Who's THE most boring politician ever? Who makes your eyes roll back in your head every time you hear them drone on? Who makes watching your fingernails grow seem exciting by comparison? I'll throw it open to the national scene as well, past or present. Try to explain your reasoning why as well.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 11/24/2005
3 comments
Wise, all-knowing, omniscient, and a snappy dresser besides. Often misunderestimated.
Readers are strongly encouraged to send along any tid-bits, story ideas, event notices, links to articles, background info, or other stuff they feel may be of interest. Just contact me at the link below. It's a lot easier than throwing it through my window tied to a rock.
NOTE:
Due to the fact that the foolish and the disturbed will always be among us,
Your comments may not show up immediately.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You do not have a RIGHT to have your comments published here, they will appear at the editor's sole discretion.
Contact The Inside Dope
by clicking here
Change is Good
Spies, Lies, and the Con Man Who Caused a War
Recommended for wingnuts still wallowing in Bush propaganda
about the phoney intel they used to drive us to war.
Confessions of a Republican Operative
My Secret Life of (Republican) Scandal, Corruption,
Hypocrisy and Dirty Attacks That
Decide Who Gets Elected (and Who Doesn't)
Reclaiming Faith and Politics after the Religious Right
A Citizen's Guide to Faith and Politics
Reviving Faith & Politics in a Post-Religious Right America
--->
Sites You Should Know
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
3 Comments:
Well, Inside Dope, I find boring in advance the discussion you have requested that would consist solely of anonymous slurs on politician's speaking styles.
What I would prefer to discuss is the boring narrow range of political discussion that is allowed in this nation's mass corporate media. As designed, most Americans assume, without realizing how manipulated they have been in making this assumption, that the views they hear in the mainstream media are the only reasonable, responsible and informed opinions that exist on the subjects being discussed.
I was again reminded of this when I heard a Canadian professor of political science and economics speaking about globalization on CSPAN. As everyone in the US knows it is universally agreed among all those whose views on the subject are presented in the US media that globalization in general and "free trade" in particular is a good and wonderful thing, like freedom and democracy. People who oppose globalization (when they are acknowledged to exist at all) are inferred to be either ignorant and naive (modern day Luddites) or evil dictators who while hypocritically portraying themselves as champions of the poor are in fact hurting the impoverished people in their country by keeping out American corporations and the jobs they would bring (Hugo Chavez, etc).
This Canadian professor (I can’t remember his name at the moment) was pointing out that globalization was, in fact, dead. Based on what the United States does, as opposed it what we say, does not believe in globalization at all. Our current go-it-alone, coalition of the willing, our-way-or-the-highway foreign policy is the antitheses of globalization – as is our opposition to the World Court and our deprecation of the United Nations.
W.C. Fields was against gambling, at least on his part, because the concept of gambling carries with it the possibility that he could lose – something he wanted no part of. The picture of W. C. Fields sitting at a gambling table is an icon of deceit and fraud, because it is clear that he would not be sitting there unless the fix was in to ensure that he would win.
The United States wants no part of the aspect of globalization that would allow German or French companies to win away from American corporations contracts in Iraq (or anywhere else the US controls) or that would allow American soldiers or leaders to be indicted for war crimes. The aspects of globalization that hurt Americans that are allowed by the US (loss of manufacturing jobs to Mexico, India or China) simply demonstrate that the US is not concerned about the workers whose jobs are being shipped overseas.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for this aspect of globalization to be discussed in the mainstream media – even though it is so obvious (now that it has been pointed out) that you would think it could not be ignored.
I'm sorry you find the question on the post boring.
But great comment on a very important point, perhaps more important than Iraq or any other issues put together.
As an aside Dave, I assume you've read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"? If not, it certainly delves into just how the "corporatocracy" is attempting to spread a U.S. empire to poorer countries, and is written by a guy who was at the top level of the CIA/World Bank/US corporate organization.
And this globalization is truly the final taboo as far as the major media is concerned. The media won't touch it with a 10 ft. pole, other than to portray those who protest against it as some sort of dangerous anarchists.
I'm also pleased to note that Dave has a blog now with a couple of posts so far. It's called the Moline Democratic Maverick and can be read at http://molinedemocraticmaverick.blogspot.com/
Andy McKenna and Lane Evans belong on the short list of boring politicians to listen to.
Post a Comment
<< Home