I'm surprised no voices are raising to denounce the fact that Sarah Palin's picking up and her using as a puppet, a marketing trick or a schoolgirl by the McCain campaign is outrageously sexist.
9/10/08
Are candidates free of speech?
There's something you surely do when you watch and pick up so carefully every single word or act, jokes or mistakes of both candidates, as this screen behind McCain, Joe Biden's saying Hillary Clinton "might have been a better pick than (him)" or now this "pig with lipstick" affair... You question the freedom of speech. And this is more serious than it sounds through these dishonest quarrels.
9/7/08
John McCain's cheek
Such an operation to take possession or steal every single democratic argument with a complete cheek is astonishing...
Watch CBS Videos Online
Watch CBS Videos Online
9/6/08
Sloppy and serious mistakes in McCain' acceptance speech
I'm not sure whether this fuss about the screen behind McCain during his acceptance speech is just a joke or do people really intend to make it mean more than it is : probably a mistake? Isn't there enough serious matter-of-fact to discuss about to use the confusion between a picture of a school and an other of an army hospital?
For those who want to argue, what about about this overuse of the P.O.W. card...
And for those who love the details, let's talk about an other fuss: the use of 9/11 for partisan purposes during the RNC? Isn't it more important, more outrageous?
But if it's a joke, ok well done, the mistake is delicious.
9/5/08
RNC : Day 4 : John McCain's acceptance speech
What happened to John McCain? Isn't he supposed to have a great sense of humor? Did the speech writers use all the jokes and others wisecracks they made up last weeks for Sarah Palin's speech? It sounded like they did actually...
Or did they find appropriate to lower McCain's talent to emphasize by contrast Palin's ability to read?
Or did they find appropriate to lower McCain's talent to emphasize by contrast Palin's ability to read?
Are Republican cynical?
So, I was not the only one to think it was cynical to pick up Sarah Palin as veep nominee... Even Republican agree :
9/4/08
Sarah Palin's speech
Ok we were expecting a lot of this first national speech, so now we know : she can read!
9/3/08
Scandals and gossip
There is something quite strange for someone bored by details of the privacy of others, to see the media, starting with those "serious", enjoyed with things, which are nothing else than gossip. What is surprising is the implacable march of something incredibly reactionary and normalizer.
It's not only that we know that this one (John Edwards) has cheated on his wife with this one, nor even that we know when and how... It's not only that we know that the daughter of this other one (Sarah Palin) is pregnant before to be married or that her husband was arrested more than 20 years ago for driving under the influence of alcohol... It's not only that there are people to peel biographies, investigate, reveal or create "scandals", and others to buy them, "friends" to be paid for their secrets and bargain their betrayal... in short, a whole system implying terrible and sordid things... I assume it could be funny. The point is mostly what it reveals about what is asked to a candidate for the presidency of the USA, which has absolutely nothing to do with the exercise of his functions: to fulfill archaic moral values.
Then they will say that what sets to end the career of John Edwards, is not his affair, but the fact that he has lied. Certainly. The subtlety of reasoning is amusing, which does not see that if he had lied about wether putting socks on or not, his career would continue its running. Or they will say that the pranks of Sarah Palin's family are an issue because of what they reveal the lack of seriousness of the McCain advisors, who has not enough study her record before choosing her as running mate, disregarding the fact that these pranks are none of our buisness.
It is indeed the fact that candidates are expected about their moral values, which astonishes me. It is indeed the fact that they are not only men or women brought to manage records, but entire families engaged to reassure on the probity of a candidate. It is this curious confusion which questions not only the program, but also the values of a man, his morals and his faith.
Who is candidate in this election? What does he stand for? Before who? Those are the questions inevitably arose by Michelle Obama's speech at the DNC, in which she gave so many details, going as far as telling how her husband ask her out, to give an image of good and perfect straight white bourgeois and reassure America.
Sometimes, people are struggling to convince they fulfill the perfect son-husband-father model. Sometimes one detail of their lives betrays their inability to be entirely submited to such values. And this is certainly the least they can do. But the fact that these values and expectations are not questioned, this has to be surprising and inhuman.
It's not only that we know that this one (John Edwards) has cheated on his wife with this one, nor even that we know when and how... It's not only that we know that the daughter of this other one (Sarah Palin) is pregnant before to be married or that her husband was arrested more than 20 years ago for driving under the influence of alcohol... It's not only that there are people to peel biographies, investigate, reveal or create "scandals", and others to buy them, "friends" to be paid for their secrets and bargain their betrayal... in short, a whole system implying terrible and sordid things... I assume it could be funny. The point is mostly what it reveals about what is asked to a candidate for the presidency of the USA, which has absolutely nothing to do with the exercise of his functions: to fulfill archaic moral values.
Then they will say that what sets to end the career of John Edwards, is not his affair, but the fact that he has lied. Certainly. The subtlety of reasoning is amusing, which does not see that if he had lied about wether putting socks on or not, his career would continue its running. Or they will say that the pranks of Sarah Palin's family are an issue because of what they reveal the lack of seriousness of the McCain advisors, who has not enough study her record before choosing her as running mate, disregarding the fact that these pranks are none of our buisness.
It is indeed the fact that candidates are expected about their moral values, which astonishes me. It is indeed the fact that they are not only men or women brought to manage records, but entire families engaged to reassure on the probity of a candidate. It is this curious confusion which questions not only the program, but also the values of a man, his morals and his faith.
Who is candidate in this election? What does he stand for? Before who? Those are the questions inevitably arose by Michelle Obama's speech at the DNC, in which she gave so many details, going as far as telling how her husband ask her out, to give an image of good and perfect straight white bourgeois and reassure America.
Sometimes, people are struggling to convince they fulfill the perfect son-husband-father model. Sometimes one detail of their lives betrays their inability to be entirely submited to such values. And this is certainly the least they can do. But the fact that these values and expectations are not questioned, this has to be surprising and inhuman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
