If you want to believe it's "a global world", then you have every right to. But it isn't a global world, yet. I hope it never becomes one. It's not even completely a global world economically, although it's the closest thing to a global system. Ideologically, culturally, philosophically, the socio-political world is no where near a global entity. Hell, not even the US is a unified country ideologically. Why should things anywhere around the world have "global implications"? Just because we have internet, and can see current events and the like more readily? Come on now. That's like the teenager just barely starting to see what the adult knows, and thinking he/she knows everything about life. Or does it have global implications just because many people are paying attention to it? Do Spencer and Heidi have global implications?
I share the same hope that we never see a one world government type thing, but that wasn't what I was referring to at all. And yes, you are correct. All ideologies, politics, etc have not merged. But to pretend that everything at this point is not so interconnected at this point is well, just silly. You state that economics are the closest thing we have to a global system, and while it is not 100%, its pretty damn close. If one country goes up shit creek, everyone else connected to that country economically is going to face some sort of repercussions. America has a recession and China starts laying people off. Economics may be the closest thing to a global system we have, but thats the foundation on which a large portion of socio-political decisions. I mean more decisions which involve EVERYONE on this plant are based purely on economics, more so than ideology ever will.
So why does it have anything have global implications? Take your Caribbean example. Sure it looks like its one country and the UN bullying one minor country. But don't you think there are repercussions involved in that which are not readily apparent? I mean that's going to effect tourism as a whole, meaning people are going to be going elsewhere effecting that's country economy AND the other places absorbing the new tourism. The strain on the economy is going to be effecting the decisions which both the government of the country make and the people itself. It could cause a destabilization. It could cause mass migration. It could cause alot of things. its beyond our power to foresee the possibilities until they happen, human beings just aren't that smart. I mean, everything that country will do will effect how it deals with other countries, and its neighbors and/or allies. Which in turn effects everything thing else. Maybe I am being somewhat schizophrenic or paranoid in my perception or belief that everything effects everything else. I' ll give you that.
As for Spencer and Heidi, I cant speak for them. But I can say Western media does have global implications. I am not an expert, but what I do know is that representations of the west DRASTICALLY effect how the world sees us, and HOW the world expects us to act. I know its is not uncommon to meet anyone from developing nations that expect Americans to all be thin and blonde and live in big houses. The only area that I do have any sort of specialty in whatsoever is sexuality and the body. And to that I can say that there are heaps of research done on how representations of the body within the western media have completely fucked up cultural expectations elsewhere. So the effect Spencer and Heidi have on the the cultural world as a whole I cant say anything. However, as a whole you and I both know that the western media totally fucks everything up elsewhere. Honestly, I don't think they are big enough for anyone to give a shit. Paris Hilton, however, has probably fucked up alot of people's perceptions.
I wouldn't take too much stock in what you see and hear on the news about the election (or anything else for that matter). First of all, we aren't there, and we are not from there, so we don't know shit and shouldn't be making judgments. To react to images is only human, but to base complete personal ideas and philosophies on those reactions is pretty provincial. This is their thing, and I think Fry's Gore/Bush example is the perfect one. What election decision had more "global implications" than that one? Should the world have stepped in and righted the slap in the face that election gave to democracy? Secondly, the US plays all kinds of media and public image games with other countries. In the Caribbean, hospitality based countries are threatened yearly with being blacklisted by being put on "unsafe to travel/travel warning" lists and being reported on unfavorably in the media, in order to gain compliance with various policies and UN votes. Everything you see in the media is shown to you in the way that those who allow it to be shown to you, want it to be shown to you.
I dont think anyone on this forum takes anything the media says without some sort of cynical bent. Granted, I was taken in by images of rebellion but it wasn't just based on a couple of stories I heard on NPR or the AP. What swayed me was the videos recorded on cellphones, on the blog entries and the twitter feeds coming from people there. I am sort of a sucker for a rebellion and admit I took their side based on the perception that they were rebelling against an oppressive government. I know full well there are a myriad of sides in this, which is why I have returned to the side lines. Frys Girl perspective is somewhat more valid than mine, and I have taken that to heart. I am not taking a side, not admitting whose right or wrong. What I am admitting is that history has proven that stability is probably better at this point for Iran. I don't know all the ins and outs of the situation and returning to the sidelines to watch. I honestly don't have enough of an education on the history/politics of the region to fully understand the consequences of whats going on, therefore I am bowing out of the argument. I identified with that rebellion mostly because it appeared to me to be the exact sort of thing that SHOULD have happened here. I did not support Gore or Bush, but ,really, the American people should of had the balls to fucking do something if they thought they were being slighted. But then again, the American system isn't purely democratic. Its a republic indirectly controlled by a representative democracy. People forget that, and most often don't know the difference. I would prefer something of a pure democracy but then again, the American system was not designed to be ruled by a lone majority, which inevitably would happen. As for the world doing something about it, I cannot speak. But, that was pre 911. I honestly don't know how anyone or any nation would react to the same thing today. I didn't call for anyone to stick their nose in Iran's business, yet if things get bad, and the fervor gets a little too crazy, then yeah I expect someone to say something. But they probably wont. They didn't in Rawanda or Bosnia. And I don't see anyone doing shit about Darfour or Tibet. But, I agree with Frys Girl on the point that the country has its laws AND they should be followed. Noone has a right to just walk in and say FUCK YOU, we are doing this our way now. Change has to come from the people, not an outside source. And again, shes right. It does not happen overnight. One election isn't going to change anything.
But there are situations where it isn't so easy as to say, well its their law we have to do it their way. Say when the people simply aren't powerful enough to face the opposition. I mean does Tibet have ANY real chance against China? No, they don't. Not that I want a war with China. That would be godawful for everyone. But what are we suppose to do? What can be done? I don't have a fucking clue.
