Well, the last weekend has both shaken what little faith I have left in my fellow humans, and restored a little of that faith. To be very clear, these were two separate occasions.
The first, more depressing part was that I got into a "sort of fight". Sort of, because it wasnt fists thrown about, and it was a fight because I almost got physically thrown out of a snack bar.
Ok, this is what happened.
I live in the Netherlands. You know, the quaint little country in Northern Europe where up until recently, life was sweet and just a little boring. Politics were predictable, people might grumble at each other but were essentially good natured (or too civilised to show how bad natured they were) and things went pretty smoothly. The government invested heavily in education (which has btw been undone in the last 10 years, causing untold damage to the future of the Dutch economy and reinstating class based education, as kids from less fortunate families simply wont be able to afford higher schooling anymore), racism was frowned upon, not used as political tool to sway the dumb into a scare-vote (AAAHH Holland is being overrun by foreigners!! Eeeehhmmm... Holland has in its history ALWAYS been overrun by foreigners! thats what made it rich!) , Europe was a pleasant trading partner and politicians were wise-father-like.
To be more precise, I live in Leiden, a town in the west of Holland.
I drive a motorbike (as can be seen elsewhere on this blog), or rather three by now (not at the same time obviously), which I park in a garage some 10 minutes biking (that is peddle biking) from my house.
And that is exactly what I did last Saturday.
When I arrived by my garage, the entrance was blocked by a parked car.
Ok, let me take a moment to explain the situation to you.
my garage is situated on a small terrain with 22 other garages. The terrain is closed off by a fence, which the garage owners have a key to. Next to the exit of the terrain is a snackbar / cafe, and the snackbar guests have an annoying tendency to park their cars/vans etc in such a way that I cant get past them onto the terrain.
As usual, I walked into the snackbar, and asked if the owner of the car could remove it, so I could get to my garage. The owner (who looked like a 18 year old kid with a bad attitude and a worse haircut) finally showed up, and whilst aiming some derogatory remarks at me, slowly moved his car.
I collected my motorbike and set off for the day. It was a lovely day on the road, visiting some friends and enjoying the crisp freezing coldness as one can experience it only on a motorbike at high speed. Finally tired and content, I returned to the garage.
Guess what? This time a van was blocking the drive.
Sigh, into the snackbar, "can the owner of the van please move it", get back out onto the bike and wait for the brainless abusive remarks the "ever-so-cool-and-tough" owner of the van would make towards me as he shifted his van.
Now dont get me wrong, I dont usually let such comments get to me, especially not coming from a mental midget with the IQ of a fencepost (Thanks Tom ;-) ). Today however, I was just getting a bit fed up of the sheer number of selfish, stupid, ignorant assholes who think they can spew abuse at anyone who gets in their way, but are hypersensitive to any form of criticism levelled at them. These people remind me mostly of miniature versions of gorillas beating their own chests, but I dont think saying that is very fair to gorillas.
Anyway, he moved his van, I parked my bike, and I decided to try to be an adult about it.
Id have a chat with the owner of the bar, to see what we could do to solve the problem more permanently.
So, I went inside and asked for the owner. This guy shows up, looking not too friendly, but not too stupid either. I felt it was a good start.
I hadnt even finished my first sentence ("say, about those cars parks in from of the garages") when he started yelling at me that it was actually his poor clientele who had to suffer from the people trying to get in and out of their garages. "if I could pay 4 grand for a garage that I shouldnt complain and poor hardworking him and blah blah". Btw, for your info, I rent the garage, cause I cant afford to buy it.
Somewhat taken aback I tried to get him to realise that a solution was therefore in everyone's interest.
However, instead of listening, he started threatening me. Suddenly there were 5 rather large guys standing around me, claiming they were going to beat me up (this was about the time I felt it might not end too well). One of them tried to pick me up and throw me out of the bar (unsuccessfully btw), while the others kept up their litany of threats and abuse. I finally walked out, feeling there was not much point trying to reason with people too stupid to understand it was in their own interest.
Once outside i called the cops. I was fed up and wanted to send a message.
The cops (surprisingly) showed up and walked into the bar. The owner had quickly run out the back (coward), so there was not alot they could do with regards to him. Still, I think the message that if they behave this aggressively, the cops are at their door 5 minutes later is a good one.
So now the situation kind of hangs there. I havent had a chance to go for a ride since Saturday, it will be fun if there is a car parked in front of the garages again. Im not going to let these idiots intimidate me, and if I need to press charges against the owner of the bar, so be it. Lets see how tough he is in court.
That was the depressing state of mankind experience.
The uplifting one is unfortunately alot shorter. But it is genuinely sweet (well, to me that is).
Leiden has alot of takeaways, restaurants etc. Im privileged that if Im too lazy to cook, I can choose from a wide variety of oriental food, fast food, italian, greek, etc etc. Lots of variation, but no Dutch food.
Well, thats hardly surprising as the reputation of the Dutch kitchen is only slightly beter than that of the British one (btw, see the success of the British TV-chefs and that might have to be reconsidered).
There are however some delightful dishes in the dutch kitchen, especially in the winter food category.
Things like Stamppot, boerenkool met worst, etc are really good on a cold winter day when you've been doing some physical excersise (just the kind of day you dont feel like cooking), and I sometimes come home a little sad with my takeaway wok-dish, craving these more wholesome dishes.
Well, I need crave no more!
Leiden has just been blessed with a "Dutch food takeaway"! It has great sausage, meatballs, boerenkool, andijvie stamppot etc. Also good is the onion soup the proprietor let me taste while I waited for hime to warm up my meal. Im really going to enjoy this, especially as the winter has truly arrived (-10C predicted this week).
Hmmmm..... Happy days!
And another little irony I like about this place, is that its not run by a blond, blue-eyes type.
No, its painted yellow and green, and its run by someone from the caribbean with a smile even warmer than his uber-Dutch stamppot.
Brilliant!!
Tuesday, 31 January 2012
Monday, 23 January 2012
Rabbi or Rabbid?
Ok, now Im sure the world I live in is moving backwards to the middle ages rather than forwards towards a bright and enlightened furtue.
Aryeh Ralbag, chief rabbi for Amsterdam (although he lives in New York I believe) has gone of his rocker. First he signs a document declaring homosexuality a disease which needs to be cured (hang on, I thought this kind of garbage had disappeared from western society quite a while ago. I think it was together with the use of leaches as a surgical technique or somewhere thereabouts...), than, when the Amsterdam Jewish community tells him where to stuff it, he goes on a "oh poor me" trip, claiming he cant come to Amsterdam cause he wouldnt be safe (dramaqueen! What, do you think there are now legions of "gay gunman" waiting for you here? Please, you vastly overrate your own importance, most people simply dont care about the next fool who spouts religious doctrine bereft of any compassion or humanity), than The Committee for the Declaration on the Torah Approach to Homosexuality (what?? sounds like either a bunch of closet homos or people completely unqualified to rule about homosexuality to me) likens the Amsterdam reaction to fascism. Fascism?? For objecting to call a significant part of the population sick just cause they dont love according to your narrow-minded worldview?
This kind of statements belittles the suffering of your fellow Jews who actually suffered from fascism! Shame on you!
Now I dont know alot about either Jews and Judaism or about homosexuality, but the only fascism Im seeing here is a rightwing religious nutbag who can shake hands with some of the most extreme islamist (or other) crazies around.
First he goes and calls a large part of the population "sick" (despite the fact that these kinds of sentiments have in the past frequently led to discrimination, pogroms and persecution, and have NEVER led to anything positive or uplifting), claiming he can say what he wants to under the first amendment. Than, when the community he claims to represent (from a few thousand miles away) disagrees with his medieval worldview and relieves him of his position, he (ignoring the same freedom of speech he invoked earlier) calls this reaction fascist.
Dear Chief Rabbi Ralbag / other members of the "Committee for the Declaration on the Torah Approach to Homosexuality". Your position is an archaic remnant of a worldview which has in the past led to suffering beyond measure. This type of discriminatory, stigmatising garbage has been abused by Adolf Hitler as well as many many other despots, tyrants and mass murderers.
Its shameful to see that representatives of an old and proud people have sunk so low, that they feel they need to invoke associations with the worst horror ever visited on humans by other humans. Your fellow Jews who were massacred in the holocaust, as well as the homosexuals who were gassed beside them by real fascists should be spinning in their grave.
For now please stay away from Holland. Its a nice country, and we can do without your breed of religious extremism, scaremongering and intolerance. We've built up a nice country here where people (mostly) live together in harmony, and we dont need you to put people down or give intolerant idiots excuses to commit atrocities.
As my grandmother (a very wise woman) used to say:
"If you cant say anything nice, please dont speak at all"
Ps. Im not Gay, Im not Jewish, Im not Muslim, I dont hate Israel (I dont agree with Israelly policy either, but thats a different discussion), I dont hate any other religious groups and I dont have any personal vendettas against anything, except perhaps against extremists who preach only hate and intolerance.
Sunday, 22 January 2012
some quotes about Democracy
I pointed out a few shortcomings of our democracy here and here already. This post is just a few quotes about the issues with Democracy from some well known or simply funny people.
I feel that these quotes are important, because they show that for a long time, people have wondered about the virtues and shortcomings of our current political system. We now have quite a severe disconnect between the voters and the politicians. Current faith in our leaders is pretty low and has been for a while. Perhaps the answer to how to reinvigorate our leadership model lies in some of the comments below, as they were (mostly) made by people much wiser than myself.
The first one is funny and it reminds me of the GOP primaries alot! No one (except perhaps the "Ron Paul Legion Of Unwavering Support") is voting for a candidate they truly believe in. They are just scared the wrong lizard may get in otherwise... (wake up, the wrong lizard is any lizard except one you really believe in!)
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see...."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."
I feel that these quotes are important, because they show that for a long time, people have wondered about the virtues and shortcomings of our current political system. We now have quite a severe disconnect between the voters and the politicians. Current faith in our leaders is pretty low and has been for a while. Perhaps the answer to how to reinvigorate our leadership model lies in some of the comments below, as they were (mostly) made by people much wiser than myself.
The first one is funny and it reminds me of the GOP primaries alot! No one (except perhaps the "Ron Paul Legion Of Unwavering Support") is voting for a candidate they truly believe in. They are just scared the wrong lizard may get in otherwise... (wake up, the wrong lizard is any lizard except one you really believe in!)
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see...."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."
- Douglas Adams, in So Long, And Thanks For All The Fish (1984) Ch. 36
Here is a true classic, and one which sums up the real problem in a nut shell.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried."
This one nicely exposes why we all accept the rule of someone who has approval ratings far smaller that the democratic majority.
When people put their ballots in the boxes, they are, by that act, inoculated against the feeling that the government is not theirs. They then accept, in some measure, that its errors are their errors, its aberrations their aberrations, that any revolt will be against them. It's a remarkably shrewd and rather conservative arrangement when one thinks of it.
this one is really good, considering the worldwide polarisation we are seeing now:
We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments.
Something for the libertarians to think about:
Democracy is necessarily despotism, as it establishes an executive power contrary to the general will; all being able to decide against one whose opinion may differ, the will of all is therefore not that of all: which is contradictory and opposite to liberty.
This one is what im currently really worried about.:
Tyranny is usually tempered with assassination, and Democracy must be tempered with culture. In the absence of this, it turns into a representation of collective folly.
Again a nice comment which today holds as true as in 1977 when it was first coined
The way people in democracies think of the government as something different from themselves is a real handicap. And, of course, sometimes the government confirms their opinion.
In the case of a word like DEMOCRACY, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.
A personal favourite which sums up one central issue nicely:
We have really put the duh in democracy, creating a perverse equality that entitles everyone to speak to every issue, regardless of how much they know about it.
Democracy has turned out to be not majority rule but rule by well-organized and well-connected minority groups who steal from the majority.
Friday, 20 January 2012
SOPA, PIPA and megaupload
So... the great US freedom loving nation strikes again.
With primary candidates rolling all over each other claiming they want "less government interference", with libertarian ideals being thrown around left right and centre, with the supreme court placing the "freedom of expression" of large corporations above the interests of individual Americans (see this) the new US approach to freedom becomes blatantly apparent.
SOPA and PIPA are under discussion, laws which expose a desire of government (enjoying broad bipartisan support btw) to have tools to censor internet. Meanwhile Megaupload gets taken off the air for alleged piracy.
SOPA and PIPA might still be described as mistakes out of ignorance of how internet works (the blanket type law now being described would take most social networks offline, as well as youtube, reddit, blogger, etc etc etc. This is because under the current proposals all it takes is one idiot posting copyrighted content on any part of the site (like uploading a video to youtube for example) for the state to have the right to take the root directory of that site offline), or false idealist thinking that such broad powers would "never get abused" (read a history book for gods sakes, these kinds of powers ALWAYS get abused!!).
The Megaupload raid however strikes me as a different matter. You see, Megaupload does a lot to remove illegal content from its sites.
Its developed a tool to remove illegal content automatically, they have given the owners of copyrights access to the site so they can remove illegal content, and its come to agreements with for example Universal about sharing copyrighted content under license.
Furthermore, the vast majority of Megaupload users use it for holiday photos and suchlike stuff. They now also have lost access to all their private and often irreplaceable belongings. (waiiiittt a minute! that means that these people are assumed guilty until they prove their innocence. Thats not quite how we practice law and fairness is it?)
So despite this organisation being one of the standard bearers for reason in the fight against illegal content, having dialogues with all parties involved (governments, industry and users), having shown clear efforts to comply with the law and being invaluable to many innocent users, its being censored off the net. Furthermore, the owners have been arrested in an international raid (isnt this what we expect when people plant bombs or deal huge amounts of drugs? I mean, against nerds????). This didnt even happen in the case of youtube, which had far more easy to find illegal content.
Anonymous is taking revenge. I personally dont think they can have a meaningful impact on the situation (after all, the biggest demonstrations in history were also ignored by our "democratically elected representatives"), but I support them in so far that someone needs to cry out against this outrage.
Is illegal file-sharing really the fight we want to put our energy into right now?
Is this Americas priority? (btw. there has never been a link proven between piracy and reduction of sales for fat-cat artists and industry millionairs. In fact, many experts claim these things are entirely unrelated for various reasons).
Once we've brought those responsible for the current state of the world to justice, maybe.
By that I mean for instance criminal politicians (just an example of the bigger problems we have. It could have been a dozen others). Take Irak for example. Did you know that one of the last things Bush did in office was to silently push through a law that grants him and his cronies immunity from prosecution? (and that Obama supported this!!) Thats just about an admission of guilt in my book! Its also blatant corruption which Id normally expect from corrupt backwater third world countries. Not from the "standard-bearer for democracy and freedom!"
Or the reckless businessmen who caused the crises by bending the rules and being greedy. There is plenty of evidence that they knew exactly what they were doing, some former CEOs who walked away with millions could be charged tomorrow based on the evidence already collected. But I guess they are "job creators", so shouldnt be prosecuted... and looking at current unemployment figures, they've sure created lots of jobs the last decade!!
But as long as big problems such as these are left to go unchecked, as long as the rich and powerful can (figuratively) get away with murder and even walk away with a fat bonus I am not surprised that peoples faith in politicians and the rule of law dwindles. Add to that the blatant hypocrisy of politicians who want less government regulation for (purely profit driven) companies, but claim to have the right to regulate what consenting adults do in their bedroom, what I see on internet, what I read, and perhaps soon (if technically possible) what I think (but I do have the right to own a gun. Thats of course my god-given right. To be able to shoot my fellow men....).
Because of these reasons, injustices and imbalances I support the Anonymous actions. I dont think violence (even digital) is the answer, but in this current climate I support any organisation who cries out about about blatant injustice. As I see it, our voices will be ignored by the powers that be until we grab them by the ear and make them listen to us.
If taking down their websites is whats required to get their attention, so be it. Go LOIC!
With primary candidates rolling all over each other claiming they want "less government interference", with libertarian ideals being thrown around left right and centre, with the supreme court placing the "freedom of expression" of large corporations above the interests of individual Americans (see this) the new US approach to freedom becomes blatantly apparent.
SOPA and PIPA are under discussion, laws which expose a desire of government (enjoying broad bipartisan support btw) to have tools to censor internet. Meanwhile Megaupload gets taken off the air for alleged piracy.
SOPA and PIPA might still be described as mistakes out of ignorance of how internet works (the blanket type law now being described would take most social networks offline, as well as youtube, reddit, blogger, etc etc etc. This is because under the current proposals all it takes is one idiot posting copyrighted content on any part of the site (like uploading a video to youtube for example) for the state to have the right to take the root directory of that site offline), or false idealist thinking that such broad powers would "never get abused" (read a history book for gods sakes, these kinds of powers ALWAYS get abused!!).
The Megaupload raid however strikes me as a different matter. You see, Megaupload does a lot to remove illegal content from its sites.
Its developed a tool to remove illegal content automatically, they have given the owners of copyrights access to the site so they can remove illegal content, and its come to agreements with for example Universal about sharing copyrighted content under license.
Furthermore, the vast majority of Megaupload users use it for holiday photos and suchlike stuff. They now also have lost access to all their private and often irreplaceable belongings. (waiiiittt a minute! that means that these people are assumed guilty until they prove their innocence. Thats not quite how we practice law and fairness is it?)
So despite this organisation being one of the standard bearers for reason in the fight against illegal content, having dialogues with all parties involved (governments, industry and users), having shown clear efforts to comply with the law and being invaluable to many innocent users, its being censored off the net. Furthermore, the owners have been arrested in an international raid (isnt this what we expect when people plant bombs or deal huge amounts of drugs? I mean, against nerds????). This didnt even happen in the case of youtube, which had far more easy to find illegal content.
Anonymous is taking revenge. I personally dont think they can have a meaningful impact on the situation (after all, the biggest demonstrations in history were also ignored by our "democratically elected representatives"), but I support them in so far that someone needs to cry out against this outrage.
Is illegal file-sharing really the fight we want to put our energy into right now?
Is this Americas priority? (btw. there has never been a link proven between piracy and reduction of sales for fat-cat artists and industry millionairs. In fact, many experts claim these things are entirely unrelated for various reasons).
Once we've brought those responsible for the current state of the world to justice, maybe.
By that I mean for instance criminal politicians (just an example of the bigger problems we have. It could have been a dozen others). Take Irak for example. Did you know that one of the last things Bush did in office was to silently push through a law that grants him and his cronies immunity from prosecution? (and that Obama supported this!!) Thats just about an admission of guilt in my book! Its also blatant corruption which Id normally expect from corrupt backwater third world countries. Not from the "standard-bearer for democracy and freedom!"
Or the reckless businessmen who caused the crises by bending the rules and being greedy. There is plenty of evidence that they knew exactly what they were doing, some former CEOs who walked away with millions could be charged tomorrow based on the evidence already collected. But I guess they are "job creators", so shouldnt be prosecuted... and looking at current unemployment figures, they've sure created lots of jobs the last decade!!
But as long as big problems such as these are left to go unchecked, as long as the rich and powerful can (figuratively) get away with murder and even walk away with a fat bonus I am not surprised that peoples faith in politicians and the rule of law dwindles. Add to that the blatant hypocrisy of politicians who want less government regulation for (purely profit driven) companies, but claim to have the right to regulate what consenting adults do in their bedroom, what I see on internet, what I read, and perhaps soon (if technically possible) what I think (but I do have the right to own a gun. Thats of course my god-given right. To be able to shoot my fellow men....).
Because of these reasons, injustices and imbalances I support the Anonymous actions. I dont think violence (even digital) is the answer, but in this current climate I support any organisation who cries out about about blatant injustice. As I see it, our voices will be ignored by the powers that be until we grab them by the ear and make them listen to us.
If taking down their websites is whats required to get their attention, so be it. Go LOIC!
Tuesday, 17 January 2012
Cal Gepet / Cal Gepes / Can Gepet (Com Collons es diu Aquesta Masia?)
Ok guys & gals, its been a week or two, and I havent had a response yet to my search for a house.
Time to increase visibility!
Time to go native (no, thats not a bone through the nose. Well, thats not all thats to it :-) ).
Here is the same post as this one, but now in Catalan, the language spoken around the house we're looking for.
O, en realitat, buscant qui en són els amos…
Can Gepet (també conegut amb els noms de Cal Gepet or Cal Gepes, coordenades: 41° 20′ 44.13″ N, 1° 54′ 53.14″ E), una masia preciosa que es troba al poble de Begues, a prop de Barcelona. Aquí la teniu:
Vista del darrere:
La façana:
Encara que està bastant deteriorada, nosaltres trobem que aquesta magnífica masia té un gran potencial.
Però...
Ens està essent molt difícil de trobar-ne els propietaris!!
Per tant, una crida a qualsevol que llegeixi això:
Si sabeu a qui pertany aquesta masia o si coneixeu a algú que sàpiga qui són (o sigui capaç de trobar-ne) els propietaries, si us plau deixi un comentari!
Qualsevol comentari que ens pugui ajudar a posar-nos en contacte amb els propietaris serà premiat !
Time to increase visibility!
Time to go native (no, thats not a bone through the nose. Well, thats not all thats to it :-) ).
Here is the same post as this one, but now in Catalan, the language spoken around the house we're looking for.
Can Gepet: buscant casa! (oferim recompensa)
Can Gepet (també conegut amb els noms de Cal Gepet or Cal Gepes, coordenades: 41° 20′ 44.13″ N, 1° 54′ 53.14″ E), una masia preciosa que es troba al poble de Begues, a prop de Barcelona. Aquí la teniu:
Vista del darrere:
La façana:
Encara que està bastant deteriorada, nosaltres trobem que aquesta magnífica masia té un gran potencial.
Però...
Ens està essent molt difícil de trobar-ne els propietaris!!
Per tant, una crida a qualsevol que llegeixi això:
Si sabeu a qui pertany aquesta masia o si coneixeu a algú que sàpiga qui són (o sigui capaç de trobar-ne) els propietaries, si us plau deixi un comentari!
Qualsevol comentari que ens pugui ajudar a posar-nos en contacte amb els propietaris serà premiat !
Si n’ets el/la propietari/a i
estàs llegint això, oferim un quantitat considerable per la compra d’aquesta
propietat, així que, si us plau, posa’t en contacte amb nosaltres!
Gràcies!
one less sane man left standing...
Anddd.... Huntsman has left the race for the Republican presidential nomination. A shame, he seemed to be the least objectionable of the lot to me.
His candidacy never really entered the race to be honest. I mean, he never got above the radar, did he?
For someone with strong qualifications its a little weird.
He's obviously not stupid (come on, the guy seems like a veritable Einstein compared to Newt or Michelle), but this is probably one of the least effective candidacies this year.
In my opinion the main reason he survived longer than Cain or Bachmann is that he didnt crash and burn, prefering to save his ammo for New Hampshire. That disappointed, South Carolina would eat him alive (he's waaayyyy too moderate / sane for most voters there) so, time to save the Huntsman millions.
Goes to show, a perfect diplomat with a good story, a set of values which are supported by the broad majority of Americans (I hope that his views are supported by more people than Ron Pauls or Santorums extremism, racism and gaybashing, otherwise I seriously fear for the sanity and future of the US) and less bought than Romney (but even the marsbar I just bought from a local kiosk could say that) is not good president material.
You know what, Ill already start worrying about the US. With the current pack it looks like the election will be Romney vs Obama (ie, big industry vs "lets play it cautiously"). Neither choice looks like it will fix the current US problem (economical and political), so I wonder what the world will look like in another 4 years.
If the economic trends continue and big industry get bought by China, the current laws (Citizens united vs FEC) will ensure that the US president to take office in 2016 / 2017 is likely to speak fluent Chinese.
Perhaps a good second chance for Huntsman?
His candidacy never really entered the race to be honest. I mean, he never got above the radar, did he?
For someone with strong qualifications its a little weird.
He's obviously not stupid (come on, the guy seems like a veritable Einstein compared to Newt or Michelle), but this is probably one of the least effective candidacies this year.
In my opinion the main reason he survived longer than Cain or Bachmann is that he didnt crash and burn, prefering to save his ammo for New Hampshire. That disappointed, South Carolina would eat him alive (he's waaayyyy too moderate / sane for most voters there) so, time to save the Huntsman millions.
Goes to show, a perfect diplomat with a good story, a set of values which are supported by the broad majority of Americans (I hope that his views are supported by more people than Ron Pauls or Santorums extremism, racism and gaybashing, otherwise I seriously fear for the sanity and future of the US) and less bought than Romney (but even the marsbar I just bought from a local kiosk could say that) is not good president material.
You know what, Ill already start worrying about the US. With the current pack it looks like the election will be Romney vs Obama (ie, big industry vs "lets play it cautiously"). Neither choice looks like it will fix the current US problem (economical and political), so I wonder what the world will look like in another 4 years.
If the economic trends continue and big industry get bought by China, the current laws (Citizens united vs FEC) will ensure that the US president to take office in 2016 / 2017 is likely to speak fluent Chinese.
Perhaps a good second chance for Huntsman?
Monday, 9 January 2012
Arab spring, forwards or reverse?
The Arab Spring, the surge of revolutions that has taken the Arab world by storm and has kindled hope for more democratic and fair regimes in the region.
Starting in Tunisia with a relatively swift overthrow of Ben Ali, it evolved through Egypts peoples revolution and Libya's civil war.
For a short, hopeful time, no despot or Arab dictator seemed safe.
Even in Iran the Ayatollahs must have lost quite some sleep, although the brutal repression of the attempted green demonstrations was still so fresh that nothing really materialised.
But in Bahrain and Yemen the story was quite different. Bahrain with Saudi military help beat down the demonstrators, while in Yemen the revolution seemed to descend into a tribal war. In Yemen the Saleh regime finally was toppled, but Syria's revolution seems to get more bloody every day. The Arab League observers there are led by someone with copious amounts of blood on his hands (Darfur) and seem to be encouraging Bashar's crackdown rather than stopping it.
Current estimates are that 5000 people have died.
Thats more than the population of the town I grew up in.
Meanwhile Egypt's military rulers seem intent on alienating the population as swiftly as possible, by clamping down one by one on various groups. Christians, woman, the Muslim brotherhood... Have you read about the blue bra girl? An unknown girl who was savagely beaten by the military. Her clothes ripped off, beaten with batons and even stomped on (see picture).
How sick is this?
How fucked up are you if you stomp with your whole weight on the stomach of a defenceless woman, when she is already down? Its not as if she is a threat, is she?
Who are these soldiers and whats wrong with them?
How does someone's son, someone who presumably goes home to his family at the end of a day end up beating a defenceless fellow human being to a bloody pulp?
In Iran it was Neda Agha-Soltan, a girl who got shot to death before the eyes of the world.
In Syria it was Zeinab Al-Hosni, who was found by her family in a morgue in Homs. Her arms had been cut of, she had been decapitated and skinned. (and she is just an example, many more underwent similar fates)
WHAT???
What is WRONG with these people?
So whats happening? How come the revolutions that started with such a huge wave of hope have now turned into such bloodbaths. How come that even in the countries which seemed to have a successful revolution the conditions are now rapidly heading for "just as bad as before, maybe worse".
Dont tell me that "democracy needs time". Beating the sh*t out of defenceless people is happening more frequently now than it was a few years ago. And it doesnt take much of a moral compass to realise that you're pretty far from ok when you find yourself kicking someone lying on the asphalt in the head.
Im getting quite worried about this increase in violence. Its worldwide. In the US students were peppersprayed , in Turkey journalists are being thrown in jail under a pretence of a coup, Russian demonstrators protest Putins rape of his constitution, African protests erup after every democratic election, we even had riots in London. Im not even mentioning China here, this post just isnt long enough to go into whats happening there under the guise of order and "preserving the peace".
Is it me or does there seem to be a worldwide increase in "asshole goverment".
It seems that the people are running out of options to create a decent government for themselves. The Arab revolutions have mainly returned the same career politicians to the fat paychecks. Irak has nominal and enforced Democracy, but seems little happier now than under Saddam. The ongoing demonstrations in Syria seem unlikely to produce anything but buckets of innocent blood any time soon (while the international community stands idly by), and the Iranian leadership continues to destroy its own economy just so some immature politician can say he stood up to the west.
What did all those brave people pay with their own blood for?
And the West? The selfproclaimed "standard bearers for Democracy"?
Occupy has wound down.
Bankers enjoy fatter paychecks than ever (not supported by even a single percent of the population), and their companies are still able to hold governments for ransom.
Peaceful demonstrators are peppersprayed, and the guilty parties get a "slap on the wrist" (even with videotaped evidence).
The US primaries as well as the last 6 months of hyperpartisan politics amply demonstrate how far the US leaders have strayed from their constituents (small wonder, see the Citizens united supreme court case). Even Dutch politics (for years the most down to earth imaginable) is ruled by populist twits (Pun intended) instead of by its population.
Millions have demonstrated. Revolutions have toppled despotic governments at the costs of thousands of innocent lives. Countries have been invaded to "bring democracy", and yet it seems that the people are further from having any real power over their own destiny than ever. And I dont mean libertarian "jungle law freedom" in which we get eaten alive by corporations able to outspend entire governments.
No, I mean the power to elect honest representatives who do their job for the good of their people, instead of the good of their own bankrolls. The power to hold those who wield executive power to account when their decisions wreck our livelihoods (hey, they get paid (or enrich themselves) extremely well because of the responsibility they bear? Well, let them take that responsibility when things go wrong as well than!), the power to demand real change when we feel we are hostages of a system that does not suit our needs anymore.
But that seems to be impossible. Todays revolution seems only to produce tomorrows dictator. The loudest demonstrations are simply ignored.
Freedom?
It seems in worldwide short supply these days.
Starting in Tunisia with a relatively swift overthrow of Ben Ali, it evolved through Egypts peoples revolution and Libya's civil war.
For a short, hopeful time, no despot or Arab dictator seemed safe.
Even in Iran the Ayatollahs must have lost quite some sleep, although the brutal repression of the attempted green demonstrations was still so fresh that nothing really materialised.
But in Bahrain and Yemen the story was quite different. Bahrain with Saudi military help beat down the demonstrators, while in Yemen the revolution seemed to descend into a tribal war. In Yemen the Saleh regime finally was toppled, but Syria's revolution seems to get more bloody every day. The Arab League observers there are led by someone with copious amounts of blood on his hands (Darfur) and seem to be encouraging Bashar's crackdown rather than stopping it.
Current estimates are that 5000 people have died.
Thats more than the population of the town I grew up in.
How sick is this?
How fucked up are you if you stomp with your whole weight on the stomach of a defenceless woman, when she is already down? Its not as if she is a threat, is she?
Who are these soldiers and whats wrong with them?
How does someone's son, someone who presumably goes home to his family at the end of a day end up beating a defenceless fellow human being to a bloody pulp?
In Iran it was Neda Agha-Soltan, a girl who got shot to death before the eyes of the world.
In Syria it was Zeinab Al-Hosni, who was found by her family in a morgue in Homs. Her arms had been cut of, she had been decapitated and skinned. (and she is just an example, many more underwent similar fates)
WHAT???
What is WRONG with these people?
So whats happening? How come the revolutions that started with such a huge wave of hope have now turned into such bloodbaths. How come that even in the countries which seemed to have a successful revolution the conditions are now rapidly heading for "just as bad as before, maybe worse".
Dont tell me that "democracy needs time". Beating the sh*t out of defenceless people is happening more frequently now than it was a few years ago. And it doesnt take much of a moral compass to realise that you're pretty far from ok when you find yourself kicking someone lying on the asphalt in the head.
Im getting quite worried about this increase in violence. Its worldwide. In the US students were peppersprayed , in Turkey journalists are being thrown in jail under a pretence of a coup, Russian demonstrators protest Putins rape of his constitution, African protests erup after every democratic election, we even had riots in London. Im not even mentioning China here, this post just isnt long enough to go into whats happening there under the guise of order and "preserving the peace".
Is it me or does there seem to be a worldwide increase in "asshole goverment".
It seems that the people are running out of options to create a decent government for themselves. The Arab revolutions have mainly returned the same career politicians to the fat paychecks. Irak has nominal and enforced Democracy, but seems little happier now than under Saddam. The ongoing demonstrations in Syria seem unlikely to produce anything but buckets of innocent blood any time soon (while the international community stands idly by), and the Iranian leadership continues to destroy its own economy just so some immature politician can say he stood up to the west.
What did all those brave people pay with their own blood for?
And the West? The selfproclaimed "standard bearers for Democracy"?
Occupy has wound down.
Bankers enjoy fatter paychecks than ever (not supported by even a single percent of the population), and their companies are still able to hold governments for ransom.
Peaceful demonstrators are peppersprayed, and the guilty parties get a "slap on the wrist" (even with videotaped evidence).
The US primaries as well as the last 6 months of hyperpartisan politics amply demonstrate how far the US leaders have strayed from their constituents (small wonder, see the Citizens united supreme court case). Even Dutch politics (for years the most down to earth imaginable) is ruled by populist twits (Pun intended) instead of by its population.
Millions have demonstrated. Revolutions have toppled despotic governments at the costs of thousands of innocent lives. Countries have been invaded to "bring democracy", and yet it seems that the people are further from having any real power over their own destiny than ever. And I dont mean libertarian "jungle law freedom" in which we get eaten alive by corporations able to outspend entire governments.
No, I mean the power to elect honest representatives who do their job for the good of their people, instead of the good of their own bankrolls. The power to hold those who wield executive power to account when their decisions wreck our livelihoods (hey, they get paid (or enrich themselves) extremely well because of the responsibility they bear? Well, let them take that responsibility when things go wrong as well than!), the power to demand real change when we feel we are hostages of a system that does not suit our needs anymore.
But that seems to be impossible. Todays revolution seems only to produce tomorrows dictator. The loudest demonstrations are simply ignored.
Freedom?
It seems in worldwide short supply these days.
Thursday, 5 January 2012
Spreading Santorum
Guys n Galls, this is simply too brilliant not to mention.
Santorum, a known homofobe who ended up Nr 2 in Iowa (pun intended obviously) has been Pwned soooooo hard, he is probably still frothing.
The reasons behind it are in the link above, Im not going to repeat the things he's quoted as saying. They are not funny, not enlightening and disgust me.
Either take it from me that he's pretty much deserved what happened to him, or look for yourself.
Anyway, back to the Lulz!
Check out this site, dedicated to the new definition of Santorum (but make sure you're not eating while you do it).
Just to give you a hint, the new definition is.....
A Frothy mixture of lube and faecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.
Im still shaking with laughter.
Dan Savage has done his job so well, that the top two google hits for Santorum now are about "Spreading Santorum"
Ricky-dear has meanwhile tried to ask Google to remove the offending sites from their search, stating that "if you're a responsible business, you dont.... allow that type of filth to be purveyed through [your] website."
Google, to their credit, declined to meddle with their algorithms, stating that it was a successful redefinition of a word, not a prank result.
Here is the link again: Spreadingsantorum.com
Oh Im really lovin' the US election year so far :D
Santorum, a known homofobe who ended up Nr 2 in Iowa (pun intended obviously) has been Pwned soooooo hard, he is probably still frothing.
The reasons behind it are in the link above, Im not going to repeat the things he's quoted as saying. They are not funny, not enlightening and disgust me.
Either take it from me that he's pretty much deserved what happened to him, or look for yourself.
Anyway, back to the Lulz!
Check out this site, dedicated to the new definition of Santorum (but make sure you're not eating while you do it).
Just to give you a hint, the new definition is.....
A Frothy mixture of lube and faecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.
Im still shaking with laughter.
Dan Savage has done his job so well, that the top two google hits for Santorum now are about "Spreading Santorum"
Ricky-dear has meanwhile tried to ask Google to remove the offending sites from their search, stating that "if you're a responsible business, you dont.... allow that type of filth to be purveyed through [your] website."
Google, to their credit, declined to meddle with their algorithms, stating that it was a successful redefinition of a word, not a prank result.
Here is the link again: Spreadingsantorum.com
Oh Im really lovin' the US election year so far :D
Wednesday, 4 January 2012
US primary candidates
Sigh.. I, being European, had intended not to comment directly on the currently ongoing US primaries.
Actually, I should specify that they are Republican primaries, especially looking at the candidates.
Well, I reread some of my posts, and decided that that ship had sailed anyway, and that (being European) it was simply too tempting to throw a few questions and thoughts out there.
First question... (insert drumroll)
What the F*ck?
Why are 7 people (currently, not counting earlier dropouts) wasting millions of dollars (private money, quite a bit of it their own aswell!) on an attempt to become US president, which most right minded people could have told them from the start was a complete waste of time?
I mean, lets have a look at the field, ok?
Mitt Romney to start with.
He won in Iowa, although not nearly as overwhelmingly as he probably would have liked.
He is the GOP moderate (relatively that is. Don't forget that from a European perspective, all these guys resemble rabid pitbulls more than respectable politicians. But than again, perhaps the "over-compromising-lets-debate-and-water-everything-down-till-its worthless-anyway" European politics could do with a little more pitbull right now. Its just a perspective ;-) ) who has been working on this for more than 5 years now. His policies seem mainly pragmatic / opportunistic. no real sharp edges or stuff anyone could hate (not much substance to it really). Definitely supported by just about the whole GOP leadership, and just as definitely bought lock, stock and barrel by industry / lobby groups.
This is the most likely candidate to win the GOP nomination overall.
Ehhhmmm... Why not immediately put the US chamber of commerce up as candidate and skip the middleman?
Anyway, he's from a rich and successful background, his dad was governor of Michigan and he's overall not stupid. However the republicans on the ground just don't like him. Not conservative enough, too Mormon and too fickle. Getting this man to beat Obama without enthusiastic support from the republican constituency (going flyering, donating money, supporting their candidate publicly and actually turning out to vote in great numbers) will be tough. Very very tough...
Next, the Iowa caucus number 2, Rick Santorum.
Social conservative, worked his way up the ranks. He has little to no campain organisation outside of Iowa, very meager funding and is not strongly endorsed outside of Iowa.
Apart from this, he plans to bomb Iran as soon as they fart in his general direction (which makes him a little scary for moderate voters), seems significantly less interested in cutting government down to size (which basically makes him unelectable for the right wing republicans) and makes statements like "I dont want to make Black peoples lives better by giving them other peoples money" (Ref), which should make him reasonably unpopular with coloured voters. (btw, most welfare dollars go to white people, not black) (Ref). He also is a confirmed homophobe who (in response to comparing homosexuality to incest, animalism, adultery and so forth) has been pwned so hard he's probably still bubbling with anger.
Who exactly does Mr. Santorum think is going to vote for him, and how does he think this will tally up enough votes to get him nominated, let alone elected?
Ok, on to Rick Perry. Governor of Texas (after George W).
Opposes abortion and same-sex marriage, wants to lower taxes for the rich and businesses (flat 20% for everyone), Christian and has a good track-record as governor.
But...
He's not a great debater... He mixed up Irak and Iran once and couldnt remember which 3 government departments he wanted to abolish.
He's a former Democrat (shiver...lol) and has a few blemishes on his reputation (Bilderberg connection, HPV shots made mandatory, soft on immigration).
Not the ideal GOP candidate (doesnt toe the party line enough) and if he gets nominated also not the ideal presidential candidate (too conservatively republican).
He is currently re-evaluating his candidacy after a poor showing in Iowa.
Than Jon Huntsman.
Long term political career, including governor of Utah, ambassador to China, he even served in the Reagan administration as white house staff assistant. Comes from a very wealthy family and has run the family business for a while too.
This guy has smarts, cash, good advice and a sound pedigree. He is a moderate, a pragmatist, generally a good guy and (probably my favourite part) he has his 3 lovely daughters releasing videos (1) (2) in his support. Great family values right there!! and, no offence intended, but the singing is pretty awful in that second video. Girls, keep that for the shower...)
But... He has so far stayed soooooo far behind in all the polls. He doesnt really seem to be putting on a real campaign. No showing in Iowa (and may I remind you that no US president has ever ended lower than third in Iowa) and not a clear reason why his popularity should now increase. It seems that the Huntsman millions (which they can easily afford btw) are being spent purely as a show.
Why does someone with this kind of experience not see tat his chances of being elected are close to zero? (and if he does, why doenst he pull out?)
Ok, so far the candidates which could be elected to US president. The next batch, even if elected to GOP nominee, are such extremists that they would not be able to beat any Democratic candidate, let alone an incumbent.
Ron Paul. 76 years old, libertarian guru, rabid racist (according to CNN) and he wants to legalise drugs. Not a chance in hell that this man will be supported by the majority of the US voters unless Obama screws up much much worse that he has so far.
This is his third bid, and even though his neo-anarchism goes down well with young voters, its doomed to fail. (Im sure Obama is secretly rooting for him to win the GOP primaries).
Newt Gingrich: Too dirty background. You know that when you get into this process, you entire background will be torn open and examined. How can the family oriented republican party nominate someone with his track record of faithlessness? Pile his admitted tax evasion history on top of that, and something smells decidedly rotten. Apart from that his voting record doesn't endear him to the right wing voters...
So, no funding, no constituency, no chance.
Finally, Michelle Bachmann. May I (being European) say that this one for us has again confirmed that US politics cannot be taken seriously. I mean how many silly mistakes can one make in a row?
I mean, John Wayne (Gacy!), Soviet Union on the rise, Terry Shiavo is Healty, etc etc. The list goes on and on. Not electable by any means.
Im not going into the even less likely candidates, it doesn't serve a purpose.
So, the next question rises (and Im aware I havent answered my first question, I dont think Im able to... if you have any ideas, please use the comment section).
Why do they believe they have a chance?
Beats me!
Mitt Romney
Ok, this one I can get. He's got the support of the entire party leadership, he's squeaky clean and a moderate. Can be nominated as GOP candidate and is electable as president. Probably Obama's biggest worry.
Rick Santorum
Eeehhhhmmmm... No idea. Does he really think that (almost) winning in Iowa would propel him to the forefront? Iowa doesnt Make candidates, it only Breaks them... After Iowa he'll have no funding, no constituency, no chance.
Rick Perry
Perhaps he envisioned himself as George W the second? The US is not ready for George W the second (at least I bloody well hope not). Seriously though, his trackrecord as governor should work for him and he might have counted on the Bush endorsement. Well, sorry, it went to the only serious candidate, dear ol' Mitt (to clarify, that was the endorsement of Bush senior Mr. W hasn't endorsed yet, he'll rubberstamp whoever ends up on top.). He's pretty much unloved by both the right and the left. And recently it seems that the US doesn't have a centre left any more.
Jon Huntsman
Simple case of no support from the right, so no GOP nomination. I cant see how in this political climate he could have missed that. Pile the so far disastrous campaign on top (missing quite a few debates, no show in Iowa), and the whole affair can hardly be taken seriously.
Ron Paul
Plenty of support from the right! Did he think that alone would be enough? That the Americans really collectively would want his brand of libertarianism? And therefore give up their favourite hobby, international "peacemaking"? Not likely to fly, although I can see him getting the GOP nomination (not the most likely one, but not impossible. Btw, this says a lot about the GOP today. Last time he joined, he was (rightfully) considered an extremist nutjob without a chance in hell. That he is taken seriously this time is in itself extremely worrying). Elected to president? not a chance.
Newt Gingrich
Not conservative enough to be elected GOP candidate without massive party support (which of course all went to Romney), and his history just makes him too vulnerable to attacks, so not a chance in hell to be nominated.
Michelle Bachmann
hahahahahaaaaaaa...... Seriously though, did she really think she could win? Lady, pick up a book once in a while first! Jeeesh, the depressingly low level of intellect she displays is shocking even after the Bush era.
So, that leads me to my last question of today, where are all the serious GOP candidates?
The republican party bigshots seem to have decided to give 2012 a miss.
No Christy, Daniels, Pawlenty or Thune. These are the most mentioned "missing names" I believe.
The consensus on several sites is that they either consider Obama too strong to defeat in 2012, or they consider the problems too big for a Republican president to get burnt on (maybe better to let Obama struggle for 4 more years first).
Im not sure. I think there might be something else going on as well as these two factors. I believe that the current situation is indeed quite dire, but its going to improve in the next 4 years. The economy will pick up, unemployment will decrease, China is headed for internal trouble (the middle class wants a piece of the pie by now, thats going to gnaw at the foundations of the current Chinese system) and the middle east situation is (arguably) heading for better times. Why would the GOP let a Democrat take the credit?
And about Obama being unassailable? I dont believe that for a minute! right now there is plenty of ammo to shoot at him. True, he is not hated, but neither is he loved. A decent spindoctor should be able to make him look like the devil himself in 10 months time.
I do believe that the relative strength of Obama contributes, it dont think its enough to explain the current situation.
So what than?
Two options:
1) The republican party is purging itself. The tea party has become too powerful and is holding the rest of the GOP hostage. Look at all the partisan lockups, stalemates and watered down, ineffective decisions made over the last years. Perhaps they are letting the tea party break some of its most annoying teeth by asking the electorate, the republican voters on the ground, to give a direction. Romney (the only really serious candidate who enjoys the support of the party leadership after all) is likely to win that, empowering the moderates in the party enough to be able to successfully govern without the current extreme partisanship. Romney is also one of the best candidates to take on Obama, so it could be a double whammy, after which the GOP can take the morale high ground and look for those compromises that are currently not to be found.
2) Looking at the current, enormous the support for extremists, having multiple serious candidates out there simply makes the chance that the moderate vote is diluted so far that an extremist wins too great. It could be that instead of having several serious politicians damage each other in this rightwing charged primary is perceived as too costly for the GOP, so the leadership has decided to concentrate it all on Romney.
Maybe a bit of both?
Actually, I should specify that they are Republican primaries, especially looking at the candidates.
Well, I reread some of my posts, and decided that that ship had sailed anyway, and that (being European) it was simply too tempting to throw a few questions and thoughts out there.
First question... (insert drumroll)
What the F*ck?
Why are 7 people (currently, not counting earlier dropouts) wasting millions of dollars (private money, quite a bit of it their own aswell!) on an attempt to become US president, which most right minded people could have told them from the start was a complete waste of time?
I mean, lets have a look at the field, ok?
He won in Iowa, although not nearly as overwhelmingly as he probably would have liked.
He is the GOP moderate (relatively that is. Don't forget that from a European perspective, all these guys resemble rabid pitbulls more than respectable politicians. But than again, perhaps the "over-compromising-lets-debate-and-water-everything-down-till-its worthless-anyway" European politics could do with a little more pitbull right now. Its just a perspective ;-) ) who has been working on this for more than 5 years now. His policies seem mainly pragmatic / opportunistic. no real sharp edges or stuff anyone could hate (not much substance to it really). Definitely supported by just about the whole GOP leadership, and just as definitely bought lock, stock and barrel by industry / lobby groups.
This is the most likely candidate to win the GOP nomination overall.
Ehhhmmm... Why not immediately put the US chamber of commerce up as candidate and skip the middleman?
Anyway, he's from a rich and successful background, his dad was governor of Michigan and he's overall not stupid. However the republicans on the ground just don't like him. Not conservative enough, too Mormon and too fickle. Getting this man to beat Obama without enthusiastic support from the republican constituency (going flyering, donating money, supporting their candidate publicly and actually turning out to vote in great numbers) will be tough. Very very tough...
Next, the Iowa caucus number 2, Rick Santorum.
Social conservative, worked his way up the ranks. He has little to no campain organisation outside of Iowa, very meager funding and is not strongly endorsed outside of Iowa.
Apart from this, he plans to bomb Iran as soon as they fart in his general direction (which makes him a little scary for moderate voters), seems significantly less interested in cutting government down to size (which basically makes him unelectable for the right wing republicans) and makes statements like "I dont want to make Black peoples lives better by giving them other peoples money" (Ref), which should make him reasonably unpopular with coloured voters. (btw, most welfare dollars go to white people, not black) (Ref). He also is a confirmed homophobe who (in response to comparing homosexuality to incest, animalism, adultery and so forth) has been pwned so hard he's probably still bubbling with anger.
Who exactly does Mr. Santorum think is going to vote for him, and how does he think this will tally up enough votes to get him nominated, let alone elected?
Opposes abortion and same-sex marriage, wants to lower taxes for the rich and businesses (flat 20% for everyone), Christian and has a good track-record as governor.
But...
He's not a great debater... He mixed up Irak and Iran once and couldnt remember which 3 government departments he wanted to abolish.
He's a former Democrat (shiver...lol) and has a few blemishes on his reputation (Bilderberg connection, HPV shots made mandatory, soft on immigration).
Not the ideal GOP candidate (doesnt toe the party line enough) and if he gets nominated also not the ideal presidential candidate (too conservatively republican).
He is currently re-evaluating his candidacy after a poor showing in Iowa.
Long term political career, including governor of Utah, ambassador to China, he even served in the Reagan administration as white house staff assistant. Comes from a very wealthy family and has run the family business for a while too.
This guy has smarts, cash, good advice and a sound pedigree. He is a moderate, a pragmatist, generally a good guy and (probably my favourite part) he has his 3 lovely daughters releasing videos (1) (2) in his support. Great family values right there!! and, no offence intended, but the singing is pretty awful in that second video. Girls, keep that for the shower...)
But... He has so far stayed soooooo far behind in all the polls. He doesnt really seem to be putting on a real campaign. No showing in Iowa (and may I remind you that no US president has ever ended lower than third in Iowa) and not a clear reason why his popularity should now increase. It seems that the Huntsman millions (which they can easily afford btw) are being spent purely as a show.
Why does someone with this kind of experience not see tat his chances of being elected are close to zero? (and if he does, why doenst he pull out?)
Ok, so far the candidates which could be elected to US president. The next batch, even if elected to GOP nominee, are such extremists that they would not be able to beat any Democratic candidate, let alone an incumbent.
Ron Paul. 76 years old, libertarian guru, rabid racist (according to CNN) and he wants to legalise drugs. Not a chance in hell that this man will be supported by the majority of the US voters unless Obama screws up much much worse that he has so far.
This is his third bid, and even though his neo-anarchism goes down well with young voters, its doomed to fail. (Im sure Obama is secretly rooting for him to win the GOP primaries).
Newt Gingrich: Too dirty background. You know that when you get into this process, you entire background will be torn open and examined. How can the family oriented republican party nominate someone with his track record of faithlessness? Pile his admitted tax evasion history on top of that, and something smells decidedly rotten. Apart from that his voting record doesn't endear him to the right wing voters...
So, no funding, no constituency, no chance.
Finally, Michelle Bachmann. May I (being European) say that this one for us has again confirmed that US politics cannot be taken seriously. I mean how many silly mistakes can one make in a row?
I mean, John Wayne (Gacy!), Soviet Union on the rise, Terry Shiavo is Healty, etc etc. The list goes on and on. Not electable by any means.
Im not going into the even less likely candidates, it doesn't serve a purpose.
So, the next question rises (and Im aware I havent answered my first question, I dont think Im able to... if you have any ideas, please use the comment section).
Why do they believe they have a chance?
Beats me!
Mitt Romney
Ok, this one I can get. He's got the support of the entire party leadership, he's squeaky clean and a moderate. Can be nominated as GOP candidate and is electable as president. Probably Obama's biggest worry.
Rick Santorum
Eeehhhhmmmm... No idea. Does he really think that (almost) winning in Iowa would propel him to the forefront? Iowa doesnt Make candidates, it only Breaks them... After Iowa he'll have no funding, no constituency, no chance.
Rick Perry
Perhaps he envisioned himself as George W the second? The US is not ready for George W the second (at least I bloody well hope not). Seriously though, his trackrecord as governor should work for him and he might have counted on the Bush endorsement. Well, sorry, it went to the only serious candidate, dear ol' Mitt (to clarify, that was the endorsement of Bush senior Mr. W hasn't endorsed yet, he'll rubberstamp whoever ends up on top.). He's pretty much unloved by both the right and the left. And recently it seems that the US doesn't have a centre left any more.
Jon Huntsman
Simple case of no support from the right, so no GOP nomination. I cant see how in this political climate he could have missed that. Pile the so far disastrous campaign on top (missing quite a few debates, no show in Iowa), and the whole affair can hardly be taken seriously.
Ron Paul
Plenty of support from the right! Did he think that alone would be enough? That the Americans really collectively would want his brand of libertarianism? And therefore give up their favourite hobby, international "peacemaking"? Not likely to fly, although I can see him getting the GOP nomination (not the most likely one, but not impossible. Btw, this says a lot about the GOP today. Last time he joined, he was (rightfully) considered an extremist nutjob without a chance in hell. That he is taken seriously this time is in itself extremely worrying). Elected to president? not a chance.
Newt Gingrich
Not conservative enough to be elected GOP candidate without massive party support (which of course all went to Romney), and his history just makes him too vulnerable to attacks, so not a chance in hell to be nominated.
Michelle Bachmann
hahahahahaaaaaaa...... Seriously though, did she really think she could win? Lady, pick up a book once in a while first! Jeeesh, the depressingly low level of intellect she displays is shocking even after the Bush era.
So, that leads me to my last question of today, where are all the serious GOP candidates?
The republican party bigshots seem to have decided to give 2012 a miss.
No Christy, Daniels, Pawlenty or Thune. These are the most mentioned "missing names" I believe.
The consensus on several sites is that they either consider Obama too strong to defeat in 2012, or they consider the problems too big for a Republican president to get burnt on (maybe better to let Obama struggle for 4 more years first).
Im not sure. I think there might be something else going on as well as these two factors. I believe that the current situation is indeed quite dire, but its going to improve in the next 4 years. The economy will pick up, unemployment will decrease, China is headed for internal trouble (the middle class wants a piece of the pie by now, thats going to gnaw at the foundations of the current Chinese system) and the middle east situation is (arguably) heading for better times. Why would the GOP let a Democrat take the credit?
And about Obama being unassailable? I dont believe that for a minute! right now there is plenty of ammo to shoot at him. True, he is not hated, but neither is he loved. A decent spindoctor should be able to make him look like the devil himself in 10 months time.
I do believe that the relative strength of Obama contributes, it dont think its enough to explain the current situation.
So what than?
Two options:
1) The republican party is purging itself. The tea party has become too powerful and is holding the rest of the GOP hostage. Look at all the partisan lockups, stalemates and watered down, ineffective decisions made over the last years. Perhaps they are letting the tea party break some of its most annoying teeth by asking the electorate, the republican voters on the ground, to give a direction. Romney (the only really serious candidate who enjoys the support of the party leadership after all) is likely to win that, empowering the moderates in the party enough to be able to successfully govern without the current extreme partisanship. Romney is also one of the best candidates to take on Obama, so it could be a double whammy, after which the GOP can take the morale high ground and look for those compromises that are currently not to be found.
2) Looking at the current, enormous the support for extremists, having multiple serious candidates out there simply makes the chance that the moderate vote is diluted so far that an extremist wins too great. It could be that instead of having several serious politicians damage each other in this rightwing charged primary is perceived as too costly for the GOP, so the leadership has decided to concentrate it all on Romney.
Maybe a bit of both?
Europe's crisis analysed
A very clear analysis from the Wall Street Journal, looking at the backgrounds - and more importantly, the unfolding - of the Euro crisis from 2008 through 2011.
Take 23 minutes to listen to experts explain what happened and what went wrong in Charles Forelle's documentary.
Take 23 minutes to listen to experts explain what happened and what went wrong in Charles Forelle's documentary.
Im not sure I agree with the final conclusions about Europe needing to adopt a more US style free market economy, but overall the film is valid and enlightening.
Tuesday, 3 January 2012
democracy 2
saw quite an interesting article on the BBC website today, which addresses some of the issues I discussed yesterday. Dont let the title fool you, its more balanced than it seems.
Heart of the matter is that the primary elections currently ongoing in the US seems to select for the more extreme candidates (if you're not a republican puritan, all the PR power I mentioned before will be turned against you from multiple candidates). That means that the splinter groups at the extreme edges of the US political spectrum are overrated, which might go a long way towards explaining the frequent partisan lockups of government we've been seeing.
California (and a few others) have tried to change this, by allowing ALL registered voters to vote in the primaries (proposition 14 (California, 2010) and initiative 872 (Washington, 2004)). So both Democrates and Republicans get to vote for their favorite candidate, no matter from which party they are. This way the centrists would have an advantage (after all, a democrat will dislike a teaparty candidate more than a centrist, who will therefore pick up the vote of some centrist democratic voters and vice versa), paving the way for a less divisive political environment. The swing voters would enhance this effect dramatically, and the chance for independent candidates would be substantially greater. This sounds great to me! More sane politicians, with less party luggage leads to more pragmatic politics.
So far the bill seems to surviving the legal attacks levelled against it from both parties. Lets see how it holds.
A few of the comments left under the BBC article I started with:
18.
pun_gent
2ND JANUARY 2012 - 22:26
The NYT nailed this issue by pointing out that a requirement for ideological purity has narrowed the field to those who are either clueless enough to believe the dogma, or those cynical enough to claim they do despite knowing better.
17.
Dan S
2ND JANUARY 2012 - 22:18
The media is anointing the candidates based on their entertainment value rather than their policies.
10.
Theowyn
2ND JANUARY 2012 - 21:19
The evangelicals have hijacked the GOP. XXXX XXXXXXXX and his ilk have driven all moderation and reason from the party's discourse.
5.
Nineva
2ND JANUARY 2012 - 20:51
I live in the US Midwest, not far from Iowa. This country's politics lacks common sense. People vote against their interests, they're more influenced by ideologies rather than reasoning. US journalists rarely help either, as the reality-show mentality demands reporting outlandish claims as facts.
19.
Meg
2ND JANUARY 2012 - 22:29
Unfortunately I am actively embarrassed by the way our election process is "working" this time around. We can't afford to vote for anyone based on their entertainment value, but since the majority seems to be focused on immediate gratification & self-righteousness, it looks like the biggest 'star' will get the job - regardless of their policies or lack of common sense.
66.
g02
6 HOURS AGO
this is what a country, even the wealthiest, begins to look like when its educational system declines sharply and access is limited. Fundamentalists & morons thrive in ignorance. Don't give them a cess pool in which to breed, because they will - like wildfire.
Source:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16386176
Heart of the matter is that the primary elections currently ongoing in the US seems to select for the more extreme candidates (if you're not a republican puritan, all the PR power I mentioned before will be turned against you from multiple candidates). That means that the splinter groups at the extreme edges of the US political spectrum are overrated, which might go a long way towards explaining the frequent partisan lockups of government we've been seeing.
California (and a few others) have tried to change this, by allowing ALL registered voters to vote in the primaries (proposition 14 (California, 2010) and initiative 872 (Washington, 2004)). So both Democrates and Republicans get to vote for their favorite candidate, no matter from which party they are. This way the centrists would have an advantage (after all, a democrat will dislike a teaparty candidate more than a centrist, who will therefore pick up the vote of some centrist democratic voters and vice versa), paving the way for a less divisive political environment. The swing voters would enhance this effect dramatically, and the chance for independent candidates would be substantially greater. This sounds great to me! More sane politicians, with less party luggage leads to more pragmatic politics.
So far the bill seems to surviving the legal attacks levelled against it from both parties. Lets see how it holds.
A few of the comments left under the BBC article I started with:
18.
pun_gent
2ND JANUARY 2012 - 22:26
The NYT nailed this issue by pointing out that a requirement for ideological purity has narrowed the field to those who are either clueless enough to believe the dogma, or those cynical enough to claim they do despite knowing better.
17.
Dan S
2ND JANUARY 2012 - 22:18
The media is anointing the candidates based on their entertainment value rather than their policies.
10.
Theowyn
2ND JANUARY 2012 - 21:19
The evangelicals have hijacked the GOP. XXXX XXXXXXXX and his ilk have driven all moderation and reason from the party's discourse.
5.
Nineva
2ND JANUARY 2012 - 20:51
I live in the US Midwest, not far from Iowa. This country's politics lacks common sense. People vote against their interests, they're more influenced by ideologies rather than reasoning. US journalists rarely help either, as the reality-show mentality demands reporting outlandish claims as facts.
19.
Meg
2ND JANUARY 2012 - 22:29
Unfortunately I am actively embarrassed by the way our election process is "working" this time around. We can't afford to vote for anyone based on their entertainment value, but since the majority seems to be focused on immediate gratification & self-righteousness, it looks like the biggest 'star' will get the job - regardless of their policies or lack of common sense.
66.
g02
6 HOURS AGO
this is what a country, even the wealthiest, begins to look like when its educational system declines sharply and access is limited. Fundamentalists & morons thrive in ignorance. Don't give them a cess pool in which to breed, because they will - like wildfire.
Source:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16386176
Monday, 2 January 2012
Democracy's dilemma
Democracy... It seems the hope of the free world, if Im to believe the media.
But there are a few messy side effects too. Im not saying btw that democracy is bad, but Id like to take a little time to muse about certain drawbacks of our current system of democracy.
First of all, everyone is equal in democracy.
"Well", you might say, "thats good, isnt it? No discrimination, no system that places any individuals opinion above any others, sounds great to me! After all, we're all equally valuable as individuals"
And up to a certain point, you'd be right.
However...
What makes us believe that all opinions are equal? Lets examine the following situation: I have some physical problem, lets say very frequent stomach aches. A good friend of mine (not a medic) might say "sounds like you got an ulcer.", while a doctor might conclude that Im under too much stress.
Would I consider each opinion to be equal? Or would I believe one more than the other?
The point here is that opinions are only as good as the information behind them. The opinion of someone who has a lot of knowledge about the topic under discussion will likely be more valuable than the opinion of someone who has very little.
However, in a political election everyone's opinion is equal, no matter whether they are subject matter experts or not. This creates a situation where the majority of uninformed votes will overshadow the well informed votes. Compare this to going to a hospital to find out what's wrong with you, and instead of the doctor being able to calmly tell you his/her diagnosis, you'll both be standing in the hallway with all the other patients and visitors, while everyone is yelling their opinion. Would you be satisfied in such a case?
So point one is to separate basic rights from use. Everyone has the right to voice their opinion, but not everyone's opinion is equally useful (mainly due to a difference in knowledge).
Well, than the solution is easy! Inform the masses!!!
Arrrr....That has a few problems of its own....
Looking at the US primaries going on, the Egyptian election, the current political situation in Holland all leads me to the same conclusion.
A lot of people are easily convinced by soundbites (statements which sound good, but lack actual factual meaning or underpinning), and can therefore be exploited. Media attention, saying the thing people want to hear, spreading false accusations (take Obama's birth certificate for example. I dont think many people really believe that he's not borne in America, but the soundbite is still exploited by his opponents), simplifying things to the level that they mean something different entirely, and many other kinds of manipulation are fired at us on an almost hourly basis.
Modern elections will be won by the person who can convince most people that his or her spin on the truth is the best one. And if the majority of voters are virtually blank slates (when it comes to factual knowledge about complex political issues), its easy to pour them full of half-truths and exploit their vote.
In Holland there is a far right politician named Geert Wilders. He's really good at this trick. He's managed to convince the working population that voting for a party with close ties to trade unions and a historic track record of sticking up for the little man will be bad for them. Thats quite a feat! And did he use any facts to back this up? Rarely. Most of it was rants against individual leftwing politicians, rants against "the left church" (one of his most successful soundbites btw) and tons of unsubstantiated accusations. Of all his election promises, none have been fulfilled so far, but funny enough no-one seems to care... This has been pointed out many times by politicians opposing him (including obviously the left wing politicians he rants against), but no-one seems to be interested in the fact that he is NOT actually doing anything to improve peoples lives. Strange, isnt it? Or is it the power of misinformation...
And the best part is, these kind of tricks can be learnt! Most people can easily be taught how to sway people based not on content, but purely on presentation. Take NLP for example. Its a skillset purely meant to teach one how to use non-verbal communication to manipulate other people. And there are many more skillsets like this out there, usually with a few courses attached so you can learn them if you want. Now remember that manipulation is just a tool. It isnt good or bad in itself, that is determined by the use people put it too. A knife isnt bad, stabbing someone is! and manipulating someone to do something which is good for them (quiting smoking, visiting a doctor when they are reluctant to) is hardly a bad thing.
Its important to realise that no-one is immune to this. Its basically hardwired into our brain, and most of the time its extremely for us useful to be able to pick up body language clues etc. How else would we be able to interact with each other as smoothly, rapidly and efficiently as we do. Only when people can actively choose to send false messages through this medium, it gets dangerous... And I believe that the less factual knowledge is involved (either in the content of whats being discussed or already present in the person who is forming an opinion), the more power these tricks have.
How much knowledge does one need to be relatively immune to this type of voter manipulation? A lot! I dont think there is anyone on the planet who is completely immune. Its a sliding scale, with those who are completely unaware being the easiest to influence, and those who already know a lot about the issues being debated being the hardest ones. But Id say (looking at voter behaviour, at peoples reaction to for instance global warming or the Irak war and at how easily Im still swayed by good sounding oneliners if im not careful) that the vast majority of voters is close to the easy end of the scale (no insult intended, different people simply have different talents / skills, and most people dont have the talent, patience or will to acquire in-depth knowledge about the facts underlying the big issues).
Thats an important fact though. It means that if everyone's vote is equal, its easy to manipulate the majority of the population and this is a trick anyone can learn, we're basically voting the smoothest operator into office instead of the one who will defend our interests best.
Wow, thats scary!!
If I had a daughter I wouldnt be too happy if she's going out with the smoothest operator in class, purely because he knows how to manipulate her opinions! Than why would I want such a person to be running my government?
How about the genuine good guys? How about those wise men and woman, those clever, well-informed people who would be the "best person for the job", because they know all the facts and all the issues? Ha, thats one on the scariest parts... One of the first things the "soundbite politicians" did, was create an atmosphere in which its actually considered BAD to be too factual! Its not sexy, so the masses dont want to listen or vote for you. Bush actively pretended to be dumber than he actually is, so people would trust him more. Thats ridiculous!!
But... But... I thought we were trying to select the best people to lead our countries, not having a popularity contest! I dont care if (s)he's ugly or stutters. If (s)he knows how to fix our economy, fix the hurts of the nation, and maybe even of the world (in that order), and bring prosperity and peace to the nation, I like!
So back to the start: Whats wrong with Democracy today?
A population of MTV-lings who want to be entertained rather than educated have the majority vote.
They are being grossly manipulated by a rich elite (funny isnt it, the top 1% of the American rich had a 27% salary raise in 2011. I wonder how that could have happened?!), who can afford to pay the PR teams that win elections, and therefore own the politicians (and therefore make the rules).
This leaves real power in the hands of a greedy few, while everyone else is scratching their ears, wondering why the world is in such a state.
Democracy?? Is is mob rule? Or perhaps a new form of serfdom...
Dear readers.
Id love to hear what you think about this and other posts on my site. Please leave a comment below if you agree or disagree, want to comment on my style, or just want to leave a "Mr. X was here ;-)
But there are a few messy side effects too. Im not saying btw that democracy is bad, but Id like to take a little time to muse about certain drawbacks of our current system of democracy.
First of all, everyone is equal in democracy.
"Well", you might say, "thats good, isnt it? No discrimination, no system that places any individuals opinion above any others, sounds great to me! After all, we're all equally valuable as individuals"
And up to a certain point, you'd be right.
However...
What makes us believe that all opinions are equal? Lets examine the following situation: I have some physical problem, lets say very frequent stomach aches. A good friend of mine (not a medic) might say "sounds like you got an ulcer.", while a doctor might conclude that Im under too much stress.
Would I consider each opinion to be equal? Or would I believe one more than the other?
The point here is that opinions are only as good as the information behind them. The opinion of someone who has a lot of knowledge about the topic under discussion will likely be more valuable than the opinion of someone who has very little.
However, in a political election everyone's opinion is equal, no matter whether they are subject matter experts or not. This creates a situation where the majority of uninformed votes will overshadow the well informed votes. Compare this to going to a hospital to find out what's wrong with you, and instead of the doctor being able to calmly tell you his/her diagnosis, you'll both be standing in the hallway with all the other patients and visitors, while everyone is yelling their opinion. Would you be satisfied in such a case?
So point one is to separate basic rights from use. Everyone has the right to voice their opinion, but not everyone's opinion is equally useful (mainly due to a difference in knowledge).
Well, than the solution is easy! Inform the masses!!!
Arrrr....That has a few problems of its own....
Looking at the US primaries going on, the Egyptian election, the current political situation in Holland all leads me to the same conclusion.
A lot of people are easily convinced by soundbites (statements which sound good, but lack actual factual meaning or underpinning), and can therefore be exploited. Media attention, saying the thing people want to hear, spreading false accusations (take Obama's birth certificate for example. I dont think many people really believe that he's not borne in America, but the soundbite is still exploited by his opponents), simplifying things to the level that they mean something different entirely, and many other kinds of manipulation are fired at us on an almost hourly basis.
Modern elections will be won by the person who can convince most people that his or her spin on the truth is the best one. And if the majority of voters are virtually blank slates (when it comes to factual knowledge about complex political issues), its easy to pour them full of half-truths and exploit their vote.
In Holland there is a far right politician named Geert Wilders. He's really good at this trick. He's managed to convince the working population that voting for a party with close ties to trade unions and a historic track record of sticking up for the little man will be bad for them. Thats quite a feat! And did he use any facts to back this up? Rarely. Most of it was rants against individual leftwing politicians, rants against "the left church" (one of his most successful soundbites btw) and tons of unsubstantiated accusations. Of all his election promises, none have been fulfilled so far, but funny enough no-one seems to care... This has been pointed out many times by politicians opposing him (including obviously the left wing politicians he rants against), but no-one seems to be interested in the fact that he is NOT actually doing anything to improve peoples lives. Strange, isnt it? Or is it the power of misinformation...
And the best part is, these kind of tricks can be learnt! Most people can easily be taught how to sway people based not on content, but purely on presentation. Take NLP for example. Its a skillset purely meant to teach one how to use non-verbal communication to manipulate other people. And there are many more skillsets like this out there, usually with a few courses attached so you can learn them if you want. Now remember that manipulation is just a tool. It isnt good or bad in itself, that is determined by the use people put it too. A knife isnt bad, stabbing someone is! and manipulating someone to do something which is good for them (quiting smoking, visiting a doctor when they are reluctant to) is hardly a bad thing.
Its important to realise that no-one is immune to this. Its basically hardwired into our brain, and most of the time its extremely for us useful to be able to pick up body language clues etc. How else would we be able to interact with each other as smoothly, rapidly and efficiently as we do. Only when people can actively choose to send false messages through this medium, it gets dangerous... And I believe that the less factual knowledge is involved (either in the content of whats being discussed or already present in the person who is forming an opinion), the more power these tricks have.
How much knowledge does one need to be relatively immune to this type of voter manipulation? A lot! I dont think there is anyone on the planet who is completely immune. Its a sliding scale, with those who are completely unaware being the easiest to influence, and those who already know a lot about the issues being debated being the hardest ones. But Id say (looking at voter behaviour, at peoples reaction to for instance global warming or the Irak war and at how easily Im still swayed by good sounding oneliners if im not careful) that the vast majority of voters is close to the easy end of the scale (no insult intended, different people simply have different talents / skills, and most people dont have the talent, patience or will to acquire in-depth knowledge about the facts underlying the big issues).
Thats an important fact though. It means that if everyone's vote is equal, its easy to manipulate the majority of the population and this is a trick anyone can learn, we're basically voting the smoothest operator into office instead of the one who will defend our interests best.
Wow, thats scary!!
If I had a daughter I wouldnt be too happy if she's going out with the smoothest operator in class, purely because he knows how to manipulate her opinions! Than why would I want such a person to be running my government?
How about the genuine good guys? How about those wise men and woman, those clever, well-informed people who would be the "best person for the job", because they know all the facts and all the issues? Ha, thats one on the scariest parts... One of the first things the "soundbite politicians" did, was create an atmosphere in which its actually considered BAD to be too factual! Its not sexy, so the masses dont want to listen or vote for you. Bush actively pretended to be dumber than he actually is, so people would trust him more. Thats ridiculous!!
But... But... I thought we were trying to select the best people to lead our countries, not having a popularity contest! I dont care if (s)he's ugly or stutters. If (s)he knows how to fix our economy, fix the hurts of the nation, and maybe even of the world (in that order), and bring prosperity and peace to the nation, I like!
So back to the start: Whats wrong with Democracy today?
A population of MTV-lings who want to be entertained rather than educated have the majority vote.
They are being grossly manipulated by a rich elite (funny isnt it, the top 1% of the American rich had a 27% salary raise in 2011. I wonder how that could have happened?!), who can afford to pay the PR teams that win elections, and therefore own the politicians (and therefore make the rules).
This leaves real power in the hands of a greedy few, while everyone else is scratching their ears, wondering why the world is in such a state.
Democracy?? Is is mob rule? Or perhaps a new form of serfdom...
Dear readers.
Id love to hear what you think about this and other posts on my site. Please leave a comment below if you agree or disagree, want to comment on my style, or just want to leave a "Mr. X was here ;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
