Monday, August 11, 2008

How We Lost The Cold Peace, No. 1

On the way to work this morning, listening to C-Span radio's replay of the Sunday-morning talking-head shows, I was struck by the foolishness of our modern information age.

The lead story was John Edwards's admitted sexual affair.

That's right -- the sexual peccadillo of a former senator -- a one-term senator -- who had so little effect as a presidential candidate in 2008 that he won zilch, nada, squadoosh, was the lead story.

While Russia's unequivocal declaration that it intended to reestablish primacy in Europe as an autocratic state was the second topic. And lasted as a topic of conversation for a good forty-five seconds before the topic changed to how the candidates were using and to Russia's aggression.


Robert Kagen offers a good piece in this morning's WaPo that sits nicely in my meodramatic heart.

It may be understated.

At any time that I steel myself to avoid partisan vituperation, and to avoid partisan and non-partisan self-deception [a lot of people charmingly fool themselves into thinking that there aren't multiple valid narratives that explain the political and policy doings from both (or lots of) sides], I nevertheless am struck with the disaster that is the GWB presidency.

4 comments:

¡barangus!™ said...

Last night as Putin was thrusting his dick further up Geogia's ass there was Nancy Grace on CNN blathering on about some child molester or something.

Wish Putin was thrusting up Nancy's ass instead.

Mister Parker said...

I'm sure the truth about John Edwards' affair was of great import to Mrs. Edwards. Beyond that, why it's even remotely relevant or of interest to anyone outside the participants and their families baffles me ...

As for the war in Georgia, it should come as good news to anyone who was feeling nostalgic for the outrageous expense, bloodshed and occasional nerve-wracking terror of the Cold War.

Charles Hawtrey said...

why it's even remotely relevant or of interest to anyone outside the participants and their families baffles me ...

~~ i hereby invoke haughty tone ~~

I know that there are available many rationalizations for the coverage[his policy statements included strong emphasis on encouraging families and family values; he continued to take significant contributions while engaged in a risky, "will-blow-up" presidential campaign; continued to take contributions after initial denials of the affair; campaign contributions used to fund "videos" from paramour].

They are all bullshit, and false rationalizations -- the real reason they are reporting it is because a good-lookin' fella got caught sticking his cock into a broad who was not his wife. TV and the internet eat that shit up [ever see TMZ?].


I now veer into a different converation -- an add'l complaint about campaign finance reform. Our institutionalization of campaign finance gives red meat to these TV voyeurs -- they are watching out for this "semi-public money." Which is bullshit -- it's not semi-public money at all. It's money that some jim or janet gave to some joe or jane because he liked the cut of joe's jib.

But now, rather than jim or janet riding herd on joe and jane, there's a quasi-SEC. But a quasi-SEC that can't really regulate the election, because elections are rife with free speech and political process [unlike interstate commerce, which everybody accepts (and accepted as early as the late 1780s) is open to federal regulation and control].

I need to nip this rant in the bud.

If Edwards, Obama, McCain, and Clinto [H.] would just release their hidden sex tapes, we could get this thing finished.

{sound of violent wretching . . . .}

Charles Hawtrey said...

And what was I thinking? Of course the story is newsworthy -- Edwards's lying about his affair cost Hillary Clinton the nomination.