Miss Kolka

"Back to our top story"

Man, that reminds me of work. I must say I am surprised by the media coverage of the US Presidential race. I shouldn't be though. When there's isn't anything more interesting to say about the issues then its back to the mini-scandals. The latest ones, but in a list of many, are 1. how much money Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin spent on clothes for the campaign and 2. The "hidden socialist agenda" of Barack Obama who wants to redistribute wealth amongst Americans. "ouou scary"  Plllllease.  
But of course we have to keep the story going, there are still 12 days until election day and issues are what make politics boring anyway. People want sex, money and personal tragedies. Give us more lack of chemistry between presdential and VP candidate, terrorist connections and spending sprees. As long as we forget what real life is all about. So lets get to it:

1.The republican party is supposed to have spent 150 thousand dollars on clothes and make-up for M'am Palin and family. How can that be surprising (apart perhaps the amount)? It should be no surprise to us that we live in a media age where image is everything. And unfortunately, both women and men demand more of women in that area. I think its normal that the party spends money to dress Palin up to the task and that they try to make her LOOK more presidential to voters. That's how spin works and it is in practice everywhere in the modern world. Its what Segolene Royal has also been criticised for - but men are at it as well. People get whiter teeth, take moles of their faces and even have full plastic surgeries to look more appealing in politics. And it works - Its either that or you get ugly comments like Angela Merkel has had to face in her career, being, for some, not womanly enough. Somehow it seems though that these issues are only raised when a woman is playing the game. There is so much choice for women that it can easily cost more for women to look good but it should be worth it since it has shown itself that handsome people do better. 

So I have to say that this is such a non-story that it doesnt deserve the attention its getting. There are two reasons for that though. Since the republicans are trying to get to the average American, its perhaps not a very sly move. How can people connect with someone who has the opportunity of spending so much money on something so un-important as clothes (while looks in reality are just basic worktools for the politician) as the rest struggles to pay off debts and morgages? Republicans have been trying to play on the "average joe" story and their connection to smalltown america but this leak might seem a bit too much for people not even earning that in a years of hard work. And second, there is also concern that Palin as governor might have been using taxpayers' money to pay for her family to travel with or without her. Her daughter even stayed in a 4 star luxurious hotel in NY - all payed by the state of Alaska - and that doesnt sound good for someone who says again and again that they will work against government overspending and corruption.  The story here might be that this is more hypocriticial then anything else - and voters have the right to know. They might talk the talk, but are they walking the walk?

2. Regarding Obama, the "evil socialist" (since terrorist didn't stick no matter how much the Republicans tried), Lets talk a little about socialism. Its ridiculous that republicans, who have been calling Obama "a socialist" can trigger so much fear amongst voters that actually want what Obama is planning - without even knowing what its called. Or what do you call a plan for more intervention and regulation on the financial markets by the government? It sounds like socialism to me:

"Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social Democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs;"

We have seen that the rules of capitalism didn't work - while there was profit, the money went to individuals but when there was trouble, who had to pay the price? People that have lost their houses, don't they want the state to have a safety net for them called social security?  And why did they get in that mess in the first place? Because they didn't have healthcare - something Obama wants to change. So stop repeating slogans you don't even understand and think about your economic future people. Socialism isn't the end of the world - and read up on the difference between Socialism and Communism while you're at it...

You just have to love the internet.... check out the almost hidden name at the top of the picture to see where that comes from...

I would like one of those!

see more on this British website

Iceland, Islande, Ísland... I didn't think I would hear people talk about it so much ever, but it seems that the little Island up north has become a symbol for the international crisis all around the world. Often dubbed "The first national casualty" of the crisis or "when the happiest people in the world became sad" (well I haven't really seen that title in a newspaper article yet) - but the media just loves to recall that this once poorest country in Europe, turned "rich" or with the highest living standard in Europe has now become victim of its own success, or believed success at least. We had it coming though, I think that is pretty obvious, and I remember talking about that to friends not so long time ago - after I discovered that actually you can live on the money you earn, and not always on some absurd credit - that Icelanders might be heading for trouble - living a life they cant afford. You have to go away to realise actually how bad it is. But Im not saying "I told you so", its just easy to point fingers at Iceland, seeing the small size of the country. The lifestyle there is not so different from what you see in the US or UK, its just that it has a more direct effect on such a small economy. How such a small number of people could take so high risks and plunge a whole country into a deep economic crisis is just ludicrous. But as every Icelander says, with their everso optimistic cool: "its going to be ok"- Þetta reddast!

x

The financial CRISIS - its all you hear about, its all the media care about and no matter how many reports I have listened to I still don't know why it happened and how its actually going to affect average citizens, the ones who never had enough money to invest to begin with and still struggle to make ends meet. So who is losing it all here?

It seems to me that the system we live in is controlled and made by and for the rich. Sure a healthy economy needs strong financial institutions, but lately these were making billions of profit - unhealthy amounts really - and spending it like crazy on who-knows-what. With bank directors getting up to 300 times higher salary than their avarage workers (and working in a bank normally pays well) . An institution can not run effectively with only one person working there - you need them all, like in any successful company. Good management is important yes but I really don't see how these salaries can be justified, even in a competetive work environment. How were these profits made? Through you and me, do know how much you pay in interests every month? Neither do I.

And being a lawful citizen, now I know that the money I paid in taxes will also go to the same people, helping them out so they dont have to suffer, continuing to live their expensive lifestyles,  one, by the way,  that I will never afford. Because it doesnt matter how much money I make, there always seems like there are some student loans to pay or a tax I didnt plan for. Lets spend the tax money in saving the banks. Of course. But then lets not be surprised there isn't any money left for education, health care, social justice or making improvements in our environment. Because the money should go into emergency plans like these and oh, I almost forgot expensive defense programs, arms manufacturing and paying alot of money to those in charge. That's only fair. Remember, this is what you vote for people. EVERY year! When will people realise that the right, republicans or whatever you want to call them is taking care of their own, the wealthy ones, the banks and their friends. And no, you are not one of them.

Well some dont take it too seriously, with all the funny videos out there on the internet (Save-a-firm, adopt a financial insititution etc.) Maybe its just better to laugh than cry.

I have been contemplating how obsessed France is with its media, or more exactly obsessed by the people in it. Beeing a journalist here has a total different meaning to what I imagine it has in other countries. At least from what I have been able to experience in Iceland and observe in England.

A french journalist is someone who is admired, whether he is liked or not. It is a job alot of people aspire to and not because they want to "tell the truth", be useful to society or to others but because they want to become famous. And indeed, it is a good career move, given you know the right people (its all about your address book), have the right name or parents and remember as many intellectual quotes as possible. Then you have a chance. And once you are in - you can be a top notch celebrity!

(Ok, to be fair, there might be a few who are interested in "spreading the word", "educate the masses" or simply have a job where they can travel around the world to meet interesting people. But I think they are very few (most journalists working inside a dark office)  and they also play the game of recognising big names and if they can, they would just love to become their new best friends. Which makes this business one of the most hypocritical worlds you can imagine, along with the world of politicians, and actually, these two often go together.)

How often do you see presenters and journalists being guests on other people's shows? Where they are stroked the right way and their egos blown out of proportion? All the time. It has become perfectly normal to invite the "star of the 20H" (the person presenting the evening news) to talk about his/her life and opinions they might have on almost anything. Like we care. Often these conversations (especially where there is more than one tv personality invited) go into some obscur corners of the tv/media/political/-or entertainement world and things are implied without a general explanaition to the viewer. Debates are often false debates since important information is omitted, like why, who and how. People in the media business (and political sphere) have all the pieces of (informal) information but no one is informing the public. Journalists are not writing for you, they're writing for their friends, since they are the only ones who have the missing piece of the puzzle. Its frustrating. I find French journalism frustrating and often disrespectful.

Wonder why I keep doing what I do... 

• Who's Anatomy? | 24-11-2009
• Here we go again. | 19-11-2009
• Of Sex, Violence and Bad men | 08-10-2009
• of Bloggers and other creatures | 05-09-2009
• swineflu - what are we to think? | 13-08-2009
• Was it for an underwater Rock concert? | 11-08-2009
• The city of the Happy People | 04-08-2009
• Felix meets Loulou | 21-07-2009
• This is Iceland! | 13-07-2009
• Popularity! | 22-06-2009
• Aurevoir..mais pas Adieu! About Burqas, Sarkozy and all that | 22-06-2009
• ... | 18-06-2009
• What's happening? | 18-06-2009
• Reminder | 15-06-2009
• What can Europe do? | 08-06-2009