Observations from Vienna
What I still want to say is that, aside from the essay I just posted, the Austrian media has stayed pretty clear of judging either candidate, at least from what I have noticed in the past days. What is being reported on are the missing ballots in Florida, Arnold Schwarzenegger campaigning with Bush, and Michael Moore planning on keeping an eye on things at the polls on Tuesday. Oh, and the Bin Laden tape. The newspapers I have been checking out are reporting equally from both campaign trails, have bios and slideshows of both Bush and Kerry up on their websites.
However, this does not mean that the sentiment out on the streets is the same. The majority is clearly rooting for Kerry, and one unfortunately does not hear much sensible debating or discussing going on anywhere. So I am extremely curious about the reaction here following Tuesday. I literally live around the corner of the American embassy and have witnessed not just a few demonstrations marching on by my window or chanting for hours. So will the chanting resume should Bush win? And if so, I would love to ask them what their point is. Regardless of who I am personally voting for, I would not see any point in goings on of the sorts.
Sunday, October 31, 2004
"USA in the hands of a radical sect"
This is what Hans Rauscher has to say in yesterday's "Der Standard:"
(I am sorry if anything sounds a bit odd due to my translation.)
"[...] This is not a choice between a more conservative and a more liberal candidate; this is not a choice between two varieties of American democracy.
It is not even a choice between two personalities, as different as their character, their socialization and their world-view may be and actually are.
In essence, this is a choice between a normal American type of politician (Kerry) and an ideologically radical sect that aims to force its unbelievably narrow and bullheaded ideal upon the entire world.
Some of the American media have overcome their submissiveness after 9/11 and are reporting the almost unbelievable supported by researched facts: George W. Bush believes he has been sent by God, his politics are agreeable to God and lead by God.
At the age of 40, Bush was the useless son of a rich and famous father, an alcoholic who was saved from slipping away into a completely messed up life by an Evangelist preacher.
Ever since, he believes to have been put on the right path by God himself. One can probably consider this to be the most successful psychotherapy in history.
An aimless, rich roamer became a president with a radical agenda, which has significantly changed the world and the USA and will still change them more.
As any sect leader, Bush impresses with his inner conviction and own logic. This leaves an impression, at least in the USA, and that is why he still has the better chances of winning.
Of course, his agenda has partly been fed by right-wing cynics surrounding him (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.).
But only he has the messianic belief to lead a war under false pretences, which is not meant to lead to anything more than the already damned bare-footed of this world fearing the USA more and willingly complying; or to follow through with an economic agenda that undermines the financial basis and especially social security through huge deficits - in order to make the institutions of a welfare state ripe for the attack of total privatization.
These are the two things at the core of his agenda: military solutions for all problems of the planet (especially the "war against terrorism") and the radical dismantling of the state.
This agenda has already partially failed (Iraq is lost; Islamic terrorists metastatize; there is not enough military power left for Iran or North Korea) and he will also fail in his economic ideals.
However, this will lead to immense damage for everyone. But Bush marches on, oblivious of reality (and his own incompetence). That is why, in the end, this election is about answering the question of whether or not the only super power will remain in the hands of a radical sect."
This is what Hans Rauscher has to say in yesterday's "Der Standard:"
(I am sorry if anything sounds a bit odd due to my translation.)
"[...] This is not a choice between a more conservative and a more liberal candidate; this is not a choice between two varieties of American democracy.
It is not even a choice between two personalities, as different as their character, their socialization and their world-view may be and actually are.
In essence, this is a choice between a normal American type of politician (Kerry) and an ideologically radical sect that aims to force its unbelievably narrow and bullheaded ideal upon the entire world.
Some of the American media have overcome their submissiveness after 9/11 and are reporting the almost unbelievable supported by researched facts: George W. Bush believes he has been sent by God, his politics are agreeable to God and lead by God.
At the age of 40, Bush was the useless son of a rich and famous father, an alcoholic who was saved from slipping away into a completely messed up life by an Evangelist preacher.
Ever since, he believes to have been put on the right path by God himself. One can probably consider this to be the most successful psychotherapy in history.
An aimless, rich roamer became a president with a radical agenda, which has significantly changed the world and the USA and will still change them more.
As any sect leader, Bush impresses with his inner conviction and own logic. This leaves an impression, at least in the USA, and that is why he still has the better chances of winning.
Of course, his agenda has partly been fed by right-wing cynics surrounding him (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.).
But only he has the messianic belief to lead a war under false pretences, which is not meant to lead to anything more than the already damned bare-footed of this world fearing the USA more and willingly complying; or to follow through with an economic agenda that undermines the financial basis and especially social security through huge deficits - in order to make the institutions of a welfare state ripe for the attack of total privatization.
These are the two things at the core of his agenda: military solutions for all problems of the planet (especially the "war against terrorism") and the radical dismantling of the state.
This agenda has already partially failed (Iraq is lost; Islamic terrorists metastatize; there is not enough military power left for Iran or North Korea) and he will also fail in his economic ideals.
However, this will lead to immense damage for everyone. But Bush marches on, oblivious of reality (and his own incompetence). That is why, in the end, this election is about answering the question of whether or not the only super power will remain in the hands of a radical sect."
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Anatomy of a Sexual "Predation."
50% of infants born to mothers 15-17 years old are sired by males over 20. Males over 25 are implicated in twice as many teenage births as are males under 18 (The Oregonian, May 11, 2004). Why did the Oregonian deem this tidbit newsworthy?
I feel I must admit my personal interest in this matter: my father is seventeen years older than my mother, yet no one in our family greeted my conception with outrage, nor did anyone call 9-1-1 to rat my dad out as a statutory rapist. Indeed, the matter was never even mentioned during my childhood. My parents' age difference was taken completely in stride by a family whose members' general behavior has been described by objective observers as suffocatingly conventional. Admittedly, my parents met when mom was 40 and dad was 57.
Hence, a nagging question presents itself to my mind: At what age does it become socially respectable for a self-respecting woman to copulate with an older man?
After much deliberation and significant consultation with experts in the field, I have determined that there is no definitive answer to this crucial anthropolical and/or sociological inquiry. Surprisingly enough, with respect to any given pairing, the answer to the respectability question posed above appears to vary significantly on the basis of a number of factors, including the following: (1) age of the male, (2) yearly income of the male, (3) the male's likelihood of gifting the female with small samples of the carbon allotrope commonly known as "diamond"; (4) strength of the male for his spawn to attend an educational institution more prestigious than that attended by the female's father; (5) the female's father's occupation, if any; (6) the female's independent means, if any; (7)
50% of infants born to mothers 15-17 years old are sired by males over 20. Males over 25 are implicated in twice as many teenage births as are males under 18 (The Oregonian, May 11, 2004). Why did the Oregonian deem this tidbit newsworthy?
I feel I must admit my personal interest in this matter: my father is seventeen years older than my mother, yet no one in our family greeted my conception with outrage, nor did anyone call 9-1-1 to rat my dad out as a statutory rapist. Indeed, the matter was never even mentioned during my childhood. My parents' age difference was taken completely in stride by a family whose members' general behavior has been described by objective observers as suffocatingly conventional. Admittedly, my parents met when mom was 40 and dad was 57.
Hence, a nagging question presents itself to my mind: At what age does it become socially respectable for a self-respecting woman to copulate with an older man?
After much deliberation and significant consultation with experts in the field, I have determined that there is no definitive answer to this crucial anthropolical and/or sociological inquiry. Surprisingly enough, with respect to any given pairing, the answer to the respectability question posed above appears to vary significantly on the basis of a number of factors, including the following: (1) age of the male, (2) yearly income of the male, (3) the male's likelihood of gifting the female with small samples of the carbon allotrope commonly known as "diamond"; (4) strength of the male for his spawn to attend an educational institution more prestigious than that attended by the female's father; (5) the female's father's occupation, if any; (6) the female's independent means, if any; (7)
In Austria, George Bush would not stand a chance
This is what "Die Kronen Zeitung" (not the most respected, but the most widely read newspaper in Austria...go figure) has to say:
"If the Austrians had their way in the upcoming US presidential elections, George W. Bush would not stand the slightest chance against John F. Kerry. However, Austrians know that the spirit in the States is a different one - and they expect a suspenseful decision, with a small advantage for the current president. [...]
Kerry is supported the most by young Austrians, more educated citizens and the Austrian Green Party supporters.
What seems to speak for Kerry are not so much his specific qualities, but more the prevention of a second Bush administration: Sable-rattling and very little concern for the environment are not well received in a country of neutrality and waste separation, particle filters and reduction of harmful substances. [...]
However, who does become the next commander in chief of the US has very little meaning for Austria, according to the Austrians themselves. The relative majority even assumes moderate or no meaning at all."
And some poll results from "Der Standard:"
Who would you vote for?
82.1% (1441 people) - Kerry
9.9% (174 people) - Neither
8% (140 people) - Bush
Who will the Americans vote for?
51.5% - Kerry
48.5% - Bush
This is what "Die Kronen Zeitung" (not the most respected, but the most widely read newspaper in Austria...go figure) has to say:
"If the Austrians had their way in the upcoming US presidential elections, George W. Bush would not stand the slightest chance against John F. Kerry. However, Austrians know that the spirit in the States is a different one - and they expect a suspenseful decision, with a small advantage for the current president. [...]
Kerry is supported the most by young Austrians, more educated citizens and the Austrian Green Party supporters.
What seems to speak for Kerry are not so much his specific qualities, but more the prevention of a second Bush administration: Sable-rattling and very little concern for the environment are not well received in a country of neutrality and waste separation, particle filters and reduction of harmful substances. [...]
However, who does become the next commander in chief of the US has very little meaning for Austria, according to the Austrians themselves. The relative majority even assumes moderate or no meaning at all."
And some poll results from "Der Standard:"
Who would you vote for?
82.1% (1441 people) - Kerry
9.9% (174 people) - Neither
8% (140 people) - Bush
Who will the Americans vote for?
51.5% - Kerry
48.5% - Bush
Reporting from Austria
Hi everyone, I am a friend of Elliots, born and raised in Washington, DC and now live in Vienna, Austria. Elliot asked me to write a little bit about the American elections from the point of view of the Austrian media and people, as an example of how they are perceived in Europe. Please remember that what I will write are not necessarily my personal opinions, but simply what I have read in the paper, heard on TV or was told by a friend of mine. Just consider me the messenger.
Enjoy!
I will start with something a little on the lighter side:
This is a small bit from today's edition of the Austrian newspaper "Der Standard."
The retired Mrs. S. has never mistaken when it comes to Austrian politics. Whoever she votes for wins the election. This has been going on for many years.
Who would she give her "winning" vote to if she were able to vote in the United States? John Kerry. "Kerry leans more towards Europe." Her second reasoning: "Bush's laughter is not sincere, but malicious." The newspaper counters: Kerry barely laughs at all. Mrs. S. simply says: "Well, there is not much reason to laugh." - And there she has a point.
More later...
Hi everyone, I am a friend of Elliots, born and raised in Washington, DC and now live in Vienna, Austria. Elliot asked me to write a little bit about the American elections from the point of view of the Austrian media and people, as an example of how they are perceived in Europe. Please remember that what I will write are not necessarily my personal opinions, but simply what I have read in the paper, heard on TV or was told by a friend of mine. Just consider me the messenger.
Enjoy!
I will start with something a little on the lighter side:
This is a small bit from today's edition of the Austrian newspaper "Der Standard."
The retired Mrs. S. has never mistaken when it comes to Austrian politics. Whoever she votes for wins the election. This has been going on for many years.
Who would she give her "winning" vote to if she were able to vote in the United States? John Kerry. "Kerry leans more towards Europe." Her second reasoning: "Bush's laughter is not sincere, but malicious." The newspaper counters: Kerry barely laughs at all. Mrs. S. simply says: "Well, there is not much reason to laugh." - And there she has a point.
More later...
Bin Laden Tape
Well, at least we know he's alive. If you want a transcript of what the tape says, click here. Belmont Club, who provides it, additionally provides an interesting point of the tape - that what is striking about it is what is MISSING FROM IT. I suggest you read the linked post.
Well, at least we know he's alive. If you want a transcript of what the tape says, click here. Belmont Club, who provides it, additionally provides an interesting point of the tape - that what is striking about it is what is MISSING FROM IT. I suggest you read the linked post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
