அமெரிகக அரசியல்வாதிகள் உபயோகப்படுத்தும் “பழமொழிகள்” என்ன கற்பனை சக்தியுடையது!
லிப்ஸ்டிக் போடும் பெண்களே! லிப்ஸ்டிக்கை அவமானப்படுத்தியதற்க்காக போராடுஙகள்!
மிருகவதை எதிர்ப்பாளர்களே! பன்றியை அவமானப்படுத்தியதற்க்காக போராடுஙகள்!
(இபபடி நீங்கள் ஒரு புறம் லிப்ஸ்டிக் சார்பாகவும், பன்றியின் சர்பாகவும் போராடும் பொழுது நான் ஒபாமாவிற்காக போராடுகிறேன். காரணம், ஒபாமாவிற்க்கு சப்போர்டாக அல்ல. மெக்கெய்ன்க்கு எதிராக என்று வேண்டுமானால் வைத்துக்கொள்ளலாம்.)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig – Barak Obama
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig – John McCain
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig – Dick Cheney
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still not a lady – Charles Rangel
Politicians conveniently play with words which we know, but it’s little surprising to see them going to the level of calling their own party man (in this case woman), a “pig”. They act as if they don’t have any sense of shame when they talk something irrational like that. “Want to use anything out of context? Be my guest as long as it slanders my rival” – This is their main motto. Recently the republicans made a mockery of themselves by pulling a not so unusual comment out of context from Barak Obama’s speech, declaring that the comment is pointed at Sarah Palin, John McCain’s running mate. Republicans, with Karl Rove’s immense and notorious brainwork, don’t show any signs of retreating from this path.
Well. When responsible leaders can use comments for convenience, why not us? I helped creating one yardstick for the people to measure politicians. I am sure, Republicans, are going to blame me that it’s only measuring John McCain. Well. Do we care? Anyway, they have lost all the capacity to interpret what others say. I designed this yardstick to measure the politicians. Yes. Believe me all of them.
My yardstick has these graduations on it: Honesty, Reasoning & Judgment, Leadership qualities, Respect for others (that includes animals), Strength, and Principles. I give one point to each of these characteristics.
Honesty
Does John McCain honestly believe that Barack Obama called Sarah Palin, a pig? We don’t have to go ask John McCain if he does so. He will say “No” and may add “that’s the only way I can bring him down”. But unfortunately he will say so only when he starts believing that only honesty takes him to White House. The speech (attached in the above YouTube link) is about McCain’s policies which are similar to current Bush administration policies and nowhere Obama mentioned about the vice presidential nominee. I am sure even Sarah Palin would have been embarrassed for allowing herself to be associated to a pig by this “brilliant” campaign. McCain, Palin and their campaign team happily worked together in playing the sexist card by manipulating Obama’s speech but disappointed non-partisan people like me. My Yardstick says that McCain is totally dishonest and he lost the first point here.
Reasoning & Judgment
Let’s give John McCain the benefit of doubt in spite of absence of any doubt. Let’s say he honestly believed that Obama called Palin, a pig. That tells me he has more serious problems than we think. If his comprehending and interpreting skills are only at par with Jane Swift, his campaign head, (more about her shortly), then even the honest and venerable republicans should begin regretting their choice of their presidential nominee. With this kind of inferior comprehending skills, if John McCain takes over the administration, disasters can happen one after another in the world. (I am at liberty to imagine anything I want. After all when John McCain and party can imagine anything, why not me?) For instance, Russia may go about telling the world, “John McCain’s policy towards bringing peace on Earth is nothing different from Bush administration’s policy. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.” (Of course, in Russian – That means there is more confusion for the new administration. When he interprets English so weirdly, Russian language will make the worse for him and his administration). So the McCain administration might see that as Russia calling the new vice president Sarah Palin a pig. Or much worse if Russia drops a bomb on Georgia, McCain administration might see that as a nuclear bomb was dropped in one of its allies and in return they would go on to trigger a nuclear holocaust. Doesn’t make sense I know, but this is how they think. As a senator in the past, was this the way he reasoned and took decisions?
Now let’s analyze if Obama really meant to call names about Sarah Palin. Listen one more time to the above link. First of all it’s totally different context. Obama didn’t not even use Sarah Palin’s name. (On the contrary, though McCain didn’t mean to say Hillary Clinton a pig, McCain used the name of Hillary Clinton in the same sentence along with this phrase, when he was criticizing her healthcare policies. Of course, Democrats reasoned correctly at that time that this didn’t mean Hillary.) The context is no where near smearing Sarah Palin. In jumping to conclusion McCain’s camp exhibited lack of judgment. I would never allow my leader to rule me, who can’t comprehend something which even a high school student can comprehend easily.
Former Massachusetts governor Jane Swift strongly believes that Obama called Sarah Palin a pig. And she demanded an apology from Obama. It’s not just that. Her comprehending skills are scaring the hell out of me. Listen to this:
“Never get into a wrestling match with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.” – John McCain about Mitt Romney in Dec 2007.
I can’t interpret this anything other than McCain calling Romney, a pig. But Jane Swift interpreted McCain’s did not mean Romney a pig. I strongly suspect her merits that she claimed while running for a governor. In these circumstances I would suggest Logic 101 and Communication 101 for all those republicans who understood Obama as calling Sarah Palin, a pig.
Back to yardstick – McCain lost the second point by for his poor reasoning and judgment.
Leadership
Leaders have the responsibility to create a political culture. John McCain is willing to stoop to any low level for the sake of winning elections. But he has to understand he is setting a precedent and he is leaving behind a cultural damage. When the whole world is looking upon United States of America in awe about its democratic values and principles, these are the subtle things that are going to create a hole in that culture. We see in other countries that senators and parliamentarians throw shoes at each other, use “unparliamentary” words (they use “unworldly” words too) and practice violence. John McCain’s campaign stopped just short of those acts.
In a family, a father (in the patriarchal society) is a role model for the family and the culture of the family evolves around him. But in a country, the leaders and the lawmakers evolve the country’s political culture. McCain campaign showed no inclination about protecting that tradition, if America believes that she has one. He served as a bad leader so far by signing up for smear campaign where as in contrast Obama worked towards protecting the decency of American electoral process by refusing to make an issue about Sarah Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy and ordered that any of his campaigners involved in such a smear would be fired.
Yardstick takes away McCain’s third point in spite of his considerable seniority in American politics and senate.
Respect for others
Smearing others shows the disrespect for others. Of course, there will be rivals in any competition. But that doesn’t mean you can smear your rival. If this happens in a game like soccer, the rogue rival will be ejected from the game. (Red card will be displayed against him; in basketball the abusive players will be given technical. Only in politics people take the liberty to smear the rivals and go unpunished most of the time because people are too biased to act as referee. McCain got involved in this smear campaign very willingly and thus he lacks respect for his rivals.
Once more he loses another valuable point which is his fourth one.
Succumbing to pressure or Strength
I smell Karl Rove here. May be Jane Swift is another Karl Rove. Karl Rove and ethics/morality don’t go together. Even if people like Karl Rove puts McCain under pressure, I would expect McCain not to sell his soul. (He repeatedly claimed that he wouldn’t sell his soul to win the elections while selling his soul was what exactly he did. He should have looked for better and descent strategies to win the elections rather than relying on cheap shots like this and thus succumbing to the dirty tricks of people like Karl Rove. McCain lacks the strength to resist pressure from fellow party man. When he can’t resist pressure now, I won’t deceive myself by having illusions that as president, McCain’s decisions would be his own without the lobbyists influence or interference. So this lack of strength makes him lose another point which is his 5th.
Principle
I expect my leader or commander-in-chief to be a man of principles; by not doing the wrong things and only by following the best practices in politics that he can set as principles for future generations’ leaders. When McCain could give up his principle, if he has one, for trivial things like this, I would expect him to easily compromise his principles for more compelling reasons.
So he lost the last point too.
0 out of 6 is not enough justification to cast my vote for McCain.
One Question for all:
Why should leaders, both democrats and republicans alike, use this phrase? To me leaders should not insult even animals. By insulting the animals, we are subscribing to indecency. By frequent use of this phrase, animals are taken for granted. With the sense implied by the phrase, they tell to the world the pigs are one of the lowest creatures. But shamelessly enough, we enjoy and praise it in the dinner table. How convenient!
அடுத்தக் கட்ட இடைஞ்சல் பன்னாட்டு மன்றம். அமெரிக்க நிற்வாகச் சிறகு பன்னாட்டு மன்றத்தை ஒரு கிள்ளுக் கீரையாகவே மதித்து வந்திருக்கிறது. அமெரிக்காவை பொறுத்தவரை பன்னாட்டு மன்றம் என்ற அமைப்பு ஒரு உணவு விநியோக இயக்கமே. அமெரிக்கா பன்னாட்டு மன்றத்திற்கு அதற்கு மேல் எந்த ஒரு அதிகாரத்தையும் விட்டுக் கொடுக்க தயாரில்லை. 2001 இறுதியில் ஜனாதிபதி ஜார்ஜ் புஷ் ”பன்னாட்டு மன்றம் ஒப்புக்கொண்டாலும் இல்லாவிட்டாலும் அமெரிக்கா ஈராக்கின் மேல் படையெடுக்கும்” என்று திட்ட வட்டமாக கூறியதும் இன்றைய கால பன்னாட்டு மன்ற பாதுகாப்பு மன்றத்தின் இயலாமை வெட்ட வெளிச்சத்திற்கு வந்து விட்டது. அன்றைய செக்ரட்டரி ஜெனரல் கோஃபி ஆனன் இதை வெளிப்படையாகவே கூறிவிட்டது நினைவிருக்கலாம். அப்படியென்றால் பன்னாட்டு மன்றத்தின் பணிகள் மிகவும் சுறுக்கபட்டுவிடுகிறதா? இது இயற்க்கையாக நடந்து வருகிறதா? இல்லை திட்டமிட்ட சதியா? இறுதியில் பன்னாட்டு மன்றம் அதன் எல்லா அதிகாரங்களையும் இழக்கச் செய்து, அதனை “லீக் ஆஃப் நேஷன்ஸ்”க்கு நேர்ந்த முடிவிற்க்கு தள்ளி விடுவதே உறுப்பு நாடுகளின் எண்ணமா? அதுவும் அமெரிக்காவின் நடவடிக்கைகளைப்ப் பார்க்கும் பொழுது சதியாக இருக்கலாம் என்பது நம்பும் படியாகவே உள்ளது.
கூட்டாஞ்சோறு 