Rock Drill wrote:
> Nexie wrote:
>> Rock Drill wrote:
>>> Nexie wrote:
> I do think that Bush is a meatpuppet for more powerful people, though.
Oh yes. The idea that he is a maniacal genius intent on world domination
is ludicrous. He's a maniacal idiot intent on world domination.
> I was gutted when Gore lost - he was the only candidate who appeared
> to have his own mind and also be able to think about wider systems.
Sadly, I doubt that whoever is the figurehead in power these days has
any effect on the course of history, except to maybe delay the
inevitable. It would take a John F. Kennedy to be radical enough to
pursue his/her own agenda, and you know what they did to him.
> I am beginning to despair; the more I discover the more cynical I get,
> and there seems to be little that individuals like us can
> realistically do to change things. Certainly in a non-violent way.
Let's face it, the government will do what the hell it likes, one way or
another, regardless of what the populace say. The only reason we
continue with the sham of democracy and voting is to make the game more
interesting for them - to give a frisson to winning elections and having
their snouts in the trough first.
I used to be baffled by people who didn't exercise their right to vote,
believing wholeheartedly in democracy. But now I understand it's not
always "voter apathy" but sometimes deliberate non-participation.
Possibly Ghandi's non-violent, non-participation is the only solution.
Situations sometimes only exist because we participate and perpetuate
them. With our participation (even if it is resistance) the situation
continues. Would a government be formed if only 5% of the population
voted? What else could force a change, barring civil war?
> I remember some time ago being involved in ***ual health promotion
> initiatives, where young women were being taught how to negotiate
> 'safer ***'. This was supposed to empower them.
>
> The trouble was, you can negotiate all you like but if your partner
> responds by punching you in the face and telling you what to do, it's
> no use at all.
>
> The effect of the 'empowerment' was to further disempower and
> disillusion women who now understood how im****tant safer *** was, but
> also understood that they couldn't even begin to negotiate it.
>
> There is a sort of parallel here, I'm sure.
>> "Radix malorum est cupiditas" - Geoffrey Chaucer, The Pardoner's Tale
>> "I wolde I hadde thy coillons in myn hond
>> In stide of relikes or of seintuarie.
>> Lat kutte hem of, I wol thee helpe hem carie;
>> They shul be shryned in an hogges toord." - also Geoff, The Pardoner's
Tale.
>
> Hehe, it's a long time since I read Chaucer, but his imagery is
> brutally to the point!
It's certainly vivid.
"O, when I am safe in my sylvan home,
I tread on the pride of Greece and Rome;
And when I am stretched beneath the pines,
Where the evening star so holy ****nes,
I laugh at the lore and the pride of man,
At the sophist schools and the learned clan;
For what are they all, in their high conceit,
When man in the bush with God may meet?" - Emerson
When man in The Bush with God may meet? shurely?!
|
