Ask500

Awwww - he said nice things to me there!

I wonder if that's true, or if it's reverse psychology in motion. There was a distinct fracture here in 2008 - the harder Palin talked, the more extreme the right wing appeared - the harder the public was driven to the left. The fear of the right wing and anger with the arrogance of the Republican party took them to the polls - the result was an Obama win. I think much of what's happened that makes the "movement to the right" (the Massachusetts Republican winning Kennedy's seat, the Virginia Governorship going to a Republican) MAY be media manipulation outside of the US claiming the country is turning against Obama. I do know a poll of Kentucky citizens showed a majority WANTED a public health care option. I know that Mitch McConnell, their esteemed leader and pork-barrel provider, stood up during a press conference and specifically said a majority of Kentuckians were AGAINST a public health care option. Are they (the media) perhaps showing us the right-wing in all their glory, Palin complete with notes on her hand, cheers from teabaggers echoing around the room an effort to make us REMEMBER this looney-movement is FAR from over and we need to stay focused? Don't stay home from the polling stations in 2010! Majority complacency (the new American tradition) will see a majority of Republicans re-elected by these right-wing nutjobs. We're seeing them on our news every night. Complacency in the coming election, a majority of Republicans being elected to Congress will be the END of everything US citizens wanted from Obama. Showing and talking about these right-wing loonies will, hopefully, remind people WHY they voted for Obama in the first place.

As for what you see on the news right now - I listen closely to both BBC and NPR radio broadcasts. I respect CBC, but have heard very little of them. They're not picked up like BBC is in the US. I was shocked by the differences between NPR and BBC reporting of the Virginia Governor seat going to the Republican. BBC called it "a clear slap in the face to the Obama administration." NPR stuck microphones in people's faces and asked why they voted Republican - was it a reflection of how they felt about Obama? The majority of those interviewed answered it was state politics only - the Democratic Party candidate had a corrupt background and seemed untrustworthy. The same happened with the Massachusetts senate seat. The Democratic candidate who sought Kennedy's seat (according to those interviewed by NPR's reporters) was insipid, smug, spoke and acted as if she had already been elected before the election. Her attitude angered the voters. BBC reported the seat went to the Republican was again "a clear rejection of Obama and his policies."

I trust both news sources completely, can't imagine why they'd be such a vast difference editorializing these same elections. I can only imagine CBC was in line with BBC. So who do I trust when it comes to accurate dissemination of what's going on in the minds of my fellow US citizens who live far from me and made these choices?

I do know this: the Bush administration's 2004 re-election so befouled the reputation of the "average US citizen" world wide they became deeply, and almost unforgivingly, angry with American citizens. I, for reasons I have stated over and over, don't KNOW if I believe Bush truly won the majority of votes here in Ohio (the state that put him back in the Oval Office) in 2004. But with Obama's election - the world seemed to forgive us. He was Prozac for the world and they viewed us with an eye of approval and appreciation again. Newspapers were published in Iran (of all places) with a photo of Obama being sworn in as president with the headline "Why can't we have a leader like this?" Needless to say, Ahmadinejad had the paper shut down the next day. I heard that particular story on NPR during the rioting in Tehran. The regular, state-sponsored public gatherings took place during during this time with micro-phoned leaders chanting the usual "Death to America! Death to Britain!" In times past, these chants were repeated verbatim by the gathered crowds. After Ahmadinejad's re-election - these same gatherings, the same leaders, the same chants were used. But the crowd, instead of following along, responded "Death to Russia! Death to China!" Both countries are supporters of the Ahmadinejad administration. Even the people of Iran respected Americans ENOUGH to try to stand WITH the people of the United States. They wanted to be rid of their OWN war-mongering president and elect a leader who talked of peace.

And I remember the good British soldier - the one who was killed by the US pilot after being told "100% confirmed - no friendlies in the area. Fire at will" - and he fired on the British convoy. The footage was released world wide and replayed constantly. They included the comment of the co-pilot: "Oh, we're in jail, dude!" The average British citizen took this as the pilot and co-pilot only thinking of themselves and NOT caring a bit about the death of the British soldier. No one at BBC bothered to ASK and CLARIFY clarify the slang which meant (more or less) "We've just done something horrible." Proof it was slang? The footage SHOWS it was clearly friendly fire. No soldier, to the best of my knowledge, has EVER gone to jail for friendly fire. BBC could and SHOULD have clarified the point, but instead they aggravated it. They stuck a camera in the pilot's father's face. A man who's son had just been betrayed by is country (by the releasing of the footage with the final comment - obviously inflammatory and easily cut out) - and told him that Britain was very, very angry with his son. So here stands a father, defending his son being attacked by the whole of Great Britain and betrayed by his country and responds with "You wouldn't even be here if we hadn't saved your asses in WWII!" BBC then airs that comment, implies and editorializes that THIS is the opinion of the "average American." The anger over those two, easily disseminated, explained and understandable comments could have bridge a gulf between British and American citizens that day. Instead the BBC CHOSE to exacerbate the situation. Why did BBC NEVER ask the most obvious question? "WHO TOLD THAT PILOT THERE WERE NO FRIENDLIES IN THE AREA and WHERE DID HE GET HIS INFORMATION??" Instead that question was never asked. It wasn't information gathered by the US military, incidentally, but information gathered by a private, for profit corporation who then sold the information to the United States military. It as almost as if the footage of the incident, misunderstood comment and all, was released STRICTLY so the inflammatory nature of the comment would strike an emotional cord and the truth, along with the right questions, could be swept under the rug. And BBC went along with the smoke and mirrors. They never asked the obvious question. They simply fanned the flames of the tide against Bush and what was shown to be "the opinion of Britain held by the average American."

Now - that was the lead up to Obama. The world loves Obama - virtually all would sing joyful songs to have them as their leader at this time. They sang songs of praise for the US and for Americans when we elected him. If you don't WANT your citizens to like another nation's citizens, or ... to perhaps like them a little LESS, or ... to perhaps help your country's citizens once again think the average American is foolish, selfish, short-sighted, uncaring about the rest of the world - doesn't it only make sense to tell the world we're are doing everything we can do to undermine a leader you respect?

Now - I could sit back and call this WHOLE thing a giant conspiracy theory. I can see where someone could think that. But I'm not a big conspiracy theorist when it comes to world events. This world is mighty big and has a WHOLE lot of people in it. The thought of 10 guys sitting down at a board room table and plotting out what's going to be done in and with the US, Britain, Canada, Iran, Russia, China, etc. is just a bunch of crap. It's too big and too much trouble.

All it would have taken is ONE guy sitting in the BBC newsroom saying "THIS is how headlines are MADE!" and editing a story. Next thing you know - Britain is up in arms and angry with "the average American." That same guy (likely a head news writer) thinking "US citizens are angry with Obama - that's the ONLY reason they'd vote in a Republican to that senate seat!" All he had to do was find one teabagger in the crowd (and not even ask WHO they voted for in 2008) - and he's got his "We're going to show Washington what we think of Obama!" quote and then he has a story that resonates across the world, doesn't he?

The world isn't controlled by a board of directors. It's controlled us. But we're too foolish to realize we sometimes rely on stupid people to gather the information FOR us that we cannot gather ourselves.

I'm looking forward to going to work again in another month at the test-grading job. I'll once again listen to the right-wing conservatives in my part of Ohio give their opinions on world politics - and THEN I'll know how the wind in the US is blowing. I suspect they'll be annoyed with Congress and the same people who didn't like Obama BEFORE he was elected still won't like him now. (lol)