Bush and Saddam share the same bed
It’s election time again and in the land of the compulsory vote, Australians once again have to determine which candidate they dislike least.
Pretty pathetic that the best this sunburnt country has to offer is the choice between your conservative grandfather and your drunk uncle. It’s the choice between “I don’t mind them gays and immigrants, I just wish they wouldn’t do it in front of me” and “You know what I reckon is school and hospital and beer should be free and I wanna stop paying bloody tax. Now f*$# off, the lot of yous.”
Of course, there’s a lot of smaller parties you can vote for. There’s the fanatic religious group, otherwise known as ‘Family First’. There’s the anti-economy, pro-ecstasy, “we used to hug trees, now we hug terrorists” group known as ‘The Greens’. If you’re into 4 wheel drives, gay marriage, marijuana or 3 day weekends, then there’s a political party for you.
So, I guess democracy creates choice. At least we don’t live in a country like Iraq, right? In theory, the bigger the democracy, the greater the choice, right?
In the self proclaimed “Land of the Free” (aka the USA), choice is king. Go to any number of mega-supermarkets located a close drive to you and there are hundreds of products to choose from. There’s any sport you want on TV, 24 hours a day. Don’t like sport? Choose from one of the hundreds of other special interest channels available.
So, I guess politically there would be hundreds of candidates to choose from?
Actually, there’s three. Two of them legitimate chances (although not necessarily legitimate candidates) and one who should receive about 1% of the vote in protest.
Isn’t it ironic that the biggest democracy in the world generates such a lack of political choice? The increasingly competitive political climate has caused the main parties to polarise around an ideological median, at the expense of the causes and policies that formed the main parties in the first place. As a result, the voters are left with 2 essentially homogenous candidates.
Can we extrapolate this to say that implementation of the U.S. electoral system, the choice to not choose, actually works to minimise the amount of choices you have available? In the strive for the perfect democracy, the US has stumbled into a duocracy.
George W. Bush would probably disagree with me at this point. Having mastered the art of political spin (saying what you want to believe, ad nauseum, in complete contrast to obvious truth), Dubya would no doubt go to great lengths to highlight the great freedoms that democracy has created and maintained in this terrorised world in which we live.
“Look at Iraq,” he would say. “Saddam Hussein is a person who killed a lot of people.”
I hate to draw this to Dubya’s attention, but there are many vast similarities between the U.S and Iraq and they don’t just stop at lack of effective political choice.
Ignoring the obvious social differences, let’s talk economics. Coming into government after many consecutive years of growth under Clinton, there was no question that the economy was starting to slow down. The difficulties Bush would face were compounded after September 11, as billions of dollars were wiped from the economy.
George Bush has managed to implement trillion dollar tax cuts and extremely low interest rates. In an impressive application of Keynsian economics, his government also increased spending to create huge budget deficits in an effort to kick-start the economy.
What are they spending the money on, I wonder?
Well, during the second quarter of 2003, when the war in Iraq was in full swing, some 60 per cent of the 3.3 per cent GDP growth rate was attributable to military spending.
Need a job? Join the army.
Of course, military expenditure is usually the least effective way of spending money, because it doesn't build infrastructure that gives you returns over time. But it does create a short-term gain.
Just ask Iraq, who came out of an 8 year war with Iran that had an estimated cost of $1.2 billion (in 1980’s terms), effectively ending Saddam Hussein’s plan for the development of Iraq. Not to mention that Kuwait had lent Iraq a lot of money during the war. Not to mention that Saddam had to pay off his soldiers, who had been fighting for the motherland for the past 8 years. Not to mention that Kuwait is extremely oil-rich.
The decision to invade was simple[1]. The resultant looting would pay the soldiers’ wages; the oil would revamp the economy. Saddam rejuvenated the Iraqi economy through war; essentially, Dubya has managed to out-Saddam Saddam.
“He kills his own people,” Bush claims. A quick glance at the Texacutioner’s resume will show that over a 6 year period as Governor of Texas, George W. Bush presided over 152 executions. That’s one every fortnight. How about the thousands of Americans and Iraqis who have died as a result of this economic crusade into Iraq?
"Good riddance. The world is better off without you, Mr. Saddam Hussein”
I’m not denying that for a second. I just wouldn’t mind seeing Bush following after.
[1] (Where Saddam may have erred was in invading all the way to the Saudi border and building up enough of a presence such as to be considered a threat to Saudi Arabia. Having rolled over Kuwait, Saddam already controlled over 20 percent of the world's oil reserves. Saudi Arabia contained an additional 20 percent. Even though to this point, Saddam was an ally to the US, having had his war with Iran financed and armed by the US, it was not in US interests to have 40% of the world’s oil supply in the hands of one man.)
Pretty pathetic that the best this sunburnt country has to offer is the choice between your conservative grandfather and your drunk uncle. It’s the choice between “I don’t mind them gays and immigrants, I just wish they wouldn’t do it in front of me” and “You know what I reckon is school and hospital and beer should be free and I wanna stop paying bloody tax. Now f*$# off, the lot of yous.”
Of course, there’s a lot of smaller parties you can vote for. There’s the fanatic religious group, otherwise known as ‘Family First’. There’s the anti-economy, pro-ecstasy, “we used to hug trees, now we hug terrorists” group known as ‘The Greens’. If you’re into 4 wheel drives, gay marriage, marijuana or 3 day weekends, then there’s a political party for you.
So, I guess democracy creates choice. At least we don’t live in a country like Iraq, right? In theory, the bigger the democracy, the greater the choice, right?
In the self proclaimed “Land of the Free” (aka the USA), choice is king. Go to any number of mega-supermarkets located a close drive to you and there are hundreds of products to choose from. There’s any sport you want on TV, 24 hours a day. Don’t like sport? Choose from one of the hundreds of other special interest channels available.
So, I guess politically there would be hundreds of candidates to choose from?
Actually, there’s three. Two of them legitimate chances (although not necessarily legitimate candidates) and one who should receive about 1% of the vote in protest.
Isn’t it ironic that the biggest democracy in the world generates such a lack of political choice? The increasingly competitive political climate has caused the main parties to polarise around an ideological median, at the expense of the causes and policies that formed the main parties in the first place. As a result, the voters are left with 2 essentially homogenous candidates.
Can we extrapolate this to say that implementation of the U.S. electoral system, the choice to not choose, actually works to minimise the amount of choices you have available? In the strive for the perfect democracy, the US has stumbled into a duocracy.
George W. Bush would probably disagree with me at this point. Having mastered the art of political spin (saying what you want to believe, ad nauseum, in complete contrast to obvious truth), Dubya would no doubt go to great lengths to highlight the great freedoms that democracy has created and maintained in this terrorised world in which we live.
“Look at Iraq,” he would say. “Saddam Hussein is a person who killed a lot of people.”
I hate to draw this to Dubya’s attention, but there are many vast similarities between the U.S and Iraq and they don’t just stop at lack of effective political choice.
Ignoring the obvious social differences, let’s talk economics. Coming into government after many consecutive years of growth under Clinton, there was no question that the economy was starting to slow down. The difficulties Bush would face were compounded after September 11, as billions of dollars were wiped from the economy.
George Bush has managed to implement trillion dollar tax cuts and extremely low interest rates. In an impressive application of Keynsian economics, his government also increased spending to create huge budget deficits in an effort to kick-start the economy.
What are they spending the money on, I wonder?
Well, during the second quarter of 2003, when the war in Iraq was in full swing, some 60 per cent of the 3.3 per cent GDP growth rate was attributable to military spending.
Need a job? Join the army.
Of course, military expenditure is usually the least effective way of spending money, because it doesn't build infrastructure that gives you returns over time. But it does create a short-term gain.
Just ask Iraq, who came out of an 8 year war with Iran that had an estimated cost of $1.2 billion (in 1980’s terms), effectively ending Saddam Hussein’s plan for the development of Iraq. Not to mention that Kuwait had lent Iraq a lot of money during the war. Not to mention that Saddam had to pay off his soldiers, who had been fighting for the motherland for the past 8 years. Not to mention that Kuwait is extremely oil-rich.
The decision to invade was simple[1]. The resultant looting would pay the soldiers’ wages; the oil would revamp the economy. Saddam rejuvenated the Iraqi economy through war; essentially, Dubya has managed to out-Saddam Saddam.
“He kills his own people,” Bush claims. A quick glance at the Texacutioner’s resume will show that over a 6 year period as Governor of Texas, George W. Bush presided over 152 executions. That’s one every fortnight. How about the thousands of Americans and Iraqis who have died as a result of this economic crusade into Iraq?
"Good riddance. The world is better off without you, Mr. Saddam Hussein”
I’m not denying that for a second. I just wouldn’t mind seeing Bush following after.
[1] (Where Saddam may have erred was in invading all the way to the Saudi border and building up enough of a presence such as to be considered a threat to Saudi Arabia. Having rolled over Kuwait, Saddam already controlled over 20 percent of the world's oil reserves. Saudi Arabia contained an additional 20 percent. Even though to this point, Saddam was an ally to the US, having had his war with Iran financed and armed by the US, it was not in US interests to have 40% of the world’s oil supply in the hands of one man.)
posted by The Groin at 1:30 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home