Elected Governmental Chaos and the Media

This article is about the media and its slant of events occurring in the "democratically-elected" governments in Iran and Honduras.

I'd like to think that my awareness of international current events are at least equivalent to the average American, because it was something I had to be aware of for thirteen years monitoring foreign markets at one of my previous jobs.

As an American, I trust my news sources, but know that it can be inevitably skewed. Look at the media frenzy leading up to the Iraqi war. And Fox News makes no compunction about being a conservative news outlet.

The Media can be a powerful tool to tell the truth or to hide it.

Let's start with Iran.

Like many Americans, when I first read a byline in a newspaper that there were upcoming elections in Iran and that there was a moderate running against Ahmadinejad, I gave it little thought. Just another election in another Middle Eastern country. Chaos sure to ensure.

I started to wonder when I saw another story about the elections two days later. Why are U.S. papers publishing two stories about an upcoming Iranian election? I mean, what was really going to change? One guy who hates America will remain or he'll be switched out with another one who hates America. The Iranian Supreme Council of clerics are the ones who hold the power. But I was intrigued, so I spread out the paper. As I did so, I wondered if the moderate challenging Ahmadinejad was that guy who used to be president and had given the Supreme Council fits with some of the moderate policies he had enacted. It wasn't. But it turned out this Mousavi guy had been a special advisor to that president and that Mousavi had been prime minister in Iran from 1981-1989. Still, I thought, there is no way Ahmadinejad is going to lose.

Perhaps with my U.S.-biased viewpoint, in my opinion very few countries in the world have clean elections. Look at the U.S. and the hi jinx in Florida and Ohio in recent elections and the convictions in multiple states of voter fraud and other problems during 2008's election.

So far what I've gathered from the media reports and YouTube, is that Mousavi claims the election has been stolen, Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Council are crushing protests and blacking out the media. Pretty much what I expected before the elections.

Of course, Ahmadinejad has been so demonized by the United States (justly or unjustly I can't say), its very easy for the world to swallow the opponents' view of Ahmadinejad's government hook-line and sinker. And it makes it easier for us (and the media) to swallow it when these opponents are supposedly more moderate (therefore supposedly more aligned with our views) and support a candidate who once supported a notion to ask the West for help in rebuilding after the Iran-Iraq war. Don't get me wrong, crushing protests and shooting innocents is bad, but it's not like the only country in the world who has done this. While the U.S. - thank God - doesn't shoot protesters, they have no qualms about smacking them around with batons - think Seattle, Echo Park.

So what am I saying? If the elections were stolen, I wish the Iranians the best in getting the rightful man in office. But, beware of the media. Beware of what you read.

Which brings me to Honduras.

My first hearing of the coup in Honduras was a picture in the Los Angeles Times of protesters throwing rocks at a group of soldiers/policemen who cowered behind a wall of riot shields. So after listening to NPR and reading the updates on AOL, I initially gathered, the leftist president (am I sensing a trend here that our media tends to support moderates and leftist - I wonder how Fox News is reporting it) was removed in a military coup, deported to Costa Rica and if he ever returned he'd be arrested.

So, it was to my surprise, listening to NPR again last night on the way home, that both I and the host on NPR were taken aback when the official ambassador to the U.S. from Honduras said that the president had been removed through due process in accordance to their constitution. My words probably aren't perfect, but the sense was that he was removed legally under their constitution. The Honduran legislature overwhelmingly voted to remove the President out of his office. Acting on an order from the legislature, the military removed the President. Now, I'm not an expert in Honduran constitutional law, so I can't say if what the ambassador said was true, that the president was removed through a legal process, but I found it odd that I have not heard this from anyone else (and the interviewer couldn't seem to believe it either). The ambassador went on to say, be careful of only listening to one side of the story. Learn all the facts. At that point I was home and turned off the car.

I'll take that ambassador's advice to heart and learn all the facts, before jumping to conclusions and raising the riot act.

On a final note, speaking of media, a very interesting take on the current elections in Iran is an updated graphic novel version of the original Persepolis, called Persepolis 2.0.

Attached is a link the 2.0 version. Below that is the 2 minute trailer to the original movie.

Persepolis 2.0

New Year - Final note on Bush (Hopefully)

Hi all,

An email was forwarded to me, blaming all Americans for being complacent and allowing Bush to get away with so much. So I had to respond and have included my email below (ending with a musing on the Israeli Massacre in Gaza):

"Perhaps for most Americans who never had experienced so totally a corrupt President,they didn't know how to respond. Anyone in their 30s has only really known four presidents - Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. Not one of them did anything as contemptible that Bush Jr. has done that we know of. Come on, Lewinsky? And unfortunately our elected officials in Washington, excluding the President, were so concerned about holding onto their posts, they couldn't even think of impeaching, let alone crossing, the president and his henchmen.
The biggest mistake, (and I said this as soon as the 2000 election was over), by Americans politically over the last 8 years was putting one party in charge of every branch of government. That was the real travesty. (Notice I didn't say Republicans specifically.) It took six years for the majority of Americans to finally get it back into there head to restore the balance of power.

And of course now we have the opposite effect and this worries me about the Obama presidency. Again, one party has been given all the power. But this is about Bush, so I won't digress.

How could people vote for Bush, reelect him, be complacent, or even support him.
Comments I've heard from three different people.

America can survive a president. How much damage can he do?
I voted to reelect him so he can clean up his mess.
He's against abortion so I have to vote for him.

And I still see Bush bumper stickers - fewer now, but they are still out there. And that's in California. I can only imagine the Midwest.

Since Bush's policies favored industry, the rich and those with influence, they didn't vocalize dissenting voices while promoting the White House message.

Remember the whole, "if you question the president, you're dividing our country in our time of need," and all that rhetoric that so many people believed. (And still do.) While there is some truth to the if you question it, you make us look weaker and indecisive in front of the enemy and encourage them. Look how easily it quashes dissent, alternative ideas or opposing voices..

Remember the Dixie Chicks being ostracized by the media and declared un-American because they spoke out against the war? Isn't that what being American is? Being able to question our leaders?

I really wonder if all of those people who vote for Bush and voted to reelect Bush and put those bumper stickers on their cars or gave him an insane 80%-90% approval rating when the Iraqi War started feel any remorse whatsoever.

I could go on and on.

Did you see the lame tiny story in the LA Times today that two rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel. Hezbollah denied they did it. Which says something considering they usually own up to it. Some analyst said it could be a small Palestinian group trying to pull Hezbollah into the conflict. The Israeli papers were quick to blame Hezbollah. I wouldn't put it past a group of Israelis on the border of Lebanon launching the mortars themselves at Israel to provoke a fight. If the US can do it with Iraq and Russia with Chechnya, why not Israel with Lebanon. My prediction. If Israel keeps getting pressured from the outside world about their unrestrained killing of civilians in Gaza - which violates the Geneva Convention and goes against the Security Council resolutions - they'll create a new threat to shift attention away from Gaza and show their "precarious situation" in the Middle East.

Watch and see."

Elections - What the...!!!!!

When I walked in to my polling place this morning, I noticed two men standing outside the door to the polling stations. One wearing a McCain/Palin t-shirt was talking loudly and negatively about Obama and his supporters. I went inside voted and came out. The two men were still standing by the door and the one McCain guy was still talking loudly about Obama. Here is the law on electioneering at polling stations from justicia.com (http://law.justia.com/california/codes/elec/18370-18371.html):
******18370. No person, on election day, or at any time that a voter may be casting a ballot, shall, within 100 feet of a polling place or an elections official's office: (a) Circulate an initiative, referendum, recall, or nomination petition or any other petition. (b) Solicit a vote or speak to a voter on the subject of marking his or her ballot. (c) Place a sign relating to voters' qualifications or speak to a voter on the subject of his or her qualifications except as provided in Section 14240. (d) Do any electioneering. As used in this section, "100 feet of a polling place or an elections official's office" means a distance 100 feet from the room or rooms in which voters are signing the roster and casting ballots. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. *****
So I asked the McCain supporter if he was a poll worker because I remembered as a former poll worker that poll workers could not wearing political clothing and something prohibiting electioneering near a polling station. The McCain supporter said he wasn't a poll worker and asked me why? I explained because poll workers can't wear political clothing. At which point the other man identified himself as a poll worker and that he had asked the McCain supporter to leave the polling station. At which point the McCain supporter started yelling that I had no right to tell him his beliefs and what he could and could not wear and that if I didn't like it we could take it outside. I said I didn't want to take it outside, only that a poll worker couldn't wear political clothing. He continued to vent at which point I asked him if he was trying to intimidate me. He paused, then continued his rant, urging me to take it outside. Fortunately, I remembered seeing a cop half way down the block. As I exited city hall, the McCain supporter followed me, so I made a beeline for the cop. I started to explain to the cop that this individual had threatened me, when the McCain supporter jumped in and said that I was intimidating him, telling him who to vote for, that he was a fire fighter and he knew his rights. (Me intimidating him? The dude was 6'2" and I'm a whopping 5'8".) I said that's a lie and that I had witnesses at the polling station that could verify that he was threatening me. At that point the McCain supporter finally shut up--for a moment. But then he went back into how I was attacking his beliefs and freedom of expression. The cop said he didn't know the law but if we've both voted the McCain supporter should go to his truck and I should go in the opposite direction. We did so. As the McCain supporter passed the polling station he said something to the poll worker he had been speaking with earlier, then moved on. It turns out the poll worker had been watching the exchange with the cop.
Damn, dude, I thought this kind of stuff only happened to other people and in other states. California isn't even a battleground state. I can't imagine what's happening in other places.
Truly insane.

McCain's running mate - Sarah Palin

First Impressions.

Wow! Suprising! Smart!

Of course she's from Alaska, another big oil producing state. And with all the government corruption up there with Senator Stevens and his bridge to nowhere, one can definately see pay for play politics at its highest form.

By picking someone three years younger than Obama, McCain just made himself the biggest hypocrite possible. Throughout his campaign he's been knocking Obama for his youth and lack of experience - foreign policy and in everything else. Now he picks someone three years younger than Obama. A person who will take over if something happens to McCain. Someone who has less experience than Obama in politics and Washington.

Obama and the editorials should have a field day with this. If McCain says anything about Obama's lack of experience, Obama only has to point out that McCain feels Palin is capable of taking over as commander-in-chief if something should befall him - because that is the primary role of a VP.

Realistic, rational, best-for-our-country thinking aside, I think McCain's camp made a brilliant choice in choosing a female VP. He should've chosen a women perhaps ten years older just for the experience quotient, but still a good move.

I am sure a number of women and maybe some others who were voting for Hillary because she was a woman, will switch their votes. I don't know how many, but there will definately be some.

As long as Palin is a capable speaker and debater she can only help McCain. I don't know enough about her to know if she is or not. Her speech at next week's Republican Convention will be very telling.

The only way McCain's choice for VP will backfire is if during the VP debate, Biden is able to talk circle arounds Palin much like Kerry did to Bush during their first debate. Adding to that train of thought, Obama's camp will need to remind people that if something happens to the elderly McCain, Palin would be the President. Right now.

I don't think it'll draw away the youth vote from Obama who were voting for Obama because his youthfulness in and of itself symbolized change. The reason: McCain is still have an old geezer with conservative ideals and out of touch with the average American and he'll be making policy not her.

This pick will help McCain and keep the race tight. But it will also make some of McCain's most effective attacks against Obama - inexperience - less effective.

****

I think if McCain is elected or even if he fails, four years from now - or eight - she could definately be a top candidate for presidency - if she is capable and not another Dan Quayle. Wow, imagine for the women of this country a Clinton vs. Palin election in 2012 or 2016.

Of course, I've said all this without knowing much about her. Only that she is three years younger than Obama, a woman, governor of Alaska, strong anti-abortionist and has a child in the National Guard. I know nothing about how she runs Alaska. It'll be interesting to learn more.

Paris Hilton for President

How could someone not vote for her after this speech:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/05/paris-hilton-responds-to_n_117137.html

It was one of the most intelligent comments on energy policy I've heard a politician give this year. Her being photogenic doesn't hurt either. But don't worry McCainanites and Obamasans, unfortunately she's under the legal age limit so I have to vote for one of your candidates.

Equality

900 people will soon decide who will be the Democratic presidential candidate.

900; not the 20,000,000 who have voted over the last two months.

1 man, 1 vote? Not so my friends.

As Mr. Orwell once said, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Real Democracry? Part 2

Ha ha ha, to those of you who asked me if I'd ever taken U.S. History.
(I'm happy to know more than one person is reading my blog.)
However, I must've been sick the day my instructor explained that when Americans vote, they are voting for Presidential Electors who have signed a piece of paper stating that they WILL vote for a certain candidate, BUT that they don't have to.

That's a lot of power in the hands of 538 people.

Let me ask this: Why are Americans voting for President at all? Why aren't the presidential candidates holding meetings with members of the Electoral College, swaying them to their side, rather than spending tens of millions of dollars on national ad campaigns? It appears the only purpose of the popular vote in the presidential elections is to create a facade of legitimacy?

I know, you all are asking, "But John, have you forgotten the elections of 2000?" No, I haven't forgotten that farce. My understanding is that Bush won, based purely on the mathematical consequence of how many delegates are awarded to the president based on which states he won - that's why the popular vote didn't matter. Some states had larger populations, but were given only a limited number of electoral votes. But with my new understanding of the political process, when the Electoral College voted 41 days later, they didn't have to listen to the popular vote of the Floridian election. If the electors had decided to vote for Gore, I'm sure there may have been riots in the street for disregarding the Floridian popular vote, but legally, Americans would have had no recourse to change those electors' votes.

Only Michigan and Minnesota have state laws in place to render invalid the votes of faithless electors (those who don't vote as they agreed to, when they applied to become electors). In 22 other states, there are laws to punish the electors after the fact, but once the votes are cast, they can't be changed. If America keeps the Electoral College as an institution, we should impose a federal law rendering all faithless electors' votes invalid.* It will provide a greater sense of legitimacy.

(*Except in the case of when a candidate dies or becomes incapacitated between the time of the popular vote and the Electoral College vote, which has happened twice.)