"What If Bush Wins" by a panel of 16 experts
[ http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.bushforum.html ]
Stranger things have happened. At the same time, I do wish that fate upon our parallel universe, and ask that this universe be spared this possibility. Thank you kindly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
hey darren, how's it going back in sg?
bush may win 2004, but watch out next time. just read american evita and according to andersen hillary clinton is deliberately setting the stage for a comeback in 2008. it makes a lot of sense to me. although john kerry just threw a monkey wrench into her grand scheme.
Personally I'm not too bothered to think about what might happen. Maybe it's because I have never done time in the States, but for the most part I think the people who will come off worst will ultimately be the Americans and the Third World, and we're in neither category. For the most part, if you've read Palast (and after I've read that I have yet to be tempted to read any other analysis) you'll see that most of what he is doing is ultimately out of personal gain, and it's "the other people" who are wreaking the havoc upon the ordinary Americans. So should we blame Bush or should we blame the rest of corporate and civic America? The Pat Robertsons (Christian Coalition) and the Dick Cheneys (Halliburton)? I don't know, and personally I don't care because none of this directly impinges on me. When we become the 53rd or 54th state of the US (there's already Puerto Rico and the UK ahead of us) then I'll start worrying.
jiahao: i'm good, good. not sure if there's anything else to say that isn't already said in my blog. 2008 is a bit too late for me. i fear that bush can set the environment on an irreversible course for destruction way sooner than that.
gambitch: you're not bothered?!!! i'm bothered when terrorists kill people, i'm bothered when pigs are slaughtered, i'm bothered that people are starving and we live our lives as if makeup and jewelry are worthy pursuits.
i think we should blame Bush for being selfish and stupid and being president and corporations for seeking out financial gain at the expense of the common good. i hold corporations to ethical standards, just as i hold educated citizens to ethical standards. it's not acceptable for a company to say "i'm just trying to make money" and use that to justify everything they do.
I can see why you'd jump. You're right, it's disturbing that terrorists kill people, and it's disturbing what the rich-poor divide is like. It's disturbing, but to what extent does it personally influence YOU? Israelis fear for their lives every single day when they move around Jerusalem. We're not affected nearly as badly because, plainly and simply, we're not living in Jerusalem.
All of this is disturbing, but the fact is that we live somewhere else. There's nothing wrong with personal compassion for all the unprivileged (I won't even say underprivileged), and that's mighty fine. But until you are in a position where you can stand up and actually do something that will concretely improve things for these unprivileged, I can only applaud you for the courage to stand on a soapbox and air your views. That's better than those who don't even have the balls for that, but it doesn't do enough to start changing the world.
Bush? His stupidity is genetic (I wonder how George Sr feels about having such a flop of a son) so that can't be blamed. His selfishness is a product of a rich, powerful family lineage based in Texas (see Prescott and George Sr, or Granddad and Daddy). His presidency... Well blame the bloody campaigners who killed McCain.
If corporate America had ethics they wouldn't be called corporate America. Profit-orientation to survive is one thing, but when it changes to something like world market domination it's another beast. The thing is, and I'll be blunt here, if you were actually boss of some big American company, say, Pepsico or McD's, and the rest of the corporate world didn't change, how would you run it?
It influences me because for one, environmental concerns affect the globe. There's also all that spending on military and the underfunding of education which will have terrible consequences for what the future of America is like. Nuclear weapons, nuclear waste, his administration's manipulation of scientific results (e.g. on global warming), energy policy; the importance is tremendous because of the tremendous effect of what people in that continent do. It's a lot of people with a lot of power (money) and thus very influential.
Also, the more humanitarian messes Bush makes, the more people have to clean up, and the thinner my charity dollar gets spread out. We can always do something because charities like UNICEF don't have enough money to do all that they want to do, and we can all donate. We can surely change the world if we all donated 5% of our income.
To be honest, if I was the boss of McDonalds, I'd immediately turn the entire franchise into a vegan burger paradise. That would be so incredibly sweet. You've got me salivating over that possibility.
And you've got half a million, probably more, protesters on the streets across America and its pseudo-colonies for withdrawing all that fat from their diet. A reminder of that little snippet on Harold and Kumar about people eating burgers as part of chasing the American Dream. Bleargh, but still.
Yes, Bush is a goof on too many things for me to like him, but I don't vote for the American President, and even if I did, who's to say Kerry or Nader would fare better if they actually got the job? Let's just suppose they did for a minute, and then think of all the forces that are at play in Washington. Now calm down and think about it for a minute. Can a good-boy cherub who enters the Oval Office come out of it equally cherub-y? No, because of all those other forces at play.
Yes, it'd be so much better if all of us just did something and saved the planet. It'd be so much better if all of us made sizeable donations to charity, be it money, food or other kind. It'd be so much better if human beings could achieve sustenance on a diet of oxygen and water, and perhaps be born with enough chlorophyll in our skin. But under the ridiculousness of some of the things I'm saying, there is one truth - we're stuck with what we live with.
There's a second truth, and this sucks more: Everything we're talking about here is hopelessly empty. When it comes to the crunch and we actually have to donate 1% of our salary for charity, or stop buying everything made by an America-linked MNC, or do whatever it is we say we'll do to prove our point, eleven out of ten ordinary people will chicken out. It's how we survive.
You're certainly a pessimist, it seems. I think if Nader can't do a good job of being president, I don't know who can. I am amazed and inspired by what I know of his track record, and what he stands for. I want to believe in our future and want to believe that there are people who will stand up for their beliefs and ideals. I believe such people exist and I want to be one of them.
Yeah you got that one right. I'm a pessimist. But if something good happens and we actually got the clean-up you're dreaming about (and it's not a wild dream) then I'm not one to diss it.
Objectively, I think it's good that the world has people like you. At least it isn't populated only by my kind, who are all disillusioned about too many things and try too hard to just live with the system. But it's about balance at the end of it. One group can't live without the other.
Actually, I'm skeptical about the claim that optimists can't live without pessimists. I'm not talking delusional, unbearably sunny optimists, but realists seeing the possibility of progress.
Post a Comment