|
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: |
| | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
