Author
|
Topic: Why I chose to be ignorant of political news for 4 years! (Read 988 times) |
|
teh
Adept
Posts: 65
Reputation: 7.58
Rate teh
I'm still still learning
 
|
 |
Why I chose to be ignorant of political news for 4 years!
« on: 2007-06-22 09:27:51 » |
 |
[Teh]A number of years ago I decided to stop paying any attention to politics, after an overwhelming feeling of doom and dismay. Oh those days, the pessimist in me spent many a night wishing on a star that I would awake one day and people in positions of power and influence would have all perished due to some mysterious quick acting illness. The optimist in me hoped that they would all come to their senses and resolve all the issues in an expeditious manner.
[teh]It's quite obvious I was dreaming and the shooting star obviously failed me. (shakes fist at shooting star)
sigh
[teh]An article in The Independent today brings to light some of the current issues being faced at the EU treaty talks. With another article focussing on the British isolation within the EU.
[teh]The Guardian focuses on the Polish demands for more voter equity with reasoning going back to WWII population culling. The Times also has this article: Poles demand more EU votes to compensate for war deaths
[teh]Appropriately, the article that summarises the British perspective would be The Independents front page table:
You, Europe, and your rights
The Government is blocking an EU charter which would protect these fundamental rights for British people. Why?
Published: 22 June 2007
Eugenics
Prohibition of eugenic practices, particularly those aiming at the selection of person. Article 3
What's at stake: Science is seeking to eradicate disabilities by genetic manipulation. It might be possible for parents to order a "designer" baby.
Expert opinion: "I would be totally opposed to any attempt to socially engineer people."
Ian Gibson, vice-president, Royal Society for Public Understanding of Science
Torture
No one should be subjected to torture. Article 4
What's at stake: Since the invasion of Iraq, British soldiers have found themselves in the dock over the abuse of civilian detainees
Expert opinion: "It is all the more deplorable when some of the most powerful men on earth seek to justify the use of torture."
Moazzam Begg, a torture victim and former prisoner in Guantanamo Bay
Human trafficking
Trafficking in human beings is prohibited. Article 5
What's at stake: This year the UN said that human trafficking had reached epidemic proportions. The Home Office said that in 2003, 4,000 women were trafficked into the UK for sexual exploitation
Expert opinion: "It is shameful that this country is trying to duck out of a charter that specifically prohibits child trafficking."
Louise Christian, human rights lawyer
Data protection
Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her. Article 8
What's at stake: A vast amount of data is stored on each of us already. From 2010, ID cards will be compulsory for anyone applying for a passport in the UK.
Expert opinion: "It's... a safeguard to protect the right of the individual in relation to the state."
Maurice Frankel, director, Campaign for Freedom of Information
Right to protest
Everyone has the right to freedom of assembly and of association. Article 12
What's at stake: Anti-war protests prompted the Government to bring in legislation to prevent unlicensed demos within quarter of a mile of Parliament
Expert opinion: "Allowing dissent in the form of peaceful protest is the hallmark of a country that understands respect for human rights."
Kate Allen, Amnesty International UK director
Working rights
Every citizen of the Union has the freedom to seek employment... in any Member state. Article 15
What's at stake: The Conservatives' fear is that Poles and other east Europeans have taken up jobs and housing at British workers' expense
Expert opinion: "People who come to work in the UK are providing vital services which would collapse without them."
Brendan Barber, TUC general secretary
Deportation
No one can be removed to a state where there is a serious risk of torture. Article 19
What's at stake: The Government's determination to deport terror suspects to countries with questionable human rights records
Expert opinion: "In an effort to circumvent its obligations, the Government has secured 'memoranda of understanding' with Jordan, Libya and Lebanon."
Shami Chakrabarti, Liberty director
Industrial action
Workers have the right to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action. Article 28
What's at stake: The right to strike has been restricted in the UK since the 1980s. There are rules about ballots andpicketing. None of these restrictions is mentioned in the charter
Expert opinion: "We back the right to strike, to negotiate, to fight against unfair dismissal."
John Monks, European TUC leader
Child exploitation
The employment of children is prohibited... except for limited derogations. Article 32
What's at stake: Could be a threat to family-run corner shops where children help out, or to the pocket money others earn from babysitting or paper rounds
Expert opinion: "To keep children safe, we must ensure parents and employers are clear about how and when children and young people can be employed."
NSPCC statement
Health care
Everyone has the right to preventative health care. Article 35
What's at stake: Earlier this month, The Independent highlighted a new pill that could help hay fever sufferers, which the NHS will not prescribe because of cost. Critics say this clause could open the NHS to litigation
Expert opinion: "This article would not give much backing to any patient who took on the NHS."
Dr Evan Harris, member Medical Ethics Committee
--------
|
|
|
|
|
teh
Adept
Posts: 65
Reputation: 7.58
Rate teh
I'm still still learning
|
|
Re:Why I chose to be ignorant of political news for 4 years!
« Reply #1 on: 2007-06-23 23:08:43 » |
|
[teh] EU to have an elected President by 2009. Well it's not that straight forward, but at least I got your undivided attention!
[teh] The article from The Observer explains and details some of the ressolved issues that lead all EU members to finally accept the long awaited EU treaty (renamed for superficial reasons IMO, it still reads "constitution" to me.)
[teh] Reading between the lines, this seems to re-enforce the idea of an eventual formation of the country of 'US of Europe'. Wether this ever happens or not, the next 15 years will definitely be one of the most important eras in future history. This treaty being an historic milestone.
Europe finally unites after agreeing to treaty
Last-minute deal saves the negotiations after Britain demands preservation of trade commitment
Nicholas Watt, political editor
Sunday June 24, 2007
European leaders yesterday hailed an agreement on the outlines of a new EU treaty to replace the ill-fated constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters two years ago.
Hopes that the EU may emerge from two years of introspection, which saw Europe's 27 leaders squabble over how to replace the constitution after the 'No' votes, were raised when a deal was finally reached in the early hours of yesterday morning.
Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, who chaired the marathon round of negotiations in Brussels, said that the EU had avoided a disaster. 'We have achieved what we set out to do,' she said of the new treaty that is designed to be more modest than the constitution to avoid the need to hold referendums. 'This shows that Europe came together at the end.'
A relieved Merkel flew home to Berlin yesterday delighted that she had managed to broker an agreement that will usher in a series of changes in the running of the EU. These include creating an influential new EU foreign policy chief, an elected president of the European Council and changes to the voting weights in the council of ministers which will benefit large countries such as Germany at the expense of medium-sized countries such as Poland.
Merkel was forced to embark on late-night brinkmanship after Poland threatened to scupper the deal because of its opposition to the new voting system which places countries' voting weights more in line with their population. Poland backed down after Merkel threatened to table a treaty without Warsaw's agreement.
Merkel had little difficulty in meeting Tony Blair's 'red lines' - to ensure the national veto was kept in key areas - although there was a last-minute scare when Britain joined forces with the European Commission to try to preserve some of the free market language in the constitution.
Jose Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, said he hoped the EU could now move forward to concentrate on bread-and-butter issue of reforming Europe's labour markets.
'We have avoided a crisis,' Barroso told the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag. 'Uncertainty about our future treaty has cast a shadow of doubt over our ability to act. Now those doubts have been removed.'
Poland, which backed down from blocking the entire deal, put on a brave face after the introduction of new voting arrangements was delayed from 2009 to 2017. Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the Polish prime minister, said: 'We had prepared a plan "B" and we achieved that.'
But there were fears that Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, had succeeded in diluting the EU's historic commitment to an unfettered free market. Alarm bells rang in the European Commission and in the British delegation on Thursday when it emerged that Merkel had agreed to a French request to drop the EU's 50-year commitment to promoting 'undistorted competition'.
The commission was so concerned that Philip Lowe, director-general of its competition division, contacted former competition commissioners to lobby their governments. Merkel refused to change the new treaty, although she did agree to a British request to include the competition declaration in a separate protocol. Lord Brittan, the former Tory Home Secretary, who went on to hold the commission portfolio, believes that France succeeded in weakening the EU's commitment to competition. He believes Britain is partly to blame.
'So much capital was devoted to supporting "red lines" for the benefit of Rupert Murdoch that a substantial weakening of competition policy was slipped through that is damaging for Britain,' he told The Observer
The row over competition policy prompted tensions between Downing Street and the Treasury. Brown was alarmed when Blair's spokesman suggested in Brussels at midday on Friday that Britain was happy with the French position.
Downing Street sources insisted the remarks by its spokesman were designed to calm things down during a tense period of negotiations and reflect Blair's belief that the discussions were progressing well.
Brown will today reach out to Blair when he indicates that Blair's success in maintaining the 'red lines' means he is unlikely to have to hold a referendum on the new treaty. 'Thanks to the negotiating skill of Tony they [four red lines] have been achieved and I think people when they look at the small print will see that we did what we set out to do and that was to make sure that in these areas we were properly protected as a country to make our own decisions when we want to do so,' Brown will tell BBC One's the Politics Show
But the Tories stepped up the pressure on the government last night by claiming that a clause intended to exempt Britain from a common EU foreign policy was not legally binding. William Hague, the shadow Foreign Secretary, claimed that the exemption was only a 'declaration of intent' and would not stand up to a legal challenge.
'When you examine the small print it is clear that his so-called safeguards have no legal guarantees at all,' he said. 'This is typical of the government's approach to the negotiation on this vital treaty, which undoubtedly shifts power from Britain to the EU.' Ministers will not be worried because Britain still retains its national veto in the area of foreign policy.
--------
[teh] The Independent choose to focus on the Franco-Anglo conflict on free-market policies with yesterdays article, EU agrees mini-treaty as Brown calls on Blair to stiffen his resolve (23rd June '07).
Today it reports Sarkozy claims victory over Britain as EU strikes deal (24th June '07).
The BBC provides more coverage with "EU chiefs 'satisfied' with treaty" and "EU leaders agree on reform treaty", of course not forgetting "EU treaty good for UK, says Blair"
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Why I chose to be ignorant of political news for 4 years!
« Reply #2 on: 2007-07-03 03:06:47 » |
|
Quote from: teh on 2007-06-22 09:27:51 [Teh]A number of years ago I decided to stop paying any attention to politics, after an overwhelming feeling of doom and dismay...
|
[Blunderov] I deeply sympathise. In fact I have arrived at a similar decision. Ruthless though I have attempted to be with all my RSS feeds, there are still far too many of the political ones. On the upside, it is still sometimes possible to derive a wry amusement from some stories and even learn a thing or two.
For instance the following story serves to confirm that in order to subvert all previous notions of basic human decency and fairness,* all one has to do is to get something labelled (whether officially or just in the public imagination) as a 'war'. The case in point is of course 'the war on drugs' (bad news; the drugs are winning) but I leave to the imagination what a 'war on abortion' might entail for the dignity and privacy, not to mention health, of women. Christian right wing theocrats would love to start such a war. Already they have made a beginning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act
Dispatches from the Culture Wars
Another Outrageous Cash Seizure Case
Posted on: July 2, 2007 9:09 AM, by Ed Brayton
Here's another one of those cash seizure cases where the police seize a huge amount of cash, claiming that it is money from drug transactions, without ever even charging the defendant with any drug-related crime. The Montana Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture a couple weeks ago (see ruling here). The man was pulled over for speeding and charged with DUI, but the officer found $130,000 in cash and seized it as likely drug transaction cash. And they're probably right, it probably was drug money. But it is an outrage that they can seize someone's money on that pretense without having to prove it in court.
Though he was never charged with anything even remotely drug related (they didn't even charge him with possession, though he had a small amount of pot with him in the car), the state kept the money. When he challenged the seizure of the money they held a trial but the burden of proof was on the defendant to show that the money was not drug money. The Supreme Court has to put a stop to this. It completely stands the 4th amendment on its head. Probable cause is fine for getting a warrant, but you do not get to seize property based solely on probable cause. If you can't prove that the money was to buy drugs, you don't get to keep the money. That should be obvious to anyone.
* The subversion of all normal standards of decency and fairness is probably quite a servicable definition of war I suppose. But in a war it's ok to behave like this. In fact it's a virtue. War is peace.
Live the dream. Bitter, I know.
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Why I chose to be ignorant of political news for 4 years!
« Reply #3 on: 2007-07-03 12:55:10 » |
|
[Blunderov] Likely the following is the sort of thing Teh was hoping to avoid. "Sorry for you" as we say locally.
livescience
Presidential Power at 60-Year-High
By Melinda Wenner, Special to LiveScience
posted: 02 July 2007 08:55 am ET
Presidential power is spiraling out of control, making George W. Bush the most powerful American leader since at least WWII, according to a new analysis.
But the current president, now entangled in a controversy over his recent decision to assert Executive Privilege, can’t take full credit for the power grab, the researchers argue. A number of factors have converged over the past 60 years to turn the American presidency into a position of incredible influence that has a negative effect on American politics and which won't change just because someone else takes charge of the White House.
In their new book "Presidential Power: Unchecked and Unbalanced" (W. W. Norton, 2007), Johns Hopkins University political scientists Benjamin Ginsberg and Matthew Crenson trace the history of the presidency since the middle of last century, uncovering a series of murder mystery-like motives, means and opportunities that have shaped the executive branch into the most powerful institution on the globe.
Ginsberg and Crenson are not the only researchers to spot the radical change.
“The presidency has grown in size and in power throughout the 20th century,” agreed Christopher S. Kelley, a political scientist at Miami University in Ohio.
Power grab
In a telephone interview last week, Crenson explained how American politicians today are driven by different desires than they were in the past.
“We have these people with enormously grandiose ambitions, who don’t just want to be president—they want to change history,” Crenson said. Politicians used to be propelled into the presidency by their parties; now they are self-propelled, he said.
This change was accompanied by a general decline in public political participation, said the authors. People’s dwindling interest in politics—and in congressional activities in particular—has allowed presidents to capitalize on unique opportunities.
“When popular participation diminishes, congressional influence goes down, and one of the obstacles for presidential power is significantly reduced,” Crenson said. “You can see over the course of the 20th century, presidents have either grabbed or invented one instrument of power after another.”
For instance, when Warren G. Harding set up the Bureau of the Budget in 1921, he essentially created a mechanism by which the executive branch could oversee the activities of federal agencies, Crenson explained.
And when the public looked to the president for help during the Great Depression, Congress gave Franklin D. Roosevelt the resources to establish the Executive Office of the President, an entity that houses the powerful National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget, said Kelley, the Miami University researcher.
Watergate effect
According to Kelley, however, by far the biggest instigator last century was Watergate. After the scandal, Congress reacted by constraining presidential power, all the while still expecting the president to lead.
“If any president wanted to be successful, and to bequeath an office stronger than he found it, he would need to develop unique arguments, theories, devices, etcetera, that would enable success,” Kelley told LiveScience. “Hence presidential unilateralism [and] working through the executive branch agencies to accomplish what he couldn't with the Congress.”
Watergate also prompted the Supreme Court to first recognize the power of Executive Privilege, which allows the executive branch to resist certain legislative and judicial interventions. President Bush asserted the privilege last week to keep the White House and several of his former aides from supplying subpoenaed documents to Congress in an investigation related to the replacement of federal prosecutors.
Some speculate that Bush will also evoke the privilege to keep his former aides from testifying and to prevent the White House, Vice President Cheney’s office, and the Justice Department from complying with a separate set of subpoenas related to the administration’s eavesdropping program.
Reigning it in
While many might think the relatively unchecked power in today's White House is largely due to how President Bush operates, the authors, who support different political parties, see the shift as more of an institutional—and constitutional—issue.
“People need to realize that this is not a problem that’s going to be solved by electing somebody other than George W. Bush,” Crenson said. “This is a serious constitutional problem—constitutional in both senses of the word—that is going to take some very careful thought to remedy.”
The best way to for the public to change the balance of power is to support Congress in its efforts to make substantive policy, Crenson said. Since the legislature has two parties, compared to the president’s one, it is likely to make better decisions, he contends.
Kelley agrees. The public needs “to insist that Congress vigorously defends its own prerogatives and holds the executive branch accountable,” he said. “This means that Congress holds oversight hearings, that Congress demands information, and that Congress doesn't delegate.”
In order for this to happen, however, congressional goals need bipartisan support, Kelley said. This is quite difficult today, given that members are often condemned for “reaching across the aisle.”
“The single-minded focus on the next election and to win for the Party at all cost will continue to give the executive branch the advantage,” Kelley said.
|
|
|
|
|
Konetzin
Magister
Posts: 15
Reputation: 6.91
Rate Konetzin
I'm a llama!
|
|
Re:Why I chose to be ignorant of political news for 4 years!
« Reply #4 on: 2007-07-03 13:06:04 » |
|
The world is it how it is, and there is a certain beauty to its ruthlessness and complexity if it is looked at from a neutral perspective. Many of us do not like it because we are taught to believe that it is different from what it really is, and have trouble letting go of our beliefs.
There is nothing wrong with politicians trying to selfishly seek power - power is a natural drive of all social animals. If politicians could not brainwash us, then we could not have been organized into such massive groups known as countries. Having these enormous groups allowed us to work together and create the technology we have today. Open-minded organizations always fail because people argue too much - they aren't brainwashed so each person has their own opinion, and they lack unity.
However, an open-minded elite is necessary in an overall brainwashed society in order to advance science - brainwashed people have more trouble discovering and accepting new concepts that are in conflict with their stable world. The best you smart folks can do here is try to to advance science - and keep humanity from destroying itself. If we can survive and maintain freedom of researching science for long enough, we may eventually be advanced enough to all live in greater harmony with ourselves than we do now.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Why I chose to be ignorant of political news for 4 years!
« Reply #5 on: 2007-07-03 19:09:43 » |
|
Consider the use that FW de Klerk made of effectively unlimited presidential power.
I think that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are going to stop this parade - because it suits them both so long as they are the operators - unless and until someone, neither Republican nor Democrat, succeeds, however unlikely this may seem, in taking the Presidency. At which point, irrespective of the character of the incumbent, things will become incredibly interesting.
Kind Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
teh
Adept
Posts: 65
Reputation: 7.58
Rate teh
I'm still still learning
|
|
Re:Why I chose to be ignorant of political news for 4 years!
« Reply #6 on: 2007-07-05 02:46:32 » |
|
Intersting thoughts from all
Quote:| [Blunderov] Another Outrageous Cash Seizure Case |
I had to read the article you posted, twice. for a moment I had thought it was 'just another' Brazilian or Colombian news tid bit.
Heh, all that's left to do in the aftermath of Bushes declaration of relinquishing his role as Prime Hegemon to fullfill his duties as World Emperor, is to send the death squads into the slums of America and the World to 'cleans' and rid us of all the teeerroooristas. (ref. 1980s South America)
Quote:| [Konetzin] The world is it how it is, and there is a certain beauty to its ruthlessness and complexity if it is looked at from a neutral perspective. Many of us do not like it because we are taught to believe that it is different from what it really is, and have trouble letting go of our beliefs. |
Neutral perspective? I find it somewhat baffling to comprehend what true neutral perspective is? where on the plane of perspective would the neutral point be? Maybe I can go there and observe for a while. I'm sure I will be able to correct and re-allign many of my perceptions to the "real" neutral perspective, I just hope it's not too crowded there. I tend to dislike crowds. :-)
Hehe, snide remarks aside, that was possibly one of the minor reasons why I took the time off to reflect and reconsider some of my thoughts. Not from a neutral perspective but from my perspective, as I am a living active member of the human species, who lives in a dynamic world full of realities interacting with others and having decisions made for me by others who claim that I permitted them to make in my name!. Not sitting in a 101 beginners guide to life and politics.
yes, I have heard the saying 'dealing with reality on realities terms' and yes, I also agree that beliefs have a substantial and major role in what a person perceives as reality. The prickly problem arises when people use this argument to convince you that wrong is right! Subverting your perceived reality to one were they are your unquestionable masters and idols.
We as human beings are not passive drones within our societies, nor of the human race. We all have voices, some louder than others, some more logical than others, some more eloquent than others. Unfortunately the loudest tend not to be the most logical.
The most successful societies are ones where a subtle balance between all the essential human factors or rights, if you will, (such as freedom of speech and movement, peacefull living, defence from harm, the right to clean air water and food, the right to progress and grow individually and collectively (yes i consider it a right), social harmony etc. ) is struck through negotiations and arguments (yes arguments) to reach a suitably comfortable consensual compromise. That is a true democracy.
Please note that your definition of what a successful society may be, may not coincide with what mine is!
As far as organisations go, the larger the organisation the more these rules apply, the factors change but the process is similar. There are people at the top, they guide and lead (well, should do) the decisions are made through a board of directors, and essentially by the stock holders in certain cases. The top echelon of both organisations and governments are reined in and steered by those whom represent others lower down. eg. UK Government has the PM he leads, the Parliament (representatives of the people) votes on propositions the House of Lords works as a backup system (similar to the USA's House of Representatives and the Senate) etc. You vote for your representative. If your representative messes you up. You communicate this to them in various ways. Some ways more agreeable to most than others. Such as a polite stern letter, protest, economic pressures & boycots, or a change of the control mechanisms within that system (nothing is written in stone, well, you get my drift?), even civil wars as a last resort if there are no other peacefull means.
When this system is corrupted beyond a point it all falls to bits eg dictators.
Even within dictatorships Humans have an uncanny ability to withstand a tremendous amount of oppression in return for certain conditions. Although history teaches us this can not go on for too long for a given state or organisation. (I think this also holds true for times of extreme hardship & need such as wars or catastrophic economic or natural failures when all the resources are required to move the state along)
Quote:| [Konetzin] There is nothing wrong with politicians trying to selfishly seek power - power is a natural drive of all social animals. If politicians could not brainwash us, then we could not have been organized into such massive groups known as countries. Having these enormous groups allowed us to work together and create the technology we have today. Open-minded organizations always fail because people argue too much - they aren't brainwashed so each person has their own opinion, and they lack unity. |
Unity (not to be mistaken for coercion or slavery of the mind) is built through sharing of core ideas and visions then working to fullfill those ideas, to concoct a working equation that produces optimum results.
What I understood (with some extrapolation on my side) from your statements seem to be about people with non-compromising idealogical theoretical constants. These can be countered through correct up to date information and social education (with a 'choice' afterwards not an ultimatum), If you want to call it brain washing then feel free to do so.
I tend to dislike the term 'open minded', It seems to infer a state of acceptance without understanding, conformity to acceptance without judgement. I prefer to use 'understanding', 'flexible' or 'accommodating'. ("There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out." Richard Dawkins) I'm not sure what open-minded organisations you are reffering to here, but I suspect their failure was not due to having different opinions, rather that an agreement was not reached or the openess to ideas was too chaotic and uncontrolled that the organisation splintered (eg. many open source software projects that still produce amazing results being spurred on by their once partners now rivals. )
Politicians being selfish, or being corrupt is also part of the equation, I doubt many people believe in the "100% bonafide ethical politician". The problem arises when the politician loses all sight of the targets that benefit not only themselves, lacking long term vision, or simply focus on a target that leads to benefit ONLY themselves.
Humans have always intrinsically understood the necessity for the leader of any group to be cunning, strong and preferably wise. The protector of the clan must be able to outwit the rival clans. Who best to fullfill this role but the person who can outwit most of the members of their own clan!
The clan members will be happy to be swindled as long as the perceived loss to the clan leader(s) is less than the perceived loss to the enemy. Hence the fear tactics used on a daily basis to keep people in line.
Quote:| [Konetzin] If politicians could not brainwash us, then we could not have been organized into such massive groups known as countries. |
I very much doubt that theory. politicians are there because traditionally we needed a single voice to talk on behalf of a group of people, be it trade unions, social groups, even a wine club has a chair person to organise. You must never forget, politicians SHOULD be our representatives, not our rulers. It's people with negative apathetic attitudes that have the "ah, life's a bitch!" attitude that drive me nuts (munches on peanuts, offers some around), I say "if life's a bitch, then whip the bitch into submission!". In other words, politicians SHOULD be our bitches! We, as societies, keep forgetting that!
I believe (weyken for those that prefer it) people have always huddled in groups as a survival mechanism (evolutionary forces) the larger and stronger the group the safer you are. Even those who prefer isolation from mainstream society (such as myself) still need to be in touch or part of a group, even if it were at the periphery of that group. (hehe, I look forward to the day I can have love bots and drones doing all the work/interaction for me)
Quote:| [Hermit] Consider the use that FW de Klerk made of effectively unlimited presidential power. |
and that is why I decided to temporarily ignore rather than fear the politics, knowing that there are people around every corner that will do the right thing.
My decision stemmed from the fact that my interest in politics was full of turmoil and agitation bordering on the obsessive distracting me from what I valued more than politics, yet like a herpetic wart, even if you ignore it for years you can be assured it will always regrow at some point to be picked at and scratched again. (I need to work on those analogies, I guess I could have used 'like a book, put it down for years, you can still pick it up again' )
Besides, life goes on with or without politicians! Just not as we know it Jim!
I am talking in very broad generalities here because I'm tired and need my sleep, but i will be happy to be more specific if you wish.
Konetzin, If i misunderstood you, please feel free to elaborate more, so that I can understand your thoughts better. :-P
regards
teh
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
