 |
||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
We're going to be talking today about something nobody remembers about. Sure, some
people do remember, the ones that make the respective area their job, or their
hobby. The People don't remember, even if some people do, and that may well not be
enough.
We're going to talk about something that hasn't happened all that long ago. In fact, it was recent. Certainly within the lifespan of anyone sexually active. And it didn't happen all that far away, either. In fact, it was right on your TV screen. Let's see, does anyone remember the Bush-Kerry presidential debates ? Anyone that isn't a campaign worker ? Anyone that isn't an activist ? A newspaper monkey (they call themselves journalists) ? Didn't think so. Let me remind you then. Before their debates, Bush and Kerry made an agreement. An Memorandum of Understanding, they called it. It said 1. That the parties will not issue any challenges for additional debates. 2. Or even appear in any other debate or adversarial forum with any candidate. 3. Or even be on any sort of radio or tv show that uses the "debate format" or just "allows the simultaneous appearance of more than one candidate". No word of interaction in that last rule. Mere joint appearance is sufficient. Technically, by this agreement, neither Bush nor Kerry would allow for CNN, for instance, to show them if they showed, at the same time, say, Nader. Now, we know neither of them wanted to debate that decorum-disturbing kook. Because, you know, that's the purpose of debates in a thriving democracy, to preserve decorum and to ignore kooks. But why not go one step further and each tell CNN, hey, we made this agreement thingy, and the other forced us to acquiesce to part 3, therefore we can't agree to be shown by your program if you also show Nader. It's not got anything to do with anything other than our right to contract in a free country, so, don't show any Nader stuff. At least at the times when you show any of us two, which would be the times people actually watch tv. Something CNN readily agrees with, because they don't like decorum disturbing kooks any more than the incumbents do. Of course, CNN doesn't have as much to lose on the subject, so let's keep score shall we ? Bush : -1 (they owe for being rid of Nader) Kerry : -2 (he owes for being rid of Nader, x2, due to the political situation) CNN : +3 (they're owed by both Bush and Kerry) Democracy : -6 (democracy loses what everybody trades off) 4. The topics shall be x and z. The debates shall not be limited by topic, yet shall include an equal number of questions on topics X and z and nothing else. Bush : +1 T 0 (he's owed for allowing Kerry some non-foreign policy breathing space) Kerry : -1 T -3 (he owes for being allowed some breathing space) Democracy : +2 T -4 (this deal actually served democracy. go figure) 5. If the Commission on Presidential Debates, using it's Non-Partisan Selection Criteria, somehow manages to fuck everything up and invite a candidate not signatory of the convention, well, that independent can either accept the terms of this agreement or go take a hike. O, and his acceptance must be accepted by any parties already signatories. This notwithstanding the fact that they're supposed to be independent. This reminds me of a funny story. A while back, there was a tribe of indians minding it's own business. Jack and Joe showed up in a boat, and made a deal. It went like so : Jack gets all the land north of the boat. Joe gets all the land south of the boat. Indians can join in the deal, provided they accept it as is, and their acceptance is accepted by both Jack and Joe. They called that a State. O, and also, at some point, there was a tribe of niggers hanging around their nigger huts somewhere in the fuckin middle of Africa, playing the bongo's or stroking their ungodly sized cocks or whatever niggers do when free from civilizing constraint. Bob and Dave showed up in a boat, and made a deal. Bob gets all the niggers north of the boat, and Dave gets all the niggers south of the boat. Niggers can join in the deal, provided they accept it as is, and their acceptance is accepted by both Bob and Dave. So, let's keep scores, shall we ? Bush +2 T +2 (he owes for being allowed to keep the rest of the world as nigger slaves and their land as rightfully his) Kerry +2 T -2 (he owes for being allowed to keep the rest of the world as nigger slaves and their land as rightfully his) Democracy -8 T -12 (democracy loses double points, once for the two idiots, once more for everybody else) 6. Moderators will agree with the Memorandum or be replaced. Bush +1 T +3 (he gets to chose who moderates) Kerry +1 T -1 (he gets to chose who moderates) Democracy -2 T -14 (democracy loses. it's like Enron asking the judge to first swear on a copy of all internal memos before being allowed to sit in judgment.) And while we're at it, isn't it interesting how the chosen moderators (Jim Lehrer, Charles Gibson, Bob Schieffer) seem to all be older white male guys ? It just so happens that all persons suitable for the moderation job happen to be white. They also happen to be male. They also happen to be old farts. What a coincidence, just like Bush and Kerry are white, male old farts. They did pick Gwen Ifill to moderate the vice-presidential debate. She's a woman and she's black. How fortuitous. Isn't it great that Campbell's Dry-Packed Political Correctness Soup was on sale at Walmart, and just when needed ? They just threw a can in there, conveniently named Gwen, which sounds just like Jemima. If Jemima was white. Democracy -1 T -15 (just because coincidences are pissing me off) 7. No props, notes, charts, diagrams or other writings, or other tangible things may be brought in the debate by either candidate. This rule does nothing at all. The Kerry idjits probably figured that if Bush isn't allowed crib notes, he's bound to make a fool of himself by not knowing who the Governor of Florida is. Nerds as they are they didn't realise Bush wouldn't look at crib notes if he had them. So, the Kerry side thinks they've come to light, bringing their total to 0, but in fact it's still at -1. 8. The candidates may not ask each other direct questions, but may ask rhetorical questions. Bush +1 T +4 (hey, we don't have to debate for this debate) Kerry +1 T 0 (hey, we don't have to debate for this debate) Democracy -2 T -17 (booo) There's more to the thing, along the same lines, but we've got a good enough whiff I would say. The final tally is Bush +4, Kerry 0, Democracy -17. This is important. For every point the candidates made, Democracy lost 4 and 1/4. Let's compare that shall we. For every dollar Exxon makes, the environment loses about 5. The Otto cycle efficiency (engine in your car) is about 30%. Diesel is a bit better. So, this memorandum of understanding, as an engine of transforming democracy into power, is less efficient than the average SUV. We don't quite understand why democracy needs to be transformed into power in the first place, but be that as it may, Bush is a bit more polluting than a car, and a bit less than Exxon. Kerry just sits there. Which brings us to the interesting question as to why would Kerry agree to such a thing ? For one, we could say he's damn stupid, and he didn't realise the exact situation, he thinks he's got a bit more points than he really has, maybe he thinks Bush got a bit less, so he sees both of them around +2 and the rest of the world waay back in the double digits. Maybe. Besides, he doesn't want to be discussing wars and boats all the time. Maybe. To be honest, I've waited four years or so to discuss this thing because it's an excellent example of how American politics fail. And I wanted all the media barnacles to be off it, or at least reasonably dead, so we can look at the thing and maybe learn something. And what we learn is yet another application of "if you can, you must". You see, it's not just Jack and Joe and the Indians. It's not just Bob and Dave and the Blacks. It's always Jack, Joe and John. It's always Bob, Dave and Charlie. If Dave doesn't agree with Bob, Charlie will. Where would that leave Dave ? Out in the cold. You never heard about Charlie, right ? You figure that's because he didn't exist, but it's not. It's because he might as well not have existed. Just like Ralph. Dave is a player. He doesn't want to be someone that might as well not have existed. He wants to win. He wants to be somebody. He wants to matter, and to leave his mark on this world. So he has to deal. Dave, acting out the American dream, being a winner, making his mark has to deal. He can't just say, listen, Bob, you're a dirty crook, and I don't want anything to do with you, so if you don't mind, the door is over there. He can't. That's what Charlie did, and look where it got him. If you can, you must. Say you're in a car race, by the following rules : two people get each a Honda Civic with a full tank. Whoever makes it furthest wins. Suppose you're one of them, and suppose you find a gas canister, full of gas, in the middle of the road. If you can take it and use it, you must. Because otherwise, sooner or later, the other guy is going to find it. That's the bottom line in business. If there's an opportunity, you either use it or the competition uses it against you. That's the bottom line in war. If there's a terrain advantage to be had, you either win by it or lose by it. And that's the bottom line in politics. Ever been to a Casino ? You know why they don't let you use your own dice anymore ? That's right, they used to let you. You know why they stopped ? Because if you can, you must. That's why they don't give you five minutes with the pack of cards and a tiny needle in a dark room before playing poker. If you can, you must, and we're trying to play poker not "who can mark most cards while destroying everyone else's markings free for all". Politicians aren't dirty crooks because they want to, or because they inherently are, as a matter of their true nature. Politicians are dirty crooks because you made them dirty crooks. You made sure that every single politician, even before he's out of school, either becomes a dirty crook, or leaves. You, personally. You didn't know any of the above, you didn't think about it at the time, you're as guilty as if you pulled the trigger yourself. They need somebody to give them straight dice, and they need somebody to deal them straight cards. They can't play otherwise. They're too busy fixing the deck to actually play poker. Democracy is a matter of personal responsibility. It doesn't exist by passive virtue of the land and the air. You can't just obey the laws, pay your taxes, watch tv and expect the country to run itself. It can't. The people trying to run it need to be dealt straight cards, and you need to do it. Because this theory wherein they keep an eye on each other and make sure they deal each other straight cards doesn't work. Sooner or latter, there's going to be a deal. They have to. You can't delegate your personal responsibility. You have to raise your own children, you have to make your own bed and you have to deal them straight cards. And until you do, it's your fault. Personally. 10 people still don't care. |