|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:46 pm Post subject: Thomas Friedman: Vote for the Democrats |
 |
|
Friedman is not a fan of the GOP any more:
You have until Nov. 12th to read it (TimesSelect is free this week):
Insulting Our Troops, and Our Intelligence
A couple excerpts:
| Quote: |
Every time you hear Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney lash out against Mr. Kerry, I hope you will say to yourself, �They must think I�m stupid.� Because they surely do.
They think that they can get you to overlook all of the Bush team�s real and deadly insults to the U.S. military over the past six years by hyping and exaggerating Mr. Kerry�s mangled gibe at the president.
What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to the U.S. military than to send it into combat in Iraq without enough men � to launch an invasion of a foreign country not by the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force, but by the Rumsfeld Doctrine of just enough troops to lose? What could be a bigger insult than that? |
| Quote: |
Everyone says that Karl Rove is a genius. Yeah, right. So are cigarette companies. They get you to buy cigarettes even though we know they cause cancer. That is the kind of genius Karl Rove is. He is not a man who has designed a strategy to reunite our country around an agenda of renewal for the 21st century � to bring out the best in us. His �genius� is taking some irrelevant aside by John Kerry and twisting it to bring out the worst in us, so you will ignore the mess that the Bush team has visited on this country.
And Karl Rove has succeeded at that in the past because he was sure that he could sell just enough Bush cigarettes, even though people knew they caused cancer. Please, please, for our country�s health, prove him wrong this time. |
| Quote: |
| Let Karl know that you think this is a critical election, because you know as a citizen that if the Bush team can behave with the level of deadly incompetence it has exhibited in Iraq � and then get away with it by holding on to the House and the Senate � it means our country has become a banana republic. It means our democracy is in tatters because it is so gerrymandered, so polluted by money, and so divided by professional political hacks that we can no longer hold the ruling party to account. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I also think the administration is in the wrong and has run an incompetent foreign policy, esp. regards Middle Eastern affairs. This has been extremely clear since Powell resigned.
On the "banana republic" comment, however: this makes for a nice jingo. But I do not think that Friedman understands what the term means. That or he is intentionally misusing it to give his rhetoric an edge with an audience who also does not understand it. Either way, it is irresponsible.
In fact, it was a descriptor for a certain kind of Central American/Caribbean Basin govt, one run by caudillos and lacking any and all political institutions, and these were esp. dominated by the Boston-based United Fruit Company (that is, a foreign-based, banana-producing monopoly), during a specific historical time, say the late-nineteenth century through the mid-twentieth. And this time is, indeed, over.
All that remains is this residual term, a term which has become as misused and abused by everyone who wants to make an emotionally-punctuated point as are such terms as "Hitler," "Nazi," "fascist," and "Communist." I remember Saddam taunting H.W. Bush that Iraq was "no banana republic" in 1990-1991, for example. This is certainly true; I am not aware that Iraq has commercially produced bananas on such a scale as a country like Guatemala, Honduras, or Costa Rica.
Election-day rhetoric, then. No more no less. The United States is no banana republic.
If you do not agree, please identify the imperial banana-consuming power that is dominating the United States and its local politics via its foreign, monopolistic corporations, backed up by its foreign gunboats and landings of its foreign Marines, who are seizing our customs houses -- institutions which don't even exist anymore -- and forming local constabularies in their own image...
Last edited by Gopher on Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:29 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
On the "banana republic" comment, however: this makes for a nice jingo. But I do not think that Friedman understands what the term means. That or he is intentionally misusing it to give his rhetoric an edge with an audience who also does not understand it. Either way, it is irresponsible.
In fact, it was a descriptor for a certain kind of Central American/Caribbean Basin govt, one run by caudillos and lacking any and all political institutions, and these were esp. dominated by the Boston-based United Fruit Company (that is, a foreign-based, banana-producing monopoly), during a specific historical time, say the late-nineteenth century through the mid-twentieth. And this time is, indeed, over.
Election-day rhetoric, then. No more no less. The United States is no banana republic.
If you do not agree, please identify the imperial banana-consuming power that is dominating the United States and its local politics via its foreign, monopolistic corporations, backed up by its foreign gunboats and landings of its foreign Marines, who are seizing our customs houses -- institutions which don't even exist anymore -- and forming local constabularies in their own image... |
1. I think you're being too literal.
2. One could argue that corporate interests have a much larger participation in politics in government than necessary. These days they actually write legislation that is then passed in Congress.
As Friedman said in the next sentence after that remark: "It means our democracy is in tatters because it is so gerrymandered, so polluted by money, and so divided by professional political hacks that we can no longer hold the ruling party to account."
So yes, perhaps he exagerated a bit with that term, but I do think that if the Republicans do win, it is a sign there is something seriously wrong in the good ol' USA. Not that I think the Dems are much better, but anyone with half a brain can see this country's government has progressively worsened the past 6 years. If those who have made such poor decisions are not held accountable on Tuesday, it will be not good at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I think you're being too literal. |
I agree. I think the term 'banana republic' has evolved to mean a government/country that is exceptionally corrupt and/or unstable politically. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| ...too literal. |
That is exactly the problem.
How about we just keep our feet on the ground and leave the hyperbole to others?
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| One could argue that corporate interests have a much larger participation in politics in government than necessary. |
This, then, would be more like an oligarchy or a plutocracy than a banana republic.
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| As Friedman said in the next sentence after that remark: "It means our democracy is in tatters because it is so gerrymandered, so polluted by money, and so divided by professional political hacks that we can no longer hold the ruling party to account." |
Just goes to show that, as I said earlier, he does not know what "banana republic" means, or where it came from...
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I think the term 'banana republic' has evolved to mean a government/country that is exceptionally corrupt and/or unstable politically. |
That is not the case, Ya-ta. But, let's say for argument's sake it were. And if this indeed were the definition of "banana republic," then I think the term would lose all focus and explanatory power and would cease to be a discrete phenomenon: in this case, then, "banana republic" would seem to apply to most world governments, including, arguably, the United Nations, too.
Also, I am truly sorry to hear that you consider the United States "exceptionally corrupt and/or unstable politically." I was not aware that, relatively speaking, the United States was so low on the corruption and political stability list.
Last edited by Gopher on Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:25 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is the Wikipedia summary of the term. Does this sound like the United States, even under the W. Bush Administration, to you...?
| Quote: |
| Banana republic is a pejorative term for a small, often Latin American or Caribbean country that is politically unstable, dependent on limited agriculture, and ruled by a small, wealthy and corrupt clique. The term was coined by O. Henry, an American humorist and short story writer, in reference to Honduras. "Republic" in his time was often a euphemism for a dictatorship, while "banana" implied an easy reliance on basic agriculture and backwardness in the development of modern industrial technology. Frequently the subject of mockery and humour, and usually presided over by a dictatorial military junta that exaggerates its own power and importance [think of Guatemala's Ubicco, who declared himself Guatemala's Napoleon -- g]. "The epaulettes of a banana republic generalissimo" are proverbially of considerable size, usually portrayed in satire with a pair of mops [emphasis added]. |
| Quote: |
| In modern usage the term has come to be used to describe a generally unstable or "backward" dictatorial regime, especially one where elections are often fraudulent and corruption is rife. The foreign influence may be political or economic, but the point is that a banana republic is controlled or heavily influenced by foreign corporations, either directly or through their government [emphasis added]. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
Here is a succinct Merriam-Webster definition...
| Quote: |
Main Entry: banana republic
Function: noun
: a small dependent country usually of the tropics; especially : one run despotically |
Friedman is abusing the term for dramatics. And it makes about as much sense as people who misuse "gender" when they are really talking about "sex" -- as in "What's your gender?" on some applications, for example. Or take the other frequently abused terms I cite above.
Whether you want to vote for Democrats or not, then, it should make no difference. This is election-day hyperbole, and not to be taken seriously except by those who know no better.
In any case, this is my objection. You are of course free to take it or leave it, as always. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Friedman is abusing the term for dramatics. |
Friedman and I are of the same generation (he's about 4 years younger than me). I remember a time...JFK had been shot, LBJ had shockingly refused to run for re-election, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were killed, Agnew's resignation, the Saturday Night Massacre and finally Nixon's resignation.
Many people of my generation used the phrase 'banana republic' to bemoan what had happened to our country. As far as I can see, Friedman is using the term in a commonly used way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| ...used the phrase 'banana republic' to bemoan what had happened to our country. As far as I can see, Friedman is using the term in a commonly used way. |
Well, then the commonly used way is wrong and, indeed, meaningless. And Friedman has not shown that he is an authority on the matter. You are saying that "banana republic" is applicable when Americans bemoan "what happened" to their country.
This generation got a lot wrong, too. I saw a document not too long ago that had a White House advisor citing "the Monroe Doctrine" in a JFK cabinet meeting treating post-Bay of Pigs Cuba. JFK interrupted him with this intriguing question: "the Monroe Doctrine? What the hell is that?"
I showed it to a professor/advisor who had already seen it. I said I thought this showed that JFK was really advanced in his thinking, and that he was probably trying to shock his cabinet into the modern era, by abandoning nineteenth-century diplomacy in favor of something new that he may have been imagining, something related to his Alliance initiative...
This professor/advisor cut me off: No, I was off. JFK asked "the Monroe Doctrine? What the hell is that?" at this cabinet meeting because he did not indeed know what the Monroe Doctrine was.
What does this show? Even a president can be ignorant when it comes to terms. And I do not believe, given the person who currently occupies that office, you or anyone else needs me to point this out.
Language changes, sure. But we cannot make it up as we go along and some terminology is historically specific.
Last edited by Gopher on Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:58 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| ...used the phrase 'banana republic' to bemoan what had happened to our country. As far as I can see, Friedman is using the term in a commonly used way. |
Well, then the commonly used way is wrong and, indeed, meaningless. |
Because langauge never changes. Usage never changes.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spliff
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Location: Khon Kaen, Thailand
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
eh yeah, you know those science fiction writers really know their foreign policy.
I skimmed the article. All he could say in support of Bush is that he stays the course and he knows who our enemies are. yay. That's all dandy but it is clear his course is running things into the ground for us.
He also claim that Bush's tactics are preventing our enemies from uniting. Well let's see: North Korea has supplied Iran with nuclear technology. Every islamic nut can meet in Iraq and try out new terrorist attacks. They've started using those tactics against us Afghanistan. Just wait until we do pull out of Iraq, then they'll return their focus to the "homeland."
Card claims to be a democrat, but I sincerely doubt it. If he was, he'd at least acknowledge Obama and say there is some hope for the Dems in 2008. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It means our democracy is in tatters because it is so gerrymandered, so polluted by money, and so divided by professional political hacks that we can no longer hold the ruling party to account. |
Given that Banana Republic is a popular clothing brand name now, I think trying to reserve the term for historians' use is closing the barn door after the horses have escaped.
Anyway...
To me, the key part of Friedman's article is the part in bold above...holding the ruling party to account.
People have been complaining for years about the bad effects of big money, moneyed-interests, special interest groups. While gerrymandering is an old term, named for Elbridge Gerry, it seems to have become a problem again. Recent changes in the House rules have also come under fire for making members less capable of doing their job. In short, there seems to be more than enough problems that if either party took on 'reform' as a real issue, I think they could rally a LOT of support. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have to side with Bucheon Bum and others on the "banana republic" question. I think that, when applied to a democracy, the term is usually understood to mean that the democracy is exhibiting corrupt or authoritarian tendencies. Basically, it's shorthand for "we're becoming like a dictatorship", with banana republics being used as the typical example of a dictatorship.
I could see it being a problem if someone were to start using the word in its literal meaning, after getting others to agree that that the figurative meaning is acceptable.
A: Man, the USA has become a real banana republic under Bush, eh?
B: You said it, dude!
A: Okay, so you'll sign my petition to nationalize the fruit companies?
B: Umm, what?!
A: We have to nationalize the fruit companies! They're the ones who control the economy.
B: Huh? What about IT? And the auto industry?
A: What IT? What auto industry? Banana republics don't have IT and auto industries!
I think there's a formal term for the fallacy employed by Speaker A above, but I can't recall what it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Given that Banana Republic is a popular clothing brand name now... |
But this diffusion, too, would seem to support my point. It has little or no meaning at all to those tens of thousands or so of clients who carry that label around all day or talk about going shopping there at lunch or after work...
I also think that people's sympathy for Friedman's newly-discovered politics and recommendations might be clouding their judgment on this issue.
I am by no means attempting to undermine Friedman's politics, or anyone else's here, either. I, too, agree that the W. Bush Administration is inept. Perhaps a Democratic victory tomorrow might force the President to moderate his position. And this could only lead to improvement.
Still, you cannot change the meaning of an inappropriate term just because someone missuses it and it "sounds right" to you, esp. if you, too, are apparently missusing it. (I did cite a few informal sources to clarify this, above; and I am an expert on Latin America and the Caribbean as well. I am not pulling my position out of a hat, you know.)
And, moreover, I defy anyone here to show me how the United States has become a banana republic -- in the mold of any banana republic that has ever existed before -- or, just as On the Other Hand suggests, "like a dictatorship." How is the U.S. like a dictatorship, On the Other Hand?
There isn't going to be an election tomorrow where the opposition is expected to win by a majority? Has the President taken the govt by autogolpe and "disappeared," imprisoned, and/or assassinated all opponents and potential opponents to stop this from happening? Is there a monopolistic, foreign corporation whispering in his ear? Has military law been declared and are the armed forces occupying the streets, enforcing a curfew, breaking up all strikes and any other form of labor stoppage or resistance? Are generals promoting themselves to the rank of "generalissimo" [that is, "supreme warlord"]? Is the military trying civilians in military courts martial on "national security" charges? Are there wide-spread human rights abuses, such as dozens of dead bodies placed as a warning before all polling places? Has Congress or the Supreme Court been occupied or dissolved? Have universities or the press been occupied or shut down? -- these are all things that typically occur in banana republics.
Also, saying that Friedman is only suggesting that we will become a banana republic if the Republicans win sounds an awful lot like someone else promising that the world will suffer the worst century since the Middle Ages if the Republicans win, too. Different degree, same thing though.
And, finally, is Freidman promising or just implying that a Democratic victory will put an end to Gerrymandering?
Last edited by Gopher on Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:29 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| the term is usually understood to mean that the democracy is exhibiting corrupt or authoritarian tendencies. Basically, it's shorthand for "we're becoming like a dictatorship", with banana republics being used as the typical example of a dictatorship. |
But it is not usually open to any kind of dictatorship, anytime or anywhere. It needs to evince more than mere "authoritarian tendencies," too. "[T]he word is occasionally applied to governments where a strong leader hands out appointments, advantages, etc. to friends and supporters, without much consideration for the law" (Wikipedia).
Woody Allen's film, Bananas, for example. Where was that set?
What about Vannegut's Cat's Cradle?
Ever seen the original In-Laws? If not, I recommend it over the remake. In any case, here's Amazon.com's description of it...
| Quote: |
| [Alan] Arkin is extraordinarily funny as a dentist who quickly grows skeptical about the wild claims of his daughter's future father-in-law (Peter Falk) that he is a CIA agent. When he is drawn into a bizarre adventure in a banana republic, however, he takes a different view. |
When it says "he is drawn into a bizarre adventure in a banana republic," does any particular geographical imagery come to mind?
The reason you see Central America and the Caribbean and not the United States or some other first-world, northern-hemisphere democracy when you hear "banana republic" is because this descriptor has a very specific meaning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
