Showing posts with label usa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label usa. Show all posts

Monday, July 4, 2011

Conversation with Chris Hedges- Media Roots TV


In this interview Hedges talk about the transportation of media from the printed form into the digital form and its implications on how the public perceive the news. He addresses the disinformation of the public, his expectations of how critical and informative journalism will be further marginalized, and his take on the American debt.

His views are cynical and pessimistic. But they are realistic too.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

He's Barack Obama

A new video about the American president is creating a huge buzz on the Internet. It is an animated short movie by JibJab showing the president as an American super hero who can solve all the world's problems in a blink of an eye. This politically satirical clip was watched by the president himself in the 65th annual Radio and TV correspondents dinner in Washington.

It is arguable JibJab's best effort till this day. While the movie clearly pokes fun at the extreme optimism among some of President Obama's supporters throughout the world, whether you find it poking fun at the president himself or not will depend on your political preference. Or maybe it pokes fun at the USA!

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

American Elections 2008

In what is certainly a historic presidential election, today the Americans will choose their new president, a post that was occupied by one of the worst presidents in history for the last eight years. A host of tough challenges will face the new president that includes (but not limited too) a very weak economy, a lost war, a war being lost, instability in many regions of the world, and an environmental crisis that may affect the life on Earth as we know it.

While a huge contrast can be found between the main two candidates, there are still many undecided voters according to the most recent polls. It really is amazing how someone could be undecided in the very last day between two completely different paths. On what bases such a person will base his choice in the last hours, except for tossing up a coin? This way seems the only legitimate one for someone who couldn't make up his mind for that long.

One one hand we have McCain, a conservative, who seems to support every kind of war just because he's a war veteran. Although he had been for so long doing politics, he seemed lacking a lot of experience in his campaign that he chose a woman who knows almost nothing about politics to be his vice president and a potential president, he acted foolishly calling to cancel a debate so as to help the economy (obviously he wasn't successful), and he spoke about his opponent much more than he spoke about himself!

On the other hand, Barack Obama was able to build on of the strongest campaigns ever, and he seemed to be more experienced and stable throughout the whole campaign. But Obama spent a lot of money (from donors) in order to achieve this; and money is a very strong factor in this kind of elections. But the most important positive thing about Obama is that he seemed to have a plan; maybe he doesn't have one, but he seemed to. Obviously, if you speak more about yourself and what you're planning to do, you'll be in a much better position than just being a naysayer.

So, Obama seems closer to clinching the victory according to every single poll in the USA. But if this election was all over the world, McCain would have conceded loss long time ago. Indeed the whole world seems to favor Obama on McCain by a far margin and that's mainly because the whole world is sick and tired of the failed policies of the Republican party under the reign of George W. Bush. They know that McCain won't be very different.

"Change" was the keyword of these elections. The word was first used by Obama in the beginning of his campaign, but then, everyone wanted to be a part of the change. However, the word was linked more to Obama whose skin color and physical features certainly had an effect as well as his somehow leftist policies and his firm opposition to the war on Iraq. After his defeat of Hillary Clinton, he seemed to be the only hope for change since a change from a Republican conservative to another Republican conservative would bring less than 10% of change (including the names) to the white house. The American people seems to need more.

A more insightful look on those involved in this year's election would bring more people into consideration. Hillary Clinton was on of the most important players that even though she lost, she raised the bar of the Democratic party and got more people involved in the election (some die hard Hillary supporters even chose to choose McCain over Obama!). Another important woman is the VP Republican candidate Sarah Palin. A woman with no experience at all, brought by surprise to hold the second most important post in the American government; an unexpected but not very smart move from the McCain side. Another interesting person was Ron Paul, someone who seemed very odd sitting between all the Republican candidates in the early debates opposing the war of Iraq with strong words that weren't even matched by some of the Democratic party. And last but not least, Ralph Nader. He's not new to the presidential elections, but he would probably bring real change to Washington if he was ever to be elected.

With all the focus on the main two parties, one wonders why those other candidates care about campaigning when they are standing a zero percent chance to get to the white house. The only reason would be to spread their ideas which is really good. But still, why there are no many independent voters in the USA. Most of the voters choose their candidate just because of the color of the party he represents; there are no much emphasis on the policies as there is on what the parties represents. If you're a conservative or a liberal, you know what colors you'r choosing. If you'r a member of the small group of independents and not leaning to any of the main candidates, then either waste your vote on another candidate, abstain from voting, or toss up the coin. More independent voters mean more choices, and therefore better options.

It is just a few hours until the name of the next president of the USA will be known. The whole world is waiting eagerly for a change. But maybe they shouldn't. Whoever the candidate will be, all changes will be minor compared to the amount of instability brought by the current administration. A local change could happen in America, but on the global scale, we should expect the worst so that we will not be disappointed.

Sunday, September 7, 2008

The world is too hot to get cold. Or is it?

Since the beginning of the Russian-Georgian conflict, there hasn't been a day that has passed without me hearing a reference to an upcoming cold war. In developing countries, many dream of the end of a unipolar world; they don't want the USA to be the only superpower in the world as they think that the emergence of another superpower will make the world more peaceful and just. On the other hand, some folks in Russia as well as the USA are equally fascinated by the idea. But the question remains: Is another cold war really inevitable?

Looking at the state of the world right now, it seems that no one is ready for another cold war. America has enough problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it won't be able to open yet another front, not even with Iran. Russia also has its own problems and it isn't powerful enough to face the USA and all its followers.

But even that reality won't deter cold-warmongers from keeping on speaking about the cold war. The common thing between those people in both camps is that they are driven by some sort of arrogant nationalism. American cold-warmongers keep on searching for potential cold enemies, whether it is China, Russia, or even - at certain times - France! They have been alarmed by the rise of Russia under Putin's rule, and they don't like it. They just want America to remain as the only superpower, and they are afraid that any other nation maybe on the way to challenge them. As for the Russian cold-warmongers, they are exactly the opposite. They can't forget the days of the Soviet Union when they were head to head with the USA, and their national pride make them dream about a revival of these days.

One may think that Georgia was caught between all of this, but the reality is that Georgia brought all this to itself. A small and weak country like this don't even have a chance to beat Russia; and if they thought that the USA would stand by them militarily, they were gravely mistaken. They didn't gain anything except for hearing some opportunistic American politicians saying stuff like "We are all Georgians," when prior to this conflict, most Americans didn't know that there is another Georgia other than theirs!

Now it seems that the conflict brought the situation to a temporal, but long, deadlock. Maybe the world is too hot for a cold war, but it is certainly not that hot for a cold peace.