A while ago I wrote a piece about the American Electoral System, and how in my view it challenged the very principles of democracy. I also said that I was going to write something about the current President of the United States, George W Bush.
I intended to right a fairly impartial and balanced piece, because let’s be honest, taking the piss out of Bush would be too easy. The real challenge would be to find something good to say about the man. I then downgraded my ambitions slightly, as finding something good to say was proving tricky. I started to sympathise with him a bit, and this is how the article went…
Terrorism, in any form, is completely unjustifiable. Killing innocent people is an act of pure cowardice. Evidently I am not the only person who thinks like this, for the last 6 years it seems that half the world has been waging a so-called War on Terror. The comedian Mark Thomas raised an interesting point about this war, basically explaining that “terror” is a concept, and therefore not exactly the best choice as a target, rather like waging a war on time. It is a concept that is hardly new either; it is the way all civilisations have been formed. The Vikings, Romans, Spartans all conquered through the use of terror. And following the French Revolution, Maximillien Isodore de Robespierre, who not only had a ludicrous name, but also a plan to control France and the unruly masses, using his Politique de Terreur. Thankfully, like most would-be dictators, he let the power go to his head, which he ultimately lost.
Terrorism is the path of the minority, thankfully, and until recently so called acts of terrorism were restricted to certain areas in the world: Northern Ireland, the Middle East, specific parts of Africa, and occasionally a city in the UK or the USA. All that changed however following the attack on the World Trade Centre. It now seems that everywhere is fair game; Madrid, London, Bali, even my current “home” city was gripped by terrorist fears last week when what the press love to call “a suspect package” was discovered outside the parliament building (Update, I wrote that about 2 months ago, but last week a man was arrested fro entering the American Embassy with a home made bomb in his rucksack) I should point out that Austria has opted for neutrality in all conflicts in the last 60 years. Yes, before that it wasn’t quite so neutral, and it has the occasional flirtation with extreme politics, but still! The thing I am getting at though really is that in countries dominated by terrorism, the feeling of helplessness that has spread to the Western World in recent years is a way of life. In many of these countries the ruling powers are either powerless to help, or else actively encourage such acts for their own political, and economic gains….Imagine waking up each day in a country ruled by the unelected son of an oil billionaire, knowing that at any moment terror could strike. That leads me nicely on to the topic of today’s post, George W Bush.
Now, I don’t know about you, but I feel a touch sorry for Old Dubya. Less than a year after been “elected” thanks to the wonderfully undemocratic Electoral College system, he finds himself, and his country, under attack. Worse still, at the time he was reading to first school children, which given his tenuous grasp on the English language, seems quite amusing to me. Then one of his aides leant over and whispered in his ear that a plane had hit the World Trade Centre. He was heavily criticised for not reacting, but to be honest, I can hardly blame him. The simple truth is that although in name and title he is the President of the United States of America, it is the people around him who pull the strings. This was most evident at the time with the likes of Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice seemingly calling the shots, while George was left to handle the press in his own inimitable way.
Let’s be honest here, George W Bush is not an intelligent man. Nor is he a great politician. He needs people around him to prop him up, point him in the right direction, and, where necessary, take the bullet for their president (compare his cabinet of 2002 and that of 2007 and you will see what I mean). Add to this his various addictions in the past, alleged draft dodging, failure as a business man and the fact that until he became President he had never visited Europe, his election, on two separate occasions remember, is even more unbelievable. He has a famous name, and deep pockets for a campaign. And crucially, he appeals to the 25% of the US population who visit church at least once a week. This is another point that I find hard to accept as democratic, actively using religion and the church as an election tool. In my understanding of democracy, and we invented it so obviously I am right….the church and the state should be separate. Blair and Brown are both Christians, yet you wouldn’t necessarily know it.
Anyway, back to the point. Bush has presided over 7 years of incompetence, mendacity and arrogance; appointing himself as judge and jury on what is right and wrong and consequently leading his country into an illegal war, and I for one can’t wait to see the back of him. However, the problem is not Bush, the problem is America. (By this stage I was really struggling and switched my focus!!)
….Now, back to the present day (October 5th for the record). I reread this piece yesterday and decided to revive it. I didn’t post it in the first place because (a) it didn’t really go anywhere and (b) I was a little bit sick of ranting about America.
However, Mr Bush, the original topic of the article, forced my hand somewhat yesterday.
George Bush exercised his right to Veto a bill passed by congress yesterday, for only the 4th time in his 7 year presidency. The bill he vetoed was a request to increase funding for a State funded healthcare system for children. It would have increased the number of children covered by the scheme from 6.6M to 10M. The total increase in funding required was $35bn.
And the Bill proposed that this figure be covered by an increase in tax on tobacco.
With me so far? Increase tax on tobacco; give the money to sick children, simple right?
Simple, but in the eyes of a certain George W Bush, not something the government wants to do. Why? Because, apparently it is taking the healthcare system in the wrong direction. How in the world can helping sick children be the wrong direction?
Like I said, I originally wanted to be impartial, and fair, and lots of other nice sounding adjectives when writing this. But frankly, if Bush is of the opinion that increasing funding for sick children is the wrong direction for his country then he deserves all the criticism he gets, and then some. I should point out that while turning down this particular request for funding, he had no problems passing a request for a further $147bn to fund the war next year. Evidently Iraq is the right direction for his country.
There’s a book by DBC Pierre that won the booker prize a couple of years ago. The main Character is called Vernon G Little, and throughout the book the “G” becomes various different things. Gregory, Greedy, God etc. That got me thinking about George W Bush. George Wanker Bush, anyone?
I intended to right a fairly impartial and balanced piece, because let’s be honest, taking the piss out of Bush would be too easy. The real challenge would be to find something good to say about the man. I then downgraded my ambitions slightly, as finding something good to say was proving tricky. I started to sympathise with him a bit, and this is how the article went…
Terrorism, in any form, is completely unjustifiable. Killing innocent people is an act of pure cowardice. Evidently I am not the only person who thinks like this, for the last 6 years it seems that half the world has been waging a so-called War on Terror. The comedian Mark Thomas raised an interesting point about this war, basically explaining that “terror” is a concept, and therefore not exactly the best choice as a target, rather like waging a war on time. It is a concept that is hardly new either; it is the way all civilisations have been formed. The Vikings, Romans, Spartans all conquered through the use of terror. And following the French Revolution, Maximillien Isodore de Robespierre, who not only had a ludicrous name, but also a plan to control France and the unruly masses, using his Politique de Terreur. Thankfully, like most would-be dictators, he let the power go to his head, which he ultimately lost.
Terrorism is the path of the minority, thankfully, and until recently so called acts of terrorism were restricted to certain areas in the world: Northern Ireland, the Middle East, specific parts of Africa, and occasionally a city in the UK or the USA. All that changed however following the attack on the World Trade Centre. It now seems that everywhere is fair game; Madrid, London, Bali, even my current “home” city was gripped by terrorist fears last week when what the press love to call “a suspect package” was discovered outside the parliament building (Update, I wrote that about 2 months ago, but last week a man was arrested fro entering the American Embassy with a home made bomb in his rucksack) I should point out that Austria has opted for neutrality in all conflicts in the last 60 years. Yes, before that it wasn’t quite so neutral, and it has the occasional flirtation with extreme politics, but still! The thing I am getting at though really is that in countries dominated by terrorism, the feeling of helplessness that has spread to the Western World in recent years is a way of life. In many of these countries the ruling powers are either powerless to help, or else actively encourage such acts for their own political, and economic gains….Imagine waking up each day in a country ruled by the unelected son of an oil billionaire, knowing that at any moment terror could strike. That leads me nicely on to the topic of today’s post, George W Bush.
Now, I don’t know about you, but I feel a touch sorry for Old Dubya. Less than a year after been “elected” thanks to the wonderfully undemocratic Electoral College system, he finds himself, and his country, under attack. Worse still, at the time he was reading to first school children, which given his tenuous grasp on the English language, seems quite amusing to me. Then one of his aides leant over and whispered in his ear that a plane had hit the World Trade Centre. He was heavily criticised for not reacting, but to be honest, I can hardly blame him. The simple truth is that although in name and title he is the President of the United States of America, it is the people around him who pull the strings. This was most evident at the time with the likes of Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice seemingly calling the shots, while George was left to handle the press in his own inimitable way.
Let’s be honest here, George W Bush is not an intelligent man. Nor is he a great politician. He needs people around him to prop him up, point him in the right direction, and, where necessary, take the bullet for their president (compare his cabinet of 2002 and that of 2007 and you will see what I mean). Add to this his various addictions in the past, alleged draft dodging, failure as a business man and the fact that until he became President he had never visited Europe, his election, on two separate occasions remember, is even more unbelievable. He has a famous name, and deep pockets for a campaign. And crucially, he appeals to the 25% of the US population who visit church at least once a week. This is another point that I find hard to accept as democratic, actively using religion and the church as an election tool. In my understanding of democracy, and we invented it so obviously I am right….the church and the state should be separate. Blair and Brown are both Christians, yet you wouldn’t necessarily know it.
Anyway, back to the point. Bush has presided over 7 years of incompetence, mendacity and arrogance; appointing himself as judge and jury on what is right and wrong and consequently leading his country into an illegal war, and I for one can’t wait to see the back of him. However, the problem is not Bush, the problem is America. (By this stage I was really struggling and switched my focus!!)
….Now, back to the present day (October 5th for the record). I reread this piece yesterday and decided to revive it. I didn’t post it in the first place because (a) it didn’t really go anywhere and (b) I was a little bit sick of ranting about America.
However, Mr Bush, the original topic of the article, forced my hand somewhat yesterday.
George Bush exercised his right to Veto a bill passed by congress yesterday, for only the 4th time in his 7 year presidency. The bill he vetoed was a request to increase funding for a State funded healthcare system for children. It would have increased the number of children covered by the scheme from 6.6M to 10M. The total increase in funding required was $35bn.
And the Bill proposed that this figure be covered by an increase in tax on tobacco.
With me so far? Increase tax on tobacco; give the money to sick children, simple right?
Simple, but in the eyes of a certain George W Bush, not something the government wants to do. Why? Because, apparently it is taking the healthcare system in the wrong direction. How in the world can helping sick children be the wrong direction?
Like I said, I originally wanted to be impartial, and fair, and lots of other nice sounding adjectives when writing this. But frankly, if Bush is of the opinion that increasing funding for sick children is the wrong direction for his country then he deserves all the criticism he gets, and then some. I should point out that while turning down this particular request for funding, he had no problems passing a request for a further $147bn to fund the war next year. Evidently Iraq is the right direction for his country.
There’s a book by DBC Pierre that won the booker prize a couple of years ago. The main Character is called Vernon G Little, and throughout the book the “G” becomes various different things. Gregory, Greedy, God etc. That got me thinking about George W Bush. George Wanker Bush, anyone?
Bye y'all.
2 comments:
Gee I always thought Willliam was his middle name......
That would be ridiculous, who spells William with 3 "L"s?!?!
Post a Comment