TEAM DEMOCRACY GO!!

That is one of the famous images from the Iraqi elections. Some felt that by voting and therefore embracing democracy, the Iraqi people were saying," yes, please. We'll take you're Western systems of government, stop attacking your soldiers, and govern ourselves." Clearly not.

What went wrong? Bush and his hawks claimed again and again that they were bringing democracy to the middle east. Surely job done, then. Conventional wisdom equates democracy and elections with progress, from African states to former Soviet nations, free and fair elections are applauded world round as the final steps into the fold of liberal democracies.
Yet, elections in these regions are rairly free and fair, and even when they are, accusations to the contrary seem to fly fast, and violence is almost always a side effect to polling day.

Again I ask, what goes wrong? Democracy is supposed to cure the lust for violence. Show your distaste with a ballot, not a machete.
The problem is, quite simply, that elections do not equal democracy.

2008 is set to be a year of elections. The headliner is of course, the USA. Now whether or not an entrenched two party system and a baffling electoral college system amounts to democracy is definitely a question, but for another time perhaps. Elsewhere in the world, Putin will send his country to the polls, completely confident that he will retain his Tsar-like grip on power. Democratic? The pains of the Kenyan election will continue to shock and depress viewers for at least a few weeks into the new year, either until calm returns, or the news networks get bored.(place your bets) Taiwan will elect a new parliament in January, and a new President in May. Will the quiet, ignored and somewhat ineffective push for nationalism die out in the predicted return of the mainland favouring Kuomingtang party. In the year of the Red Olympics, these elections could cause some fire works. Pakistan is, of course, set to hold elections in February. Surprising as it may sound, Zimbabwe will hold elections this year. All branches of the government will be elected in March. Also in March, good old friend of the west, Iran will hold its elections.

What does this show? Apart from promising some interesting reading in the coming months, all 6 examples show that elections by no means equal democracy. Most of those countries lack a real opposition. Pakistan lacks democracy down to the very grass roots, with the parties run by dynasties and feudalism running strong. In Taiwan the will of the people seems depressingly toothless, as 7 years after electing nationalists to parliament, Taiwan remains ignored by the UN and kept under the Chinese thumb. Tribe still beats economic views, unfortunately, in most African nations and the world over we see that elections are no obstacle to power retaining power.

Quite clearly, elections are not the fast and easy cure for despotism or tyranny. What should we try next?

A Tenuous Link?

An article on Economist.com has brought to my attention an interesting phenomenon. There has recently been a $5 surcharge implemented on entry fees to strip clubs in Texas. This "pole tax" is expected to generate $40 million in revenue each year. The interesting part is this- the proceeds are earmarked for helping to support victims of sexual assault.
A major issue here is that this action draws a direct link between club patronage and sexual assault. Does this villify a perfectly legal and legitimate business sector?
The State representative that proposed the measure defends it by saying that both sexual assault and strip clubs objectify women. This was enough of a link for the legislators of Texas to pass her proposal. But is it really enough of a link, is there more being implied by the surcharge than she's really letting on? When a similar proposal was made a few years ago, the main difference was that the beneficiary would be the public school system. This was deemed inappropriate, rightly so, as schools should not be linked with these cesspits. But is this new proposal more appropriate?
To me it sounds as though Texas is basically saying that strip clubs and sexual assault are inextricably linked, and that the patrons of these businesses must be penalised for their objectification of women, which is similar to sexual assault, or I could go a step further and say that I would understand if these customers felt that an accusatory finger was being pointed at them in relation to sexual assault.
The article tells us that targeted taxation has become quite fashionable in recent years. Examples include taxation on retailers of fizzy drinks funding a healthy eating promotion in San Francisco, which seems like an appropriate suggestion, and proposed taxations on video games raising funds for the juvenile criminal system, which is a link similar in questionability to the strip club taxation.
Adam Smith tells us that we should only tax when it is absolutely necessary. I am sure that there is a necessity for extra funding to support juvenile criminal facilities, or Rape Crisis centres, but it is crucial that taxation is spread fittingly throughout the population, and that everyone pays their fair share toward healing the ills of society. The example of retailers of fizzy drinks being forced to pay a surcharge that would fund healthy eating seems acceptable to me (if I am accepting targeted taxation as a valid system) , as the retailers are directly responsible for supplying a product that is detrimental to a healthy diet.
Retailers can then choose to stop supplying the product, or pass on the cost to their customers, thus raising awareness that the drinks are bad for your health.
Using this analysis on the strip club surcharge, club owners can choose between getting rid of the girls, or passing on the cost to the chumps who sit there gawping at them, thus raising awareness that strip clubs objectify women.
The difference here is that while retailers of fizzy drinks are directly responsible for the negative effects on society that are hoped to be curbed by a healthy eating plan, we cannot say that strip club proprietors are providing a service that is directly responsible for sexual assaults on women.
The reason we cannot say this is because once we admit to something like that, it questions the legality of strip clubs. How can something that is responsible for, or encourages, something like rape, ever be justified?
This is the snake pit legislators will find themselves in sooner or later if targeted taxation continues to escalate. targeted taxation is essentially a fine- pole tax is a penalty being paid by all customers of strip clubs for the actions of rapists.

A Dacent Haul

"Was Santy good to ye?"
"Did you get anything nice?"
These were the questions that I posed to my three-year-old Goddaughter Hannah at Christmas. They were also the first questions I got asked myself in the few days after the event.
And did I? Well, I certainly did (thanks mammy and daddy)- I got a nice set of airline tickets to whisk my good self away to Serbia for a week in February for the Belgrade Open (nerd, I know), and a lump sum to buy myself some clothes (as the clothes I have are falling apart). I will probably not purchase new clothes, but use the cash to buy MORE flights to more debating competitions, but you get the idea, Santy was very good.

Aside from this big expenditure, my mother bought "stocking fillers", which are of a quality and standard far from the spinning tops and Slinkie Springs of my childhood Christmas Stocking. Add to that the ridiculous quantities of sweets, cakes, snacks, quality booze and a 28lb organic turkey, and you get the idea that my folks go crazy at Christmas. I am not an only child. there are FIVE of us. so all of that, x5. My mother goes into uber-generous mode at Christmas, and a couple of times even handed over the Visa card for me to order books on Amazon, I went a bit crazy actually...

the point that I am trying to make is this- what is it about Christmas that turns my parents, sensible and balanced middle-aged Irish people, into crazy consumers? I am not worried about their finances, I'm sure my Dad would prevent my mother from losing the plot altogether, and I know that in general they are comfortable enough. They have, however, always instilled in me the principle that you don't have to spend all of your money to be happy. I know that Mam has always gone a bit over her budget at Christmas but I don't think she even makes a budget any more.

We can blame several factors, of course. The bloated economy has made Irish people run where angels fear to tread, so confident are we of our wealth. My parents are of that category where steady, Health Board jobs have made them secure for life.

This doesn't fully explain the urge to spend, spend, spend...we do tend to buy better quality when we have more money, but it's the sheer quantity that I'm really talking about.
Is it clever marketing? Do we feel that it is now the norm for every 12 year old to possess a top of the range phone, MP3 player, games console, digital camera, laptop, whatever other consumer goods we now cannot live without? And the constant upgrading and modifying ensures that there is always something new to "need", come christmas, birthdays, confirmation, graduation.

Is it normal for one family to possess 5 laptops, 2 PCs (one of which is one of those really powerful gaming computers), an Xbox 360, a PS3, and a nintendo Wii, not to mention several Nintendo DS and PSPs? I honestly don't know if I'm just out of the loop but it all seems a bit excessive to me.

It certainly didn't prevent us all from falling out massively on St. Stephen's day, and hasn't contributed to family life since I've been home (other than to keep us out of one another's way most of the time), except for a couple of games on the Wii that are group oriented and quite fun, if you can stop people from fighting over the controls...

I guess what I'm saying is that the spirit of Christmas was present in our house as much as can be expected, but it was not aided (nor hindered, I suppose), by gross over-spending. Personally, I think that this desire to buy everything in sight (as further demonstrated by the manic shopping the day after Christmas in Dublin and Cork) is little to do with having more money- that simply facilitates the spending. Nor is excellent marketing responsible for the splurge, that simply tells us what we really, really need.

In truth, it is a sense of entitlement that best characterises the irish attitude to spending. A sense that we "deserve a treat" for all our hard work. Sure, weren't we poor enough for long enough? "You can't spend it when you're dead" appears to be the maxim.

Perhaps this is the correct attitude to take- what's the point of working hard if you can't enjoy the rewards?
What are the rewards? Let us examine what the effects of greater wealth are on irish individuals. Obesity, debt, pollution, and inequality are all on the increase.
Obesity-the facts:

• Obesity accounts for at least 2,500 deaths in Ireland, each year.
• Increasing obesity is associated with increasing mortality.
• Obesity is directly associated with a number of serious diseases including diabetes, heart disease, many forms of cancer and high blood pressure.
• In Ireland, 47% of people report being overweight or obese (13% obese, 34% overweight; SLÁN 2003).
• Ireland has the fourth highest prevalence of overweight and obesity in men in the EU and the seventh highest prevalence among women.

Debt- credit card debt as a proportion of personal debt and disposable income has risen from €290 million Euro to €1850 Million between 1995 and 2004. we can say that income itself has increased hugely, but what happens when there is a downturn in our economy- how will people clear their debts?
Pollution-

• Tonnage of Greenhouse Gas emissions 1.9 per cent higher than in 2004;

• Main increase from transport emissions which increased by 6.9 per cent (an increase of almost 870,000 tonnes);

• Substantial increase from energy generation of 2.4 per cent (increase of 380,000 tonnes) attributable mainly to increased use of peat in power stations;

• Emissions from agriculture continued downward trend and are 1.8 per cent lower than in 2004.

Inequality- Social researcher, Brian Harvey, discusses his recent independent social study on Ireland as an unequal state. His main discoveries include that human rights standards are below international levels and corruption is a central theme of life here. It is said Ireland has lost substantial foreign investment because of its reputation for corruption. Among its other criticisms are the inadequate treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, the lack of an independent police complaints procedure and the difficulties for poor people getting swift access to justice.

And what about the spirit of charity that is supposed to be all pervasive at this time of year? I'm glad to say that my folks haven't entirely abandoned their morals and do feel a bit guilty at spending it all on themselves (and us)- they have increased their charity donations too, and encourage the kids to do as much as they can for volunteer organisations in our home town.

But I get the feeling that this isn't the pervasive attitude. Having looked at levels of aid donated by the Irish in the last few years, the proportion of voluntary donations (this excludes Irish Aid which is derived from tax) in relation to GDP has diminished. Levels of homelessness and relative poverty in Ireland are becoming more serious.

This is a shame. Do we consider ourselves a successful nation? Are these the results of success? because if this is how it goes, success has a lingering, bitter after-taste.

www.johnmortell.com

One of the most random and prolific bloggers that I know- www.johnmortell.com
A fellow debater, hailing from Waterford he is attending college in Cork, studying history and politics, or something useless like that.
anyway, he's lovely, take a look.

Iowa!

So is the beginning of the end for dynasty politics? Barack Obama won tonights contest in Iowa, winning 39% in the caucuses.
Hilary was left to battle for third with second-tier candidate John Edwards. Ouch.

On the republican side of things, Mike Huckabee took a comfortable win. Well, how could he not, with campaign slogans like 'I like Mike.' Genius.

The numbers would lead one to believe that this spells the end for the era of money fuelled politics. Huckabee was outspent by around 20 to 1. Realistically though, the early primaries are always about man hours logged one to one as opposed to dollars spent. The West Wing taught me this, and it makes sense too - the voters there feel they have a birthright to vet the candidates, and this means shaking their hand and serving them a slice of pie.

But what's really interesting is the notion of money and politics in general. It's not enough. It does help a candidate, but all the money in the world wouldn't get Bush re-elected. How much power does money create? And is it fair that the rich get a louder voice with their bigger wallets? I was informed a few weeks ago that a candidate for SU president last year was sponsored. This still baffles me. At a recent lit and deb debate it was asserted repeatedly that democracy and capitalism are exclusive, because capitalism leads to mass inequality financially which leads directly to inequality in the democratic process. You can't buy extra votes for yourself, but you can throw some support to your candidate. And then go looking for a favour?

Democracy is surely all about equality. If it can be proven that more money equals more political power, then is democracy possible in a capitalist society? Sounds logical. Most democracies contain checks and balances, though, which limit the influence that money can bring. Further, if you want to start this argument, you'll get stuck in a bit of a tangle with a slippery slope. Surely education, literacy and relationships can increase a persons political influence. Should college graduates be limited to only have the same amount of letters published in papers as non-graduates? Should we level the playing field in other ways - if you run for public office your bebo top 16 must contain equal representation from all social classes.

Increased political influence is one of the benefits that goes along with earning the big books. That and the women. These incentives drive economies at the very basest of levels. People must have the drive, be willing to take the risk - and for that, the prize must be pretty good. Democracy will never be entirely equal. I'm not going to bother listing the socialist and communist embarrassing ideas of 'democracy'. Money does make the world go round. For better and for worse. But bear in mind, money no longer holds the sway it used to. Barack Obama won more votes with his youtube videos than Hilary Clinton could hope for from her add buys. Huckabee could barely afford signs, while Romney could have bought himself an immigrint family to clean his bus.

It's going to be a fun year with America Votes 2008. On this side of the atlantic we get to sit back and watch the fireworks. You'll hear constant talk of the middle class, of special interest, and of the new alliance. Don't listen - just watch the numbers and see some history get made. New Hampshire votes next Wednesday - primary party in mine!

Happy New Year, and welcome!

Happy New Year, one and all, and welcome to Bintsterhood, the web rantings and ravings of a fabulous duo of debating hussies. Not content with bitching about the world to one another, and anyone who’ll listen to us, Muireann and myself have decided to throw our two cents up here as well.

2007 was quite the year, but 2008 is looking set to be a real doozy.

Happy New Year, Pakistan! Wouldn’t it be a great gas if the PPP got voted in, and them being led by a nineteen-year-old Oxford fresher, and his Da? Not that he's really eligible yet, but he's probably currently more popular than Musharraf...

Happy New Year, Kenya! Once again, rampant tribalism, ignited by power-hungry politicians, has torn apart a seemingly quite reasonable country. This is really a country to watch out for in 2008.

Happy New Year, Darfur! Here we are, mere months away from the 5th anniversary of the beginning of the genocide in Sudan; oh how the time flies...400,000 dead, millions displaced, and no real end in sight. Will 2008 be the year that the world acts, instead of looking on helplessly?

Happy New Year, stolen babies of Chad, Happy New Year, African National Congress (because corruption charges were all you needed when you live next door to Zimbabwe), Happy New Year, monks of Burma and all the displaced and terrified people of Israel, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not that we need to look overseas to see that this year is going to be an interesting one, politically speaking- we can surely look forward to more thrilling tribunals; the hilarious antics of our esteemed health minister should be good for a laugh and I have it on reliable authority that that roguish bastion for welfare and centrism, Jean-Marie LePen, will be visiting our emerald isle to persuade us to say NO! to the Lisbon Treaty…

Happy New Year, Economist! I’m not sure if it’s quite a Guinness Book record, but oil has hit the $100 per barrel mark. On the other hand, the Kyoto Protocol has come into effect. Ten years after it was agreed, but better late than never I suppose. Minister for the Environment John Gormley described the event coinciding with New Year's Day as a "historic moment for the world" and a "hugely significant first step in the global response to climate change". I don’t know what he’s so happy about, Ireland has the highest levels of emissions in Europe and has to magically reduce the output by 12% before 2012, when realistically, it increases every day. He has effectively become the Green Party scapegoat for Fianna Fail to point at every time the Irish Government is criticised..

I’m sure that Muireann will have plenty to say about my words of cynicism, though she knows that really, I’m a hopeless optimist. So Happy New Year, one and all, may 2008 be a total blast!