There was something else I wanted to address about my viewing of the ’92 presidential debate last night: George H. W. Bush's mind-boggling display of racism.

Several African-Americans were among those who got to ask a question. They asked about all sorts of things - getting streets updated, jobs, the economy, how Bush could understand the needs of Americans affected by the recession if it didn't effect him, etc. All the same sort of questions white people were asking, all phrased in the same reasonably educated fashion as everyone else's questions.

But every single time Bush answered an African-American's question, on any topic, sooner or later he’d bring up South Central L.A. and the recent riots, crime, teen pregnancy, poverty, drugs, welfare and/or the need for “stronger family units”… you know, the standard “black problems” of the day (according to Republicans). It was like they were Black, therefore they must have Black problems, and if they didn’t have them surely they knew people who had Black problems because all Blacks know each other, so no matter what African-Americans were concerned with, Bush was going to address what he perceived to be their real concerns, based on the color of their skin.

My jaw was on the floor. I think I remember noticing it at the time, but thinking there must be some context I wasn't getting. There wasn't.

Last night, CSPAN replayed the final 1992 presidential debate among Bush, Perot and Clinton. I had just recently told someone it was pretty cool for that to be the first election I could vote in - a viable third candidate, and the debate being the "town hall" format where a crowd of undecided voters ask the questions. Even though I was never a huge Clinton fan.

But I'd forgotten something else: the way Clinton actually answered the questions put to him without steering them onto some more convenient topic. And he answered them with great intelligence and insight: not only did he have every number, stat and factoid he needed available in his noodle, he seemed to get right to what the questioner was really asking, past the detached intellectual question and into the emotional need behind it. He connected with that need by talking only to that questioner (while the other candidates talked to the whole audience, drama class style, until Bush caught on and started mimicking Clinton), identifying the need, explaining how he had come to understand that need (by talking to the people he governed in Arkansas, for example) and then explaining in detached intellectual terms specifically what he was going to do to fund his solution and get it through a possibly Republican Congress.

Holy shit. You can dislike his policies all you want - there are a few things I really didn't like at all - but the man was an astoundingly skilled politician. He even seemed sincere in his desire to help people. Bush and Perot tried to keep up, but it was clear they just didn't have the chops. No one had demanded it of them before.

And what came of it? Eh, if we get into a debate about whether the accomplishments that happened while he was in office were his doing, Congress' doing, or a blend, we'll be here all night. But a lot of the things he talked about doing did actually come to pass, and that's his legacy. (Also, I know I was a lot better off in the 90s than now, and I don't think I'm the only American to feel that way.) And the way he talked to citizens during the debate was the way he talked to foreign officials. Again, I'm not saying he gets credit for everything between '93 and '00, but when he left the Middle East was about a hair away from peace and we had a surplus.

Then they played the final 2000 debate, which was in the same format. *cringe* Gore can't think on his feet. I've seen him be an electrifying speaker (he came to my high school to talk environment back in '87), but in answering spontaneous questions he freezes up more than most politicians. However, Bush just kept saying more or less, "Same as he said; difference is, I'm actually gonna do it." Ooh, clever (sarcasm). Americans fell for it, however. Gore was too stiff and Bush seemed more likable. Keep in mind America likes people who make us feel smart, and Bush's dumb act (I'm not convinced he's as astoundingly stupid as he frequently comes off) achieves this. Gore actually is smart, and while I disagree with more of his ideas than Clinton's, history suggests that a marmot would have performed better than Bush so I think we would've done fine with President Gore.

But you know what happened there. Do not ever get me started on Selection 2000, unless you really want a vast conversation on the topic. And anger. Lots of anger.

This is why I just don't give a shit about the current race. I don't see Obama or McCain displaying Clinton's insight into the problems and the solutions. Obama strikes me as more competent and sensible than McCain, but he's still your standard politician giving no detail on these great things he's going to do for us. There's just no one out there who's electrifying. Hillary Clinton has Bill's brilliant style down pat (it's probably something they cultivated together over the years), and IMO she answered questions far more directly and insightfully than Obama back when they were vying for the nomination - but she can make some astounding factual gaffes. Some of the senators and reps on both sides made some damn good points during the bailout, but that was all a dog and pony show ("how do we pass this delicious bill to give my best campaign funders lots o' money without losing the next election?") so I remain skeptical.

Bill Clinton cannot be the only person in the US capable of coming off as actually getting it, having a plan, and knowing how to talk to people about it. Why can't we have more people like that running for president?

This is what I'm talking about:

http://www.icahnreport.com/report/2008/09/corporate-waste.html

But what is even worse is the sheer amount of waste in corporate America that impedes our ability to generate revenue needed to finance these obligations. Already many infrastructure projects across the nation are suffering from declining tax revenue.

America’s corporations need to be run more efficiently or tax revenues will continue to fall far short and we will be even more in hoc to foreign lenders. Inefficiency and mismanagement on a colossal scale is causing our corporations to lose their economic hegemony in the global marketplace every day. For the past 30 years, I have warned in countless articles and interviews that we as a country are losing our economic preeminence and my predictions are unfortunately becoming a reality.

The problem with being fortunate, whether you're an individual or an entire nation like the US, is that you can be a total fool and still do well... for a very long time. It's hard to show fools the consequences of their foolishness because there's just so much good stuff they have to burn through before it bites anyone in the ass. In the case of the US, it's taken generations.

Most people I talk to assume that major CEOs are highly intelligent people with good sense. This is simply not true. A lot of CEOs are where they're at because they know people, or they've failed upwards, or they're somebody's relative. American businesses have been able to afford this indulgence - putting in cherished fools instead of smart people - because this country has so much going for it.

As customers, stock holders, voters, employees... we have got to find a way to change this. Businesses OWE it to the American public to be responsible, just as individuals owe it to the country to be financially responsible for themselves, whenever possible. It's wrong that individuals have taken on mortgages they couldn't afford, but it's also wrong that banks encouraged this behavior in the extremely nonsensical belief that real estate prices would rise forever and ever amen, and it's also wrong that high school economics classes don't delve into more of what it really takes to be financially safe and secure in the US. Even though some high school graduates are barely going to be able to afford to eat, everyone should have some basic introductions not only to concepts like budgeting and how savings interest works, but also investing in stocks and not assuming the bank is being honest when it tells you what sort of mortgage you can afford.

Ah, but then people might realize the "American dream" where full-time job + financial responsibility = ability to own a home and a nice car is over. It takes a lot more than that now, and I think elected officials are scared shitless of people figuring that out... which they would have, if banks had stopped creating crazier and crazier mortgages designed to bring in infinite numbers of new homeowners. Which they would have, if they all got some education in personal finance.

I got quoted by the CBC recently, at the very beginning of an article:

On her blog, a former aspiring screenwriter named Jennifer Kesler recently noted a phenomenon that she calls the “Bechdel test” (after comic book artist Alison Bechdel, who wrote a strip about the test). As a young writer in Hollywood, Kesler was often told – directly and indirectly – that no studio interested in profits (i.e. all of them) wants to shoot a script in which: 1) there are at least two named female characters who 2) talk to each other about 3) something other than a man. If a script hits all three points simultaneously, it will be deemed box-office death and never get made into a movie. This helps explain the infinitesimal number of women in movies these days. Only three of last year’s top 20 films were vehicles for women, and none featured women over 40, according to The New York Times.

Kesler suggests that the female void on screen isn’t solely because few women infiltrate the directing and production ranks – though that’s no small factor — but is due to something deeply cultural, an unspoken misogyny passing itself off as good business. Kesler kept coming up against brick walls while trying to launch her non-rom-com, female-centred scripts. After being told over and over to replace her female leads with men, an executive finally laid it out for her: “The audience doesn’t want to listen to a bunch of women talking about whatever it is women talk about.”

CBC is a Canadian TV and radio network. The way a Canadian friend described it to me, they have TV shows, but they're also very respected as a news source - her words were, "like CNN, but less biased." :D

I'm pretty stoked about this. Respected news sources in the US are still iffy about acknowledging blogs exist, and when they do, the odds they'll link to them are not great. I feel very legitimate!