I don't know about you, but I'm gonna miss those flowers. They weren't too inconvenient, they smelt great and they were only mildly poisonous: I've had girlfriends that I couldn't say any of that about so you know... I don't know whether I got aconite by accident or some grand design, but it was really appropriate to who I used to be so kudos whoever or whatever was responsible for it! It looks like there's still some left so maybe I'll see if I can put it in a vase or plant it, keep it alive somehow yeah? Any of you guys with a fertile dominion want to give me some tips, it'd be real appreciated.
Anyway, I wasn't going to talk about flowers. I'm a Poli Sci guy. I've been going through my class notes lately for obvious reasons, and one thing has jumped out of me above all things. Democracy sucks. No, seriously. In 1947, the English Prime Minister Winston Churchill said, "Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." He, of course, went on to argue that wasn't true and that democracy was imperative, but then he also said something that still rings true: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." It's still true!
Why should everyone be equal? Sounds pretty communist, if you ask me. Our nation, these great United States, are built on the idea that if a man (or a woman, but man is shorter so just infer from herein, k?) works hard he can rise above his peers and make a real and private success of himself. We rejected the idea that he should be held back by his neighbors, that he owed some kind of social debt to people who he would never meet, and that what he earned from the sweat of his brow and the burden on his back would be his, and his alone. I'm sounding a little bit Andrew Ryan here, but what I'm SAYING is that if we accept that in our lives, why don't we accept it in our politics? Why is my opinion worth the same as yours? Why is yours worth the same as Kim Kardashian's? Why do people who don't bother to educate themselves about the political state of our country get as loud a voice as a handsome young New Yorker with a radical attitude who's studied politics for a third of his life? If your only source of news is Fox, why should you be allowed to be heard on important, subtle matters? The President doesn't solicit nuclear advice from the contestants on American Idol, he consults an expert! And just like that, we shouldn't be leaving the future of our nation to a group of people who would rather vote in their millions to see Lasquisha going through to the semi-finals than they would to bring to account a group of men and women who plunged half the world into a brutal recession.
Maybe this is the bias of my past speaking, but I believe the most effective form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. One good man, making all the decisions. No argument, no party politics, no lobbies to appease, no businessmen to turn the screws. One man who can do unpopular things for the greater good because he doesn't need to worry about ungrateful plebes with short memories voting him back in next time. Tyranny might be many things, but it's effective, and if that tyrant is a decent man then who's to say that isn't an fine form of governance?
"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." - JFK (I was going to quote Reagan at the end here, but ehhhhh...he talks about God a little too much for my liking)
--- [Filter: Jocelyn] So be honest - on a scale of one to ten, how crazy did I sound just then?