De-sign by committee

"Alright folks, we have a tough assignment. We need to design a visual communications device to convey the following information: 'The train station is to your left, the airport is to your right.' Nothing like this has ever been done before. We have to complete this design in six months, so let's get started!"

ook!

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Random psychedelia

And now for something completely different. A random list of Flaming Lips song/album titles. There is a planet somewhere where this all might make sense:

Clouds taste metallic.
Staring at sound, with you.
Oh my Gawd!!...Everything's Explodin'
One Million Billionth Of A Millisecond On A Sunday Evening.
A dream for evil Knievel.
The ceiling is bending.
Love your brain.
Drug machine in heaven
The Hari Krishna stomp wagon.
The Redneck School of Technology.
The spontaneous combustion of John.
It's raining babies.
Five stop the Mother Superior rain.
The day they shot a hole in the Jesus egg.
In a priest driven ambulance.
Halloween on the Barbary Coast.
Christmas at the zoo.
Talking about the smiling deathporn immortality blues (everyone wants to live forever).
Hit me like you did the first time.
Magician vs. headache.
Moth in the incubator.
Transmissions from a satellite heart.
Pilot at the queer of God.
Oh my pregnant head!
Chewin' on the apple of your eye.
Be my head.
This here giraffe.
Guy who gets a headache and accidentally saves the world.
Lightning strikes the postman.
Kim's watermelon gun.
Psychiatric explorations of the fetus with needles.
A spoonful weighs a ton.
The spark that bled.
Suddenly, everything has changed.
Battle hymn for wounded mathematicians.
In the morning of the magicians.
Ego tripping at the gates of hell.
Approaching Pavanis Mons, by balloon.
Yoshimi battles the pink robots.

...I wonder if they ever took drugs?

The Death of Wishful Thinking

Then again...

The last post might have been a bit optimistic.

2000 was more of a popularity contest than a policy debate. After 8 years of Clinton, the economy was in good shape and the world was a relatively peaceful place. The voters were apathetic towards political issues and far more interested in entertainment. Without doubt, GW was more entertaining than Gore. Gore lost a seemingly unlosable election by refusing to acknowledge that no-one cared about political issues...and were far more interested in how good the candidates were at kissing hands and shaking babies.

When Bush won power in 2000 (well, that's debatable..."when he took power" would be more accurate), he ran on a platform of "compassionate conservatism". He appeared to America as a lovable doofus, prone to making speech errors. Not too bright (certainly not an intellectual), colourful. A hick cowboy made good. An earnest born-again Christian and former alcoholic. An average Joe, despite his priveleged upbringing. His policies were fairly tame, run-of-the-mill conservative policies. He certainly didn't espouse the lunatic fringe religious causes he backed in 2004. He didn't really have views on foreign policy (where they could be made out, they seemed remarkably similar to John Kerry's policies...mild isolationism and international concensus building to solve problems). He favoured scaling back federal power and ceding more control to individual states. Above all, he championed small-government...with less interference in the private lives of citizens. He championed cutbacks, balanced budgets and privatisation.

After 9/11, the entire tenor of the administration changed. Suddenly there were unilateral interventions in foreign states, an abandonment of international concensus building, and law was given sweeping powers to infringe the rights of the individual. Bush babbled about crusading against evil. He went to war to ensure peace (which some people compared to "screwing for virginity"). It was "us" versus "them", and all US citizens would have to sacrifice personal freedom to ensure safety. Military spending went through the roof. Corporates like Halliburton and the Carlyle group got massive no-bid government contracts with almost no accountability. Social security was raided to present some semblance of fiscal rectitude. Voodoo economics reared their head as Bush signed in massive tax cuts for the rich in order to stimulate the economy (how this was to be done is a mystery, trickle-down theory having been thoroughly discredited after Reagan's enormous deficits). Voodoo accounting was rife in the corporate sector as Bush cut funding to regulatory bodies like the SEC and defanged anti-trust watchdogs.

With John Ashcroft as attorney general, the administration abandoned compassionate conservatism for savage evangelical fundamentalism and prudery. Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" was seized as an opportunity to launch a crusade against "indecency"...backed by new powers given to the FCC (one of the few regulatory agencies to get more funding rather than less). Bush starts rambling about how he was chosen by God and is guided by His hand.

So, election 2004. A bloodthirsty regime of religious puritans and hopelessly corrupt and venal corporate whores (hello, Dick Cheney) is in power. A completely unneccessary war that has been mismanaged from day one. Terrorist organisations all over the world benefiting from enormous anti-American sentiment. New vigour injected into the Islamic fundamentalist cause (which in 1998 after failures in Algeria and Egypt had been on the point of dying out completely). All the European goodwill built up by Clinton completely squandered. Massive financial scandals in Enron and Worldcom...both with close ties to the administration. Oil prices skyrocketing and an economy teetering on the brink of collapse. Pension funds decimated. The US completely divided.

2004 was an election on the issues. For once, personality was a minor concern.

Bush ran on fear. In some campaign ads he literally cried "wolf". He ran on morality; painting a picture of a decadent liberal society of homosexual marriage, single parents and indecency - that he was going to take back for "God's constituency". While John Kerry was struggling to come across as a personality, GW was talking about politics. He wasn't really enunciating policies, but he was saying the words "terror", "911", "Al Qaeda" and "security" an awful lot. John Kerry lost a seemingly unlosable election by not realising that the American public was terrified and no longer cared about personality.

After a bloodthirsty 4 years in office; Bush offered a vision of continuous war, religious intolerance, bigotry, wasteful military spending and massive curtailments of individual liberties in the name of "freedom". A million miles from the compassionate conservativism that got barely got him elected the last time.

On this platform Bush got re-elected with a larger majority than last time. And took the senate and gubernational races. America has endorsed his Presidency.

This was a mandate. If this was a referendum on GW Bush, he won it convincingly. America wants this leader, believes it needs him. What does this say to those seeking political office?

Those who appeal to fear, bigotry, intolerance and puritan impulses can command a much stronger vote than those who propose moderate policies. America is now run from the fringes, and it likes it that way.

What's going to happen now? Several Supreme Court justices are nearing death or retirement. Currently the Court is split 5-4 between Democrats and Republicans. With 2 exceptions the Republicans are old-fashioned moderates. Bush might potentially make 3 new appointments to this bench. With no election looming, control over both houses of parliament, and a solid mandate from the people - Bush has every reason to install die-hard neo-con judges in these positions. These appointments cannot be rescinded by a more moderate regime. The current Supreme Court justices were appointed back in the 70s and have helped shape American life since. With a neo-con majority in the Supreme Court, the Bush administration will leave a lasting, untouchable legacy for future generations of Americans. Almost certainly, the Roe vs. Wade decision which legalised abortion in the US will come under review from a new Supreme Court. Free speech, intellectual property, personal liberty and gun issues will be decided by a conservative court for decades to come. This does not bode well for the liberal agenda. There is the frightening prospect that the Supreme Court will become a rubber stamp for whatever laws the Bush administration finds convenient.

Colin Powell (one of the few moderates in the Bush cabinet) is probably going to resign (or get a shove). Most likely, he is considering a run at the Republican nomination for President in 2008, given how disaffected he is with the neo-con agenda of the current administration. In the absence of any serious competition in the Republican party...he is likely to get it. The neo-cons (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perl et al.) can counter this threat from Powell by grooming Condoleeza Rice for candidacy in 2008. It will make for the unusual spectacle of two black people battling for the Republican presidential nomination. As a black woman, she would be a powerful weapon against the spectre of Hillary Clinton making a Democratic run. Rice as President will ensure a further 4 years of neo-con government.

There is no reason to believe that America will warm to a moderate Republican like Powell. John Kerry was basically a moderate Republican (despite the fact that he was labelled as a dangerous liberal by the Bush campaign), and he was rejected in favour of Bush's terror and puritanism.

Now unfettered by the prospect of an election in 4 years time, Bush can do what he wants. Normally when incumbents win elections, they do so by slim margins. They begin to mellow out and become bipartisan - reaching out toward the other side and trying to unify the US. But Bush just fought a bitterly divisive and extremist campaign, and won big. His twisted world-view has been confirmed. By dragging the country further to the right, he can ensure that the next election will be fought his terms. The members of his cabinet who have a "plan for America" will get to keep their jobs. Hillary Clinton, should she choose to run, will face a Hobson's choice between appealing to the centre (where she is either hated or ignored) - or moving to the far left (where there will not be enough support to win). If Bush continues to prosecute his War On Terror with his customary savagery, disregard for freedom and rank incompetence...he can be more or less guaranteed another terrorist attack on US soil in the next 4 years. Hillary won't stand a chance against Rice or someone else from the neo-con side who has "experience" fighting terror.

Americans truly belived Bush deserved another four years. Bush will spend the next four years continuing his policy of lying to his citizens via the broadcast media - instilling even greater terror. Long-lasting damage is being done to American politics and society and by extension, world politics and security.

So maybe there isn't a brightside to Bush getting elected after all.

Alright, second rant over (can you tell that I'm annoyed?).

[edit] Apparently, Jeb Bush is seen as a likely contender for the 2008 Republican nomination. I guess that figures, but he's dismissing speculation. People are ruling out Hillary on the grounds that another North-Eastern liberal would be just repeating past mistakes. The preferred Democratic candidate would be from the South, like John Edwards. Edwards himself would be an interesting choice, but isn't seen as having enough experience for the presidency. Plus, after Tuesday...he's got a pretty big L on his forehead. [edit]

4 More Wars - Mission Accomplished

Kerry seems to have conceded. Bush is re-elected with a win in the popular vote as well as the electoral college. The maps showing which states went which way are amazingly clearcut. When the US has its next civil war, it will be the edges against the middle.

Given how convincing the win was, it seems unlikely that it was due solely to fraud (unless you regard the entire system as fraudulent...with rigged debates and insane winner-takes-all voting).

But maybe it's not such a bad thing.

The Democrats seemed to believe the way to defeat Bush was to move even further right. They passed over Howard Dean in favour of a centrist like Kerry. Admittedly, this worked for Clinton and Blair, but then they weren't up against the far-right...it was centrists battling centrists. Since the Bush administration has dragged the entire political discourse in the US on moral issues and foreign policy far to the right, the centre is now somewhere around where Margeret Thatcher used to be. Weirdly, the Bush adminstration is the very opposite of conservative on economic issues...boosting corporate welfare, spending their way into a record deficit and imposing trade barriers right, left and centre. Instead of minimising government intrusion into private lives (the way conservatives are supposed to), they have given the government even wider powers over the individual (Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Gay Marriage Amendments). Whereas conservatives usually fetishise the US constitution, the declaration of independence and bill of rights - the Bush administration (and John Ashcroft in particular) are busily ignoring the bits that don't suit them.

With an administration restricting personal freedoms, ignoring supposedly incontrovertible laws, breaking away from international accountability, and seemingly bent on occupying countries prior to "installing" friendly democracies (how exactly do you install a democracy?) - they seem to have gone beyond simple right and left and begun moving into fascism. When you add in the fact that dissent is ruthlessly quashed (free speech zones?) and that the whole thing is based on a twisted version of patriotism and nationalism (it's unpatriotic to question our great leader during wartime)...it becomes even more worrying. With the invention of the War On Terror, the neo-cons have hit upon one of the greatest political strategies of all time. The "war" is almost by definition unwinnable. The "terrorists" and their aims are so nebulous (they want to kill us cos they hate freedom), that they can become proxies for anyone that stands in the way of US hegemony. In addition, an attack every few years won't do too much damage...but will keep the populace terrified. A scared populace is willing to give up freedom for security...however illusory both are. Fear of terrorist attacks was one of the key factors in Bush's re-election.

Terrorists much better than communists, because they are unlikely to embarass you by suddenly collapsing (like the USSR) and revealing that you've been lying about their capabilites all along.

So, an administration that is moving towards fascism and can blame every problem on a group that is hated by everyone.

And the Democrats put John Kerry forward? I'm actually impressed he got as close as he did.

This is why the loss mightn't be such a bad thing. There is little that John Kerry could have changed if he attained office. He might have scaled back some of the more egregious excesses of the neo-cons. But the War On Terror would have to continue, as would the war in Iraq. Much of the machinery that Bush created to limit freedoms (the DHS, the Patriot Act) would have remained intact. With an enormous deficit, he couldn't have done much about the pitiful state of the economy, and cutting back on military spending would have gotten him crucified. His stance on moral issues is fairly far to the right, and aside from dismantling some of Bush's Faith-based initiatives (as opposed to reason-based) - he wouldn't have done much else to keep America from the dark ages of religious fundamentalism. He would have been a lame-duck president and by struggling to hold the centre, he would have gifted the next election to rabidly right-wing conservatives - looking for revenge for Bush Jr. and a return to the glory days of terror, patriotism and corporate welfare.

Perhaps the loss will force the Democrats/left-wingers/liberals to radicalise in the same way that their opponents have. Maybe next time they will present a candidate who has clarity of purpose (the way Bush undoubtedly has - destructive as it might be) and easily distinguished views on policy. A genuinely left-wing liberal candidate.

Or perhaps they will push for changes in the horribly broken electoral system, recognising that the cosy two party system is rapidly turning into a terrifying single party system. Championing instant runoff voting would ultimately weaken support for the Democratic party as votes went to Greens and Liberals...but it would allow the extremists on the other side to splinter as well. The moralists and small-government conservatives are unlikely to want to share a platform. The fiscal-conservatives must be extremely uncomfortable with Bush's economic policy.

If the extremists can be bled off, the traditional parties can return to the centre.

Ultimately, Bush winning a 2nd term might be seen as the point where the bipartisan system broke apart in the US.

...Or that might all be wishful thinking and we're condemned to a constant War On Terror and a US President in thrall to the corporate interests that got him there. And an opposition party that is too damaged and dispirited to care anymore.

Ok, rant over.