7 Nov update: Here's a realistic view of how the country voted (versus all those silly red state-blue state maps that Fox "News" likes): Southpaw: Just How Red is America?If anyone has "someone on the inside" at the White House, and can sneak this message to President Quagmire, let's try this oversimplification:
The popular vote went for President Quagmire, 51-48%. That means that a swing of 1.5% would have tied the vote (49.5 each - the remainder went to 3rd party candidates).See? That wasn't too hard to understand, was it?
To put this into perspective, let's assume you have a room with 50 voters, and you convince one (1) of them to change her mind. When someone changes their mind ("flip-flops" in Karl Rove-speak) that takes votes away from one side, and gives it to the other. A 1% change (equal to 1/2 of a person in that room of 50) would have changed the percentages from 51-48 to 50-49) and President Quagmire wins. But a 2% change [1/50 = 2/100 = 2%] means the vote would have changed the outcome to 49-50% and Kerry wins.
Now, does anyone in their right mind (no relation to the political right - aka conservatives - aka CFRP) see that small difference (1 person out of 50 changing their mind) as a "mandate"? Good; I didn't think so.
Before I dismiss class, here's something to think about for tomorrow's lesson:
Basic Propaganda Theory says that for distortions of fact to take place, you must first render the press ineffective. To do that, get on your radio program (think "Limbaugh" or Fox "News") and say "and everybody knows the media is liberal" (be sure to enunciate LIBB-ER-ULL, like a baby-eating monster), then simply repeat that claim. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Eventually, the mainstream media will be acknowledged as having an agenda (and a liberal agenda, at that!), and they're neutered. Voila!If you haven't watched the film "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism" to see this "everyone knows" tactic .. well, you owe it to yourself.
2 comments:
Gene Bob, I thought you weren't going to read or watch any news until sometime in 2005. ;-) I think you should've stuck to that because you're obviously too upset to think straight.
Fer example, *every* pol declares a mandate when they're elected. And you know? They's right! I just looked up "mandate" in my OAD and it said:
mandate n. authority given to someone to perform a certain task or apply certain policies.
Gee, doesn't winning the election give every politician the authority to try to do what they said they'd do when they were running? Even worse, when I fed "define:mandate" into google the first link included this (as definition 3): "the commission that is given to a government and its policies through an electoral victory". So while it pains me, I think Dubya does have a mandate. On the other hand, so does Barack Obama.
Then there's that little claim from Pat Robertson. Gene Bob, I didn't know you put so much faith in the clergy! Besides, even if Dubya *did* make that comment, and I can easily believe that he did given his propensity for malapropisms, do you think he really *believed* it? Come on... Junior is no mental giant, but I don't think he's an idiot either.
And finally, you bring up the idea of repeating a lie over and over again until people begin to believe it. Yeah, it works. Yeah, Bushie used the technique. But so did Kerry. Or have you forgotten the "Bush will implement the draft" ploy? The fact is that every politician uses these techniques. You even do the same thing when you invoke the names of Limbaugh, Murdoch, and Fox News. I can even imagine you sounding like a baby-eating monster when you say it. ;-)
So repeat after me...
By definition, all politicians have a mandate by the fact of being elected. All politicians demonize the other side. All politicians lie (you can tell because their lips move). All news outlets have a bias.
Please, Gene Bob, turn off the TV. Put down the newspaper. Go see "Shark Tales" or "The Incredibles" or something else to divert your mind for a little while. It's going to be okay. Honest. Dubya can't appoint judges without the consent of the Senate. The R's don't have enough of a majority to break a filibuster. And the expected chair of the Judiciary committee (an R), has already laid down the gauntlet to Dubya about not putting forth ultra conservative judges. We'll survive the next two years, and then we have an opportunity to select a new House and 1/3 of the Senate. Two years after that we do it all over again with a whole new slate of Presidential candidates.
I am sedate now. Why? Because I have a "Gebo's" gimme cap (Gebo undoubtedly means "Gene Bob" - what else *could* it mean?).
You blog reply was more detailed than my posting (not that there's anything wrong with that) .. but I suspect we differ on the connotation of "mandate" versus the dictionary definition. In Dubya's mind, "mandate" means "I can do anything I want because I'm the Warrr Precedent!" .. and I suspect he'll try that in the next 30 days, because after that, the lame ducks will have come to their senses, and the newly-elected ones won't take power until 1/20 ("Coronation Day"), right?
btw, I don't have to agree with anything that any politician dictates, especially stoopid ones! For the next 4 years, I'll wear my Earth(tm) shoes (recently excavated from the attic) and buy more incense from that nice hippie family in Colorado. And drink more tofu tea, etc.
Post a Comment