Submitted by Alex Birch on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 18:54.
The latest controversy around the racial slurs against Obama and the sexist remarks about Hillary, proves in effect what we've always known to be true: democracy is political entertainment. The masses simply can't get enough; we've had a disastrous war in Iraq that is leading nowhere, an economy that's about to go into recession, increased ethnic conflicts and several reports of organized lobbying, yet we insist on more.
We want more entertainment, in any form, to keep us occupied in between work and TV. We need something to discuss and feel important about. Sexism and racism are currently two hot topics that serve this end. We feel good inside by asserting what's seen as morally correct in the social environment we're in. It's good to be an anti-racist but even better to be a feminist. Preferably you're both.
The fact that we see problems in our society as social taboos is in itself an alarming sign that something's wrong. Instead of simply admitting that our pluralistic society has failed and that sexism only flourishes where man and woman don't understand the context of where they're supposed to be working together, we cover the problems in a mist of what's socially acceptable and make an entertaining controversy in the media about it.
Ultimately, this debate confirms what we already can expect from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as possible future presidents: despite all their glamorous talk of Change, they are not interested in reforming the system that's made America into what it is today. They want to continue the same destructive momentum but replace one shallow promise with another. In short, they're here to entertain because they're democratic TV-priests at heart and as such they will act.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
Such immaturity,
I agree with all of you,
Are they all in middle school or something?
Seriously though, this stuff they and the media is so childish; In all the glimpses I get at the news on TV I have honestly yet to see a single thing regarding Obama's platform and political ideas! It's the same crap every time! Like you all said, the media is more concerned with the entertainment value of it than the fact that one of the morons is going to be running the country in less than a year!
"Coming up on Good Morning America, see what the 2008 Presidential Candidate's favorite foods are!"
(No joke, I actually saw this on there)
And this has gone on for like a year and a half already, and now it's actually 2008 JUST starting, I'm about fucking sick of hearing about all of them!
The campaign has been reduced to a rediculous game of he said-Hillary said. And since you mentioned Obama, have you noticed that about all of the accusations agaisnt him by people are always either racist or xenophobic, and very ignorant at that. I overheard an idoit christian conversation (Pretty sure they all voted Bush, and likely Nixon too) the other day in fact about him, some shit like "Oh did you know he's a muslim from the middle east and that if he was elected that he would be sworn in on the Korahn and he would be all for seperation of church and state..." And they went on into some stuff about him being a terrorist and all this trash. Not only is it dumb, but it's not even true, I read a statement from him on CNN.com denouncing all this crap outright, he's an American citizen (duh) and a Christian (oh well). Seriously folks, Would a Muslim really get that far up in THIS country?
Don't get me wrong though, I can't stand Obama or any of them for that matter, the only reason I would even bother to vote is to get the lesser of two evils, whoever that would be... By the way:
I just joined last night, you don't know how happy I am to find an intelligent anti-political/stupidity/everything else I don't like site! Keep up the good thoughts everyone
Obama e-mail
There was an e-mail going around for quite a while that led a number of people to believe Barack Obama was a Muslim terrorist and that he'd be bad for America. Both of my parents received this e-mail, and both of them reacted (stupidly) to it, much in the way I'm sure people intended. My dad, a man of practically no religious faith, cried out how if that "nigger" couldn't respect the flag and recognize that this is a Christian country, he shouldn't be president. My mother, on the other hand, simply talked about "What if it's true..." and mentioned how she'd never vote for anyone with that name (completely overlooking that his father is Kenyan, which is probably the root of the name).
Yeah
Sounds familiar, my parents brought that up as well. My mom bought into it and started talking about how America would fall by the hand of god if we got an Islamic president, And my dad ranted about how someone like him (A different ethnic background, and a muslim as he was convinced) doesn't have a patriotic bone in his body. Is his middle name really Hussein? My old man says it is. And who the hell sent that email anyway, Pat Robertson?
It mentioned the email in that CNN.com headline, I'd link it on here but I'm not allowed on sites like that during free time if it's not for teacher supervised research. I'd like to apologize to everyone for trying to find out what's going on in the world during my free time instead of getting on miniclip.com and listening to soulja boy like all the other good students.
Middle Name
Yes his middle is Hussein(sp?). But that is simply a name.
I have a friend whose name is Jesus, but he is not the son of "Christ". He is actually an atheist ironically enough. It was his parents who were 'hard core' Christians. He actually goes by his middle name of David. I am sure you see my point. Judgments should be passed on the elevation of ones moral character, not on anything less.
Muslim is a religious
Muslim is a religious affiliation, not an ethnicity. There are black muslims.
Good Point
You are correct being Muslim is not an ethnicity. I was, however, referring more toward the rather offensive "nigger"
portion of his fathers statement when I referred to Obama being the "Whitest" Candidate.
However, I will admit, when someone mentions a Muslim I immediately think of someone of African or Middle-Eastern origins. I don't think of a Caucasion. Perhaps thats an incorrect generalization on my part. But I do notice that most(not all) religious individuals are born (due to geographical location or ethnicity) into particular belief system based solely on tradition rather than that of research, discovery and a search for truth.
That is why it sometimes irritates me when someone says this country was founded for "Christian freedom". Or state that we are a "Christian country". The fact is that our country was founded on "Religious freedom" those who founded the country just happened to be Christians attempting to escape the oppression of The Catholic Church in Europe. The fact that the majority of people in America are Christian has simply been passed down from father to son. Had the Pilgrims been from Tibet(let's assume Chinas occupation happened 500 years prior) we would be a country of mainly Vajrayana Buddhists.
I realize this is off topic but it was what was on my mind.
Obama
Anthony,
You are spot on. I got one of those e-mails also. Come to find out he was born in Hawaii. He is a member of the Church of Christ. He graduated from Harvard and if I am not mistaken his mom is white and was born in Kansas to Irish immigrants. It is very possible he may be the 'Whitest' democrat running this election.
Of course, I could be wrong. Everything you read in an e-mail or in "The National Enquirer" has to be true. Doesn't it? No disrespect to you or your family(mine is the same way) but it is amazing to me what people will accept as fact without a single question.
I agree
I agree, it's pure political drama. What makes it worse is that it's happening while this country is literally falling apart and no one seems to give a shit! So much for responsibility and change.
Thanks for your kind words, I hope you'll continue to find interesting stuff to read here.
Democracy; a few thoughts
I agree that the majority of voters in this country are uniformed about who they are voting for. They typically vote based on Party, Charisma, Mud-slinging(drama), snake oil sales, or who they think they identify with based upon the media. Here are some of the example I have heard, paraphrased of course:
1) My daddy was a republican and so am I so that's who I am voting for.
2)He seems like a great guy I'll vote for him.
3)That guy smoked pot back in 1952. I won't vote for him.
4) That guy said some great things about fixing the country last night in a commercial. I will vote for him.
5)That guy parts his hair the same way as me, he must be ok to vote for.
How many women do you think will vote for Clinton simply because she is a woman? Blacks for Obama? How many people will not vote for Clinton because she showed too much cleavage(which really wasn't much) one day on the house floor and the media ran with it. Perhaps no vote for Obama because he actually did inhale 25 years ago. Through all this not one mention of issues or a consideration of whether the candidate would make a good leader.
Let's face it most Americans know more about the all-star cast of Survivor than they do about the Presidential Candidates. So I would like to officially like to forego the voting process this year and have "Survivor: Presidents Island" .We can take all the candidates to an isolated area of Puerto Rico (you know, that island that gets the benefits of being a state without any of the responsibilities of being one). Once there we can watch each week and get to know these circus clowns and instead of voting for the candidate we can watch how they manipulate the others and we can call in to vote on what silly task they will have to do next. The winner can be our next "Ring Master", I mean President. Sound ridiculous?? No more ridiculous than our current voting process.
Consider this. Our system, like it or not has been corrupted by capitalism. Money buys the Presidency, much like our Major Baseball Teams buy Championships (see salaries of recent contenders, i.e. Sox, Yankees). And it takes lots of it. Where do they get the money? Special interest groups and big corporations. Even if a President has the best of intentions he already owes these groups and must repay them in some way. In essence he has sold out before he even takes the oath. Whether you like democracy or not. You must admit that we really do not live in a true democracy because capitalism has perverted the system.
Our democratic process is like a circus, you will sit in the stands. You will see lions, tigers and bears. But in the end, some clown will steal the show!
You're all correct Markus,
You're all correct Markus, this is always how democracies end up like: corrupt circuses. The politicans need to appeal to people and therefore try to buy their votes with commercials and false promises. It's one huge loop that we need to get out of.
Democracy a control system for morons
Is not rule-by-wealthy collectives the eventual consequence of having a democracy; a control system for the foolish:
The two political parties or social classes that vied for power in classical Athens, as in most other Greek city states, were the oligarchs and the democrats. The oligarchs tried to establish a state in which only owners of substantial amounts of property could vote and hold public office, while the democrats insisted that all male citizens have the same rights. "An oligarchy is said to be that in which the few and the wealthy, and a democracy that in which the many and the poor are the rulers," as Aristotle put it in his Politics. (1) http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/PlatoRep.htm
Argumentum ad crumenam
The fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that those with more money are more likely to be right. The opposite of Argumentum ad Lazarum.
Argumentum ad novitatem
This is the opposite of the Argumentum ad Antiquitatem; it's the fallacy of asserting that something is better or more correct simply because it is new, or newer than something else.
Argumentum ad numerum
This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.
Argumentum ad populum (Appeal to the people or gallery)
This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People. You commit this fallacy if you attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often characterized by emotive language. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
At least this will
At least this will contribute to America's fall, opening up room for reform, revolution and true change instead of trying to save the country as it is now, which would eventually lead to just another downfall.
I would like to bring everyone's attention to the truth about what Nazi Germany did during a depression in order to try to save themselves: a war. Perhaps Christian America will do the same.
Nazi Germany did not want war
Freeman said: "I would like to bring everyone's attention to the truth about what Nazi Germany did during a depression in order to try to save themselves: a war". In fact war was something Hitler really would have prefered to avoid. War was declared on Germany, which had come out of depression in record time, thanks to astoundingly efficient economic policies, and was thriving.