imagine our reaction at the first drink we had.
Well, last night, John gave his acceptance speech, and some funny staffer had filled his speech with blunders and jokes that John apparently did not even notice as he was uttering them.
At the beginning of his speech, there was the only mention of the current President -- he had apparently forgotten his name since he referred to him only by his title -- in the following terms: "I'm grateful to the president of the United States for leading us in these dark days following the worst attack in American history."
In light of the rest of his speech, which was at times rather damning to the present administration and the Republican party he is supposed to represent, he obviously meant to say "the president of the United States for leading us to these dark days following the worst attack in American history."
A few minutes later, he said that his opponent and himself share something: "We're dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal and endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. No country -- no country ever had a greater cause than that." That's something we hear a lot these days, the idea that only in the United States of America can individuals be equal and free. They can't possible mean that. They can't possibly be narrow-minded enough to believe that only in America are people free and equal. They can't truly believe the US of A is the only democracy around, that it is "the greatest nation in the history of the earth." They can't truly have forgotten that fifty years ago, a huge part of the American population were treated as sub-humans.
That must have been a typo in the speech too.
He said that Sarah "has worked with her hands and nose." That was a funny one, although we did not really understand what he meant. In fact, he had paused at the wrong place and the sentence was "she's worked with her hands and knows what it's like to worry about mortgage payments."
Oh, and just like everybody else in St Paul, Minnesota this week, he had his Bushian "Mission accomplished!" moment: "Thanks to the leadership of a brilliant general, David Petraeus, and the brave men and women he has the honor to command, that strategy succeeded, and it rescued us from a defeat that would have demoralized our military, risked a wider war, and threatened the security of all Americans." That was funny too. It would be truly hilarious if in fact the military were not demoralized and the security of Americans were not threatened, but hey, John is not a professional comedian.
He talked about health care. Well, actually he talked about how he understood Barack's plan for health care: "His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor."
Okay, so that has to be the funniest part of his speech. So John, let me play the arrogant French here and lecture you a little bit about what you call "a big government" can do for your health. You see, last time I went to my doctor's, I did not see any bureaucrat standing between him and I. I did not check under the desk, but I am pretty sure that's not what you call a bureaucrat, right? No, in fact the bureaucrat in a government-run health care system is far away from the doctor's office, at the other end of a telecommunication line and this is what happens: I go to the doctor's or the pharmacist's, and when the doctor or the pharmacist are done with me, I give them a small electronic card, they put that card in a machine and the government pays for my visit or my medicine. And that's it.
So when you say "All you've ever asked of your government is to stand on your side and not in your way," John, well that's what a big government can do for you. It can stand by your side and make sure you do no go bankrupt because you are sick.
Oh, and talking about big government... When you refer to former exemplar presidents as models, like "Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan," just a piece of advice, John, when you mention Roosevelt, don't forget the first name of the one you mean, because one of the Roosevelts -- arguably the most popular one, and the most popular of all Presidents -- was the epitome of big government.
John said he wants to "empower parents with choice." Yes, people, John is pro-choice.
Oops, sorry, I got carried away, he was talking about schools. He wants to empower parents at school. He wants "schools to answer to parents and students." Well, I can tell he did not meet some of the parents I met as a teacher.
This was a running joke in his speech, by the way, since later he encouraged people to become teachers: "My friends, if you find faults with our country, make it a better one [...] Become a teacher. Enter the ministry. Run for public office. Feed a hungry child. Teach an illiterate adult to read."
And here was the most hilarious moment of the convention, and I swear I am not inventing anything. I watched the speech on CNN. Just after John had exhorted the crowd to "teach an illiterate adult to read," a camera showed a sign in the crowd that said "John the Mavrick." How appropriate.
The funniest running joke that his speechwriters pulled on him, though, is the recurrent call to vote for Barack: "Change is coming! Change is coming!" he incessantly repeated.
There is kind of a tradition in theater to play tricks on your fellow actors at the last performance. It can be quite difficult to handle on the spur of the moment, but it is funny once you have passed -- more or less successfully -- the hurdle. For example, as I was playing a character who at some point unfolds a piece of paper where I was supposed to have written down a few notes to remember, my friends had replaced the paper I usually unfolded with one filled with obscenities about one colleague we did not like who was in the audience. In another play, my partner Yves and I were now and then having a drink of fake whiskey. For the last performance, our director Fred had replaced the fake whiskey with real whiskey. You imagine our reaction at the first drink we had.
Well, last night, John gave his acceptance speech, and some funny staffer had filled his speech with blunders and jokes that John apparently did not even notice as he was uttering them.
At the beginning of his speech, there was the only mention of the current President -- he had apparently forgotten his name since he referred to him only by his title -- in the following terms: "I'm grateful to the president of the United States for leading us in these dark days following the worst attack in American history."
In light of the rest of his speech, which was at times rather damning to the present administration and the Republican party he is supposed to represent, he obviously meant to say "the president of the United States for leading us to these dark days following the worst attack in American history."
A few minutes later, he said that his opponent and himself share something: "We're dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal and endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. No country -- no country ever had a greater cause than that." That's something we hear a lot these days, the idea that only in the United States of America can individuals be equal and free. They can't possible mean that. They can't possibly be narrow-minded enough to believe that only in America are people free and equal. They can't truly believe the US of A is the only democracy around, that it is "the greatest nation in the history of the earth." They can't truly have forgotten that fifty years ago, a huge part of the American population were treated as sub-humans.
That must have been a typo in the speech too.
He said that Sarah "has worked with her hands and nose." That was a funny one, although we did not really understand what he meant. In fact, he had paused at the wrong place and the sentence was "she's worked with her hands and knows what it's like to worry about mortgage payments."
Oh, and just like everybody else in St Paul, Minnesota this week, he had his Bushian "Mission accomplished!" moment: "Thanks to the leadership of a brilliant general, David Petraeus, and the brave men and women he has the honor to command, that strategy succeeded, and it rescued us from a defeat that would have demoralized our military, risked a wider war, and threatened the security of all Americans." That was funny too. It would be truly hilarious if in fact the military were not demoralized and the security of Americans were not threatened, but hey, John is not a professional comedian.
He talked about health care. Well, actually he talked about how he understood Barack's plan for health care: "His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor."
Okay, so that has to be the funniest part of his speech. So John, let me play the arrogant French here and lecture you a little bit about what you call "a big government" can do for your health. You see, last time I went to my doctor's, I did not see any bureaucrat standing between him and I. I did not check under the desk, but I am pretty sure that's not what you call a bureaucrat, right? No, in fact the bureaucrat in a government-run health care system is far away from the doctor's office, at the other end of a telecommunication line and this is what happens: I go to the doctor's or the pharmacist's, and when the doctor or the pharmacist are done with me, I give them a small electronic card, they put that card in a machine and the government pays for my visit or my medicine. And that's it.
So when you say "All you've ever asked of your government is to stand on your side and not in your way," John, well that's what a big government can do for you. It can stand by your side and make sure you do no go bankrupt because you are sick.
Oh, and talking about big government... When you refer to former exemplar presidents as models, like "Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan," just a piece of advice, John, when you mention Roosevelt, don't forget the first name of the one you mean, because one of the Roosevelts -- arguably the most popular one, and the most popular of all Presidents -- was the epitome of big government.
John said he wants to "empower parents with choice." Yes, people, John is pro-choice.
Oops, sorry, I got carried away, he was talking about schools. He wants to empower parents at school. He wants "schools to answer to parents and students." Well, I can tell he did not meet some of the parents I met as a teacher.
This was a running joke in his speech, by the way, since later he encouraged people to become teachers: "My friends, if you find faults with our country, make it a better one [...] Become a teacher. Enter the ministry. Run for public office. Feed a hungry child. Teach an illiterate adult to read."
And here was the most hilarious moment of the convention, and I swear I am not inventing anything. I watched the speech on CNN. Just after John had exhorted the crowd to "teach an illiterate adult to read," a camera showed a sign in the crowd that said "John the Mavrick." How appropriate.
The funniest running joke that his speechwriters pulled on him, though, is the recurrent call to vote for Barack: "Change is coming! Change is coming!" he incessantly repeated.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Sarah and politics
Last night, Sarah gave a very good speech.
She talked a lot about her family, who were all there attending. Even the teenage future husband of her teenage daughter was there. I wonder if anybody asked his opinion about being there. All week, though, Republican figures had asked the media to leave her family alone. "That's out of bounds. There's no need to be intrusive and pry into that," said Tim Pawlenty.
She said: "To the families of special-needs children across the country, I have a message for you: for years, you've sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. And I pledge to you that, if we're elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House."
She said her husband, Todd, "is a world champion snow machine racer." She said: "Throw in his Yup'ik Eskimo ancestry, and it all makes for quite a package. And we met in hight school. And two decades and five children later, he's still my guy."
She also talked about her parents. She said that they taught her that only in America, "every woman can walk every door of opportunity."
She said she "had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town. I was just your average hockey mom and signed up for the PTA."
She said "a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities," referring to Barack's past helping people in the South side of Chicago.
She said that the media are plotting against her and her running mate. She said that "the pollsters and the pundits, they overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off. They overlooked the caliber of the man himself, the determination, and resolve, and the sheer guts of Senator John McCain."
She said she's "not a member of the permanent political establishment." And she said "if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone."
She said: "Americans, we need to produce more of our own oil and gas. And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: We've got lots of both." Some of them are even in wildlife reserves.
She said that "victory [was] within sight" in Iraq.
She said about Barack: "This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word 'victory.'" Huh? I wonder if that might be because victories are hard to find in the recent American history.
She said that while Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America" Barack is "worried that someone won't read them their rights."
She said that John "is not looking for a fight, but he's not afraid of one either."
She said that JoeBarack Obiden are talking a lot about "fighting for you, but there's only one man in this election who really fought for you," referring to John's experience in Vietnam.
She said that her opponents plan "to make government bigger, and take more of your money and give you more orders from Washington, and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world."
Those quotes from her speech hardly need any comment on my part. Any intelligent reader -- and my two, okay five readers are intelligent -- can understand what they truly mean and what is behind them. But half of the voters do not question them.
They do not see that big government can be good as far as health care is concerned.
They don't see that small Conservative government is still big enough to give them orders such as Don't abort! Pray at school! Don't you gay people marry! Learn creationism! Forget science!
They don't see that there are as many conservative media as liberal ones.
They don't see that Conservative America is making the world dangerous by pretending to make it safer.
They don't see that what Sarah does when she talks about not reading their rights to prisoners of the war on terror, she is dismissing the habeas corpus, which is at the basis of the ideals of America that the Conservatives claim to protect, at the basis of democracy and freedom, two words whose meanings such speeches are betraying and turning their back to.
When Sarah says that her opponents want to increase government spendings, don't they see that for the last five years, the government -- a Conservative one -- has been spending huge amounts of money in a war without victory.
They don't see that it does not make any sense to define McCain as a maverick when he has supported the policies of the last eight years. They don't see that lashing at the Washington establishment when their presidential candidate has been in Washington for about 30 years is kind of stupid.
They don't see how meaningless it is to claim over and over again that the United States is "the greatest nation in the history of the earth" (Mitt Romney), that only in America can a black man or a woman be successful -- and both camps are to be blamed for such assertions, by the way.
They don't see that democracy does exist in some other places, they don't see that democracy is actually healthier in other places than in America.
They don't see that a former POW does not necessarily make a good president.
They don't see that a good mommy does not necessarily make a good Vice-President.
Attacks on the opponents as being friends of the media and part of the elite has worked before. The elite sucks! Stupid America rocks!
Sarah gave a great speech because she said exactly what approximately half of the Americans want to hear.
And that is the scary part.
She talked a lot about her family, who were all there attending. Even the teenage future husband of her teenage daughter was there. I wonder if anybody asked his opinion about being there. All week, though, Republican figures had asked the media to leave her family alone. "That's out of bounds. There's no need to be intrusive and pry into that," said Tim Pawlenty.
She said: "To the families of special-needs children across the country, I have a message for you: for years, you've sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. And I pledge to you that, if we're elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House."
She said her husband, Todd, "is a world champion snow machine racer." She said: "Throw in his Yup'ik Eskimo ancestry, and it all makes for quite a package. And we met in hight school. And two decades and five children later, he's still my guy."
She also talked about her parents. She said that they taught her that only in America, "every woman can walk every door of opportunity."
She said she "had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town. I was just your average hockey mom and signed up for the PTA."
She said "a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities," referring to Barack's past helping people in the South side of Chicago.
She said that the media are plotting against her and her running mate. She said that "the pollsters and the pundits, they overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off. They overlooked the caliber of the man himself, the determination, and resolve, and the sheer guts of Senator John McCain."
She said she's "not a member of the permanent political establishment." And she said "if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone."
She said: "Americans, we need to produce more of our own oil and gas. And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: We've got lots of both." Some of them are even in wildlife reserves.
She said that "victory [was] within sight" in Iraq.
She said about Barack: "This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word 'victory.'" Huh? I wonder if that might be because victories are hard to find in the recent American history.
She said that while Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America" Barack is "worried that someone won't read them their rights."
She said that John "is not looking for a fight, but he's not afraid of one either."
She said that JoeBarack Obiden are talking a lot about "fighting for you, but there's only one man in this election who really fought for you," referring to John's experience in Vietnam.
She said that her opponents plan "to make government bigger, and take more of your money and give you more orders from Washington, and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world."
Those quotes from her speech hardly need any comment on my part. Any intelligent reader -- and my two, okay five readers are intelligent -- can understand what they truly mean and what is behind them. But half of the voters do not question them.
They do not see that big government can be good as far as health care is concerned.
They don't see that small Conservative government is still big enough to give them orders such as Don't abort! Pray at school! Don't you gay people marry! Learn creationism! Forget science!
They don't see that there are as many conservative media as liberal ones.
They don't see that Conservative America is making the world dangerous by pretending to make it safer.
They don't see that what Sarah does when she talks about not reading their rights to prisoners of the war on terror, she is dismissing the habeas corpus, which is at the basis of the ideals of America that the Conservatives claim to protect, at the basis of democracy and freedom, two words whose meanings such speeches are betraying and turning their back to.
When Sarah says that her opponents want to increase government spendings, don't they see that for the last five years, the government -- a Conservative one -- has been spending huge amounts of money in a war without victory.
They don't see that it does not make any sense to define McCain as a maverick when he has supported the policies of the last eight years. They don't see that lashing at the Washington establishment when their presidential candidate has been in Washington for about 30 years is kind of stupid.
They don't see how meaningless it is to claim over and over again that the United States is "the greatest nation in the history of the earth" (Mitt Romney), that only in America can a black man or a woman be successful -- and both camps are to be blamed for such assertions, by the way.
They don't see that democracy does exist in some other places, they don't see that democracy is actually healthier in other places than in America.
They don't see that a former POW does not necessarily make a good president.
They don't see that a good mommy does not necessarily make a good Vice-President.
Attacks on the opponents as being friends of the media and part of the elite has worked before. The elite sucks! Stupid America rocks!
Sarah gave a great speech because she said exactly what approximately half of the Americans want to hear.
And that is the scary part.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Barack and young voters
I am trying to remain neutral on this blog, I am trying very hard, yes I am, but everybody in the family is not as serious as I am.
The young and the restless in St Paul
Political scientist Walter Bagehot once wrote about the spectacle of politics. He probably had in mind a higher form of artistic show in mind than the soap opera the Americans are being offered these days.
In our last episode, George, alone in his big white house in Washington, spoke to his former friends who were all partying in St Paul. They were all calling after him and acted happy to see him but George knew well they were pretending and kept talking over their cheers. He tried a few jokes -- John "is not afraid to tell you when he disagrees. Believe me, I know" -- but they kind of fell flat, and he looked so sad.
The thing is, George did not really want to talk because it was the last time he addressed his former friends, so he had to say farewell but he knew they would not miss him. Besides, he was supposed to say all the good things he thinks of John. But you see, he does not think many good things about John. In fact, he hates him. But hey, this was John's party, and he was invited, so he had to be polite. Besides, most of the other guests don't like John either, and they acted all excited.
George felt lucky, though, because Gustav had made his day. Yes, George was supposed to be present at the party the day before, and he was supposed to give a long speech. But Gustav decided to crash the party and wreak havoc and so George had to deal with that. So, he pretended to be mad at Gustav, but really, he was relieved. Just like his former friends who did not really want to see him in the first place.
In the meantime, Joe was wondering what he was doing here. He was wondering about that so much, and he wondered out loud in the microphone at some point: "What is a Democrat like me doing at the Republican convention like this?" That was so funny! You see, Joe had been invited to the party by his friend John. But the other guests hated Joe because he is not really part of the gang. But hey, he was invited and he had to be polite if he wanted to get a high position when John is president. Yes, you see, Joe had tried to be vice-president eight years ago with Al, and he almost won -- well actually he would have if George had not stolen the election -- and so he got bitter. Especially when his old friends did not ask him try again four years later. So, this year, he really hoped John, his new friend, would ask him to run with him. Unfortunately, just days before he was about to ask Joe to be his running buddy, John got drunk and saw a picture of Sarah in a fur bikini posing for Vanity Bear. And John looooves bikinis. His first wife was a bikini model, his second wife was a beauty queen. And so was Sarah. And John really loves this kind of woman. So he asked her out, leaving his pal Joe on the sidewalk. But Joe does not give up that easily. When John is president, he is sure he will ask him to be his Secretary of State or something.
So, Joe was polite. And he said he loves John, and that everybody should love John because he is the best, and Barack, the new best pal of his former friends, he sucks, he's young, he does not have experience, etc, etc. Man, Joe could not do better to be accepted by his new friends. Joe even said that thanks to John's perseverance in the Senate when Barack was advocating for the retreat of the troops in Iraq, "our troops are at last beginning to come home, not in failure, but in honor." I think Joe was afraid he would not be let in at the party and had started drinking before he got there. But that was not as funny, because really, the troops are dying in Iraq, and that's not honor, that's failure big time. But when he said that, the other guests, they clapped and cheered and screamed. I think they were completely drunk too. It was kind of sad.
In tonight's episode, Sarah will come to the party, if her teenage daughter is not too nauseated. Yes, you see, in a previous episode, Sarah's daughter got knocked up, and that was really bad because her mommy, she believes the kids should be taught abstinence only in school, instead of sexual education. Besides, Sarah wants to make her new friends believe she is pure and self-righteous and that she knows God personally, or something, so it's going to be kind of tough for her, but if she shows up in the proper sexy clothes, she will be fine.
In our last episode, George, alone in his big white house in Washington, spoke to his former friends who were all partying in St Paul. They were all calling after him and acted happy to see him but George knew well they were pretending and kept talking over their cheers. He tried a few jokes -- John "is not afraid to tell you when he disagrees. Believe me, I know" -- but they kind of fell flat, and he looked so sad.
The thing is, George did not really want to talk because it was the last time he addressed his former friends, so he had to say farewell but he knew they would not miss him. Besides, he was supposed to say all the good things he thinks of John. But you see, he does not think many good things about John. In fact, he hates him. But hey, this was John's party, and he was invited, so he had to be polite. Besides, most of the other guests don't like John either, and they acted all excited.
George felt lucky, though, because Gustav had made his day. Yes, George was supposed to be present at the party the day before, and he was supposed to give a long speech. But Gustav decided to crash the party and wreak havoc and so George had to deal with that. So, he pretended to be mad at Gustav, but really, he was relieved. Just like his former friends who did not really want to see him in the first place.
In the meantime, Joe was wondering what he was doing here. He was wondering about that so much, and he wondered out loud in the microphone at some point: "What is a Democrat like me doing at the Republican convention like this?" That was so funny! You see, Joe had been invited to the party by his friend John. But the other guests hated Joe because he is not really part of the gang. But hey, he was invited and he had to be polite if he wanted to get a high position when John is president. Yes, you see, Joe had tried to be vice-president eight years ago with Al, and he almost won -- well actually he would have if George had not stolen the election -- and so he got bitter. Especially when his old friends did not ask him try again four years later. So, this year, he really hoped John, his new friend, would ask him to run with him. Unfortunately, just days before he was about to ask Joe to be his running buddy, John got drunk and saw a picture of Sarah in a fur bikini posing for Vanity Bear. And John looooves bikinis. His first wife was a bikini model, his second wife was a beauty queen. And so was Sarah. And John really loves this kind of woman. So he asked her out, leaving his pal Joe on the sidewalk. But Joe does not give up that easily. When John is president, he is sure he will ask him to be his Secretary of State or something.
So, Joe was polite. And he said he loves John, and that everybody should love John because he is the best, and Barack, the new best pal of his former friends, he sucks, he's young, he does not have experience, etc, etc. Man, Joe could not do better to be accepted by his new friends. Joe even said that thanks to John's perseverance in the Senate when Barack was advocating for the retreat of the troops in Iraq, "our troops are at last beginning to come home, not in failure, but in honor." I think Joe was afraid he would not be let in at the party and had started drinking before he got there. But that was not as funny, because really, the troops are dying in Iraq, and that's not honor, that's failure big time. But when he said that, the other guests, they clapped and cheered and screamed. I think they were completely drunk too. It was kind of sad.
In tonight's episode, Sarah will come to the party, if her teenage daughter is not too nauseated. Yes, you see, in a previous episode, Sarah's daughter got knocked up, and that was really bad because her mommy, she believes the kids should be taught abstinence only in school, instead of sexual education. Besides, Sarah wants to make her new friends believe she is pure and self-righteous and that she knows God personally, or something, so it's going to be kind of tough for her, but if she shows up in the proper sexy clothes, she will be fine.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Sarah, Bristol and privacy in American politics
Bristol is Sarah Palin's daughter. She is 17. On the day her mother was introduced as John's running mate, she was carrying her little brother wrapped in a blanket that was covering a nascent potbelly.
Yes, the world learned today that seventeen-year-old Bristol, 17, is pregnant, although she is a 17-year-old teenager. Of course, she is not married. And her mother is an evangelical Christian.
What a shame! The work of the devil has struck at the core of Alaskan virtue! Vade retro!
But this is none of our business, American voters. This is a private matter. John said so, Sarah said so, even Barack said so. The families should be out of the game. The kids especially.
Er... excuse me, people? The families and the kids should be out of the game?
Okay, I don't quite understand something here. Do I keep seeing Barack's two lovely daughters, Joe's precious grandkids, Sarah's cute little ones -- the knocked-up teenager included -- every other time their presidential or vice-presidential parent appears on TV? Did I hear Michelle and Cindy talk to the conventions and brag about how great their husbands are? Do I know the whole biography of Michelle, Cindy and Todd because I read it in the newspapers? Do the candidates keep mentioning their families and kids? Didn't Joe say that his wife is "drop-dead gorgeous" on the day he was introduced as Barack's VP pick?
Hey guys, I'm sorry, but you set the rules of your game. They suck -- indeed, I don't think your families should get involved in all this, because really they don't have much to do with the job you are applying for -- but they are your rules, and you have been using them as much as you can. So, yes, let's talk about Bristol and her teenage pregnancy and let's try to find out how she got knocked up.
And I hope we learn soon that she was dead drunk and stoned when she had sex -- oh, my god, sex, no, no, get away from my blog, cursed three-letter word!
Yes, the world learned today that seventeen-year-old Bristol, 17, is pregnant, although she is a 17-year-old teenager. Of course, she is not married. And her mother is an evangelical Christian.
What a shame! The work of the devil has struck at the core of Alaskan virtue! Vade retro!
But this is none of our business, American voters. This is a private matter. John said so, Sarah said so, even Barack said so. The families should be out of the game. The kids especially.
Er... excuse me, people? The families and the kids should be out of the game?
Okay, I don't quite understand something here. Do I keep seeing Barack's two lovely daughters, Joe's precious grandkids, Sarah's cute little ones -- the knocked-up teenager included -- every other time their presidential or vice-presidential parent appears on TV? Did I hear Michelle and Cindy talk to the conventions and brag about how great their husbands are? Do I know the whole biography of Michelle, Cindy and Todd because I read it in the newspapers? Do the candidates keep mentioning their families and kids? Didn't Joe say that his wife is "drop-dead gorgeous" on the day he was introduced as Barack's VP pick?
Hey guys, I'm sorry, but you set the rules of your game. They suck -- indeed, I don't think your families should get involved in all this, because really they don't have much to do with the job you are applying for -- but they are your rules, and you have been using them as much as you can. So, yes, let's talk about Bristol and her teenage pregnancy and let's try to find out how she got knocked up.
And I hope we learn soon that she was dead drunk and stoned when she had sex -- oh, my god, sex, no, no, get away from my blog, cursed three-letter word!
Lionel for President!
I've had enough of this campaign.
I decided to run for President.
Go to the following link:
http://www.inews3.com/topstory.php?id=4c696f6e656c7c4c41525245
My running mate will be Paris Hilton. She has as much experience as Sarah Palin, she has as much to say, and she is hotter. So, it should be fine.
See you at the White House!
I decided to run for President.
Go to the following link:
http://www.inews3.com/topstory.php?id=4c696f6e656c7c4c41525245
My running mate will be Paris Hilton. She has as much experience as Sarah Palin, she has as much to say, and she is hotter. So, it should be fine.
See you at the White House!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
