Over the Edge

I was rather pleased to see Barack Obama win the 2008 US presidential Election.  My reasons run pretty much along the same lines as those of other people who were: sick to death of George W. and feared McCain would follow in his path, or at least continue some of his policies. I wanted to see if an Afro-American would be accepted for the job and all that that meant.  And I admired the consistency of the President-elect; the way he ran his two campaigns and how he kept his composure in the face of adversity — etcetera.

What disheartened me about the 2008 Presidential campaign was how the so-called “mainstream media” fawned over Obama like he was some kind of political Messiah.  I have mentioned this before but now I see where those with clout are admitting that Barack Obama was treated in an all-together different manner than was John McCain.

Depictions can stay with a person and swell in retrospect.  The number of stories written about Obama had to impress, if not the conscious mind of many Americans, then at least the consciousness of the country.   As for campaign media coverage Obama won hands down but there is even hesitation in answering who received the second most attention after the presidential campaign began; was it John McCain or Sarah Palin.

The latter received positive coverage until she began opening her mouth to say things she didn’t understand, or at least was incapable of making the viewer/ reader understand that she understood.  (There was a syntax problem.)  The Biden/Palin TV debate was the most watched in political debate history.

 The media shot her up and then reported how she crashed to earth like a spent skyrocket – the kind dad’s thrill their children with on the Fourth of July.  But her numbers stayed high.

She sold papers; the press and electronic media (including the radio talk shows) had a field day.  I don’t know the figures of how many words were written or how many hours of viewing time were spent praising then trashing Governor Palin but the numbers came close to eclipsing McCain himself.  

Obama sold papers too.  Understated but definitely front and center in people’s minds was Race. In fact rather than hurt it likely helped.  Oh, the Southern “Good Ol’ Boys” sat around talking about a lynch party but generally speaking a lot of younger Americans plus a huge black turnout gave him a resounding victory. 

During the campaigns, Obama was almost a political freak with his limited experience at almost everything – offset by his charismatic bearing, golden oratory (people ignored the dropped final g’s) and his picture perfect family.  McCain was depicted as exactly what he was: an aged war hero and experienced legislator.  Except the party he represented (and its leader) was in the toilet so the nation’s media, almost overwhelmingly, gravitated to the Illinois Senator.   

–

Then on November 4^th, a few weeks back — the election over — there came a time for reflection and inventory.

Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin was one who took up the torch when he summed up the coverage in a speech to a conference of media analysts at the American Political Journalism Organization (Politico) held at the University of California   “It’s the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war.” Pretty heady stuff from an editor of Time. 

In his address Halperin threw a verbal dagger at the (Liberal) New York Times which had done a story on the presidential candidate’s wives in which it lauded Michelle Obama and trampled Cindy McCain. Pretty heady stuff coming from Time, better known on occasion for its cover than its content.

 During the campaign, right-wing publications as well as America’s Conservative Movement didn’t hide their distaste for the Obama press and electronic media coverage which lead with the President-elect many times more often than McCain.   In print Obama’s name appeared above the fold so often it almost appeared as if it was he who edited the front page.

No-one can blame Obama directly for any of the gush, however he did outspend McCain two to one after going back on his promise to use public financing.  Halperin admitted he ran a “remarkable candidacy”. 

Well, yes it was remarkable; provided a lot of fodder (one notable example: the skirmish over Reverend Jeremiah Wright); the Obama camp used a hammer drill to reach the public with a somewhat vacant slogan (“Yes We Can”); warned that McCain would be the extension of the Bush Legacy (“just look in the rear-view mirror”) to say nothing of winning a wrenching Primary tussle with Hillary Clinton.

David Limbaugh was an immutable bark, constantly hurling boulders at Obama. He might as well have been throwing popcorn.  However Limbaugh’s defense of Palin’s wardrobe fell short of spectacular.  Too bad, what was she supposed to wear, clothing from Wasilla’s Second Hand Store?  Limbaugh’s “covering up rather than covering” the Senator’s “shady past and corruption“ actually contributed to the torrent of words … somebody once said a knock is as good as a plug?

–

But when Bill Brennan of the other Liberal press giant, the Washington Post, came out and submitted that his own paper’s scales dipped heavily in favor of Obama there was no doubt that the media was delivering itself a spanking.   The Post’s Deborah Howell wrote an article “An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage” and quoted a readership survey conducted on Election Day that indicated The Posts’ readers were critical of the paper’s bias.  Howell said they were right.

Howell says she studied the paper’s coverage over the past year and found there was “rampant” pro-Obama coverage, citing op-ed pro-Obama and Negative-McCain columns and that the paper’s editorial endorsement favored the President-elect.

Even CNN’s “Best Political Team on Television” has acknowledged Obama bias.  Not surprising, anyone in this part of the world is somewhat limited in News coverage but most local Channel providers, dare I say all, carry CNN, albeit the International version.  However for stuff like election coverage they skip back to Atlanta’s main desk — Obama central. I watched a fair amount of BBC World Service coverage and it’s only natural that the UK’s well-disposed network would play fair to both sides.

Shortly after the Palin rocket had reached warp speed, a rare (for the Beeb) sidebar comment indicated that Obama, indeed, had been generating a considerable amount of News but was now being challenged in that area by Governor Sarah Palin from Alaska. The co-presenter, with a crooked smile mentioned what an “unusual” election they were having in the United States.

–

So … the American media did not serve admirably in its coverage of the 2008 vote.  It showed bias in favor of the eventual winner.

It’s not the place of mainstream press and television to breech the wall of voter indecision.  Not in a country which is heralded as being an example of a Democratic Society.  The St Louis Post Dispatch is not the People’s Daily touting Xinhua News Service propaganda.

A new and absorbing circumstance arose nearly two years ago in the USA.  It would have been enough to report the facts as they presented themselves in such a situation.  Following the Primary win and conceding that Senator Obama would have won regardless of what part the media played, it was decidedly his victory, not theirs and their inappropriate influence has come home to roost on their mastheads and signal towers.

Staying Ahead of the Curve

I have a friend in Dubai who at one time was a colleague of mine.  Because she and another colleague and I became close friends, both at work and at play, we just never lost touch and I speak often with both of them these days, ten years hence.   Since then, the lady has been married and with her husband is raising two delightful children.  In the past week I have met the kids, spoke with my friend, talked to her husband; the whole family has congregated on my full computer video screen.  First time I’ve seen them since leaving Hong Kong a decade ago.  Thrilling.

The other colleague I spoke of is in London and as I am GMT plus seven hours, and he works during the day we don’t utilize the same technology but remain close on email.  However I have several people I talk with — old pals with whom I worked years ago.  A couple just resurfaced.   

This is the technology of Skype.

Originally Skype was audio-only but quickly became audio and visual.  Long Distance telephone – eat your heart out.  The program is free: Google it, download it and start filling in your fellow Skypers – it’s all very simple and instructions are easy to follow.  If a nine year old girl can do it – and does – well….

For the past three or four years Laptops and Macs have built a camera into the unit;  If you prefer a desk-top PC a camera comes with the original purchase, a little object that can sit on top of your screen.  These days, most computers have a built-in microphone and a fair speaker system.  If not, a headphone/mouthpiece unit will run about $25 US — less or more in some countries but not by much.   Also an older rig will not provide a camera so you can buy an inexpensive one at your computer store.   

The whole set-up for people who have five year old computers can be purchased for less than the cost of a few LD calls especially if you come from a place like the Philippines who demand huge tolls and rip you off into the bargain – examples: charge you whether a connection is made or not and will not honor toll-free lines outside the country.  So here, where I live, Skype is a liberator.

This isn’t a commercial for Skype — there are other services. Google now offers the same thing and so does Microsoft Windows.  It’s just that Skype was first and is extremely simple.  Skype is compatible with both PC’s & Macs, and allows inter-exchange between both computers.

–

While the whole range of computer communications equipment is rapidly advancing, audio/visual is not for everybody.  I have a couple of close friends in my old home town who want nothing to do with this technology.  “Nope, no way, dude, email’s just fine thanks.”  And so that’s the way it remains. 

One of these guys gave me a very sensible answer that I can’t argue with.  He would rather communicate through email – the written word – he feels better expressing himself that way.  That’s the kind of person he is and it doesn’t mean he’s against technology, he is comfortable with email.  There is no argument, nor do I have a problem with it, nor do I try and change his mind.

“Chat” is another, less technologically advanced but good way to stay in touch.  Gmail (or Googlemail as it’s referred to in some places) — as well as several other services, have chat availability.  That’s where you carry on a written dialogue in real time.  It’s called a ‘conversation’ and you can store it with your email or junk it when it’s over — the latter being wise;  who needs past, quickie raps cluttering up an email file.  Of course if you need reference … okay, it’s available.

I have another friend who is anonymous.  Few people know who this person is.  Bobby, a pseudonym, is unreachable unless you are a member of his/her inner sanctum and are privileged to know Bobby’s Skype name, computer bridge partner name and other uses – whatever, they are all the same name.  Completely anonymous, genderless … he/she wants it that way and thereby escapes a considerable amount of hassle.  Bobby uses Skype, audio only and spends hours on the computer speaking to lots of people who have no idea with whom they are communicating. 

Bobby is a stress reliever from those who include reams of names and email addresses when they send any kind of ‘forwarded’ message.  “Undisclosed Recipient” is completely un-revealing, i.e. BCC or delete.  And it’s safer ‘cause it excludes the possible entry of a virus.  I mean, some adversary could be lurking out there; some-one you hit with a cricket bat when you were both 13 and has been waiting for twenty years to get his licks in.

–

In many parts of the world, East Asia in particular and now in North America and Europe, High Density television has taken hold; photographic picture quality and expensive.  But a great, big wide-angle-Cinerama, HD TV screen spread out half way across your living room sure brings a Bruce Willis action movie’s impact closer to your brain than the old rectangular 21 inch, 1950’s style set you used to watch Jackie Gleason in The Honeymooners fifty years ago.

Hardly the same type of technology as Skype although it serves to describe how far TV communication has come.  Digital cameras are another example.  (I haven’t looked at Kodak stock lately.)  I see advertising for mobile phones.  Some are capable of almost everything from being used as a simple computer, a camera, a telephone (duh) and if properly utilized will cook breakfast.  These things, there are 3.3 billion in use world-wide, Nokia, Sony, Samsung can cost a lot of money, or not much.

In this country, the kids all have cellular phones but they use them for texting.  Texting comes with its own language, a stilted form of whatever country’s native tongue is involved and it’s also real-time and fast, fast, fast.  My wife has an ordinary cell phone and she uses it for messages.  But the neighborhood kids — and the Philippines is one step away from being a destitute nation — all have one. As soon as they get a few pesos they go and load up their phone and text their pals.  Continuously.

I was talking with a couple of friends this morning (on Skype, of course) and we had noticed that all the numbers and letters are worn off the little rubber keys and yet these kids fingers fly over the stubs, as one friend mentioned, “like lightening”.   

As I inferred, mobile phones and texting has become world-wide; we were talking about the California train wreck north of LA awhile back where the engineer missed a red “no-go” signal because he was texting with his buddies.  Cost him and 22 other’s their lives. 

So there is a limit to all this which includes moving vehicles and other circumstances that fall into the ‘some-things-you-can’t-do-at-the-same-time’ category.  However bad incidents aside, the “Curve” is getting steeper and higher all the time.  Maybe that’s why some people just say the hell with it and use a desk phone which is now known as a land-line … after all, a desk is not a phone … yet.

A Funny Country

A Funny Country

It’s off the wall to call a country funny.  One has to use fanciful thinking.  Example: Germany is not a funny country.  It is productive and its inhabitants are very intelligent and they make good cars and good machines and Germany is a valuable asset to the world.  But it’s not funny … Italy is funny.  Italians are also productive but where a German is staid and stolid, an Italian is forever talking with his hands and making facial expressions.

There are funny little countries in the Caribbean, in the Lesser Antilles’ especially. If one takes the time to read Herman Wouk’s Please Don’t Stop the Carnival he or she will understand about funny Caribbean countries where one has to shake their head at the way people conduct themselves. 

I can’t think of many funny countries in the Middle East – too much strife.  In North America there’s the United States; it can be funny, but it can also be overly enthusiastic or antagonistic. Canada is not funny but Mexico is.  Understand there is nothing wrong with not being funny, in fact it may be, depending on where the country is and what it’s famous for (if anything), an advantage.

In making reference to the United States, I should add that great big, heavily populated countries are seldom funny.  They are just great big, heavily populated countries: China, Russia, Brazil.  There’s one possible exception: India which can be a very funny country. I live in a funny country – The Philippines. 

–

Let me use just one example — one reason why I consider The Philippines a funny country. Some-one, likely the government, passes a law and in order to conform to that law there are rules.  Let us assume for the sake of explanation – a new law is passed concerning Water Buffalo.  It will then fall under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Department to make certain rules concerning Water Buffalo.

A rule was made that one cannot harm a Water Buffalo.  That’s because a Water Buffalo, which in The Philippines is called a Carabao, is the National Animal.  I should hasten to add that although pronounced similarly to the Caribou, the Carabao is nothing like a Caribou which lives in the far North and is really a type of Reindeer. 

Most countries have National Animals.  We are familiar with Australia’s Kangaroo of course; Germany has an Eagle while the USA has a Bald Eagle (a considerable distinction to eagles, themselves); we are familiar with China’s Giant Panda, there’s Canada’s Beaver, India’s Elephant and of course there’s Estonia which has as its national animal – the Barn Swallow. 

Some countries also have national birds and national fish and even national reptiles but for the purposes of this piece we’ll just set that aside and concentrate on The Philippines National animal, the Water Buffalo, and the rules.  There are, at last count 138 rules associated with the Philippine Water Buffalo. 

A person has to wonder how it is that so many rules are made up about something that pulls a plow, eats grass, sleeps and does absolutely nothing else (other than mate).  Therein lies part of the humor of The Philippines, a country that more than any other country I know of, is guided by rules.  Many of them preposterous.

One cannot feed Carabao’s ice cream — a specified rule.  In fact there is very little one can feed a Philippine Water Buffalo and get away with it.  I know this because I used to own a couple of these creatures and was presented with a Philippine Department of Agriculture Rule Book when the purchase was made.

To feed a Water Buffalo anything at all would be scary to some because they are not dainty animals.  They are pachyderm-like; huge ungainly, dreadfully ugly things with large horns and bulbous bodies and a wickedly swishing tail.  Even a baby is the size of a small hippo. However unlike the Buffalo found on the African plains, Carabao’s are pussycats – rarely get upset – altogether too much energy expended by getting upset.  And they don’t make any noise except a wheezing snort on occasion.

The rules stipulate how much land must be made available to the animal, how much water, how much grass, where it is sheltered, all very normal.  But one must not yell at them or speak evil of them or allow children to ride them.   Filipinos are not allowed to put clothing on a Carabao or anything that would make it look undignified.  This last rule deals with whimsy pure and simple because nothing could make a Carabao look more undignified than it does already.

 Vehicles must not honk with-in a 50 meter radius. There is a long list of other animals which must not be associated with Water Buffalo, including Ostriches and Emus.  Sometimes while pulling a plow, the Water Buffalo will just stop.  It is unlawful to prod the creature.  When it decides to move, it will, no force must be brought to bear even if the fields are left half un-tilled.

–

Now I have used the Water Buffalo as an example of rules and although mentioning but a few I’m sure you get the idea.  I should also mention that many of the rules governing these animals have clauses.  When a new Department of Agriculture Secretary is appointed, he brings about half his family with him, which in this country could be a sizeable number and he makes sure they all have jobs. 

These family members may know very little about Water Buffalo so they read the rules and clauses and add some of their own until the rule book on the animal weighs almost as much as a London telephone directory. 

Filipinos make rules about almost everything.  There are situations, and a lot of them, where people are hired to make and refine rules.  There are also unwritten rules.  If, for instance a person’s vehicle is struck in an intersection, the guilty party is the one who doesn’t happen to be lucky enough to have a cousin on the police force.

If a foreigner wishes to obtain one of the interminable pieces of identification needed to live here, he or she may wait six months for the proper documentation.  Unless he or she happens to have a friend who has a friend who has a nephew whose niece’s husband works in the Identification section of the Foreign Affairs Department.  

My Filipina wife has 80-plus relatives and knows where they all live and when most of them have birthdays.  Once introduced to a gaggle of these people I am supposed to remember them.  At our next meeting, maybe a year and a half later, several of them will come and speak to me and expect me to know them by name and ask how their children are, especially the little boy who fell off a swing and broke his toe.  I have a generic response.  “Hi there (greeting them like I saw them yesterday), how is everything?” and then add with a laugh “better or worse?” thereby covering all bases, although I have no clue as to whom I am speaking.  To be specific is courting disaster.

–

Referring back to those rules I mentioned which relate to Water Buffalo — once I was speaking with a Water Buffalo-friendly relative and brought up the 138 rules and asked why there are so many.  I was told to forget them.  Nobody pays any attention.  In fact nobody pays much attention to hardly any of the rules in the Philippines; only those that are life threatening.  It’s kind of like – don’t drive on the wrong side of the road – unless you have to.