October 20, 2004

Georgie B vs Johnny K

Well, now I've got that out of my system, a regular post (not 'regular' in the Spanish sense you understand, 'regular' as in not being about me and my trials and tribulations with angst; a rant, if you will)...

Is there a topic hotter at the moment than the American presidential elections? I think not. (What was that? The new series of Little Britain? Maybe later.) Now, like every rational person with an ounce of integrity on this planet, I want to see Mr Bush defeated in a fortnight's time. And here's why:

*George is a Christian fundamentalist – people are going to vote for him because he's more religious than the other guy! Sorry, secularists can be as honest and morally upstanding, if not more, than Bible-bashers. Plus, they aren't as blinded by the teachings of one book and can be reasonable. The religious fanaticism on both sides of the War on Terror aggravates and will not solve the conflict. Plus, any aid given by the US to starving and disease-ridden Africa is on the condition that it is not used to promote abortion or AIDS-preventing contraception. How sick is that?

*George is a bit thick. He sees things only in black and white – the whole with us or against us thing. I guess that's got to do with the above point (not wanting to imply religious people are thick, mind – my beef is with organised religion's influence in politics). George's reason for the terrorists fighting is because they're evil. Yes, maybe a little – they did murder a load of people after all; however, so did the US government – but they do have reason for it: the States' neo-imperialism in the Middle East. So begins a tangent with unlimited potential, which I'll cut of at its source and save for a later date…

*Okay, George's religion is the source of much of my resentment towards him. Just one more point: he's so homophobic, he wants to change the Constitution to prevent them 'marrying'. Fair enough, marriage is supposed to be about family, but surely give the gayers some rights? Let the individual states decide.

*He's also a corporate cocksucker (apologies for the lowering of the tone, I'm just a big fan of alliteration). His tax cuts are merely letting the rich get richer, while the poorest get nowt. If he gets re-elected he says he'll make this state of affairs Permanent! He also let the bosses of Enron get away with shafting their employees. I won't get bogged down on this issue either; I simply refer you to Stupid White Men by Michael Moore.

*I've heard it said that if Kerry gets elected, terrorism will step up and it'll all get worse. Why's that? Surely if Bush is in office for another four years, he'll continue to piss the Middle East off and terrorists will recruit more suicide bombers. Conversely, Kerry will most likely try and contain the threat, be reasonable with the Middle East and the Islamic fundamentalist cause will cease to have a valid case. What pro-Bushies do in this situation is to equate this weak-kneed liberal approach to appeasement. Oi! This isn't another Hitler we're dealing with. This is a new type of warfare, something that we cannot apply lessons learned in the past to to solve it. Give peace a chance.

Rant over, I think. Kerry for President. I'm not going to go down the road the Guardian did last week, which was the stupidest thing I've seen this side of the Atlantic. They got their readers to write to voters in Ohio to tell them why they should vote for Kerry. Of course, Fox News picked up on this and claimed that those homosexual communists in the UK were infringing international law by seeking to influence the election and there's been a big backlash. Normally a damn fine publication, the Guardian should've seen this coming but no, they've put a bit of a dent in our special relationship. Patronising a few hicks in the midwest is not going to swing the election to the side of all that is good and right. No, all we can do now is pray.

- 2 comments by 1 or more people Not publicly viewable

  1. Was that not exactly what the Guardian was after? Riling a few republicans is not something that is particularly going to hurt circulation in the UK and the aftermath (return letters from the good people of Ohio) was damn funny as the Ohioans (?) squirmed and whinged about the fact they are the most important nation (nay, people?) in the world.

    22 Oct 2004, 12:43

  2. Yeah, but it was arrogant and verging on the Michael Moore in its smugness. Ought we combat the arrogance of the States with arrogance of our own, or try to set an example in humility? Not an issue I can be arsed to dwell on to be honest; real work beckons…

    23 Oct 2004, 19:48

Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

October 2004

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Sep |  Today  | Nov
            1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Search this blog


Favourite blogs


Blog archive

Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder