Douche and Turd

I hear a lot of talk about "rocking the vote". Around late October/November, everyone is encouraged to get out there and vote for who should be the next President.

Only one problem: by that point, it's usually too late. They're the general elections, chosen between two idiots, two pussies, two nutcases, or some combination thereof.

The primaries are of utmost importance. I know, I know, "but no one votes in the primaries". And that would be the reason why a lot of people didn't vote in the general election.

Think back, if you will, to 2004. Who did the Democrats elect for the primaries? Why, John Kerry, a man whose entire political platform seemed to be "I'm not Bush, and I'm very good at it."

Does anybody else remember a 2004 South Park episode entitled "Douche and Turd"? Well, if you don't, here's a basic summary:
They were going to have a new mascot, and it was going to be between two write-in suggestions: a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich. Everyone seemed to be getting into the whole thing, and taking sides. Stan was the one person who didn't care, saying he was choosing between "a douche and a turd". There were obvious parallels: Douche=Kerry, Turd=Bush. And the message was: you don't have to vote if you don't want to.

Well, if people had VOTED in the PRIMARIES, maybe it wouldn't BE between a douche and a turd, eh?

In fact, I'm going to say it: Whatever party you belong to, vote in the primaries. If you have to choose between voting in the primaries and voting in the general elections, vote in the primaries. Why?

Well, if more people voted in the primaries, maybe every candidate running for every party would be the most qualified person for the job. Maybe, just maybe, we'll get an election that, rather than choosing between a douche and a turd, would be like choosing between chocolate ice cream and chocolate mousse: awesome either way. And maybe, even with all the voter apathy on the general elections (which, by the way, wouldn't be as prevalent with GOOD candidates), the person that DID win would represent the actual wishes of the American people.

Then again, maybe the general election will be between Mitt Romney and Hilary Clinton. And I'm sure we all want that.

On Democracy

"Democracy in Iraq". What a concept, right?

Here's my thought on the subject: if we do manage to establish a democracy in Iraq, it will probably be shit.

Now, the majority of Iraqis are Shi'ites. The Shi'ites have been oppressed by Saddam for many years, while the Sunnis had it easier. And since in a democracy the majority wins, if most of the Shi'ites agree on something, it will probably pass. And I'm guessing that most of the Shi'ites will be in favor of a democracy that is somewhat less fair to the Sunnis. And in a democracy...majority rules.

Which seems to be the attitude coming from Americans: "Democracy is best because we have it!"

See, now, just because it works for us (and, by the way, if Hilary Clinton wins the Democratic primaries, it may not even work for us, anyway) doesn't mean it works for other countries.

Each country is pretty different from the others. America is very different from Iraq. Iraq has a different history, a different majority religion, different levels of wealth and poverty, different resources, different geography, and different people. You can't expect that the system which works for us will also work for this other, entirely different, country.

The Founding Fathers stayed in a single stuffy building, thinking and revising and thinking and revising, in order to make this country's system of government. They even had to start their government over from scratch at one point, because the Articles of Confederation didn't work.

And now, 230 years later, we can't think of even a single way to innovate the idea of democracy. Not a single way to tailor government to suit Iraq. Not a single new idea other than "build a giant wall".

I have an idea. Let's stop being so goddamn lazy.