The Cosmopolitan Blog

ok, so we all know that not an ounce of truth exists in the political and election process. Everything we hear should be taken with a pinch of salt, speeches embellish the truth, advertisements tell downright lies, and everyone spins everything.

But, when we, the common folk, hear the truth from our own ears, then don’t insult us by telling us something different. Here’s what i’m outraged about this week: a few days ago, a reporter asked McCain how many houses he had. McCain DIDN’T hesistate, DIDN’T “um” and “ah”, and just replied “well, i’ll have my staff get back to you”. Does that mean that he doesn’t know how many houses he has? NO! For the love of all that’s holy, don’t make the man more senile than he probably already is! He said that because he was trying to give a safe answer. He KNOWS how many different houses he owns that he spends time living / vacationing in, he’s not that stupid (insert funny joke about current US president here).

No, but seriously. He answered that because he probably also has a few investment properties, and didn’t want to be accused of lying if he didn’t give an accurate figure. Imagine the scandal if he had only counted the x number of houses he actually lived in and omitted the investments, the Dems would have had a field day saying he was trying to hide something.

So stop calling McCain “the person who can’t even remember how many houses he has”. Every major network has called him that this week. HE KNOWS, LET IT GO ALREADY. This is the type of silliness i expect from the late night shows, this is the type of lies that i expect from advertising from the opposing party. This is NOT the type of statements i want from my major news sources. I heard what McCain said, so do interpret it for me.

Do i think McCain should be president? No. Do i think he might, on occasion, be forgetful? Yes. But i also think he gives us plenty of material for criticism, so can we please leave the man alone when he didn’t, for once, do anything wrong?

“There are 6 billion of us, we all come from unique places with unique ways of looking at the world, we don’t always agree, but for a few shining weeks we set it all aside, we come together to stand and cheer and celebrate as one. We forget all the things that make us different and remember all the things that make us the same.”
~ Visa Commercial, Morgan Freeman’s voice

So China is hosting the Summer Olympics and this is hugely controversial. Why? Because they have violated human rights, because of the torture of the Tibetan people, because of their history of repressiveness, because of their continued disregard for environmental issues? But the choice was made, and China was awarded the hosting contract anyway. Shouldn’t the discussion have stopped there?

But the controversy grew hotter. So, just because the host country is a so-called despicable member of this planet, then the world’s best athletes should not be allowed to accomplish their dream and take part in the biggest sporting event in the world? People are against the event, because they believe that focusing on China, means focusing on its wrongs and takes away from the spirit of the Olympics. But doesn’t considering boycotting the event send out exactly the same message?

Then later, we spent time focusing on which countries’ leaders would or would not show up, and we criticized them if they did (Harper, Canada) and we criticized them if they didn’t (Bush, USA).

So now, here we are, and Beijing just put on a spectacular opening ceremony, the magnitude of which can’t be described by any superlative i know, and it seems like most athletes showed up (even though there are a few sad stories like the Sudanese athlete who’s visa was revoked days before the start of the Olympics), and yet somehow, people just can’t seem to let it go.

So i’d like to offer some perspective.
A. We protest that China shouldn’t host the Olympics, but then neither should the US, since both countries are guilty of stripping civilians’ liberties (think Patriot Act and Guantanamo), polluting the world, and invading countries uninvited (think Iraq, Vietnam…)

B. We protest because Communist China keeps their population in poverty, but do they, really? I mean think about where China was 100 years ago! They have progressed by leaps and bounds. This is a country of over 1 billion souls for goodness’ sake, and moving a country like that into the modern era WILL have it challenges. They have a huge way to go, agreed. But think about it. This is the first generation that has 100% access to the outside world, from financial means to travel to information sharing on the Internet. This is the generation that will demand China progress into the 21st century, they will know what their rights are, they will see what the rest of the world is doing and demand that as their baseline, and then change and progress will come from the bottom up.

C. We protest because China is trying, with these Olympics, to dazzle us and make us forget their crimes and their history. Um, but isn’t that the point of hosting the Olympics? You’re given a noble challenge and a chance to show your country off in a new light and highlight what it’s capable of. You give a huge boost to your economy and tourism, improve infrastructure, create jobs, and put a spotlight on yourself, for the good and the bad, forcing yourself to play on the world stage. Ok, so the investments probably mainly benefited Beijing, while we heard reports of water being routed away from farms towards the cities. But this only happened in China? You don’t think that the leaders of every host country has made decisions that weren’t for the benefit of the general population?

Bottom line: the Olympics were created as a way to bypass politics, to bring together the best athletes in the world, to give the common person a dream and a goal to reach to become to best in their field, irrespective of beliefs, religion, wars and their government’s opinions. So be critical of China, sure. But be equally critical of every other country, and realize that boycotting the event or banning a country from attending will never bother the country’s leaders but will most definitely shatter the dreams of courageous souls who have put it all on the line for their dream.

Hey, you knew a rant on this blog was a long time coming… i haven’t posted anything of substance for a month now, and now i rambled on a bit. So sue me!

I was watching CNN’s videos this morning, and listening to what the world’s reaction is to Obama becoming the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party. Interestingly, in places like Lebanon, it was more important to them for a woman to have won. I think that the impact of a woman winning would have been greater around the world, because women’s struggle is a concept universally understood, which touches everyone in some way. On the other hand, the fact that a black man won a victory in the US is probably harder to understand for those who don’t follow US history as we do, and who don’t understand the African-American struggle.

Other reactions around the world: Germans are delighted, seeing Obama in a similar light as they did John F. Kennedy 50 years ago. In Japan, a group of female fans dream of meeting Obama. And in China, they seem happy with the fact that Clinton did not win, seeing her as a old-style hardliner who would perpetuate the impression Americans have of China. …and it India, they just want to see a president who will push India further up on the world map. Maybe they think the US government should outsource to India like the rest of us!

In a post back in January, when there were still more than 2 candidates in each party for the US elections, i predicted that if either Hillary or Obama became the party nominee, then the Democrats would loose the general election and the next president would be a republican.

I still stand by this statement. See, I always asked the question “is the US more sexist or racist”. We think this question no longer applies, since 1/2 of america is voting for a black man and the other 1/2 for a woman and one would think the answer is that it’s pretty much equal. But that’s not true, it still very much applies: now that we know our opponent is McCain, who is more electable and likely to win against him, a woman or a black man? So again, I ask the question “is the US more sexist or more racist”?

I personally always thought America was more ready to elect a woman than a black man. After all, this is a country where there a still TWO schools that have some sort of racial segregation.

My personal viewpoint is that, by nature, the Democrats are more likely to accept a minority lead them. So they are more likely to accept a black man. But when it comes to the elections, we may also be looking at a whole bunch of republicans and undecided, who DON’T want to vote for McCain. Will they vote for Barack? I don’t think they will. And in that case, I feel that maybe Clinton should be McCain’s opponent, I think that a republican is more likely to vote for a woman than a black man.

This is absolutely 100% my opinion and understanding of this country from what i hear, what i observe, having lived there and having most of my friends and family still living there. Now, i want to hear what you think. Feel free to post a comment or two. Or answer the poll question on the right. Is the US more sexist or more racist?

So, let’s assume, for a second, that Barak Obama becomes the democratic nominee for the US presidency. It’s pretty clear that’s he’s nearly there, so it’s a safe assumption. But now, the question is, who will be his running mate? The thing is, I believe this is a question he should address soon, because if he plays his cards right, his running mate could have a really great following that he would then benefit from.

So. His choices. Well, Hillary would be one. That would be the perfect ticket, right? The thing is, i strongly believe that their policies are actually very different (some even say Hillary is closer on her policy to McCain is certain ways), so i don’t see how they could see such a partnership, it would confuse the message, i mean, they would then have to decide, well, which policy on healthcare, which policy on environment do we pick?

Option 2: John Edwards. He just endorsed Obama, so it would be a safe assumption. He would bring the white male vote (and young female vote) to the ticket, that could be useful. Problem is, i think he’s pretty much said, he wouldn’t want to be on a ticket as VP again, he’s been there, done that. (Having said that, he also said he wasn’t ready to endorse anyone, 24 hours before he endorsed Obama).

So, yesterday, around our weekly family dinner table, this idea came up, and i think it’s a very viable one. What about Nancy Pelosi for vice-president? It’s like combining the above 2 options. She has policies that are close to those of Obama and John Edwards, AND she’s a white woman, so she could potentially appease all those Hillary supporters who will feel snubbed, and who are, apparently, considering voting for McCain if Hillary’s not an option. I think Nancy Pelosi, as the speaker of the house (3rd highest position after President and VP) brings experience, contacts, and more than that, her personality is a lot better fit, i believe. Hillary, i’ve always found, has a self-centeredness and selfishness about her, she is power hungry and can be ruthless. Nancy does give that impression, and if i can allow myself to be an idealist for a second, she makes me believe that she would have the health of the country in mind with everything she does.

Well, i never considered myself an anarchist, but here you have it. I’m boycotting something. I’m boycotting CNN. Their tag line is “the most trusted name in news”. Seriously? How can we trust you, if you refuse to acknowledge that there are other countries out there. Dear CNN, did you know that the world does not, actually, revolve around the USA? That there are a few billion of us who don’t actually give a damn if we miss yet another Obama/Clinton debate? That taking a break from reporting on the primaries to spend 7 days talking about the New York governor’s affair is not actually good news reporting?

I used to fervently believe that Obama was the best democratic choice. Politics used to fascinate me. And now, CNN has single-handedly managed to turn me off politics. Maybe it’s cuz i’m generation X and i have the attention span of a goldfish, but seriously, a contest that lasts over 6 months, really, i promise you, looses steam very, very quickly.

Here is my plea to CNN, in the name of cosmopolitanism. We live on Earth. Earth is comprised of many countries. Each country, believe it or not, has newsworthy events. In order to up the awareness and IQ of your people, reporting on what is happening in other countries might actually be a good thing. Oh, and then, if you even spend just 10 minutes per hour reporting on what else is happening around the world, well then, maybe you could make a bold claim like being “the most trusted name in news”… And no, good looking anchors like Anderson Cooper not longer dissipate my anger.

But what makes me so mad (you know, like even MADDER than i was in the paragraph above!), and, unfortunately, i can’t really blame it on CNN, is the fact that i feel like we’re the only ones to see that the longer the democrats fight it out, the more power they’re giving to the republicans. I made a prediction on this blog a few months back, and i continue to maintain it. At the time, there were other democratic candidates, and i had said, if either Hillary or Obama get the nomination, then i guarantee the next POTUS will be a republican. I still believe that. Only time will tell, but in this case, pleeeease can time just hurry the hell up?

As you know, i’m a strong supporter of Oprah. I think she’s a smart, independent woman who has risen from a very difficult start, to a very influential person in today’s world. Am i proud of her because she’s a woman? Sure, woman are very “patriotic” that way, we stand together because many, many women in our history have fought real hard to give us the standing we can enjoy in most of the Western world today. Seeing the situation of women in the Middle East and Africa makes this fact even more obvious. BUT, at the same time, i would respect anyone with a story like Oprah’s, somehow who started from an unprivileged background to become one of the most successful people in their field.

So why does everyone always come down so hard on Oprah? I’m sure she doesn’t need me defending her, but seriously, do we really enjoy criticizing people who do well? You ask some people, and all they know of Oprah is some chat show host you went through her whole life having weight issues. NEWSFLASH! We haven’t discussed Oprah’s weight issues for years now, instead, her politics, her thoughts, her books, her charities, her movies… all of these things have been a lot more in the forefront than her weight issues in the 90s. So don’t give me the “well that’s all people talk about”, no they don’t! It’s what you choose to remember.

Now, the poor woman makes a choice and stands by a political candidate, and she gets grief for too?For one, if she didn’t make a choice, she would be criticized for not having the guts to take a stand. So, in case some of you hadn’t noticed, Oprah is a black woman. Turns out, 1 democratic candidate is a woman, the other is black. So how illogical is it for women across the country to criticize her for supporting Barack Obama and being unfaithful to women? Um, hello? So if she supported Hillary, we’d criticize her for supporting a white candidate??? So, let me get this right. She doesn’t express her opinion, she gets shot down. She DOES express her opinion, she gets shot down… man, sux to be a prominent figurehead.

For one, i think she is an amazing role model. She teaches us not to follow her blindly, instead, she gives us the tools to empower yourselves, as women, as citizens of the world, as human beings. If you could put aside your sarcasm and opinionated mindset, you might find that you can relate to a few things that Oprah has to say. Don’t vote for Barack Obama because Oprah supports him. Don’t vote for Hillary because she’s a woman like you. For Pete’s sake, women voters! Do what you do best. Combine your logic and your intuition and LISTEN to both messages. Then find which one rings truer to your situation and your heart. Judge them not for their gender or the color of their skin, we’ve evolved, we’re smart human beings, we are better judges of character than that… and stop judging Oprah for her choices and weight issues.

I’ll stop preaching now…

In my job in marketing, i have to study the web traffic to our site. I’m sure at CNN they have an entire team working on analysis viewership rates… and i wonder if they’ll notice a drop in viewership today, seeing that the Lost season premiere is on. I mean, let’s face it, there’s been NOTHING on tv these days, no one sits at lunch at work the next day ooohing and aaahing over the latest developments of their favorite series… it’s very sad… well, for us… Cuz for politicians and networks like CNN, i’m thinking their viewership has never been higher, they’re by default, the best entertainment there is on TV, with political debates and all…

Hehehe… so, um, does that mean that there’s a spin doctor somewhere who orchestrated the writer’s strike so that everyone HAS to watch the politics? Hmmm…

This is really not helping the general US ego. They already think that the world revolves around them, and now, what sucks is that the world does actually revolve around the US. The way they talk about the elections (ok, granted, i’m in Canada, it’s hardly very far away) on TV, you’d think it was everyone’s elections. I haven’t met someone who doesn’t know about Hillary and Barack. The republican race may be less known across the planet however, since the candidates haven’t yet been raised to celebrity status. Speaking of celebrities, i just heard that Fred Thompson (actor from Law and Order, that’s how i know him, anyway), just announced that he was dropping out of the race.

Last time around (2004), it was already bad enough, everywhere we looked there was a debate between Kerry and Bush, but at least, i feel like we were spared the primaries. And sure, in 2000, well, we all know that Bush rigged the votes and Al Gore should have been president, so, again, that had our attention.

But the primaries? Really? Seriously? We have to get involved this early in the process? It’s not, you realize, until this time next year, that the next president is sworn in… I heard on CNN that, during the New Hampshire primary, one of the voters expressed the fact that he wouldn’t vote, because he’s already so over it, and it’s overkill, he doesn’t want to go out and vote, so a bit of a backlash there.

I supposed the good news is, the more we spend time talking about the future president, the less W. is getting facetime… Which might explain why he hasn’t been feeling the love recently, and decided to give every US citizen and $800 tax rebate in the form of a check in their mailbox… Can someone say blackmail? Hey, W! You got a reputation and historical legacy you’re trying to salvage?

The thing is, like it or not, you gotta care. Like it or not, the news of possible US recession just sent the markets reeling this past week. The few shares I follow have hit rock bottom, and one’s not even in the US and is in one of the most stable industries you can get!

So, then, I ask you this. The question that’s on everyone’s lips: are Americans more racist or sexist? Are they more ready to vote for a woman or a Black man? Shame Oprah didn’t join the race, but seeing she’s Black AND she’s a woman, I think THAT, somehow is still a decade away (in my estimate) from being acceptable in such a bigotted, conservative and puritan country.

Personally, i think they’re more ready for a woman, although Barack has my Canadian vote. But here’s the truth. I honestly don’t think they’re ready for either. That is, they WILL pick either the woman or the black man, and that person will be the party’s nominee. But when it comes down to voting for the leader of the free world, my opinion is, come November 08, the Americans will chicken out, and decide not to vote for the Democrat candidate, they won’t want the woman or the Black man, and, therefore, by default, the votes will go to the Republican nominee.

So here it is: I predict that the next president of the United States will be a Republican again.

Anyway, whether you’re glued to your TV set or whether you wish the US would disappear off the face of the planet for a while, let me know what you think. There’s a new poll up (see right hand side), i hope you vote, you can select up to 5 answers.

I work in Marketing, so finding one’s niche is extremely important. And I applaud Al Gore for finding his. He found the right mix of serious and “hip” (waow, that dates me, right?) to appeal to as large an audience as possible. He mixed the in-depth understanding and reading (books, presentations…) with the entertainment aspect (concerts), and i do feel that global warming has reached an aweresness level that wasn’t there a couple years ago. Granted, this is my impression, living in North America, maybe, in Europe, things are still unchanged.

And he’s been smart. I think he has good advisors. The success didn’t go to his head, he didn’t suddenly imagine that he could conquer the country and win an election. Many people encouraged him to run, especially since this seems to be a race where everyone and their dog is interested in running, no one would criticize a man with an actual cause for running.

But he knews that his passion and his niche is elsewhere. I don’t think he will run, and good for him, he can do better as the main advocate for a cause than as a “could have been… twice!” president. But i was a little surprised actually, to find how low his ratings were as a potential candidate. Goes to show, you can be successfully pegged at one thing, but unsuccessful at others. I think Al Gore, with all his wisdom, knowledge, experience and tact, makes a great expert, but not necessarily a great president. You’d think a country would want a president that has MORE knowledge than the average Joe, more education, and more experience… But it seems, at least from the past 2 presidential terms, that the US wants a president they can relate to, someone who speaks at their level, who makes mistakes they would make, who acts like he’d be happier on a ranch or playing with toy soldiers… and giving credit were credit is due, maybe through luck, maybe through some really smart planning, George W. has achieved that, giving the average Joe a option that the Democrats hadn’t given for a long, long time.  Anyway, let me digress no further…

I want to congratulate Al Gore on winning the Nobel Peace Prize …and on finding his niche.