USOC asks Bush campaign to pull television ad

[nfotxn]

USOC asks Bush campaign to pull television ad

In a recent Bush Campaign advertisement:

"In 1972, there were 40 democracies in the world. Today, 120," an announcer says. "Freedom is spreading throughout the world like a sunrise. And this Olympics there will be two more free nations. And two fewer terrorist regimes."

Bush has as much to do with the supposed growing trend of democracy as does my daily habbit of checking my navel for lint. Of these 80 new democracies I am suspicious as to how many operate like the USA. Not that operating like the USA elections-wise is necessarily a point of aspiration these days...

I find this whole thing just so vile. Honestly if a political party in my country were to co-relate themselves with a non-biased global third party like the Olympics or UN for the purpose of re-election they'd probably lose their official party status or some penalty. But everything seems to go under this "Freedom" banner lately. That if you have enough money you can lie to anybody you'd like as much as you'd like.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not freedom is it? That's legalized mis-information.

Comments

[hylandr.livejournal.com]

Isn't mis-information the theme of Bush's regime presidency? You know... the one he wasn't elected into democratically.

[grrtigger.livejournal.com]

The problem is that it's not about Reality; it's about what people can be made to believe. Repeat the same things often enough, and people who are only paying enough attention to absorb sound bites won't think beyond how often they've heard something.

And I can't understand why Dubya is so upset over "activist" judges; several of them put his dumb ass in the White House. He is, in the end, our duly selected leader.

( and we never liked her )

The irony of it all

[shimbexprovides.livejournal.com]

Yet another irony is that even the United States is not a democracy- we are a Republic. We do not have the right to directly select our national leader, they are instead chosen for us by our local representatives. Nobody cares about the details though, until suddenly a miniroty candidate wins.

I really should go apartment hunting in Toronto sometime...

Re: The irony of it all

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

Hehe, It's a renter's market market right now with all the new condos going up all over the place.

Re: The irony of it all

[tecknow.livejournal.com]

The electoral college seldom goes against the popular vote. If memory serves the few instances where they did, they lived to regret it.

[hypofixx.livejournal.com]

*touch*

[msnmark.livejournal.com]

After reading this, I feel like I need a Silkwood shower.

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

Mind if I join you? Have garnet paper and billo pads *eyebrows*

[mjollnir.livejournal.com]

It's the nature of politics, my friend. The politicians, trying to become as popular as possible, spread carefully-tailored statements to make the masses believe what they want. We do it in Canada, the US does it...democracy is an unending popularity contest, with leadership as the prize.

As to the growing trend to democracy...that has as much to do with the Cold War as it does with its actual peaceful benefits. It is a documented reality that democracies go to war much, much less frequently. Probably because it's hard to justify war to the masses.

Personally, I'm much more interested in your navel lint. Or at least your navel.

[brianrdu.livejournal.com]

Can you imagine how disgusting this is to someone who lives IN the US and loathes the Bush regime? The race appears close, so it's only going to get uglier, this sort of co-opting things and this crap like the Swift Boat morons for their own invented truth. Sick...just sick.

I wish I could hold Karl Rove down and pound his fucking face with my fists.

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

I've got the chainsaw ready.

[http://users.livejournal.com/speedy_/]

You are so right. I am very happy to live in Canada, specially now that Mr. B is the head (?) of the United States. Anyway, are the U.S. elections near?

[bookbear.livejournal.com]

November

you are free TO DO AS WE TELL YOU

[nekidwhiteboy.livejournal.com]

god. living in the US always forces me to make lists. living in TEXAS forces me to make longer lists, since everything here is...whatever.

a) someone should've asked Mr. IdiotRedneckFuckstickPresident to define 'democracy', so he could yawp out something way poignant and moving like "well I'm not too much of a definitive type...". whatever. the US is a fucking democracy like I am a Hello Kitty vibrator.

b) freedom is spreading...like a sunrise? who knew freedom was spreadable? it's like the new whipped creamcheese that everyone eats now. does it come in a calorie-free spray, I wonder? moreover, how could we possibly be spreading it- we ain't no free country. we're a Buy One and Get One Free Country. that's why all them-people hate us.

c) we're not even put-together enough to be a republic. we're really more like, a really really enormous-and-unorganized panty drawer, with panty aplenty in every size and creed and color, but not a single one big and sturdy enough to cover up the superfluous gaping snatch that our government has managed to become.

I should find a canuckian that wants to marry me. Well, after I find my keys.

[bookbear.livejournal.com]

It's also disturbing that the goal is for one party (right now the Rep's) to gain control of all three sections of gov't - the presidency, the supreme court, and the congressional (representatives and senate). This runs absolutely counter to the founding fathers' system of checks and balances. Also, dissention, to question the gov't - the goal of Thomas Jefferson's system of establishing free and compulsory education - is deemed unpatriotic and un-American and evil. Our gov't just seems so fucking un-American in philosophy and practice.

I agree with your sentiments.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

But there was never a political party system when the Constitution was written; and many of the participants were saddened by that development in our political landscape.

But to be fair: the Democratic party had a lock-hold on all three branches for many years (FDR's presidency for example), later on during John Kennedy's administration, as well as L.B. Johnson's. Political parties want to further their agendas, it's just the nature of the beast.

Thomas Jefferson could also be a bit of a hypocrite too. He believed you needed a revolution every 20 years, but he changed his mind once he got into power.

But all that said, the ad the Bush campaign aired is a tacky one. No two ways about it.

[ops I had to re-edit this ;) sorry about the deletion and reinserting]

Re: I agree with your sentiments.

[bookbear.livejournal.com]

But to be fair: the Democratic party had a lock-hold on all three branches for many years

Yeah, but...but...but...they weren't assholes!

Kidding. Sort of.

Wise point taken.

Re: I agree with your sentiments.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

P.S. You're a stud *lick*

Re: I agree with your sentiments.

[bookbear.livejournal.com]

Gee, thanks, but where are your pics? I couldn't fnd any at your journal.

Re: I agree with your sentiments.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

http://www.bearclaws.net/kim/livejournal/fishnet1.jpg is a recent picture.

Re: I agree with your sentiments.

[werecub.livejournal.com]

"But there was never a political party system when the Constitution was written; and many of the participants were saddened by that development in our political landscape."

Acutally there were unorganized political parites. The federalists and anti-federalsits come to mind.

George Washington's farewell speach which pleads for not only preventing entangling alliances, but the prevention of political parties, is actually pro-political parties, or should i say party, Its a pro anti-federalist speach.

Re: I agree with your sentiments.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

But that was years after the Constitution was written. Political parties weren't in mind as a part of system of checks and balances. The branches in of themselves were the balance.

Re: I agree with your sentiments.

[werecub.livejournal.com]

Not that far after, but the federalist and the anti-federalists were duking it out during the writing of the constitution, hence the publication of the Federalist papers.

Re: I agree with your sentiments.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Righto. But still, they were NOT organized parties. Nothing like what the current situation.

Re: I agree with your sentiments.

[33mhz.livejournal.com]

I wanna try and say, "Well, at least the democrats were divided internally. After all, it is in principle a scary thing when you have a single party moving in lockstep.

On the other hand, the people who divided the party (the dixiecrats) were fucking assholes: segregationist, misogynist, homophobic, you name it. I'd be telling a sickening lie if I said that our country was better off for having them around.

[ranger1.livejournal.com]

You never know. You might have some terrorist belly button lint.

[abearius.livejournal.com]

You freedom-loving Canadians in your well-managed liberal democracy just don't understand how many lies you have to tell to run an empire. Americans invest in lies because the return is greater. And why invest in education? That makes it so much harder to convince people of what they need to believe. If it hadn't been for America, the would never have been an Athens, or a Pericles, or any of that marbley shit on the hill behind the stadium. Oh, and if you win a gold medal by mistake and get defeated in a legitimate recount. . .

Precedent, another lie invented by dead, white, European males.

[danlmarmot.livejournal.com]

Iraq? Democractic? When were the Iraqi democratic elections? Oh, they were in January 2005. That's forward thinking!

(While we're at it, check out our buddies the Kuwaitis and their thriving democracy that Bush the Elder defended! And our friends the Saudis! They even might let women vote soon, say in 2080 or so!)

The point of all the Bush propaganda is that you can't be against it. Who doesn't want freedom and democracy and liberty for all (well, let's restrict the liberty of people so they can't marry who they love unless the state approves, but that's beside the point.)

You just can't counter these arguments, it's like holding a counter demonstration at a college anti-rape protest. "Is that the pro-rape demonstrators? You guys are sick!"

[jawnbc]

For His Royal Wankness (he does have a sense of entitlement like a hereditary empress monarch), 'freedom' is synonymous with 'market share'.

We Canucks have to keep our eyes closely on Stephen Harper--he's trying to shift the public perception of his party to get in government.

Then we'd be in the shitter as well.

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

Yes, Harper is a rather creepy litte imp. I know that if he starts to pull any shit I will jump on him with all my civil liberties. And totally poison his name in the blogosphere.

[goofybearz.livejournal.com]

Your country just keeps looking more and more fascinating to me, with ever time I am privileged to hear that Mr. Bush's voice.

No fair! I *always* have to be the turd in the punch bowl...

[profundis.livejournal.com]

Freedom of speech is also freedom to lie.

That said, where in that excerpt is the lie? I realize its an advert for what he's sellin' (himself) and that you ain't buyin' nunna dat -- but what's your definition of lie, versus say, exaggeration or poetic license? ;)

Re: No fair! I *always* have to be the turd in the punch bowl...

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

"And this Olympics there will be two more free nations."

Iraq has not yet had it's own democratic election.

Re: No fair! I *always* have to be the turd in the punch bowl...

[profundis.livejournal.com]

A'ight, I see your point though the excerpt you listed doesn't specify democratic elections, just free nations. I realize democratically elected leaders are part of the whole freedom deal, but the plans are in motion there. Granted, its a lil early to be claiming it, much less cheerleading about it.

Re: No fair! I *always* have to be the turd in the punch bowl...

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

That fact in addition to the use of Olympic imagery for political purposes should have the ad at least pulled. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

The second nation the Bush ad seems to be citing is Afghanistan. Now all is well enough in Afghanistan but as far as a well established democratic process. Well, let's just say they're still using training wheels.

So what do the ads tell anybody? That Bush is great for doing things that haven't really got done? By any standards unfinished work is not a point to boast upon. And let's not forget that much of the work in Afghanistan post-conflict has been done by us nations outside the "Coalition of the Willing".

Re: No fair! I *always* have to be the turd in the punch bowl...

[profundis.livejournal.com]

I agree it's tacky to use the Olympics for political purposes.

As for Afghanistan training wheels or not, their president himself thanked us (in addition to others of course, it was never just us)for our help in making those training wheels possible:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42507-2004Jun15.html

That accomplishment may be new and tender but it counts in the "win" column thus far. I'll concede that Iraq is a work in progress.

So, not the most solid basis for tubthumping, but I think this also boils down to how we choose to interpret it. You profess to hate the Bush Administration so so you interpret any of their campaign stuff in the most suspicious or critical way, which is of course your right. ;)

Re: No fair! I *always* have to be the turd in the punch bowl...

[tecknow.livejournal.com]

Freedom of speech is also freedom to lie.

Where did you get that idea? It certainly didn't come from laws against any number of flavors of fraud and misrepresentation. Many of which have survived more than a few rounds in the supreme court, on the few occasions they make it that far.

Re: No fair! I *always* have to be the turd in the punch bowl...

[profundis.livejournal.com]

Only under certain circumstances is it illegal to lie, dude.

In those cases our freedom of speech is limited. We don't actually have a 100% right to free speech, as you've said, but where not defined as a crime we have the right to say whatever the hell we want, including lies, exaggerations, hyperbole, half-truths, misrepresentations, and the most controversial of all: opinions. ;)

Re: No fair! I *always* have to be the turd in the punch bowl...

[tecknow.livejournal.com]

In actions of any significance, it is easier to list the cases where you are allowed to lie than to list the cases where you arn't, and I must say I'm having a hard time doing that. It is basically illegal to lie to any agent of the government. It is illegal to claim to have credentials I don't have or otherwise lie to get money or credit, it is illegal to lie about others to do them harm or to pretend to be another person to gain money, power or information. Where am I legaly allowed to lie where it's going to do me any good? Not counting religion of course...

Re: No fair! I *always* have to be the turd in the punch bowl...

[profundis.livejournal.com]

Several notes:

1) we're about to tangent off the original topic --whether Bush's ad gave solid examples of freedom -- which is alright with me, but may involve hijacking the thread. Brodie has said he brings these things up to stir up shit (paraphrasing), so unless he says otherwise we can continue.

2) This may take a while, I know what a bulldog you are in a debate, and I generally am as well, but with you out of school and me in school, my time to do is justice is limited. My responses may take more time than normal to formulate.

3) It's probably wise for us to define the terms we are debating, as there is a vast spectrum from 100% forthright factual truth to black,craven lie of commission. People's opinions and feelings and perceptions are swirling around all the issues of the thread and where politics is involved, are practically inherent in the system.

4) You've put me in the rather untenable position of defending /promoting the value of lying, so this should be interesting. ;)

OK: You make an interesting argument, one that actually makes it seem as if we don't really have much of a right to free speech at all, not in any way that matters. You may say, well we have the right to speak, just not the right to lie.

What consitutes a "lie" is the question, as most folks lie almost constantly in habitual non-hostile ways (white lies) and technically in many other ways (excited claims about how cool something was, how good their product tastes, whether an endeavor was a success or not and to what degree).

Some speech is codified as a crime (sedition, identity theft, etc) and some speech (most if you get right down to it) is up to the "victim" of the misused speech to make the case that a crime was committed. Whether it is a crime to say "My pizza is the best in town" or "My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard" depends on the jurisprudence of the day.

Whether or not it does someone "any good" is up to the individual. For some people it would be "some good" to avoid an embarrasing scene or angry retirbution by an giving evasive or false account of events.