O/T - Here's part of an e-mail I received recently from Kyrgyzstan. Thought you'd enjoy the logic.
Dear Friends:
Tomorrow morning, I get on the plane and start my trip back to the 'States (weather, the travel gods, and the local police permitting). So, it's only fitting that for my third installment of the "Man on the Kyrgyz Frontier" series, I say something about the US Presidential election as compared to the recently-held Kyrgyz Presidential Election.
Last Saturday was the Kyrgyz inauguration, held in the square that our apartment overlooks. We had a bird's eye view of the ceremonies, and so we took the opportunity to invite some of our Kyrgyz staff over for the event. Now, the ceremony was more like something out of an old Marx Brothers movie about some fictitious country. The marching band neither marched nor played; the honor guard couldn't keep in step (or at times, even go in the same direction); and the President didn't like the placement of the cars so he had them rearranged in the middle of the ceremony. The generals looked silly in their Russian-style uniforms goose-stepping down the red carpet (which was constantly swept by two little old ladies using short-handled brooms), and the sound system kept breaking down. But perhaps more telling was the dialogue I had with our of our local consultants, Askar (mid-40's and Moscow-trained). It went something like this (and, yes, it really took place).
Askar: So, Steve, Russian television says the US has finished it's election and Bush has won.
Me: No, Askar, we have not finished our election; it is still unclear who won in the state of Florida. That is now being decided in the courts.
Askar: Then probably Russian television meant that Bush's father has bought the judge and so he is the winner.
Me: No, Askar, that's not the way our system works. Both sides have an equal chance before the judges, and it will be decided on the basis of law, not on "unofficial payments".
Askar: So money is not important in your presidential campaign?
Me: Money is important; it helps determine how much a candidate can campaign, and that can influence who wins.
Askar: Ah!, did Bush spend the most money and do the most campaigning?
Me: Possibly, but I'm not sure.
Askar: Then maybe Bush should be the winner because he spent the most money.
Me: No, the election is based on who wins the most votes.
Askar: Who got the most votes?
Me: Uh....Gore, I think.
Askar: Oh, then Gore is the winner.
Me: Well, no...it has to be decided in the courts because of the Electoral College.
Askar: Steve, I don't understand. Bush spends the most money but he doesn't win; Gore has the most votes but he doesn't win. It goes to a court where you can not buy a judge. No wonder Soviet intelligence always had a hard time understanding what America would do. I think I like our system better where the results were announced a week before the election.
Me: Pass the vodka, Askar.
On a more serious note, while watching the court proceedings on CNN, I've seen a few citizens interviewed who commented that this is making the US an international "laughing stock". Nothing could be further from the truth. I've had comments from a variety of nationalities (Asian and European) who have remarked on the strength of our system and the faith of the US citizens in that system. Many have said to me that if this was happening in their country the military would have intervened, there would be a coupe, or civil unrest. So, while we may be getting a bit anxious to have this matter settled, we can be justifiably proud that our system works and that the rest of the world, even though "confused" about it's mechanics, admire it.
Happy Holidays and all the best for the New Year....this series will resume in March.
Regards,
ldo79 |
