Friends! Americans! Non-countrymen!

[yakalskovich]

I finally caved in to the suspense and peeked, and what did I see? Nobody has won again!

I just wonder (rhethorically, of course): who were these people who voted for Bush? All the Americans on my flist didn't, that much is certain. Underworld, it looks as if all of LiveJournal in its entirety didn't. All of the Internet didn't, possibly. And "my" State (Wisconsin) certainly didn't, nor my distant relatives by a cousin's marriage (Yay! Go Annemarie!). So the suspicion befalls me that the people voting for Bush must all have been Sims, specially bred for the occasion.

On the other hand, nothing is decided yet. Ohio says who wins, and Ohio is gratefully taking its sweet time to thoroughly count everything, so anything like the Florida hullaballoo the last time around will be averted.

Comments

Re: Who's voting for Bush

[ironmelf.livejournal.com]

Bob:

The point I think I'm trying to make is that the range of political debate has been narrowed by the media. The media has done this because the audience is lazy and (also generally dumb) needs to see things in terms of pros and cons.

It is a mentality that has been conditioned by a firm belief in black and white, right and wrong, god and the devil, Yankees and Sox . . . indeed this attitude limits our perspective.

On the world stage there are many forces at work, but it takes a broad knowledge of too many subjects for the average audience member to make any sense of it.

Instead, the audience member, with the media holding their hand, has a limited perspective: Osama attacked America, Republicans took action, and Democrats must be against the Republicans.

I'm not blaming the media since they so often give us what we ask for, I'm just annoyed because life isn't True-False . . . it's an essay question.
__
Alan
ironmelf

PS: And I'm not really afraid of you, Bob, but your voice does carry weight around here. If you were to dismiss my notions--even if they have merit--most people would go along with you simply due to your 'scholarly' reputation. That fact can be intimidating--especially when we enter a discussion that poses the danger of sharp criticism.

Re: Who's voting for Bush

[supiluliumas.livejournal.com]

Put that way - you make a compelling argument. It's a self-fulfilling cycle. People find the news and entertainment that boil complex political issues down to binary logic more palatable and thus, the news agencies spoon-feeding it to them get more ratings and advertising revenue. As the audience becomes more and more used to this new operating paradigm of 'news McNuggets', the level of complexity at which the news is presented becomes lower and lower. Hence the success of soundbites, slogans, political platforms and sensationalism.

I get what you're saying now. Their insidious little staged erosion of consumer intellect hasn't dumbed me down completely! This is a very good point, sir. I wonder if this is the result of concious design, however, or simply the pressure of economic forces.

PS. My voice carries weight? :O Since when? What scholarly reputation? I didn't even know I had a reputation at all! Why does it take this long for someone to tell me I have all these things?

Let me reassure you right now, I don't think I've ever dismissed anything anyone ever said to me in my life. And even if I was inclined to dismiss opinions out of hand, I certainly wouldn't dismiss one of yours, chief!

Re: Who's voting for Bush

[ironmelf.livejournal.com]

Bob:

I'm still trying to figure out your icon. It looks like you. Could you send me a large version?

ironmelf@earthlink.net

Also, include your cell phone number. I'll reply with my own. Thanks!
__
Alan
ironmelf

Re: Who's voting for Bush

[supiluliumas.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid it is me, sir! For BEHOLD!

http://ninestitches.keenspace.com/chibi/0005.html

For even further revelations, check out the archives of ninestitches.

Unfortunately I have yet to actually purchase a celphone. I keep getting sidetracked. ~_~;;