« Smells like mean spirit | Main | In the silence of the morning my mind becomes confused between the dead and the sleeping »
Who will rid us of this troublesome movie star?
by effenheimer at 09:31 AM on August 14, 2003
As a kid, I remember people talking about the off-chance that California might one day fall into the ocean after a major earthquake. I thought, “oh how terrible it would be if California should disappear beneath the waves never to be seen again.”
Now, after hearing that “actor” Arnold Schwarzenegger has entered into the race for governor of that state, I’m praying for it.
This is not just embarrassing for the state of California, it’s humiliating for our entire nation and here’s why. First off, the average earthling who is not an American thinks we are all pretty much like the image of New Yorkers and Los Angelinos with a touch of Texas loudmouth thrown in to complete the stereotype. Why not? That’s what they see on TV and on tour busses. I think of Frenchmen as Parisian. I tend to think of Englishmen as Cockney, posh aristos or northern farmers thanks to PBS.
To the world, Americans look like celebrity-worshipping morons who really need a good monarchy to look up to since we have so clearly abandoned a well-informed democracy in favor of simple popularity contests.
Aaah-nuhld is about as qualified for public office as he is to star in a movie that would actually require him to act. Having never done so much as serve on a school board, Schwarzenegger is just another Hollywood blow hard looking to change career tracts late in the game as his star begins to fade. Conan is still amazingly popular but in the last 10 years, he has been going down hill faster than a soapbox derby car with a space shuttle engine strapped to the back.
Don’t believe me? Here is a list of Total Recall’s last 10 projects: “Joe’s Last Chance (pre-production, supporting role), “Around the World in 80 Days (post-production, Turkish Prince), “The Rundown” (just completed, cameo appearance), “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines” (hackneyed recurring role), “ABC World Stunt Awards” (TV presenter), “Liberty’s Kids” (TV voice of Baron von Steuben), “Collateral Damage (lead, but who cares?), “Dr. Dolittle 2 (uncredited voice of white wolf), “The 6th Day” (lead) and in 1999 “End of Days” (lead).
Commando does have one skill set that should be helpful to his political career. He has a gift with sound bites as well as a cornucopia of catch phrases to call upon while talking about his political aspirations on “The Tonight Show.”
“Duh people have sent a message to politicians from duh Vest Coast to duh East Coast. Do your job for duh people or eet’s HASTA LA VISTA, BABY!”
Never has political assassination looked so legitimate.
comments (15)
Not only is Arnold absolutely ridiculous, but so is the entire recall system. One of the reasons why our government is so stable is because the minority of voters (sometimes majority) go along with whatever the majority decides and we deal with it, for better or for worse. The last presidential election was an exception to that, and look how much chaos was created. We choose leaders that we feel will do the job, and while they must cater to us during campaign time, once elected they are and should be free to do what they want during their 2, 4 or 6 year terms-within legal boundaries of course. If the electorate didn't do a good job, then they should reelect someone else next time. This is the beauty of our democracy. But if politicians have to continue to succumb to mob rule throughout their terms, they will lose any hope of political integrity. Imagine the chaos if all politicians were subject to a recall just because people didn't like what they were doing.
I am not trying to defend Davis, I don't know enough about his record, but he was REelected less than a year ago. It seems like Californians should have fulfilled their civic obligation to research the candidates BEFORE they voted, instead of waiting for a billionaire to tell them they chose the wrong candidate months after the fact. Suck it up California and start choosing your leaders based on something more than name recognition.
by Shannon at August 14, 2003 3:31 PM
the electoral process is hackneyed and illegel. there should be no mention of it here. perhaps if no one speaks it's name for long enough, it will choke off and die. as for the last part about fulfilling civic duties, well yes they did. it's not their doing, nor is it their will that this happened. today's repooplicans are cunning opportunists, if not blood sucking thieves. they saw an opening and sought to liberate the largest, most econimically viable state in the union, including puerto rico, injust so their piss (see sphere of influence) could fly a bit farther. i feel like you are trying to defend a democratic process, that so clearly doesn't work, it actually smells more like fascism. the dictionary even spells out these forms of government clearly enough. and i care not argue with sr. webster.
by lajoie at August 14, 2003 4:38 PM
What qualifies you as a politician? The ability to be an artful dodger and ignore painful realities. Do you think good things 1-50 should be done? Oh yes, those are all major priorities of mine. But there's a revenue shortfall. Painful choices have to be made. What programs will you gut? None of them because they are all vitally important. Where will you get the funds? I will attract businesses back to Cauliflower. What if they don't come? Then we will develop alternate strategies. Like what? I'd rather not get into the details of that until more complete analysis is completed... No wonder so few people bother to vote. I don't.
by anna at August 14, 2003 5:23 PM
and one more thing....a politician IS NOT ABSOLVED from realizing their campaign promises once elected. saying that they don't have to sounds more like 'eh..they never do, so they never will'. their platform is all we have as voters to determine who will represent us,...the tired, the hungry, the road-head weary. when did i take a siesta and wake to find the whole world was 1920's china? where am i?
also pardon my recent spelling errors. i type with my elbows.
by lajoie at August 14, 2003 5:26 PM
which space shuttle engine?
the scariest part was touched on by you already. how can an actor, who can't act, even pretend to be a competant politician, when he clearly has no skillz?
you think when he can't balance the same complex budget that savvy & accomplished, albeit ass-quaffing, gov's like wilson and davis couldn't handle, he's going to go on air, raise his christmas ham-sized fist and say "if eet bleed's... we can keel eet"? and what the fuck will that even mean anyway? i'll be more confused and on edge than when one of my prof's changed sex midway through the year.
by lajoie at August 15, 2003 8:12 AM
Hey, it's only California. That state is the red headed stepchild of the union. I hope Gary Coleman wins, in a landslide, so I can laugh until I throw up.
by ezy at August 15, 2003 8:12 AM
i think its great that all the networks are refusing to play any of his movies until the election is over! because according to regulations they would have to give each candidate equal air time.
though, gary coleman would be covered if they showed a few episodes of different strokes and that curse of monkey island movie.
by capitolj at August 15, 2003 8:13 AM
I disagree-politicians certainly are not required to carry out campaign promises! How many times have we heard "no new taxes" or promises of environmental or educational support, only to be disappointed months later? If we started recalling all of the politicians who broke campaign promises, we wouldn't have a government. Politicians are politicians and they are going to promise the electorate what they want to here to get elected and once elected get on with the real business of running the country. If they do well they get reelected, if they do poorly they should not be reelected. There is no way that a politician can predict what will happen during their term, the limitations, or crises that could occur. If Gray Davis, George Bush, or any politician had to ask the public before they made a decision, nothing would ever get accomplished. By electing them, we say, we trust you enough for the next term to take care of our city/state/country. If we lose that trust, and take politicians out of office for doing things that we don't like (I'm not talking about illegal things) our country will have no stability-this is evident if you look at other countries that have been through several leaders in a short period of time.
The "people" who are voting for some reason want to hear glittering generalities and vague promises and ignore the real facts. When George Bush (either one) was running for president, he made promises to help protect the environment-all candidates do, how many politicians are going to say that they are against clean air or water? But if people are truly concerned about the environment they would not have based their vote on what the commercials say but actual voting records and the background of the candidates.
A West Wing White House could never happen in real life, where a candidate runs on his convictions and is completely honest. Voters today want to hear vague rhetoric and won't vote for "extremists" of any kind. To appeal to the masses, candidates have to water down their true feelings so much that their platforms basically merge.
I don't blame the politicians or the system for this. I think that while the system is certainly not perfect-no other system works better. But I really think that voters need to do a better job educating themselves and not expect impossibilities. Platforms are not the only thing we have to educate ourselves about candidates- I recommend www.votesmart.org which gives voting records for politicians. As for Arnold for governor with no prior voting record-if California chooses him, an unknown politically, they deserve what they get.
by Shannon at August 15, 2003 8:53 AM
I agree with my ever-brilliant sister.
by Linz at August 15, 2003 9:24 AM
I would vote of candidates were required to answer very specific questionaires, with actual budget numbers and stuff, as to what they specifically intend to do about lingering problems. Vague generalities don't do anyone any good. And I for one have no use from them.
by anna at August 15, 2003 10:47 AM
wtf? wtfuckingf? cover your eyes linz........shannon, i want to right a paper about what's so foolish about your view of "democracy". which...i should say could use a few more quote marks around it. while i'm certainly not saying that recalls should be commonplace (this one shouldn't even be happening), neither am i even remotely suggesting that a lead official need check in with the populace before each decision. of course nothing would get done. but when a politician suggests an aim for his administration...goals, products, legacies, accomplishments what have you...that's what i fucking damn well expect them to move towards. are they going to do it all, get it all right? no, and i don't expect it. annnnnd i realize that something huge could sidetrack or even derail their grandest of plans (such as tragedies like 9/11 or cameron diaz dating that knob from the lollipop group), but they must have a purpose. and their purpose must be laid out in generalites beforehand. in your world...there are several candidates (but not really because you say you'd be happy with WHOEVER the majority selects). and these "candidates" can say any old thing they want. it doesn't matter. if they go on and on about their favorite color blue, and how they love old people, and generally think that the environment is a good thing...all you really know about them is that they may or may not even like those things....so how do you vote (assuming you do). if all words are bunk, does the guy with the nicest tie get it? or hey... i think i can see the head of his cock showing through his pants like on that rolling stones, 'sticky fingers' album? "well then he must be really confident and he'd get a lot done because everyone respects that...." so yes, it's really important to know the politician's voting records. its really the only indication of how they work...but thats A PART of their promises. and they should work to that end.
listen i know it's hard to believe that single votes count, given what's going on around here, but it does have to start somewhere. you think you have no control at all? try keeping your nose in the current issues coming up before congress. you can call and email your representatives, and you know, that actually starts to work. they are actually paid to represent constituents and have their hands closer to the ground. this is not bullshit politico talk either. they have ways of actually measuring their phone calls, letters and emails received, because they know that not everyone takes the time to do it (as in one call actually counts for 200 people, one email...150 people, for instance). if enough people call in, representatives ARE swayed and often bring our 'peasant' views to congress. shannon, this country will only resemble your dreams of serfs and fiefs if enough people share your ennui. that first sentence of your response reads as so cynical, so lacking an ideal that i know i'm not writing this to sway you in any way. but linz, don't just agree because she's your sister if you actually believe that the US doesn't have to eat its young...
ps. shannon, in re-reading your post again before posting this, i am leaning towards believing that you don't like what happens, but see it as inevitable. and in a lot of ways i share that view....but the US is moving further away from the democratic ideal it started out as...and that's no reason to ease in and get comfortable about it.
by lajoie at August 15, 2003 1:02 PM
Frankly Lajoie, as you seem to have realized, I think you are mostly echoing her but with different words. What she is saying is not jaded, it is honest. A lot of people vote on name recognition and their pet 5 issues. They have to put up with the consequences of their foolishness. Our country is pretty fucking susceptible to lip service these days and voters should face the music of that behavior instead of trying to overturn the system like a kid having a tantrum.
The important points you both make are the same. Excercise your right to vote. Learn what the candidates actually have DONE, don't just listen to the propaganda of their campaign. Shannon is saying it IS a democracy: it's just not an instant snapsnapsnap change between who's in power just because some moron is doing a bad job. Wait out the term and then fix the mistake by doing better voting.
Forgive me if any of this is inappropriate, it's been several hours since I read the earlier comments.
by Linz at August 15, 2003 3:07 PM
hey, i can admit to a kneejerk reaction when i have one. i think there's more sameness going on than the original posts led us to believe, so as referee, linz, you are stellar.
one thing is a bit stuck in my craw though and that is this: don't assume that everyone in california wants to live under totalirecallinarian rule, under arnold, because they allowed a recall to happen. i had no idea how to stop it. i don't think anyone did. it's a little jingoistic to lob snowballs with rocks in the middle, from way yonder east by saying that we are all one here, and get what we deserve. yes i live in the west of these, your united, states. when europeans or any other foreign culture makes vague generalities about "american-ness", quite frankly many americans cringe, likely yourselves included. i...you....ahhh fuck it. who needs a drink?
by lajoie at August 15, 2003 4:13 PM
So much for ass-umptions. And to think I thought Jo lived in like, England.
by anna at August 16, 2003 8:15 AM
i dropped a strong hint when i told ezy he could buy my vote in the recall election, because i was like, here.
by lajoie at August 16, 2003 11:14 AM