The amazing saga of the American Presidential election finally came to a conclusion today when the Presidency was awarded to Sharkey, Crookes, Cashman and Lyre, Attorneys at Law. The four partners in the Miami-based law firm will each serve as President for one of the coming four years.

Speaking exclusively to the 'h2g2 Post', President-elect Leroy Lyre... who will take over the Oval Office in January... explained:

'We were representing Governor Bush as the fourteenth recount in Florida went ahead, and suddenly our client said:

'Y'know, boys, I don't rightly know if I really want the job. Dad told me the other night that I might have to go outside America, and y'all know how much I hate to do that. I went to Mexico once, and some of the folks there didn't even speak English! Can you take care of it for me?'

'Well, when the recount was done and 6,438,214 disputed votes had been disallowed, it turned out that our client had won the state, and the Presidency, by two votes to one.

'So now we're gonna keep our word and take care of things for him! We drew up the contract ourselves, and our client signed it so fast you'd have thought it was a death warrant! He's delighted, because we've given him the job of Commissioner for Baseball, which he always said he'd really prefer to the Presidency.

'Also, as senior partner, I get first crack at the White House interns... sorry, I mean the first chance to serve this great nation.'

Some commentators have pointed out that the Presidency is normally reserved for politicians elected by a majority of the American people. However, Mr. Lyre dismisses such objections as trivial.
He told the Post:

'As lawyers, my partners and I are ideally suited for the role. We are skilled in distorting and manipulating the truth, and no-one likes us or trusts us. Politics will be come naturally to us!

As for the question of so-called 'democracy'... if we hadn't made this agreement with Governor Bush, he would have become President.

And one thing's for sure... the majority of American electors definitely didn't vote for him.'

The 'Post' thanked President-elect Lyre for his time. He smiled warmly and replied:

'Don't mention it. Just pay me. I'm still a lawyer. You've had 45 seconds of my time. My bill for $450,000 plus expenses will be in the post.'

But seriously, folks... Even as the fiasco in Florida was getting into full swing, the House of Lords reminded Britons that our own system of government takes some beating when it comes to ludicrous distortions of democracy.

The UK's elected representatives, the Members of Parliament (MPs) in the House of Commons, have voted on three separate occasions to remove an anomaly in UK law that sets the age of consent for sexual activity at 18 for homosexual men and 16 for everyone else. The MPs have recognised that this distinction represents institutionalised discrimination, and have voted to make 16 the age of consent for all Britons.

End of story, you might think - but no. When a Bill (or proposed new law) has passed through the House of Commons, it is then debated in the House of Lords. The Lords have the power to propose amendments to Bills and send them back to the House of Commons for further debate. They have the power to do this three times, causing months or even years of delay, before MPs can overrule them.

On November 13, the Lords rejected the equal-age-of- consent proposals for a third time. Among those who spoke in the Lords' debate was the 94-year-old Earl of Longford, who commented:

'I regard homosexuality as a sad disorder and handicap.'

So why do we elect people like the Earl?

Er... we don't. Some of the members of the House of Lords are former MPs or friends of past governments. Some are church leaders. Some are hereditary peers, there merely because of who their parents were.
The age-of-consent Bill will become law; after three refusals from the Lords, the elected Government can overrule them.

Sadly, however, thanks to the Lords, the change in the law will have to be achieved in a way that reminds gay Britons that bigotry is alive and well in the heart of the UK Establishment.

And, in the midst of the continuing publicity over Hillary Clinton's elevation to the US Senate, I've just felt envious. Not of Hillary, but of American voters and the way that they actually get to ELECT their country's upper legislative chamber.

However, it would appear that neither the USA nor the UK is the happiest nation on Earth. That, it seems, is Colombia - and we miserable Brits rank 30th in the global contentment stakes.

This is just one of the startling statistics discovered by the Planet Project: - an ambitious worldwide Internet poll carried out from November 14-18.
As the US election drama continued, the organisers hastily added a question asking respondents who they'd prefer as President of the world's most powerful nation. It may not help Al Gore out in the real world, but around three-quarters of non-Americans preferred him to George W. Bush.

However, the survey question that caught my eye was this one:

'If technology could do only one of the following things in the next 100 years, what should it do?'

The most popular choice, with 34% of the votes, was 'Cure all diseases'. 'End hunger' was second on the wish-list with 24%, while 16% wished technology would 'stabilise or reduce world population' (one hopes that those who voted this way had peaceful methods in mind).

But here's the really strange thing: despite the extreme weather conditions many of us have experienced lately, only 3% of voters wanted technology to 'control the weather'. Far more popular, with 10% of the poll, was the idea that technology should 'conquer other planets'.

Are many people already writing off Planet Earth as a lost cause and pinning their hopes on escaping to somewhere less damaged?
Or could it simply be that millions of people around the world dream of hitch-hiking around the galaxy?

Ormondroyd

20.11.00. Front Page

Back Issue Page