Category Archives: politics

Caucuses and The Non-Caucasian

I have just watched some speeches made by the Democrat and Republican candidates after Iowa voted for their preferred Presidential runners. In time I will no doubt find that it is just me, but I think it is worth noting that the man likely to come out of the caucuses in the lead is not Caucausian. History will be my judge.

The Republicans struck me as wet fishes, even though Mike Huckabee had CHUCK NORRIS1 behind him. No surprise that he won the Republican vote – “Vote for me, or it’s The Norris for you!”. Hillary had Philandering Bill standing behind her, and where did she come for the Democrats? Third. I’m sure there’s a lesson in there somewhere. On a related note; Is there nothing CHUCK NORRIS cannot do?. Why isn’t he running for President? He could sort out the Middle East single handed.

Listening to Barack Obama’s speech, I get the impression that he’s a sound bloke and I was swayed by his words and his oration. Given Dubya Bush’s mass destruction of the English language, in all her beauty, Obama gets my vote purely on the grounds of being able to form a cogent sentence and deliver it with gravitas and conviction. The last eight years of mumbling, smirking and embarrassed silences will no doubt have convinced many that the ability to communicate clearly is a core skill no statesman should be without.

But it also struck me that this is a speech designed precisely to engender these feelings. How am I to know if this is what he really stands for, or is he just saying what it takes to get elected?

Like examinations for kids, elections, and the campaign trail in particular, seem a colossally flawed method for choosing a government. From a purely theoretical standpoint, it seems perfectly logical to pick your best candidates and then let the people decide which one they want.

The problem is that the vast majority of people are deciding based on what they see on TV and what they read in the papers. They have no idea what a particular politician actually holds dear or what they will do once elected to office. They are forced to choose based on information that is skewed from reality. The magnitude of the skewing is the unknown factor; really, it is this single unknown that stops the theoretical ideal from working in practice.

Unfortunately, while the problem appears to be simple, it a flaw which is in all of us. Humans are selfish and trusting animals. We generally accept that which is presented to us, even if, on inspection, it is flawed, baseless or not in our own self-interest.

That said, and to take the place of a human for the merest instant, I though Barack said all the right things and, more importantly, he said it in the right way. “Change” must be the Democratic message for this campaign, but I didn’t believe it when Hillary was saying it, due, no doubt, to her smiling doofus of a husband perched over her left shoulder (see, you got to get The Norris).

At this point, I am unaware of any sleaze that has been levelled at Barack Obama. Every other candidate (OK, maybe not every candidate, but the main ones), to quote General Taylor in Good Morning, Vietnam, “lugs a trainload of shit behind him (or her) that would fertilize the Sinai.” Now, maybe Barack’s people bought one of those ex-Soviet stealth missile trains to haul his shit about in, because, although I haven’t given it my complete attention, I can’t say I’ve detected any spin from his camp.

And that’s the point. Despite only watching four videos and no seeing Barack Obama’s name colocated with the word “Liar” on reddit, digg or elsewhere, I am confident to declare him the next POTUS. It will be interesting to see how they all get on in New Hampshire in a couple of days.

Now the comedians can get on with the business of coming up with Black First Lady jokes and mildy-racist Secret Service codenames.

1 I didn’t type this in caps, but Blogger wouldn’t let me correct it. Damn, Chuck Norris is all powerful…

Politicians vs Humans

It’s been a while since I’ve done a ‘Vs’ post (the last one was back in February of last year, the provocatively named Women Vs Men) but the arrival of BoosterBoy to the Palace’s ranks – well, rank – has caused an element of competition, so here we are.

A common thread through some of my posts is about social responsibility and how the government is creating an ever more nannying state due to the hordes of people who haven’t got the common sense1 to look after themselves. I’m talking about obesity, education, that sort of thing: important social “stuff”.

As I’ve mentioned before, it seems clear to me that the nanny state exists because the Government feels that it has to help out the barely cogent hordes out there who fuck up their lives just a little bit more every day. So, rather than let them fuck it up and deal with the social and political fallout, they get a bit proactive and remove the responsibility which they’ve proven incabable of shouldering.

The point is that it is the few that force the changes, which means minority rules. Now, I’ve got a piece of paper round here somewhere that says we live in a democracy (from the Greek demos people + kratos strength) where the people decide what goes down. What we have is more like a fuckoffracy (from the Palace of Righteous Justice fuckoff people can fuck off + racy politicians can do what they like), where the politicians bend us over.

Elections are pointless anyway, because the politicians do what they want. Elections exist to give the electorate the illusion of control, that somehow we decide how the country is run. And they wonder why electoral turn-out is so low. I haven’t voted ever – not true; I voted once, for the Green Party, back when I though it mattered – because, as the years roll on and governments come and go, nothing changes. Labour got in a while back; can’t say that I noticed the difference.

So, we elect a new government because they tell us lots of good stuff about lower taxes and more cops and nurses; all good, progressive stuff. However, they then spend the next four years doing the following;
a) shoring up the mess left by the last lot (or at least blaming them for it),
b) spending all the cash looking after;
1) the people who can’t look after themselves,
2) the people who could look after themselves if they could be bothered.
c) try to sort some foreign dispute,
d) while failing to address pressing domestic issues.

Not forgetting the big omission which is to fail, spectacularly and conspicuously, to deliver on any of the promises they made during the election campaign. Now, we know all this. If you were to collar Joe Public in the street and ask him whether he believed that the government will lower taxes, he’ll scoff and walk on. So why do we even bother going through the whole rigmarole?

It is the job of the Opposition party to keep the pressure on the ruling party, which boils down to them standing up in the Commons and saying “Does the Honourable Gentleman really expect us to believe…”, to which the Rt Hon. Mr P. Minister replies, with utter conviction, “Yes, I bloody well do!”, to which the Opposition laughs, makes loud scoffing noises and mutters “Well, we don’t” under it’s breath.

None of the above advances society a jot. It doesn’t change peoples lives for the better. In fact, I’m struggling to see what governments actually do for us.

Anyone?

1 Is there anthing less common than Common Sense?