After this morning’s character-building spine-twisting session, I do the collapso (a supine version of the fandango). As my heart pounds and the sweat cascades from my ample flesh, I reflect how much good this is all doing me. The extended period of back-lock has also coincided with a period where the creative wind has been well and truly knocked out of my sails. So as I increase the exercise and movement regime, so too my brain starts to turn over once again.
Sitting at the PC (i.e. to write) is difficult and requires plenty of breaks – stretching and laying down on the floor – but my head is beginning to clear. This might also be something to do with the reducing amount of pain killers which up until recently have been vital for getting me through the day.
After the rigours of the morning, I listen to a short programme documenting the history of slang and the work of one Eric Partridge who in 1937 published a dictionary of slang in the English language. He then spent a further 40 years constantly revising the tome, taking in the ever changing verbal landscape. I was heartened to hear recognition of Viz Comics’ immensely entertaining Profanosaurus. This is a vast and mind-boglingly expansive collection of sexual innuendo the vast majority of which are totally unsuitable for re-publication on this diary.
Puerile, pathetic and unfailingly hilarious, the Profanosaurus was acknowledged this morning as keeping alive Partridge’s worthy tradition of documenting the fashions and foibles of different generations and how they allude and otherwise deploy their euphemism’s (oo-er missus).
There are two people I know who keep a copy of this slim volume. Separated by over 300 miles both John Kimber and Chris Wilson keep their respective copies in their respective water closets which seems somehow appropriate.
I notice the US presidential election race has now ground to a crawl and the outcome appears to be in the lap of the lawyers. The UK media now moves from yappy excitement to smug, holier than thou pronouncements along the lines of “it couldn’t happen here”. There also a growing view that Gore should do the right thing and concede gracefully while he can.
This kind of knife-edge political drama does have its historical precedents never mind more than its fair share of hysterical presidents elected under a cloud.
Consider this extract from Seymour Hersh’s 1997 political best-seller The Dark Side Of Camelot which chronicles the dank under-belly of the Kennedy mythos;
The 1960 presidential election was a cliff-hanger in which John Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon by a final plurality of 118,000 out of more than 68 million votes. Since then, journalists and historians have raised questions about Kennedy’s victory – by fewer than 9,400 votes – in Illinois, one of the last states to report and the one that gave Kennedy his dramatic early morning triumph.
The Illinois election was quickly mired in charges of vote fraud, with Republicans accusing Democrats, led by Mayor Richard Daley, of rigging the returns in Chicago. It was widely known that the mayor, since taking office in 1955, had been controlling returns in state and local elections in Chicago, and that in 1960 he had pressured his precinct captains to produce votes for Kennedy. The allegations of vote fraud did not faze Daley, the archetype of the big-city political boss. He stoically dismissed the charges, telling reporters“This is a Republican conspiracy to deny the presidency to the man who was elected by the people”
There are those who are saying that Gore should stand down before he is fatally tarred with the reprehensible charge that he is simply a bad loser who isn’t playing the game.
Some commentators contrast his pugnacious and recalcitrant stance with that of the civic gallantry displayed by Richard M. Nixon, who gracefully conceded to Kennedy, leaving his (expletive deleted) dignity and political reputation in place for the 1968 run. However, lets not forget that the Republicans in 1960 smelt a rat and went on to file charges of vote fraud against the Democrats in eleven states and sent high-powered trouble-shooting missions to seven of the eleven – New Jersey, Texas, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, South Carolina and Pennsylvania - to try and substantiate their allegations of vote rigging.
All of this pondering on the presidency has drawn a comment on the DGM guestbook from John Smallwood.
Dear Sid,
There are many reasons I enjoy reading your diary. American anti-conservative diatribe is not one of them. Yes, Ian Wallace's only Conservative friend is rising to the bait.
Hi there John. No bait intended but thanks for engaging.
My wife is English, and she happens to be at our house in England at the moment. Each day we compare BBC commentary with the latest from American sources. We agree that even Radio 4 has its own spin on things.
Very true John. The BBC’s capacity for spin is not confined to recent political events. The radio was vital in broadcasting Government propaganda and deliberate mis-reporting of events during the General strike in 1926. This was done for reasons of “national interest” i.e. the political expediency of the day. John continues
In spite of the fact that I spend as much time in the UK as almost any American, I am ill-equipped to comment on British politics. I am just as ill-equipped to comment on the status of current American election, because things are changing from minute to minute.
I accept your point about a rapidly situation making it difficult to pass definitive commentary. I also acknowledge that I have no specialist knowledge of the complex American political system.
Yet from where I slump, I see federal state officials (they work for Jeb Bush don’t they ?) attempting to stymie the manual recount via procedural mechanisms and the Republican legal teams contending that such manual counting isn’t reliable.
Yet these understandable manoeuvrings conveniently overlook the two different machine-counted totals which the allegedly reliable machine system has produced so far.
And though they both give Bush the lead I think when you’ve got as many as 19,000 spoilt papers then it starts to get awful creaky.
But one thing I'm sure of, and that is although I voted for George W. Bush, I'd be just as proud to support Al Gore if he won the election. And I'm sure that most Americans feel the same way.
Remember the comment by a member of Monty Python, which was, roughly, "the thing about American politics is that the Republicans are just like the British Conservative Party, and the Democrats are just like the British Conservative Party".
How true, how true. New Labour are pretty much like the Conservative Party as well but don’t get me started on that one. Don’t think from my commentary so far that I’m a fan of Gore. Nothing could be further from the truth. In some respects the real story of this election is Ralph Nader.
However, I maintain that if it has wings like a duck, webbed feet like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck , then it is very likely to be a duck. Whichever way it goes this election, like the one in 1960, is most certainly ducked up.