Best Comment - Harry Pearse - Vision

10 COMMENT

YORK VISION

DEMOCRACY WINS

Wednesday May 27th, 2009

THE BEAR

Chewed up and spat out by democracy, Harry Pearse re-assesses its merits through his tears of disappointment... the absence of contributing articles to select from, that I began to cast a more critical eye on my glut of democracy-bashing. I conceded, for example, how healthy it was that Vision’s elections were contested so competitively, especially given that choice is often minimal in electoral processes; coronation more appropriately describes many elections, on campus or otherwise. Vision’s editorship was contested by five parties. The election was not, as I had previously believed, an example of democracy eating itself and yielding an incorrect result, but an impressive expression of electoral participation. In a moment of grandiose reflection, I convinced myself that my mere involvement in such an important event was commendable in itself. Though not my most appealing trait, it was my capacity for self-indulgence, having clearly survived the election ordeal, that kickstarted my recovery.

HARRY PEARSE A

s I left the Vision elections two weeks ago, I was gripped by an unsettling disillusionment. Up until that moment, almost every principle in my life had in some way been conditioned or touched by the notion that democracy was a good, fair and noble thing. But, as I trudged home ruing my failed attempt to assume Vision editorship I reassessed this lauded political tool from a new, though shamelessly tendentious, standpoint. I realised that my blind faith in democracy derived from an assumption that it produced meritocractic results; votes were given where they were due, and elections offered victory to the most worthy. I arrogantly thought that I and my running partner Dan were manifestly the best candidates, and that by not winning the post we had been force-fed a giant spoonful of injustice. Elections, I concluded, were a staggeringly inefficacious means of appointing the best people. My personal disappointment rapidly degenerated into lunacy. To avoid having to confront my failure, I sheltered in the recesses of my imagination. I scoffed at the function of whimsical electoral results, and instead chose to spend my days toying with a perfect fantasy world governed according to my own righteous dictates. Despite its obvious appeal, eventually I had to leave my reverie for the real world in which, despite my obvious vote-winning inadequacies, I was still lucky enough to be editor of this comment section. And it was while being reacquainted with the difficulties of producing a comment section; mainly

"My rage dissipated and I pieced back together my banal beliefs." My rage and despondency started to dissipate, and I quickly pieced back together my mostly positive, if slightly banal beliefs. But however tediously edifying the following remarks are, they are I think, largely true. The post was won by people who, having made their case for election, were approved of by the majority of voters. Elections are not just necessary but inconvenient window dressing for objectively right outcomes, for no preceding objectivity exists. They are the only equitable means of distilling subjective matters into definitive results. Only the winners could safely be called the best and most appropriate candidates because, only by reducing the subjectivity of ‘best’ into a quantifiable formula – majority votes – can the

notion of ‘best’ be expressed meaningfully. I know this rhapsody is rather nauseating, but the experience did teach me several important lessons. Thinking you are deserving of something is normal, but only by receiving approval does ones deserving become hard currency and not merely idle fancy. If you feel you deserve something, you can only establish the veracity of that sentiment by testing its electoral credibility. You deserve something at the expense of others if your case for it is better than theirs. Until then, it’s only a figment of your egoism. Though it occasionally misfires, democracy, on aggregate, is meritocratic; not by measure of an eternal justice or rightness, but because it is the only means of everyone fairly offering their own merits in comparison to others. People can’t judge their own cause, so determining the quantity of each persons merit must be left to others. This is certainly true on a small, campus scale. The new Vision editors presented their case in a manner that resonated with the necessary people more than mine and Dan’s did. Their approach to the elections was better judged than ours, their delivery was more appealing, and therefore they emerged fair winners. My (hopefully aberrant) anger and disaffection have passed…I think! And with that in mind, I offer my congratulations to our two new editors. Improvements to the paper are already visible. Each has cultivated a distinct, but equally unattractive bush of facial hair that, coupled with their sickly pallor’s, betray an abandonment of personal upkeep and eager devotion to their new responsibilities. Under their stewardship I’m sure Vision will achieve the highest forms of excellence. And if it doesn’t, at least I’ll never have to write anything as sweet and mawkish as this ever again…

Elections: Not all bad.

Scouts with guns? A sure-fire answer to America's problems. marijuana fields? I don’t think I would forget that so easily, or move on so fast. These are just two of the activities that Explorer Scouts are a part of in Texas. Affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America, they take scouting to the next level. Trained to use airsoft guns, they are to be tomorrow’s guardians of life, liberty and the American way. Anyone aged 14 to 21 can apply, and spend their time flooring suspects and taking out shooters. We do have Explorer Scouts here in the UK, but these are just grown men earning their abseiling badges. The training their US counterparts undergo can be seen as not only character building, but as the first step on the road to a career in the military or law enforcement, two globally well respected American institutions. These young American citizens can now go out into the world well prepared to defend their country. The recruitment of soldiers for the war on terror has now begun young. But surely this is the best way to help cure escalating American violence and allay public fears about terrorists. Give the kids the guns yourself and you can train them to use them responsibly: on

CHRIS BURGESS I

was a cub scout. I was ridiculously proud to be Blue Sixer and wear my neckerchief and woggle. To the uninitiated, that means I was in charge of six other cubs, and wore the funny triangle-scarf-thing. Indeed, part of the appeal was that I was part of something with a distinct set of rules and codes, an organisation with a uniform and a mission. I went camping, I went on St. Georges Day marches, and I had good, Jungle Book-related fun. Then I grew up and moved on. But imagine if I had been given a gun and told to hunt terrorists. As a pre-teen boy, I would have jumped at the chance. And what if the activities I could (vaguely) remember included not camping but chasing illegal migrants, and not marching but raiding illegal

crack heads and foreigners. By uniting the codes of honesty and preparation of the Scouts with the ruthless combat efficiency of a SWAT team, the Boy Scouts of America have made it that bit harder for wrong-doers to escape justice. Imagine that suspicious character working at the local store – now the kid buying sweets can demand to see his greencard or he’ll tackle him to the ground and restrain him with a knee in the back. Or imagine that gunman in a crowded public park – now his potential targets can turn the tables and take him out with a well executed shot from cover. Of course, each young boy and girl will use these home grown skills like the law-abiding patriots that all American teens are. The cycle of violence cannot continue when all the trained killers are on our side, now, can it?

Like this... but with guns.

The rural creature bears his soul

W

hen I tell people I come from a farming background, I can be fairly confident I’ll get some form of laughter as a reply. When most people think of farmers, they think of slightly retarded hillbillies, who spend half their time on tractors annoying other road users, and the rest of their time shooting gypsies. In my two years at York University I’m yet to meet anyone else who comes from a farming or even a particularly rural background. It’s got me thinking: are country folk inherently backwards? Am I just a case of boy dun’ good? Or is it about time people started updating their opinions about country bumpkins? First of all, does anyone ask why the nation would entrust one of its primary industries to a people if they were a little spacious between the ears? The truth is they’re not. I know of very few people more intelligent than farmers. I admit it isn’t the same type of intelligence exhibited in academic institutions, but it is intelligence nonetheless. Farmers juggle incredibly strenuous labour with the running of very complicated businesses. In harvest time, providing the weather is good, they will work 7am until 10pm everyday, occasionally pulling 24 hour stints if they're really busy. Farmers also possess an almost instinctive form of common sense. Contrarily, most academics stereotypically (to use a quote from the recently fired Apprentice, Ben Clarke) “couldn’t pour shit out of shoe if the instructions were on the heel!” Indeed, I recall a good friend in the first year asking me “what is it that a Combine Harvester actually does?” I literally couldn’t answer him for 10-20 seconds through sheer disbelief that anyone would feel the need to ask such a question. (If you

"We don't understand you and we don't want to." still don’t know, the answer is in its title and I’m literally loosing faith in mankind by the second!) Rural people have traditionally been branded conventional and conservative. I would generally agree with such an assumption. Although diversity of opinion does exist in rural areas, there is something that ties country folk to conservatism. I could offer no better explanation for this than the old saying "there must be something in the water." Yet, I don’t at all think rural conservatism is a bad thing. When I get into an argument with someone who’s from an urban background with liberal or left wing opinions, I often have to assert that where I come from, people’s attitudes are different. What can be soul destroying is when the aforementioned people take the argument further and attempt to ridicule opinions that don’t fit in with their liberal outlook, which they assume is the natural consensus. It brings to mind the stereotypically rural attitude of ‘we don’t understand you and we don’t want to,’ yet it appears to me that this phrase works both ways. Coming to University gave me an excellent opportunity to compare my experience of life so far with that of a variety of other people. Instead of making me jealous of living in exciting, bustling cities, conversations with friends have made me more proud of my rural heritage than I ever was before. Living so spread out from one another gives rural people a far greater sense of community, because we have to be active in maintaining relationships with people. So laugh all you want. It's water off a bear's back.