|
Election Year and the "Coke or Pepsi" Syndrome
|
|
A.
I want a soft drink B.
I would prefer a cola C.
Coke and Pepsi are the two best colas to choose from. Now,
before we get to the heart of the matter, let’s go ahead and address “C”
first. Coke and Pepsi may indeed be the two best selling colas, but there
are many other colas out there that taste like, well, cola: RC, Shasta,
etc. And when they’re warm and flat, they all taste terrible, anyway.
These “third party
candidates” cost
significantly less than the two reigning superpowers, so under the right
economic circumstances we might do better with the more generic cola instead of
the Big Two who spend millions to get us to feel a sense of loyalty to either Red
and White or
Red, White and Blue.
[I’m The
worst part is that all this assumes that you want a soft drink to begin with.
No one mentions that the phosphoric acid contained in these products actually
leeches out the calcium in your bones. Not many people even mention the
corn syrup, one of the worst substances on the market you can ingest without a
prescription. What about coffee, tea, juice, milk, wine, beer, or water?
Why not just say, “what’s
your favorite beverage?”
Because a
predetermined outcome has already been established.
You’re
going to get a soft drink whether you like it or not. Now, I’m sure the
survey isn’t quite that subversive.
A.
micromanage your every need
from cradle to grave B.
micromanage
the world’s every conflict The Big Two aren’t even discussing whether we have trillions to spend, or whether micromanaging is a good approach for a government to take. Even the foreign policy of the two has about as much difference as Coke and Pepsi. Obama criticizes the war in Iraq but wants to widely expand our military in Afghanistan. So they’re both arguing about the details of what has already been decided by the two major parties. Who said the parties are supposed to decide things? Isn’t that the job of the people? Both candidates are completely disregarding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which we would do well to remember is still supposed to be the highest law in the land. It’s like choosing between Stalin and Hitler; the effective difference boils down to how the moustache is trimmed.
As
Gary Lloyd
put
it, “When the
government’s boot is on your neck, it matters little whether it’s the Left
Boot or the Right Boot.”
Even
our Left vs. Right paradigm is rendered meaningless. I have an old
Webster’s Third International Dictionary in three volumes, containing all
those older words that are being sacrificed for the good of the State so that
doublethink can occur and our society can be double-plus good. Here are
some definitions for you: Liberalism:
a theory in economics
emphasizing individual freedom from restraint especially by government
regulation in all economic activity and usually based upon free competition, the
self-regulating market, and the gold standard; a
political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man,
and the autonomy of the individual and standing for tolerance and freedom for
the individual from arbitrary authority in all spheres of life, especially by
the protection of political and civil liberties and for government under law
with the consent of the governed.
The
full entry mentioned a connection to the Whig party, of whom many of our
founding fathers belonged, including George Washington, and they are mentioned
in the context as having preference for Dissenters rather than the established
Anglican church. In the U.S., they advocated commercial interests, a
protective tariff, a national government public works program, and opposition to
a strong presidency. Liberalism
today is hardly
about “freedom from
restraint especially by government regulation in all economic activity,”
etc. It’s not even accurate on the “freedom
for the individual from arbitrary authority in all spheres of life” when
you look at the Second Amendment. Liberalism today means “over-regulate
everything because the State knows better than you do.”
Conservatism
:
the disposition in politics to preserve what is established; a political
philosophy based on a strong sense of tradition and social stability, stressing
the importance of established institutions (as religion, property, the family,
and class structure) and preferring gradual development with preservation of the
best elements of the past to abrupt change; the
tendency to accept an existing fact, order, situation, or phenomenon and to be
cautious toward or suspicious of change…opposed to radical or basic
changes.” Now,
the last eight years of supposedly conservative rule have hardly been suspicious
of change, considering a whole department of government has been added, and the “importance
of established institutions”
such as property seem to be a case by case basis, depending on how much tax
revenue the local government can get by seizing people’s homes under the guise
of Eminent Domain. You see the problem here? The supposedly liberal
people are acting like the conservative caricature, while the supposedly
conservative people are acting like their liberal counterparts. It’s the
same philosophy, just a different application. The important thing to note
here is that neither side can get its agenda across without using the other;
they work together in tandem for a steady and sure route toward globalism and a
neo-socialist government, be it Communist or Fascist. Both
sides try to justify these inconsistencies with the lame cliché, “We’re
living in the post-911 world now, so we have to make changes for the greater
good.” Whenever I hear
people start talking about “the
greater good” it almost
always means it’s certainly not going to be for your
good. The reality is that both parties operate under Groupthink,
and since we’re being brainwashed to think of ourselves only insofar as we
relate to particular groups, be they racial, religious, or ideological, these
parties fully intend to dupe us collectively. [pardon
the socialist pun]
While you’re at it, if you really must have that cola that leeches calcium out of your bones, try an RC cola as a protest vote.
|
|
Mark Turney 21 October 08
|
Anyone
who’s been on MySpace for any length of time has probably crossed paths with
the ubiquitous “Coke or Pepsi”
survey, where someone wants us to choose between a series of two theoretically
different items in attempt to “get to know you
better” that probably has more to do with online
marketing than with online intimacy. Rather a bit like election year, to
my mind, for the philosophy is nearly identical. They pose, “Coke
or Pepsi?” or “McDonald’s
or Burger King?” or “hamburgers
or hotdogs?” and we’re supposed to choose one
of their choices. Notice that they are indeed THEIR choices, and not mine,
because they’re assuming [let’s use the first
example]
surprised the Pepsi
people haven’t accused the Coca Cola people of being unpatriotic!]
But notice that RC and the gang aren’t
even on the ballot.
How about Dr. Pepper and Mr. Pibb? Pibb’s definitely the knock-off
there, but aren’t they fairly close to cola? Do they differ that much to
warrant being off the ballot? What about a campaign going on between 7-Up
and Sprite? No; there’s also Slice and Sierra Mist, and for the
connoisseur, there’s the primo Fresca, which actually is different because
it’s got that pink grapefruit thing going for it. And what exactly is
wrong with that scenario? Ah, too much free thought and personal choice;
that’s what!
