Sometimes when talking about stupidity in general and in particular I'd ( like to) say that
I do not only agree with Bernard Shaw but am convinced not 98 but 99,99 percent of human being should not be allowed to cast a vote.
"Oh my god. And you do, of course, belong to the 0,01 per cent."
"Of course, my dear. However, for something completely different. When in private, please just call me Sean."
Well, that's a 30 and some years old running gag between Mrs. J. and me.
Now would not many people know me as well as Mrs J. does ("One can never be sure whether you are serious, joking or provoking.").
People who do not know me might therefore not get puzzled, but think "What a fucking arrogant cunt of an asshole!"
Mind you!! I am not swearing and thus making one step backwards on my quest to become the politest blogger in this universe and those yet to discover! Just quoting what some people might think I am.
End of the beforegoing.
As I did not tell you cannot know there has not only been a thrilling election campaign in Germany, but even an election.
Apropos election. Congress in Iran. Voting in the 21st Century. A participant from Zimbabwe standing together with one from China, the whole culminating in following dialogue:
- Do you have elections in China, too?
- Elections. Oh yes! Evely molning, evely molning.
Well, back to German politics. May I assure you they (the German politicians) don't cause erections?
Or?
Well, erecting middlefingers, if one does interprete the party which came second correctly - the party of the non-voters (28,2 per cent).
Which is why one - if not the most neutral nonpartisan and unbiased - tabloid said nearly half of Germans polled ahead of the parliamentary elections were in favo(u)r of introducing compulsory voting. Full article here.
Excuse me. Compulsory voting? 100 percent of the 99,99 percent idiots forced to give evidence of their idiocy, so that above mentioned 0,01 percent have to suffer?
Blimey!
Well, I am but a German. Almost none of my readers are. Which is why Germany's foreign minister to come very probably would not be a regular reader of this blog. [Although he could learn a bit English here - by reading the comments of native speakers].
Anyway, let's speak in general. About Ireland, f.e..
Will the majority of the Irish voters have yesterday said "Yes" or "No" during the(ir) second (!) referendum about the so-called Lisbon-Treaty?
To explain the exclamation mark behind second: I wonder, when politicians will start to accept a No.
Got it? Only about one year ago in a referendum the majority of the Irish voted "No"!
Mind you!
Those Irish voters who voted "Yes" - well, at least some of them - would have prefered that No-voters should not have been allowed to vote, due to their utter stupidity.
I do not know the result of today's referendum, but I am pretty sure:
In case the EU-lobby does not need to plan a third referendum in Ireland, those Irish voters who (yesterday) voted "No" - well, at least some of them - would prefer that Yes-voters should not have been allowed to vote, due to their utter stupidity.
Got it?
If not, don't worry. Politics is very very complicated.
Ah! You mean this post is a mess?
Ha ha.
Of course! If I'd be clever I could make at least ten posts of this.
A perfect sentence, by the way. The one above. 14 words. Fucking perfect.One word more (means: the 15th), and most people would not be able to understand it - according to the most intelligent masters of one German news agency.
Calm down. The German news agency does, of course, only think the average German to be too stupid to understand the meaning of a sentence containing more than 14 words.
For reborn US-Americans - just to give an example - 13 or perhaps less words might be too many/much.
Anyway, forget both the stupid Germans and the stupid US-Americans.
This post is not about them.
This post is a) about discussing a political question, about b) them bleedin' cuss words and about c) the question if suffrage should be universal.
. . .
In case you do not wish to follow the given links, do not follow your wish.
While Bock the Robber since September 22nd offers the chance to discuss the pro & contra of a Yes or No to the so-called Lisbon Treaty, one day later Miss Mogg asked - to cut her (provocative) question short - if there should indeed be "one (wo)man one vote".
Well, and the "Egg" - doubtful at his best - is arguing for thinking twice or thrice before f.e. writing a very German philosopher's name phonetically right but de facto wrong.
Ha ha ha ...
I enjoyed this.
And you?
Omg? :)
Ah, may I remind you? OmS would do. :)
Anyway, what's your vote?
Oh! You did not understand the question(s)?
Here they are, again! In less than 14 words.
What do you think about
- one (wo)man one vote, (regardless of any individual stupidity)
- and about swearing in general?
Without bashing an eyelid
wishing
the peace of the night.
nice post:
ReplyDeleteI'm for one men/one vote, literally...))
and
'Implementation of the Lisbon Strategy' as announced in 2001..))
kindest
hans
Bloody good article, Sean.
ReplyDeleteOf course, in my corner of the world, the Lisbon Treaty is not very significant. In due time, I'll discuss the one (wo)man one vote with Miss Mogg.
Not to worry, you'll never be either OMG or Oh my Sean.
Merde, alors!:)
BTW: My last imprecation is not addressed to you, dear Sean, but to the fucking voters.
ReplyDeleteHans,
ReplyDeletethank you.
It's (just) about 200 years ago that the term nationalism was coined.
And when was the term European Union coined?
It looks like there's a long way to go. As we shall have moved to a dwelling six feet under we shall not come to know the outcome.
OMC, :)
never I'd have come to think that the hard word you chose for comparatively soft a matter could have been addressed at me.
Well it is a provocative concept isn't it? Are most voters in any country really capable of casting an informed vote? But it seems to me that we have to defend their right to do so, irregardless. So many fought for so long to get that right.
ReplyDeleteThe perfect sentence? I can't argue about the length but I have to say that it is one of the very few places in English where we can use the subjunctive and I still cling to those rare occasions, although probably most do not.
Feeling better now after that?
One of the problems with removing universal suffrage is, I would imagine, that politicians would ensure the vote was denied not to those who know and care nothing about issues and who vote based on what they've overheard in a pub, but to those who would vote against them... Rather than reducing suffrage, we should increase the intelligence and informative quality of debate in the media (the recent Lisbon Treaty referendums (or referenda) here in Ireland have been an embarrassing display of half-truths, misinformation, populist grandstanding, and missing the point, with the intelligent debate hidden away on the sidelines).
ReplyDeletejmb,
ReplyDeletemuch better! :)
D.E.,
quite! The possibility you mention is one of many others, and following your proposal could certainly raise the level of understanding and discourse.
Whereas the latter is very a complex matter, at least too complex even to list all points in but a short comment, I think we have to defend - and where necessary to demand - the right of each (wo)man to vote - regardless of their state of education.