Forcing a Smile

Teaching Lessons on How to be Happy

I honestly can't think of any particularly clever remarks to make here. I mean, what can you say? Hopefully the absurdity speaks for itself.

The Spoils of War

Some 140,000 ballot papers were spoiled in the hotly contested Scottish Parliamentary and local council elections on May 3rd. Frequently, the number of spoiled papers in a constituency exceeded the number of votes a candidate won the seat by. As much as 10% of the electorate were (after a fashion) disenfranchised, and the Scottish National Party won by a single seat.

I must admit: I couldn't care less about the majority of these people.

Now, fair enough. The electronic vote-counting system is no good. I think some people lost votes because the system couldn't understand some different forms of the numbers one, four and seven, and as ever the postal vote was a waste of everyone's time (why there has been no appreciable change in how these are dealt with after those Muslim councillors in England were voted in through the use of a little factory ran by the Asian community that processed dodgy postal votes is beyond me).

However, the overwhelming majority of spoiled votes were spoiled because people were stupid. Despite the attempts of the newspapers to make it look as though it was all very complicated and filling in two forms on the same day was a "recipe for disaster", I was there, and let me assure you, it was pretty damn simple.

First Form: Scottish Parliament

There are two little lists. In the first you are voting for your constituency MSP. Put a cross next to the name of the fellow you want. In the second your vote counts towards regional seats. Put a cross next to the name of the party you like best, or think deserves some representation.

Second Form: Your local council

There is a list of candidates. Write numbers next to their names in order of who you like best. If you only like two, you only have to put numbers next to two.

And this was all spelled out pretty clearly at the top of these forms. Voters weren't being asked to wrestle with quadratic equations. It took me somewhere in the region of ten seconds to fill out my votes--it was actually kind've dissapointing for me, as a first timer ("I'm paricipating in the democratic process! Woo!").

As callous as it may sound, my view is that if you managed to screw up your vote then you didn't deserve it, and are almost certainly clueless as to what your vote represented anyway.

And Now for Something Upflifting:

One can't help but wonder if poor old Gerhard would've been able to do this in Britain without being prosecuted for using "excessive force".

Another Stupid Idea

The charity Alcohol Concern (recommended by the BBC) wants to prosecute parents who let children under 15 have a drink in the house with a meal because they think it leads to binge drinking sprees. This is dumb for a couple of reasons:

1) Someone who is, say, 10-14 being allowed a glass of champagne or wine with Christmas dinner, on an older relative's birthday or at a wedding anniversary or something is a million miles away from letting a five-year-old knock back a six-pack of hooch. Alcohol Concern's proposed law would not discriminate between these scenarios.

2) How on Earth are the police supposed to enforce this law? How are they going to know you let junior drink that can of shandy? Cameras in the dining room? No-one could be caught, investigations would be a waste of time and money.

"Binge drinking by children can have serious consequences for brain function, significantly raises the risk of alcohol dependency in later life and diminishes their life chances." - Srabani Sen, Alcohol Concern

No, really? Alcoholism damages your brain, people who drink heavily are more likely to become alcoholics, and being an alcoholic can mean you have fewer "life chances"? Wow. Im glad we've got these people to tell us these things and conduct important research with the money we donate to them. Maybe their next study tell us how shooting up can be hazardous to your health.

Besides, talking about how binge drinking by children is bad is not an argument for banning drinks for meals. In fact, it's logically fallacious.