Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Blog de la Redacción - Detalles de la entrada: Todo esto sería cómico si no fuera trágico

Blog de la Redacción - Detalles de la entrada: Todo esto sería cómico si no fuera trágico: "Si la ignorancia y la frivolidad de una buena parte de los consumidores mediáticos estadounidenses fueran sólo un sano ejercicio del ocio, todo esto sería cómico. Por desgracia, el interminable debate sobre la vida de Smith y Spears es un síntoma de lo que tanto preocupaba a Lapham: ¿Qué tipo de criterio político puede tener una sociedad que, culturalmente, vive sólo de estas tonterías? Ninguno. ¿Cuál es la consecuencia de una sociedad trivial? La respuesta, por supuesto, tiene nombre y apellido. George W. Bush y su gobierno han sido el producto directo de la elección del 2000, en la que el electorado estadounidense prefirió al vaquero simpático e ignorante (“just one of the guys”) antes que a un hombre como Al Gore.

Lewis Lapham debe estar releyendo a Gibbon en este momento.

- León Krauze"


¡AMÉN!

8 comentarios:

Anonymous said...

?

Sharla Dawn said...

Yo Madre! No Habla Espanol!

As in, would you mind translating that?

Anne said...

I echo Sharla's comment!

Lee said...

Actually most of us didn't prefer George Bush. We just got stuck with him because of the Florida elections fiasco.

courtney01 said...

I'll add to Lee's comment by saying that despite GW & Co.'s assertions to the contrary, he did not really have a "mandate" by winning the 2004. He did win both the electoral and popular votes, but in the case of the popular vote, it was a slim margin. If I remember correctly, GW won around 62 million votes and John Kerry won about 59 million votes--a difference of 3 million votes and not quite the huge mandate the Republicans claimed for themselves.

So not all of us preferred GW.

jr said...

So my Spanish is a bit sketchy, but the point is that Bush was elected over Gore because he was "one of the guys"? Oh...please!

lee said...

@ JR. My Spanish isn’t that great either but the author’s main point seems to be this:

Media consumers are obsessed with celebrities and care more about personality than substance.

I can’t argue with that but I don’t agree with his conclusion that Bush was elected for that reason. I don’t know the context in which this was written but he ignored the fact that Bush did not win the popular vote, his win of the electoral vote is questionable, and the flaws in the electoral process.

Anonymous said...

Let me see if I understand. Bush was elected "by mistake" both times? He did not win the popular vote and stole the electoral vote both times? It had nothing to do with people voting for him over two different candidates?

MANIFESTO

Don't think for me. Don't assume what I want to hear or read. Give me facts. Give me reasons. But not yours. Bring me debate. Enlighten me. Today, accountability is masked behind anonymity; bylines are hidden by zeros and ones. Everyone publishes; everyone is "in the know." Ethics are non-existent. Speculation is king. The truth is masked and a hostage. Empowered by our minds, WE ARE THE FREAKSPEAKERS!

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues of environmental, political, news and humanitarian significance. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such material as provided in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this blog is distributed and available without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

If your obsession against us and our content endures, you might find more information at: Law.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the blog owner.