Saturday, 7 May 2011

Question!

There are only three things in the world that I hate, and here are five of them.

I'm posing these all as questions, asking 'Why?' But they're rhetorical, so you don't get a say. Much like our democracy. Zing! Which brings me to...

5. Why did two-thirds of voters vote No to AV? I understand why you'd vote against AV if you're a Tory, but otherwise it just seems like a stupid thing to do. These people denied themselves greater representation, and denied everyone else greater representation in the process. So now, thanks to a Tory-led campaign of misinformation and fear-mongering and lies, we're stuck with a shit, unfair system for the rest of our lives. Because the overwhelming No vote won't be translated as a vote against Nick Clegg or a vote for a more proportional system, it will be translated as a vote for sticking with the status quo. And the only people who benefit are the Tories, with their elitist ideals overriding democracy. Well done, the public. I guess most of you were too busy creating inane fucking Facebook groups about Bin Laden to even bother to vote. And while we're on AV...

4. Why did the New Statesman website have a massive No To AV advert on its home page? The New Statesman openly endorsed the Yes vote. That seems like a ridiculous oversight.

3. Why is Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle on at such an annoying time? As Jack Seale tweeted, a REPEAT of Never Mind The Buzzcocks went out in the primetime 10 o'clock slot, but a BRAND NEW episode of Comedy Vehicle was hidden away at 11.20pm. But then as Andrew Collins said, its amazing that Stewart Lee is on TV at all, so we should probably just be grateful. And I am. Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle is exactly the kind of thing the BBC should be making. Comedy that's fresh and clever. Rather than churning out infinite repeats of lazy panel shows.

2. Why are so many people calling Bin Laden 'evil'? I thought we were beyond thinking in terms of Good vs. Evil. I thought we were pretty much agreed that morality is subjective. But I also thought people weren't so idiotic as to all reject AV, so maybe I should just dramatically lower my expectations of everyone. And talking of Bin Laden, why should we indulge this belief that his death is good because it brings people 'closure'? It's understandable that the families of his victims would be pleased, but its also misguided to think that his death somehow makes it better. And while we're still on Bin Laden...

1. Why does Bin Laden always get called 'Osama'? And the same goes for how Saddam Hussein was always referred to as Saddam. Those are their first names, aren't they? It's like calling the Prime Minister 'David.' You don't get headlines like, 'Vote 2011: David insists coalition can still work.' But you do get headlines like 'Osama's death: What next for al-Qaeda?' Since when have we been on first name terms with 'evil' men? Blair saying, 'the world is a better place with Saddam in prison' is like someone saying, 'the world is a better place with Tony in prison.' You just wouldn't say it. I mean, it would be true, but you wouldn't say 'Tony'. Ha! Eat your nuggets of hypocrisy with my peanutty satire sauce, New Labour.

Thanks for reading my angry blog. And remember how important it is to question everything. Apart from this blog. And you can answer any of those questions, this blog is a democracy. But I will always be in charge, so I guess its like democracy in Zimbabwe. I will leave you with the lovely song about death by System Of A Down, and its cool video, that this blog is named after. Enjoy!



9 comments:

  1. at the end of the day why should someone's 5th preference count for the same as someone's first

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. because its democracy. go write a blog about something you understand. like sport. or being a dick

    ReplyDelete
  4. Didnt you read Simons scathing attack on your blog? Stop being so anti-mainstream!

    One mans evil is another mans good. But yeah he was evil.

    ReplyDelete
  5. there's nothing 'anti-mainstream' about it!
    and no, he wasn't evil, that doesn't make sense

    ReplyDelete
  6. I get your existential argument or whatever, but in not saying he's evil it does rather allure to maybe endorsing the act of killing 3000 people.

    Which is illegal and wrong and bad however you look at it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well I'm obviously not endorsing murder, I just don't think things are as black and white as there being good and evil. Like Steven was saying, was the bombing of Hiroshima evil? It certainly killed more than 3000 people

    ReplyDelete
  8. We're not qualified to judge Hiroshima because we can't see the alternate version of history where they didn't drop it to guage the death toll had Japan continued to fight.

    ReplyDelete
  9. but the point is, it's not evil

    ReplyDelete