Blog Archives

I know this is a little irrelevant now as we’re assuming Obama is our democratic candidate which, if true, is awesome for him but I’d noticed something of interest. I was perusing the political macros site, PunditKitchen, not too long ago and, of course, many of the macros focused on our presidential candidates: McCain who looks older than Grandpa Simpson, Clinton who has a vagina and Obama who is chocolate coloured.

Not surprisingly, Clinton and Obama were the most popular subjects as their now-defunct rivalry raged on. I noticed certain trends among these humourous images, trends that were slightly less subtle than Hillary’s breasts of Obama’s skin but interesting trends nonetheless.

Both candidates have a particular look in these macros and one could easily say that opponents would pick specific types of images to fuel their argument but I believe that there are simply an abundance of photos which show Obama and Clinton in stereotypical roles.

So what roles do I speak of?

In Clinton’s case, she often looks angry or irate, desperate, snobby and indignant. Obviously, much of this was due to her downhill battle, a battle she never expected to have to fight in the first place. Regardless of the reasons, it leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. It also doesn’t help that she is and looks older than Obama. I cannot blame her age, with it comes (hopefully) experience, wisdom and many good years. I applaud her for not being botoxed to hell (although I suspect there is some work done) and she generally keeps herself neat but there is no hiding the fact that she is no longer a young woman and, on top of these qualities she is broadcasting, this makes a very unflattering portrait, one which makes me dubious of Clinton as a person.

On the other hand, Obama rarely looks these things. If anything, Obama frequently looks happy and sometimes, yes, even silly. The latter is what I think some of those opposed to Obama would see the latter as a weakness to be exploited, but I disagree. To me, it’s comforting to see someone who spends time with his family and doesn’t act as though he’s above everyone else. If Obama sometimes falters, so what? We all do. This simply makes it easier to relate to him as a human, a man like everyone else. I continually have the feeling that Obama could be my neighbour, just another person I could rely on in a time of need, someone to be respected.

Now, one could argue that perhaps Obama is really a good liar, an actor that is worth million in Hollywood. I cannot, without any doubts, argue this. I don’t know. However, I suspect this isn’t the case and that is simply because of the frequency that he is smiling in photos. This man seems genuinely happy with himself and his position in life. Of course, it probably helps that he was winning and felt confident in his campaign, I cannot belittle that, but it seems like that it far from the only factor. Obama gave the impression that he would remain happy whether or not he claimed the candidacy.

I just can’t see someone who appears so content as a liar. Neither could I see someone so indignant as the president. However, as a team, they would be a powerhouse. Still, we’ll have to wait and see on that one.

Recently, I was reading Joana’s thoughts about how we, as a country, need to stop ignoring our own internal problems while we throw resources at others’ problems around the globe. I felt conflicted emotions about this issue. On the one hand, I believe there should be a way to be a good neighbour and help others in their times of need but, on the other hand, I do not think that out own unfortunate populations should be forsaken to do do. The comment I left reflected this, I hope.

Well, I can’t say abandoning the world is going to help but you know, maybe international relations can be on a hold a while when we figure out our own shit. I’m sure there’s some sort of a balance to working at home and helping out the neighbours and even those across the globe. But it’s probably a pretty difficult balance.

Afterall, being friendly isn’t a bad thing and we can’t exactly wait until all our problems are solved as anything with people will always have problems.

Still, completely ignoring the homefront just to impress president or PM of country X is pretty lame. I think it does have a lot do with the fact that much of the national issues are “supposed” to be taken care of at the state level (or are pushed down to that level so the federal government doesn’t have to do anything, maybe?) whereas international efforts are federal.

I thought it would be left at that but, as luck would have it, my aunt forwarded me a link to JK Rowling’s Harvard Commencement speech and I also took the time to read the speeches of other prominent figures, such as Bill Gates and President Bill Clinton (during last year’s commencement).

Many of these speeches focused on the fact that Harvard graduates have a unique opportunity given them by their education, that perhaps they will be more qualified to solved the ills of the world. Many of these speeches focused on the problems abroad that we, as a modern nation, are more equipped to deal with than those experiencing such pains. This was a strong theme when Bill Clinton discussed his work with AIDS, especially in Africa.

I find this work to be admirable and selfless. I know that millions of people will see another day or another 20 years because of it, sometimes because of simple medicines that Americans and others in modern countries take for granted. I absolutely think someone has to do it and why not you or me?

But where do you draw the line when it comes to giving a helping hand at home or extending that hand outside your domestic boundaries? How do you even begin to go about deciding where to draw the line when it’s so easy to slip to either side; focus too much on home and you’re selfish to the point of self-detriment, focus too much on the outside and you’re selfless to the point of self-detriment.

I absolutely believe that if you have the power, the resources and the technology to help, you should help. We should help. In Africa, in China, in India. I also believe these efforts go a long way toward global relations and respect and, of course, peace.

But why does international effort seem so much more heroic, more noble? Indeed, there are issues on the home front that need our attention: obesity, education. government spending/funding, education, homelessness, unemployment, the economy in general. Is it perhaps that even an American most afflicted by these controversial issues is still so much better off than someone in a third world country with AIDs? That, perhaps, the most unfortunate American is still better off than the most pampered non-American?

Or perhaps selflessness is simply expected of America because she is the world’s last standing super power regardless of the nobility of the acts themselves. And why not lead the way for others to follow, to be inspired by our selfless acts? Surely by doing and teaching this, we are only helping our own citizens.

The balance is a delicate one and while there are decisions made by my government with which I do not agree, I cannot condemn the efforts because of solely those arguments. Society is, afterall, an evolving process.