I have to plead guilty to what I must admit, I do see as a pretty serious moral offence.
Theft of Intellectual Property.
Wrong when Archer did it for his tacky stories, wrong when people try to evade paying artists their royalties, etc, but what the Hell, can't always practise what you preach.
So I have purloined an idea from Mr Higham, who runs a much more highbrow blog than this at Nourishing Obscurity (see blograll).
Mr Higham however, is a generous soul and no doubt likes to see good ideas spread, so I feel forgiven already. So have your say.
The question is, is the whole democracy business actually a very poor joke?
We choose the winning team every year from effectively two and a half choices, but membership of the leading council of either team is strictly vetted. And as I say, what other choices are there?
And the same people who pay for the TV commercials that about Thirty Million people in this country stare vacantly at every night, also bankroll these teams.
If they can get more people to vote in Big Brother than on the issue 'Who governs?', that in itself speaks volumes.
True Democracy has no need of political parties..
So.
Have your say.
Monday 21 May 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
+copy.jpg){kind=small}
7 comments:
Well, I voted NO, purely because I wouldn't go as far as call it a dictatorship. By definition, it's not a democracy either.
And it's not even every year we get to choose, it's every 4/5 years.
All I know is, the sooner we get these authoritarian control freaks out of office the better. Now even doctor's are being coerced into being government informants.
If we looked at Britain as it is today back in 1997, I doubt many people would believe quite what has happened.
I don't think democracy exists.I think that communism is closer to a real democratic state , in terms of "most" being equal, than true democracy.
Society( even a family) are ruled by the ones in power who dictate to the ones without.
I think if there were more political assasinations then we would get closer to the idea of democracy....but most politicians are dictators. Blair and Bush are very good examples of this.
The only politicians that I have ever admired were Lincoln and Carter who, I think, actually properly represented and cared about their flock without succumbing to the corruption that the office of power vested in them usually reigns.
But then again, I am a cynical, negative bitch aren't I?
Britain as become as much a police state as the former USSR only it is more covert.
It makes me shudder to think that practically all of England is being monitored by CCTV cameras or that mobile phones are actually tracking devices. Why do people buy into this and allow this to happen? ID cards? Never! We need the more politically minded ban- the- bomb mentalities of days gone by to rally against such control of our lives........but all "THEY" have to do is insidiously suggest, that such things as, ID cards are really only to keep the unfavoured few in line and we swallow it, even wholeheartedly agree to assist in policing THEM not realizing we are assisting in our own downfall.
The majority of the people that vote are the exact people who should not be allowed to.
I actually don't have a problem with dictatorship because most people want to be regulated ( out of pure laziness) and the others want to regulate others who probably need it- I just object to ANYONE being a dictator with that much power other than my good self, as I am the only one I actually trust.
Miss Uber, I would count Lincoln as a Great statesman but a poor politician. A politician avoids conflict by trading principles with his rivals, a statesman rallies his people.
Churchill likewise was a poor politician, but a great statesman.
To me the master of all politicians, was De Valera.
The CCTv cameras freak me out a bit as well. I find that if a spot one, I have to pretend not to have sen it, because if I stare it, they might think I'm suspicious.
David, I've thought that in this day and age we could have a system as follows.
Anyone wanting to be an MP would have their name kept on a list.
The entire electorate would be stored online. Every voter would have their vote registered online. When they wished to change their vote, they just go in and change their vote. This would mean that every day, the House of Commons actually was reflective of public opinion.
The way we conduct elections now is an unnecsary relic of a bygone age and only aids the parties.
They got more people to vote in BB than at the last election? I thought that was a fallacy.
In oz voting is compulsory. Which is the way it should be. Unfortunately at the last state election we had some people were unable to vote because they were not on the electoral roll!
Just one thing about the voting system you suggested - if we were able to change our political system at the drop of a hat nothing would get done. And politics would have a whole new meaning. It would be a popularity contest and a shit fight. I mean, even worse than it is already.
Not a fallacy, I'm afraid.
We would n't be changing goverments daily, it just the composition of the legislature which would alter seat by seat day by day, so governments would lose their majorities the DAY the nation wanted them to.
Post a Comment