Now that the Masturbation is Over

The last year or so of US elections has been the biggest circle jerk I've seen in my entire life; the willingness of otherwise sane and reasonable people, both in the US and abroad, to treat Barack Obama as God's gift to humanity was frightening. It is perfectly understandable that after eight years of G.W. Bush, people should look forward to some sort of shift (or change, as Obama followers/worshippers kept repeating for the past year or so), but this blind devotion, this reckless following of the man's every move and every word, should be of some concern.

Especially because we must not forget that Obama is now the president-elect not of Mali or Bhutan, but of the United States of America. We've already seen what this entails when we were still in the Democratic primaries, and both Obama and Hillary Clinton went to grovel at the feet of Israel (represented, it would seem, by AIPAC) -here is a transcript of Obama's speech to the organization. It is surreal (or is it unreal?) how every presidential candidate since 1967 (the date the Israelis proved "useful" to the US in keeping them frisky Arabs in their place) has had to pledge alligiance and undying support, right or wrong, to Israel. That said country's intentions towards those whose territories it occupies might be most sinister, or that the country regularly proves to be incredibly biggoted and indifferent to others' cultures or feelings, is apparently irrelevant. Of course, Obama might have been lying (or something to that effect) when pledging his eternal love for Israel over AIPAC's watchful eyes; perhaps he is sane enough to realize the US is the one country that can force the Israelis to go for peace by simply not paying for their present attitudes. Here's hoping that's true, not just for the sake of Palestinians or Iranians, but for the sake of Israelis, too (after all, as Eric Alterman pointed out, Israel is much more than the conflict we see on TV or read about in irrelevant blogs such as this one).

But Israel is one part of the problem: already, Obama plans to focus on Afghanistan -soon to become his own Vietnam, as such a war is, at least according to America's British allies, unwinnable (and if not unwinnable, too costly). If his plan for change is to leave Iraq (quite sensible) and fight the Taliban (utterly useless and stupid), then his followers and worshippers are in for a surprise. As a general prediction (something I'm not particularly good at), it might be wise for Obama's legions to realize his strategies for foreign policy, though not as awful as those of G.W. Bush, are no great improvement over the mistakes America has been committing since the end of the Cold War.

Worry also stems, again concerning Obama's inexhaustable supply of blind devotees, from the man's choice in cabinet, from keeping Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense to making Robert Rubin a part of the economics team for the White House. If by change he simply means not being as bad as Bush, great, he's well on his way; real change in this particular matter, however, seems to be a rather distant dream. This again brings us back to what being the President of the USA means and entails, and one can't seriously expect any drastic, shocking change to come about in a country as conservative and as addicted to the status quo as America.

To see just how conservative America and Americans are, it would be wise to consider another side of the election, which is where a sizeable portion of the citizenry chose to formally declare through the vote that gays and lesbians (and, in some places, unmarried people in general) are lesser citizens. Not only this, but a whopping 48% of the popular vote went to John McCain; and considering the past eight years and said candidate's brutally incompetent campaign (not to mention his choice of VP in Sarah Palin, of whom we have "shocking" new revelations), 48% of the popular vote indicates a huge amount of people that still buy the shtick, the nonsense that emanates from the Republican "information" machine, from the party being all about smaller government and less taxes to its ideals being about success for all and love of family. 48% of the popular vote is, at this point in time, frightening.

But we must be realistic: Obama's election is a huge victory for America, even if the man turns out to be as much of a lie as Bill Clinton was. A black man (or, still in some parts of the country, a nigger) being elected to the nation's top political post is nothing short of dazzling, a victory not only of common sense but of Justice, social and otherwise. It is now almost possible to believe once again that the United States is a land of opportunity for all, that it is indeed a country of greatness. It might have been important that Obama's message won, were it not shameless propaganda, but it is of paramount importance that he won; between having a walking victory for civil rights, an individual both calm and serene, in the White House, as opposed to a war-mongering shit who trades in fear and masturbates to the Cold War: it might be wise to go with the former. It is also safe to say that if McCain had taken the vote (or shall we say Palin, for McCain is quasi-senile and about to exit, stage left, from some form or other of cancer), any hope of America becoming halfway decent again could have been tossed in the shitter for good. Thankfully, we can use the shitter for other purposes.

I sincerely do hope Obama's campaign message materializes into something other than crude, disgusting propaganda, and I do hope that he might help make a better America not just for Americans but for the whole world as well. It is high time someone stepped into the Oval Office and took the United States from being a rogue country, a danger to civilization itself, and made it into the dream we've always wanted to believe the US might be. It is worrisome that he has stepped into office with such blind devotion following his every move, his every word, but it can't be too much to hope (yes, that word again) that such devotion might prove well-founded in the end. Caution is called for because being President of the United States more often than not entails preventing change rather than promoting it, and it is essentially this notion which makes Obama worship worrisome. But if the man does turn out to be the agent of change he (and his fans) professes to be and tranforms the US from an agent of agression to an agent of peace; and from a country of inequality and religious fanaticism to a land of economic and social justice and tolerance, then we are in for a truly wondrous and happy surprise. May it be so.

Mr. M. and Me, a Love Story, pt. 2

Usually, I wouldn't write anything else concerning Marcos's (yes, that's Mr. M.) replies, but it would seem he's got me between a rock and that Monolith from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Allow me to quote my friend of old:

"This doesn't change the gist of my argument. Just because something is making headlines in local papers does not mean it is, as you imply, taking the place of more important news. In fact, every single newspaper you mentioned has had recent first page news stories on the economy. (The CBS news you posted, however, is simply from their campaign blog, which by definition should cover such things.)

I am however surprised you don't find this disturbing, or worthy of telling as a story. If the head of the law enforcement for your county was saying inflammatory things, I damn well would like to see it reported.

To say this is not important is not disingenuous, perhaps, but it certainly is naïve. You and I are no strangers to issues of police corruption, given where we come from. Can you imagine how an Obama voter, or perhaps a disinterested minority in the area, would feel about this, knowing that the man in charge of your security possibly thinks you're 'palling around with terrorists'??

This goes back to your core argument about how American local democracies work. Sheriffs are elected officials. To report this is the media's job, so that the local residents can make a decision whether or not they should reward such behavior (and what it might imply) with more of their tax dollars.

To have this reported in national newspapers is to serve as curios for its readers; for it to be reported in the local media is paramount to preserving democracy in a local level.

I'm not belittling local papers; I'm saying that "this making headlines" in the local level IS important for its local citizens. And as for it being linked on Andrew Sullivan, it is because some of us of the Eastern latte-sippin' elites fear that the McCain campaign is fear-mongering.


GOOD DAY, SIR."

Indeed, it would seem -to my horror- that I've been caught conceptually red-handed. However, a few qualifiers are in order.

First off, I didn't say that the Lee County Sheriff's remarks were taking the place of more important news, and from reading papers like the New York Times online, it seems clear that the economy is front-and-center in these papers' minds. I am also glad the word "disingenuous" is no longer associated with my name. Finally, the latte-sipping liberal elite is wasting its time fearing the McCain campaign uses fear as currency: they do, as have Democrats (Johnson) and Republicans (Reagan) before the Senator from Arizona put his show on the road.

Having said all this, Marcos, it would seem, is still correct in his argument: it does indeed serve a purpose, at other times espoused by myself, to have the Sheriff's remarks covered, and it is fairly naïve on my part, considering I'm from Brazil, to think otherwise.

So yeah: oops, my bad on that one.

Mr. M. and Me, a Love Story, pt. 1

I have just been accused by one Mr. M. of being disingenuous, since I claimed that the Lee County Sheriff's remarks concerning Barack Obama were making headlines (see my post "Brazil's Forced Democracy, continued"). Mr. M., who, like myself, is a reader of mainstream papers, seems to think that if these news vehicles don't speak of the Lee County Sheriff, than whatever the Sheriff said is not making headlines. Of course, if we search Google, we find that more than one small town paper were discussing the remark and its ramifications (see here, here, here, and here).

I wholeheartedly agree that this news is not important; the reason I selected it as an object of scorn is because people are discussing it at all. However, to claim the news is not making headlines simply because it is not appearing in Mr. M.'s favorite newspapers and magazines does not mean it isn't appearing elsewhere. And however insignificant these elsewheres may be, they are still places for headlines, be they blogs, news sites, small town papers or any other insignificant or poor quality media. Just because you don't read it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Mr. M., I am not disingenuous in my blog and I was not so in that particular post; you and I just happen to disagree on what "making headlines" means, and I certainly feel it means a lot more than simply showing up in the New York Times or the Boston Globe. Whilst these newspapers are indeed a far better read than Naples News, it doesn't mean that Naples News is not a newspaper itself (fortunately, however, one that I don't have to read).

Super Tuesday

It's now 17:31 here in Brazil. Which means Larry King will soon begin his masturbatory session on CNN as he and his team of "analysts" spend hours and hours predicting who'll win the Democratic primaries. Millions'll watch. Fox News will pretend not to care. MSNBC will pretend they're actually competition. Jon Stewart will make fun of the whole thing. I'll miss it.

Super Tuesday. I bet even folks at MoveOn.org think today's ballot casting is meaningful. I bet even third-party activists think there's a choice to be made. I'll bet even the most cynical have stopped comparing Super Tuesday to the Super Bowl (you know, commercial breaks that cost millions, yada yada yada).

That's cute. It must be feeling good right now, them butterflies, the cheering, maybe some are comparing it to The First Time. Maybe the more informed are making comparisons to moments like Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's election. That's adorable, probably makes people think the US has a functioning democracy. Here, let me pinch your cheeks you cute little thing you...

But then again, you all know it don't mean shit. You all know our buddy Barack and our Sista Hillary work for the same people that crazy nutjob McCain works for. You know, donors and such. Did you donate money to their campaign? No? Hmm, guess you're shit outta luck, then.

But more than that, maybe their message really touched your heart, a message I'll bet my left testicle you can't even repeat, unless you look it up or Ctrl+C Ctrl+V that shit. The two candidates from the Democratic party with actual messages, whether you agreed with the messages or not, are gone or never had a chance. Ending poverty? Pfffft. Make the US a non-belicose state? Pffffft.

No, fuck that. Better to go for PR campaigns. After all, that's what American democracy has been about since the Cold War. The fact that Obama '08 folks actually believe Barack Obama was ALWAYS against the war should have George Orwell smiling right now. And to know that so many wish to turn a blind eye to the fact that Hillary Clinton is a crazy belicose "let's bomb the Persians NOW" bitch who is so corrupt she would fit right in in Brazil and vote for her because she's a woman and "stood by her man"... it all boggles the mind.

It'll make absolutely no difference if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama make it to the White House (after George Bush's presidency, it's doubtful John McCain can win). Hillary and Barack belong to a tainted party, one that is just as corrupt, just as sold out, as the Republicans. Both candidates have spent millions upon millions of dollars saying nothing for the better part of four years (remember Obama at the Democratic Convention that chose John Kerry?), tricking people with well-made speeches and carefully placed editorials by Joe Klein. People should know better by now, especially those who follow politics, who know American history, and who are fully aware that marketing is a derivative of propaganda.

Lexington or Charlemagne, one of the three editorial pages in the Economist (I forget which one exactly), commented, about a year after the onset of the Second Iraq War, that, had Al Gore made it to the White House, he'd have made the exact same decisions after 9/11 that G.Bush made. I wholeheartedly agree.