I Blame You
April 3rd 2008 02:30
So, it's November 2007, and three hundred and seventy years of John Howard's reign comes to an end. Kevin Rudd is Australia's new Prime Minister-elect, and there is a certain amount of the population -- well, over 50%, unless the results were tampered with -- who are happy with this result.
There existed, however, a section that was not happy. This is understandable; every election is going to produce ecstasy and moroseness across the country, but as with everything to do with politics, some people just weren't able to summon the brainpower to properly express this.
Case in point: the proclamations across the net of "Don't blame me, I voted for Howard!"
This, of course, begs the question, don't blame you for what? I'm a bit of a news junkie, but even I miss the occasional political story. What happened? Twenty-four hours after winning the election, Rudd celebrating by biting the head off a baby and sodomising a homeless person? He urinated "KEV" on the side of Parliament House? He invaded Alaska?
If you have some sort of ideological problem with a politician (or just pretend to because your parents do), then you should at least wait for them to screw up before you start gloating about it. Pre-emptively gloating doesn't quite work, even if, statistically speaking, the politician in question will screw up because, well, they're a politician.
This is one of the reasons I think compulsory suffrage isn't such a great thing. Why is it important that absolutely everyone be forced to cast their vote? In a free society, isn't it just as important that people be given the freedom to not vote if they wish? In a world where most people have no idea what they're talking about, wouldn't it be a good idea to remove the rule that forces them to have a say?
Back when I worked at a cinema, one of the managers was overheard saying, mere weeks before a federal election, "I'd vote for Labor, but that's just what the terrorists want." Yes, congratulations. Rather than automatically buying into what some idiot right-wing shock jock has told you, you've thought carefully through the situation and arrived at the thoroughly-reasonable conclusion that Osama Bin Laden is hiding in a cave on the north-western Pakistani border, poring over polling data, and hoping against hope that the seat of Higgins goes to Labor instead of the Coalition. What an utterly airtight grasp of the situation you appear to have.
It's thinking like this that makes me wonder how some people are actually able to dress themselves, operate a car, and function in society, when part of their brain has clearly atrophied through lack of use.
So, though I don't blame anyone who, in John Howard's final election, voted for him on actual principle, I will blame all of those who, within days, asked me not to blame them, because the overabundant idiocy in political discourse is wearing me out.
There existed, however, a section that was not happy. This is understandable; every election is going to produce ecstasy and moroseness across the country, but as with everything to do with politics, some people just weren't able to summon the brainpower to properly express this.
Case in point: the proclamations across the net of "Don't blame me, I voted for Howard!"
This, of course, begs the question, don't blame you for what? I'm a bit of a news junkie, but even I miss the occasional political story. What happened? Twenty-four hours after winning the election, Rudd celebrating by biting the head off a baby and sodomising a homeless person? He urinated "KEV" on the side of Parliament House? He invaded Alaska?
If you have some sort of ideological problem with a politician (or just pretend to because your parents do), then you should at least wait for them to screw up before you start gloating about it. Pre-emptively gloating doesn't quite work, even if, statistically speaking, the politician in question will screw up because, well, they're a politician.
This is one of the reasons I think compulsory suffrage isn't such a great thing. Why is it important that absolutely everyone be forced to cast their vote? In a free society, isn't it just as important that people be given the freedom to not vote if they wish? In a world where most people have no idea what they're talking about, wouldn't it be a good idea to remove the rule that forces them to have a say?
Back when I worked at a cinema, one of the managers was overheard saying, mere weeks before a federal election, "I'd vote for Labor, but that's just what the terrorists want." Yes, congratulations. Rather than automatically buying into what some idiot right-wing shock jock has told you, you've thought carefully through the situation and arrived at the thoroughly-reasonable conclusion that Osama Bin Laden is hiding in a cave on the north-western Pakistani border, poring over polling data, and hoping against hope that the seat of Higgins goes to Labor instead of the Coalition. What an utterly airtight grasp of the situation you appear to have.
It's thinking like this that makes me wonder how some people are actually able to dress themselves, operate a car, and function in society, when part of their brain has clearly atrophied through lack of use.
So, though I don't blame anyone who, in John Howard's final election, voted for him on actual principle, I will blame all of those who, within days, asked me not to blame them, because the overabundant idiocy in political discourse is wearing me out.
| 100 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
-Samaritan
www.fringefaith.com
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Well duh! He did, after all, go to all the trouble of printing off those pamphlets for the Labor Party in the seat of Lindsay. Terrorists love Labor. And if you can't see it than you're no better than the terrorists.
Proof:
LabOR
TerOR
Coincidence? I think not.
Comment by Maxxie