DIY Planner - The U.S. Election: Democracy Had It Coming - Comments

I actually hadn't intended

steves — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:17:56 -0500

to start a polarizing political debate. If you'll look carefully, you'll notice the article isn't actually about the war. I don't remember what the hell it was about, but it wasn't about that. Still, it's to be expected, these are heavy issues people feel strongly about. And I don't really think that discussing these things necessarily tarnishes the site, but it certainly is off-topic for our stated purpose. Still, so is 90% of the rest of the stuff I write, but there you go. So let's bring it around again to what the article was about in the first place: Many people, inside and outside of the U.S., are deeply concerned about the U.S. election because of all that's at stake and the electoral process is, let's be honest, weird:P Thank you.

Steve Sharam
www.whenrealityknocks.com

Not pro-Bush is not the same as standing up for the truth

Glenda — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:53:46 -0500

Jon, they weren't pro-Bush, but that's not the same as objectively and independently investigating the rationale for the war and having the courage to stand up and risk the wrath of the neo-cons and the evangelicals and Bushies and report the truth. Of course, if they had, the country has been so polarized and shell-shocked by 9/11 and the 2000 elections that maybe it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

And never fear for Bush--he has the full support of Fox News.

And I agree with the person who said it's a shame to have this subject tarnishing the pages of such a great site, so I'm going to swallow my bile hereafter. At least here on DIY Planner.

What media you all been watching?

jonglass — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:25:37 -0500

Maybe my perspective is a bit skewed, being 5000 km from home, but I remember distinctly, that CNN and MSNBC (the only two American networks over here) were _never_ pro-Bush or pro war. And I've been reading the NYT daily headlines for well over 10 years--they were never "pro-war", nor was the Miami Herald, nor the LA Times, nor The Atlanta J&C--nor any major city newspaper I remember....

Sorry, but this current propoganda flies in the face of my own very strong memories--I wrote letters to editors of some of these papers--as far back as 2002. Nope. The US media was never pro-Bush, or pro-Bush policy. And the Dems were only pro-war because the public seemed to be for it, and then, when it looked like public opinion was switching, the Dems, like wind socks, flipped positions to go with the current wind.

And for the record, it never "went sideways." One thing I remember Bush saying even before we entered Iraq--that it wasn't a matter of a year or few, but a long term commitment--looong-term commitment. Problem is, today, people want it slam-bam, thank you maam. with no commitment whatsoever.

And I say it now, hoping that somebody remembers. It doesn't matter _who_ gets in the White House this coming term. They will stay there until the job is finished properly. And this means, for a long time. Trust me, they were perfectly willing for Bush to leave in a disaster, but they don't want any failure on their own heads. Mark that in your calendar.... Don't have any hopes of us leaving soon.

-Jon

If someone had told us

steves — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:40:41 -0500

7 years ago that we'd be here, now, I don't think most of us would have believed them. Whatever our political stance or opinion on the necessity of the war, I think most of us could agree that somewhere along the way the whole thing went sideways (helped by patriotic boosterism along the way) and the question now is how to get out with the least subsequent damage. I'm glad I'm not the one making the decision.

This is a very interesting documentary by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation about the manipulation of the American media in the first years of the war: link

Steve Sharam
www.whenrealityknocks.com

They let us down

Glenda — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:38:21 -0500

Journalists have a duty to explore and find the truth--that's a responsibility that goes along with their constitutional freedom of the press. And they let us down on that in 2003. They went along with the administration and didn't dare to express anything other than "support for the troops."

Any possibility that the invasion wasn't justified was expressed very weakly, if at all. Partly this is because people are primed to turn on any dissent and claim that we aren't patriotic or don't support our guys who are in danger, or even that we are putting them in danger by questioning the war to start with.

But the more patriotic and supportive action is to insist on the truth about the invasion and the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind it. I mourn the 4,000 lives we have needlessly lost in Iraq and the many more who are injured and maimed and will suffer all their lives because Congress and the media allowed themselves to be squelched.

Unfortunately so many here believe that Bush has carried the battle to the terrorists and saved the homeland from repetitions of 9/11. Never mind that the Iraqi people have suffered and died for something they had nothing to do with.

That's very true

steves — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:06:19 -0500

As a Canadian, with access to Canadian news sources, I can say that the slant of the majority of U.S. media has changed greatly over the course of the war and, especially, at the beginning, was very different than what you saw outside the States. No doubt this has to do with ownership of the news channels, but public opinion on the war no doubt pushes these things as well. For the first couple years of the war, you certainly didn't hear too many dissenting voices in the popular U.S. media, at least from where I was sitting.

Steve Sharam
www.whenrealityknocks.com

News sources

jonglass — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 07:57:10 -0500

I think one needs to be careful how much one trusts his news sources. The American media has invested itself in declaring defeat for so many years now, that it would be egg on their face, if they turned out to be wrong. Besides that, and if you read the editorials that appear in various places, as well as some extreme-left blogs, you will see that there is a desire to repeat their "success" of Vietnam, in which the US retreated, mainly because of media pressure in the States, rather than for tactical reasons on the ground. So, the media has a template and a goal from which to work--and that's all that many of them know! So, in the end, it would be wise to broaden ones news sources. Personally, I have friends who are serving, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the stories they tell me are a far cry from what I read and hear in the news. Also, something else to consider.... while the left in the US is very eager to cry "pull out!" Notice how the Congress doesn't really want to do it.... This should be a red-flag to any person wondering what the reasons may be... Yes, there would be political consequenses if the Dems were responsible for a hasty pull out, and it failed--because it seems that those who want to leave--at all costs--asap--are in a significant minority in the US. But also, there would be nasty consequences beyond political, and _nobody_ wants to have that on their hands--not even peacenik Dems. ;-)

Yes, it's an ugly thing--but the rule applies--you break it, you bought it. It would be morally wrong for usto leave hastily, and leave, as you mentioned, anarchy behind. Besides that, it's improved vastly in this past year. I would remind people that 5 years after victory in Germany in WWII, there was still anarchy and chaos in Germany! It takes time to rebuild--but more importantly, build trust with the conquered people. This is the most important commodity we can offer--trust in our good will. Leaving now would completely undermine that--and I would contend that our record as a nation since the Vietnam war has not been good on this front. The only honorable thing to do now is earn their trust--a different perspective, I think, than you hear in the news, but one that I know is primary in the minds of those serving over there, and, I believe, for Bush--whether you like him or not.

I don't know how I got into this conversation. I don't want to inflame opinions, nor upset people. I just wanted to share a perspective that seems to be different than what you see in the popular media today, including web blogs, etc.

-Jon

I'm not sure I agree

steves — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:49:13 -0500

with the all or nothing view of the Iraq conflict, though my gut tells me that leaving would be preferable, but it's a catch-22. Staying could mean a decade of conflict and leaving could mean anarchy, unless something changes radically and soon. So, sorry to say, I think that anybody's who's elected will end up with a long commitment on their hands, but I could be wrong.

Steve Sharam
www.whenrealityknocks.com

But don't even think!

jonglass — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:12:12 -0500

That if the Dems win the White House, that they will start pulling troops out of Iraq, because they won't! Already, Barack has been distancing himself from any promises or commitments to such folly. Let me put it this way. Dems don't want to be tagged with being losers any more than anyone else. And if you lose in Iraq---well, you lose it all. So, it's your choice--lose it all or win it all--there's no half-way--and both Obama and Clinton know this, and they won't do anything stupid.

-Jon

Artistic Young Man with Lamy

tootru — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:37:15 -0500

Seeks domicile north of 49th parallel ... (c:

(I'll send my step-kid to see you - any place he could apprentice to a tattoo artist up there?)

Amen to that

steves — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:46:53 -0500

That's the only difference that matters right now. Speaking of Canada/U.S. relations, if the war continues and they institute a draft...well, let's just say I expect many young Americans will start to look very fondly on Canada, and I can't say I blame them.

Steve Sharam
www.whenrealityknocks.com

It sure is.

Anonymous — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 04:20:07 -0500

It sure is.

one of two parties which

Anonymous — Sat, 9 Feb 2008 23:56:39 -0500

one of two parties which are not really that different from each other
Except in this election we've got one party in favor of ending the war in Iraq, and another in favor of ongoing, escalating war until "we" "win." That's a pretty significant difference.

Hey

gill_smoke — Fri, 8 Feb 2008 04:42:16 -0500

As both a Lefty and a leftist I resent that.

anonymous

notebklover — Fri, 8 Feb 2008 04:37:37 -0500

Ha!

I hate to get political on such a friendly site but am curious about this post:

I had to go to the ER without health insurance. Cost me $50 for the Dr's exam and X-ray.) Duh. It's the insurance that makes things cost more. Ever heard of COBRA?

Whoever you are, I can't tell what your point is (short of bashing Canadians and their country). Are you saying that in the US you had access to cheap healthcare in the ER? And that by choosing not to have insurance, your costs are lower? What does COBRA have to do with it? It sounds like you're saying the US healthcare system is great, if you don't get insurance.

But if you can afford insurance and are choosing not to pay for it, you have to realize that the burden for your medical costs then falls on everyone else. Is that the situation you're bragging about?

Hope I haven't misconstrued your message terribly and that you'll clarify if I have...

The U.S. Election: Democracy Had It Coming

steves — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 02:11:28 -0500

Greetings all, Steve here, back again. I was going to post something last week, but, like many people lately, I came down with mild death-like symptoms. I went to the doctor and he said that, hypodermically speaking, I should be fine, ouch, so after a few days rest, I'm back in the saddle. Today I'm going to take a break from saying silly things about business and say some silly things about something many people are critically concerned about these days, something that could effect every area of our lives, business and personal: the U.S. presidential election.

Here are my thoughts: It's insane.

Allow me to elaborate. The United States presidential election is a time-honoured tradition, but like many time-honoured traditions, it's completely mental. I mean, think about it. Why must the election be held exactly every 4 years and consist of an arcane series of nominations and pre-elections to elect a candidate from one of two parties which are not really that different from each other? Because it's tradition. Fair enough, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. I mean, it used to be tradition to use left-handed people as test projectiles in catapults. Honest, look it up. They did it all the time. That's why there are so few left-handed people around. See, you learn something every day.

But times change and perhaps the U.S. election process is in need of an overhaul and it's something a lot of people are interested in. In recent decades, the U.S. election has elicited about as much interest as a clearance sale at Bagpipe World, but these days it's on just about everybody's minds. And you can see why. The United States is beset by problems: The war, the economy, the environment, terrorism and the return of the Spice Girls. Things are getting serious people! And everybody's concerned about the election, but many people find the process confusing.

So allow me to simplify it. The candidates for both parties square off, a bunch of wealthy middle-aged white guys with strong hairlines and nice teeth, and they compete in a series of primaries, which are like small pre-elections, used to weed out the least worthy candidates. The first and most important primary is in Iowa, because it used to be one of the most important and populous states. Like, 250 years ago. While this may seem seem antiquated and illogical, it's actually an improvement over the original weeding-out process, which involved the candidates squaring off in a butter-churning competition. Honest, look it up.

So, as I say, all the rich, white male candidates square off and the candidate who wins the Iowa primary usually takes an early lead in the overall election. What they do is, they take your total vote tally from the Iowa primary, multiply that by your standing in the California, Washington and New Hampshire primaries, see what zodiac Venus is in, divide the year you were born by your shoe size and then elect you based on how well you play the saxophone. See what I mean? This process is convoluted and makes no sense and you can tell that by watching CNN. All the commentators sit around and discuss with great concern the results of this or that, but nobody ever says why it matters, because nobody has the foggiest idea why the hell it matters. It's just tradition.

But maybe it's time for tradition to change and what better year than this year? After all, for all the votes and all the posturing, all the name-calling and butter-churning, the only real question on people's minds is whether the U.S. will vote for a white male candidate who stubbornly refuses to be white, or one who stubbornly refuses to be male. I guess we'll see.

But in the meantime, I want to offer some other comparative perspectives from around the world, to show some different approaches to electing a leader. I'm Canadian and we have a very different system here. Instead of the U.S. two-party system, here in Canada, basically anybody can start a political party and since we vote for our local candidates and not for the leader, we can end up pretty much randomly electing whoever happens to be standing there to run the country. And this can be kind of frightening when, given the freedom to create their own political parties, you see the kind of political parties people actually create. We have, and I swear I'm not making any of these up, the Conservative Party (which is keen on big business), The Liberal Party (which is keen on different businesses), The New Democratic or Really Really Liberal Party (which is keen on small business), The Bloc Quebecois (which is keen on breaking up the country), The Green Party (which is keen on trees), The Marijuana Party (which is self-explanatory) and the Sex Party (which would be a great name for a punk band and which is also self-explanatory).

See what I mean? Canadian politics may be a little weird, but at least we're interesting. And there are many other examples from around the world. Australia is run by a benevolent council of surfers who rule, both politically and in terms of surfing. In Scotland they give it to the person who can throw a telephone pole the farthest and in Italy they give it to somebody new every week. Even in ancient Greece, the birthplace of democracy, it was different, much more hands-on and immediate. Candidates would meet in public and engage in a battle of words, hitting each with dictionaries. Honest, look it up.

And none of these systems, crazy though they are, is quite as crazy as the American system, which nobody even understands, with it's convoluted processes, Supreme Court decisions and hanging chads. They need to get the Sex Party in there, just to shake things up, get everybody to relax a little. But that's just my opinion.

Well, that was my unsolicited and completely unresearched opinion on American politics. Until next time, keep your pen on the page and watch out for hanging Chads.

Steve Sharam
www.whenrealityknocks.com

D*I*Y Planner - The U.S. Election: Democracy Had It Coming - Comments

I actually hadn't intended

Not pro-Bush is not the same as standing up for the truth

What media you all been watching?

If someone had told us

They let us down

That's very true

News sources

I'm not sure I agree

But don't even think!

Artistic Young Man with Lamy

Amen to that

It sure is.

one of two parties which

Hey

anonymous

The U.S. Election: Democracy Had It Coming

DIY Planner - The U.S. Election: Democracy Had It Coming - Comments