The US Presidential Debates As Officially Creating A New Battlefront

The media has looked at the debate between the leading two US presidential candidates as strictly between those two people, whereas it is entirely crucial to know that in the debate stage like at no other point, the two debaters represent their respective Democratic and Republican parties. It is the parties that debate through these candidates; the parties' battle against one another being deeper established than the battle between the two specific candidates they have sent forward to the debate platform, and the debate platform being only one front in the multi-fronted battle between the two parties.

The presidential debates do not represent the meeting point between two parties where their issues with one another may finally be resolved, rather, the debates' moderators or creators enable the two candidates to battle it out for the very first time: they won't come to peace in the debates, but rather come to an understanding that key talking points have been given the opportunity to thrive, so that a “rich and civilized battle” can be undertaken between them, given their shared interest in these talking points but opposing stances. There is the recognition by both parties that the media has brought together the people with the most points of interest in common to debate, opening a new and very active battlefront in a longer and deeper battle. 

It seems that the media likes organizing debates more than dialogues, given that so many debates take place in the media and on camera, and given that most heads-of-state undertake dialogue behind-closed-doors and the media doesn't complain. Most debates aren't decisive, but rather point out or introduce two people to one another who are most suited to argue at length, and disagree, so that the debate is a front which always produces a stalemate but which enables the two parties' members to recognize, sometimes even for the first time, a “debating mate" within an opposing party with whom the battle can be prolonged.

Curiously, if there are certain debates or battles which have too many parties involved, and it is not possible to fit all the representatives of all the parties in a single screen-shot, then it is likely that that debate will never take place. Such a large-scale debate was tried by the media in the debate between presidential hopefuls of the Republican party, but it seems not to have been attempted elsewhere where too many parties are involved. But since debates are more likely to originate new fronts of battle rather than bring a peaceful completion to a conflict, the deprivation of the opportunity to find a “debating mate” may not be a bad thing. 

The US Presidential Debates As Officially Creating A New Battlefront

The media has looked at the debate between the leading two US presidential candidates as strictly between those two people, whereas it is entirely crucial to know that in the debate stage like at no other point, the two debaters represent their respective Democratic and Republican parties. It is the parties that debate through these candidates; the parties' battle against one another being deeper established than the battle between the two specific candidates they have sent forward to the debate platform, and the debate platform being only one front in the multi-fronted battle between the two parties.

The presidential debates do not represent the meeting point between two parties where their issues with one another may finally be resolved, rather, the debates' moderators or creators enable the two candidates to battle it out for the very first time: they won't come to peace in the debates, but rather come to an understanding that key talking points has been given the opportunity to thrive, so that a “rich and civilized battle” can be undertaken between them, given their shared interest in these talking points but opposing stances. There is the recognition by both parties that the media has brought together the people with the most points of interest in common to debate, opening a new battlefront in a longer and deeper battle. 

It seems that the media likes organizing debates more than dialogues, given that so many debates take place in the media and on camera, and given that most heads-of-state undertake dialogue behind-closed-doors and the media doesn't complain. Most debates aren't decisive, but rather point out or introduce two people to one another who are most suited to argue at length, and disagree, so that the debate is a front which always produces a stalemate but which enables the two parties' members to recognize, sometimes even for the first time, a “debating mate" within an opposing party with whom the battle can be prolonged.

Curiously, if there are certain debates or battles which have too many parties involved, and it is not possible to fit all the representatives of all the parties in a single screen-shot, then it is likely that that debate will never take place. Such a large-scale debate was tried by the media in the debate between presidential hopefuls of the Republican party, but it seems not to have been attempted elsewhere where too many parties are involved. But since debates are more likely to originate new fronts of battle rather than bring a peaceful completion to a conflict, the deprivation of the opportunity to find a “debating mate” may not be a bad thing. 

The International Space Station As More Than A UN “World Heritage Site”

The International Space Station is an instance of multiculturalism at work given that diverse scientists from around the world work together there. The Space Station could very well serve as the cultural melting pot that earthly places strive to be. Yet one could wonder whether the prolonged detachment from earthly territory and community would obscure the astronauts' views and understanding of their own earthly cultures. Without increased awareness among astronauts of their own cultural activities such as festivals, the Space Station suffers like other multicultural places where the limited knowledge of one's own culture is disguised as openness and a listening stance towards the cultures of others.

Like multiculturalism's main goal on earth, the Space Station version of multiculturalism is also turned towards the finding of and communicating with aliens, in this case, outer-space aliens. However, the worst discrimination and stereotyping of aliens takes place among astronauts in the effort to find them, as all astronauts share their racist jokes and supposed “neutral observations” about aliens, inspired directly by their more earthly racism against earthly aliens.

What must occur in the International Space Station is the inclusion in its confines of the earthly aliens, the marginalized and rare races and ethnic minorities of earth itself. The earthly aliens often have their own ways of understanding outer-space and could very well contribute to the locating of and communicating with outer-space aliens. In Nepal we sometimes have a single remaining person who knows how to speak a certain marginalized ethnic language, and such a person could be included in the International Space Station team to utilize his/her rare knowledge on the cosmos.

Earthly aliens would more deeply understand the situation of outer-space aliens just discovered given that both are “too different” for the majority of earth's people. There would not be a discriminatory attitude in either party when they discover one another, and hence no cause for war between humanity and aliens. The thrust of the encounter between earthly aliens and outer-space aliens would be on sharing cultural processes and objects of one another, to cement a friendship beyond exclusion and discrimination by the earth's majority.

With the inclusion of earthly aliens in the Space Station as the first post-multiculturalist step, the astronauts could thereafter engage in cultural activities like festivals in the International Space Station itself, in order to not just read and talk about their cultures as distant from them but actually recreate and relive the cultural activities and share them with astronauts and aliens alike. The Space Station could then be cast as a cultural hub, and even attract outer-space tourists, and could even one day be beyond a UN “World Heritage Site” to become known as a “Universal Heritage Site” for its positive work in preserving and spreading the universe's cultures.

News Correspondents As Lacanian Seers Of War

The media-person (or news correspondent) who tags along in an on-the-ground war operation is considered by the soldiers to be some kind of seer of war, able to predict the war's course with expertise, sophistication and prophecy, a prediction which he/she does in his war reporting for the camera. Once the camera turns on, the news correspondent has an intense feeling of awareness of what is going on around him/her, and treats the war with utmost seriousness and problem-solving ability. Soldiers who realize the importance of such a skill-set in their team may enlist the help of a media-person, who typically has years and decades of expertise reporting in wars all over the world, something which the soldiers themselves, ironically, may lack.

Although the media-person seeks for perfect camera-work on the ground, this aspect of his/her part in the war effort is indeed amateurish today, the camera-work often being shaky and too narrow to take in the whole context of war. But curiously enough bad camera-work does not disqualify them from war and war-reporting. The media person's problematic camera-work is compensated for with his/her knowledge, which he/she does not necessarily need to share verbally, with direct commands to the soldiers, but which can be visible in his/her psychology when someone is firing at him/her, his/her bodily behavior/movement when there is gunfire, and the way he/she chooses to interact with his/her “team/unit” when the enemy is further away and there is brief safety. How, we can ask, is the news correspondent ready to engage in war without a weapon of his/her own?

The media-persons are enlisted by the war effort as prophets, akin to ancient “wise men” who saw the war's course, or other things such as “potential war weariness” in the soldiers, before the army's soldier himself/herself saw these future events. The media-person's claims of their neutrality in no way makes them exempt from war, but enables them to be a seer of both sides to a conflict, in order that this knowledge be shared with one particular side over another. When the media-person makes a final analysis report, it contains a lot of original knowledge and conclusions that the army personnel/warlords scrutinize carefully. Hence the media-person may not necessarily be an outsider in the war-effort, but may indirectly, perhaps even without his/her conscious intention, participate in the war-effort. Even if the media organization as a whole may be outside/neutral from the war-effort, the media-person on- the-ground may have agreed to share his/her expertise, or become, in a sense a “model soldier” for the other soldiers on-the-ground, in exchange for good shots for his/her camera.

These news correspondents on-the-ground are Lacanian “subjects-supposed-to-know” for the warlords during a war effort. The news correspondents' analysis is not doubted and not further analyzed, but trusted as a kind of final knowledge on the situation. These media-persons play two roles, in the television and in the army, in order to become these Lacanian analytical subjects-supposed-to-know for warlords as well as for the television viewers around the globe. They can be crucial Lacanian subjects who blend together a television persona with a more aggressive “war driven” attitude, but they need to share their spot more with others with differing analysis regarding the war. The interaction between two news correspondents would be significant today, as would be comparing the two news correspondents' on-the-ground bodily behaviors between different news channels/programs, but not to select a winner and reward his/her abilities with prizes. To get a look at two news correspondents negotiating the gunfire differently while in the same on-the-ground event could indeed reveal how both their statuses as subjects-supposed-to-know is problematic.