Not signed in (Sign In)
News
Vanilla 1.3.0 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
-
-
CommentAuthorSubJunk
- CommentTimeJan 26th 2011
Here's a link to the video in case anyone is interested.
I just watched it and it seems good to me.
Anyone got opinions?
Runamok: hard to tell if you've hit the crazy dancing guy to be fair -
-
-
CommentAuthorElScorcho
- CommentTimeJan 26th 2011
not motivated this instant. will check tomoro some time. got any pressing points?
Obama and american politics has been a bit of a case of throw your hands in the air as the entrenched system of politics is so self destructive and anti change.
similar in aus, on a related but different note, where politicians actions are being exclusively determined by their overwhelming fear of polls. it is a race to the lowest common denominator of policy and activity.
i honestly think western democracy has somewhat imploded and paralysed itself with what was it's method of control over the last century, fear. western nations in particular desperately need to adopt a different approach to many thing where we are driving all aspects of society to a higher, more intelligent end rather than continue the status quo of varying, stone age methods of population control; eg. socio-economic, political rhetoric etc etc etc.
the key problem with the system is that it is structurally opposed to change and thus evolution. the ability to adopt ongoing change and continuously evolve is key to an effective system.
i think the best way to overcome alot of the problems we currently face in this respect is to invest heavily in education so we create a generation of people whose general knowledge of politics and the world is better but most importantly are smarter than we currently are in order to develop and implement better systems of governance, administration and regulation which we simply do not have the individual and societal intelligence to address effectively. we are, i think, dangerously low on the levels of knowledge and intelligence our youth should be educated into when the nature of our education is compared to the advances of the wider world over the course of recent history across almost every area of... the pusuit of greater intelligence and better ways of doing everything, if that makes sense.
...that'll do
-
-
-
CommentAuthorSubJunk
- CommentTimeJan 26th 2011
It's funny that Obama addresses so many of the points you raise hehe.
In particular he proposed continuing to place more emphasis on valuing good teachers - along with not letting bad teachers get away with so much - and the important thing is how he defines a "good teacher". It's not just a teacher who gets their students to pass tests but it is a teacher who is being innovative. Basically since last year he has been saying to teachers and school admins "if you show me that you have good ideas about what to do with a budget increase, you will get one".
As well as that for high schools there is also policy with the purpose of making community colleges more effective.
He has great interest in molding society to appreciate scientific and academic achievements as much as we currently do sports achievements and celebrity non-achievements. He had a cool quote, something like "we should not just value the winner of the super bowl but the winner of the science fair too", and I think that's a great goal.
If we can have kids growing up aspiring to be innovators instead of celebrities that is the hardest part done.
He also mentions something I think you would also like which is merging government agencies to make a more agile, quickly-adaptable government.
Obviously it is just a politician giving a speech, and with almost any other politician I wouldn't put any weight in the promises they make, but in his case he has delivered on so many things and I think he will continue to do that.
Runamok: hard to tell if you've hit the crazy dancing guy to be fair -
-
-
CommentAuthorElScorcho
- CommentTimeJan 27th 2011
TYPICAL!
it doesn't seem like he is especially popular but he is a fucking good leader. one way or another he has delivered on just about everything he said he would and done a damn good job of it in the face of enormous diversity. i think he made poor choices in terms of what he chose to tackle at the time he chose to but massive props for not only trying but largely succeeding. that a leader of his calibre and honesty simply says these things is extremely valuable. he is one of the few politicians in the world whose word actually means a great deal.
he is the great white hope for people and politics and democracy across the world in that if more of them can do what he has done, by which i mean adopt basically ALL his traits in their dealings, people can rightfully regain faith in the governance of their country.
although it still doesn't address the more fundamental structural issues of our current systems which i fear are beyond anyones ability to change from within and don't see any reasonable way around and i do genuinely fear this. it is a significant problem for society. -
-
-
CommentAuthorSubJunk
- CommentTimeJan 27th 2011
ElScorcho:it doesn't seem like he is especially popular
Honestly I don't think many US presidents have been popular in their 2nd or 3rd year. The trend is that everyone criticises presidents while they are in office and then when they leave they allow themselves to notice the good things
At least it was like that for Bush and Clinton, I'm too young to have paid attention to prior presidents.ElScorcho:if more of them can do what he has done, by which i mean adopt basically ALL his traits in their dealings, people can rightfully regain faith in the governance of their country.
I agree completely, I hope we start to get some of that transparency in this part of the world too.ElScorcho:although it still doesn't address the more fundamental structural issues of our current systems which i fear are beyond anyones ability to change from within and don't see any reasonable way around and i do genuinely fear this. it is a significant problem for society.
I share similar concerns, want to be more specific?
Runamok: hard to tell if you've hit the crazy dancing guy to be fair -
-
-
CommentAuthorElScorcho
- CommentTimeJan 27th 2011
i am primarily pointing to government's total inability to change the way it conducts it's business i guess. not only are internal processes too imbedded to chnage and possibly too expensive, with particular regard to what policies and programs it is able to put in place as it is also held to ransom by embedded commercial interests aswell as the perceived interests of it's ill informed constituency. i appreciate that government should be held accountable and must be transparent but there should also be more room for it to protect itself from idiocy and un-democratic interests that are not in the national interest. basically i am saying it should have some way of being accountable and transparent internally and protect itself externally. politicians are shit but bureaucrats are professional people who know their shit and need more freedom to act in the national interest efficiently. this would also give room to allow internal changes to take place faster thus adding to it's adaptibility. politicians and bureaucrats should be more segregated perhaps. politicians are populist jerks, bureacrats are professionals from every background who seek to act on the best available professional, scientific and academic knowledge available in any given field. politicians and their constituents act against this, sometimes rightly so, but too often costing the country millions of dollars in unneccessary process and warping the valid intelligence, analysis and research conducted by professional governance types... like me :)
to try and simplify as much for you as me
a. politicians have too great an influence in bureacracy
b. constituents uninformed opinions therefore have the same effect
c. without breaking these relationships down more effectively the bureacracy will remain unable to change much about governance, and hence democracy itself, leaving this in the hands of an uninformed and interested populace.
i think that's right -
-
-
CommentAuthorb0n3z
- CommentTimeJan 27th 2011
the issue with the american government as a whole is the way it is constructed. sure the people get a vote and such, but look at the election results between bush and gore (2000), gore had the majority popular vote by 0.5%, actually making him the winner, but did we see him in office? Politics is one of those moral grey areas, especially in america's case. Too many politicians see things and "all shades of grey", instead of the black and white that things truly are.
eg. Its ok to kill 100 of our own soldiers to defeat enemy forces.
I find this morally wrong, but then again, this is truly only my opinion.
As far as Al Gore is concerned, it is my belief that America, if not the world as a whole, would have been much better off if he was in office. Being one of the most humble presidential candidates in us' history (once again my opinion) he enlisted in the army during the vietnam war "because if i did not, some other man would have to in my place." Being quite active in the anti-war campaign, this speaks quite a lot for his character. He also said that his experience "didn't change my conclusions about the war being a terrible mistake, but it struck me that opponents to the war, including myself, really did not take into account the fact that there were an awful lot of South Vietnamese who desperately wanted to hang on to what they called freedom. Coming face to face with those sentiments expressed by people who did the laundry and ran the restaurants and worked in the fields was something I was naively unprepared for."
Anyway, i'm getting off topic.
Sorry about my rant, but the 2000 election was something that has always made my blood boil. FUCKING POLITICS!
The political action committee is yet another issue of the american government. As we all know, whoever has the better campaign wins right? (generalising a bit, but essentially it is true) The political action committee will donate money towards the political party it takes favour with over certain issues. Generalising once again, the main people who are a part of this organisation are higher ups in commerce, mining, and international trade. So, basically, They throw their money at whoever is going to give them the best deal, AS LONG AS THEY DELIVER IT. "PACs are limited in the amounts they can contribute directly to candidates in federal elections. There are no restrictions, however, on the amounts PACs can spend independently to advocate a point of view or to urge the election of candidates to office. PACs today number in the thousands." (wikipedia)
Thus elections are not ever really fair.
-b0n3zy McGee
Marchic: If a thread doesn't get hijacked it's just not Red Skies... BOOBIES FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!!! -
-
-
CommentAuthorSubJunk
- CommentTimeJan 28th 2011
yeah scorchy i see what you're saying now, so when you say fundamental you really mean that
i was meaning to discuss things a little more specific to 2010-2012 but i'll take what i can get
it's hard to imagine a democratic (not interested in a semantics argument, i use the word broadly) government that was also able to have that type of bureaucratic autonomy. democracy certainly isn't the most efficient system, as many politicians will admit freely, but the issue is fairness.
i'm not particularly an advocate of democracy because the majority of people who vote don't care about politics at all, they just saw a tv special about how this or that guy is the next coming and that was enough for them, which means that even on a completely even playing field (same marketing, etc) the result isn't guaranteed to be the best one.
so i guess what it comes down to is just whether we believe that if people vote for a very wrong choice they deserve the outcome, or do they need to be saved from themselves. To use an extreme example, if the majority of people vote to blow up another country, which in turn gets them all killed and ends the human race, does that mean democracy was wrong or does it mean humanity itself is the problem; meaning it was objectively a good thing to kill eachother.
Runamok: hard to tell if you've hit the crazy dancing guy to be fair -
-
-
CommentAuthorElScorcho
- CommentTimeJan 28th 2011
i believe that governments purpose from the beginning was to protect people from themselves and external forces. literally. i appreciate that fairness is necessary and all aspects of government need to be held accountable but there should also be an element of faith in the system and people the populace advocates having there in the first place to administer these things. there needs to be a better balance and having a better educated population is the best way of driving better outcomes and delivering change. a more effective balance between trust and transparency would be more efficient also.
the bush/gore scenario is a perfect example of properly nasty corruption of the system which the people empower but then had no power to rally against the total abuse of that system in any way shape or form. also, possibly to a greater extent, the populace was not knowledgeable enough to care that it had been fucked in the arse by a bunch of rednecks with money. this is supposed to be an relatively inefficient system as it should be weighed down by onerous checks and balances against all it's activities but it comprehensively failed, i think, because there is no effective mechanism for professional bureaucrats to develop the system as is clearly needed. from what i understand little has been achieved in terms of preventing a recurrence of those events.
yeah, take it Subbeh, take it!
-
-
-
CommentAuthorb0n3z
- CommentTimeJan 28th 2011
best solution to this problem = Shoot them all, Start again
Marchic: If a thread doesn't get hijacked it's just not Red Skies... BOOBIES FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!!! -