Chesto Posted March 14, 2008 Author Share Posted March 14, 2008 A millisecond of silence, please, as we remember our late, departed colleague Baah.... 'He' brought a few hectic moments of joy to those of us who live on the Dark Side. 'He' is gone. But not forgotten. Where was I? I forget. Ahh yes. The topic of this thread.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chesto Posted March 14, 2008 Author Share Posted March 14, 2008 I'm baaaaaaak :biggrin: :whistling: :thumbsup: laughs all round, it turns out I ACTUALLY ANT XHOSNA, just paranoid about the Jspanese conspiracy to assasinate me..... :biggrin: lets all lik our lips in anticipation of my next post.... baaah ha ha ha ha ha :biggrin: NO! You weren't Xhosna!? Well... I never! You had me fooled, as you must have so many others. I feel honoured that you should deign to visit my thread, again, and so soon after being 'disappeared'.Of course, this time I've taken the trouble to include you in quotes because when you disappear again, probably before I get this post finished, I want some kind of context to remain vis a vis my replies to 'you'. Now. Run along and play. This thread is for grownups, and any one over the age of ten. You'll only hurt yourself if you hang around.And as much as I delight in your , purely unintentional, humourous value I think that I can get by without your company for a while. TTFN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramul Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 If you can find it, it's worth reading Murray Leinster's Plague. It appears that it was in the Feb 1944 issue of Astounding. Of course, advocating banning specific personality types from politics would likely result in much hostile verbiage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chesto Posted March 14, 2008 Author Share Posted March 14, 2008 If you can find it, it's worth reading Murray Leinster's Plague. It appears that it was in the Feb 1944 issue of Astounding. Of course, advocating banning specific personality types from politics would likely result in much hostile verbiage.I'm guessing that that is a 'comic'. Would you mind, Abramul, giving just a short precis, in case I can't lay my hands on it? Or, is it anything more than what you have already provided? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramul Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 It's a short story. The 1952 Omnibus of Science Fiction is the anthology in which I have it. The plot is of an atypical lifeform capable of feeding on the life-force of females, able to travel through conductors (electron-based lifeform) being defeated through applied gadgetry. Fairly typical pulp, likely. However, the theme is of a galaxy in which one administrative service has gone unchallenged, and has taken 'red tape' to a new level. An example:A clerk of the Administrative Service unearthed the fact that the charter of the Allioth Colonization Co-operative lacked two commas and a semi-colon, and that seven million people, therefore, lacked legal right to the cities, factories, and installations they had built, and that they could be displaced by anybody who filed a new application for colonists' rights on the planet. The clerk was regarded as a coming man in the Administrative Service.P.S. Teh intarwebs teach typing skills! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doomjockey Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 You already know. You know, of course, politicians possess those qualities identifying them as human. These include the ability to lie, to judge, to obfuscate, to conceal opprobriums. You also know that every human does this regardless of differences in race or class. You're screwed no matter which way you lean, right? ...left? Wrong. After years of the same policy, some brash, new face comes along straight up the middle with her wrecking ball threatening to "shake up the establishment" with new policy. She wants to change this and that and Nevermind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols and blah blah blah. How do we feel? We're afraid and we tread upon her and those foolish enough to follow. Americans may remember John Kerry, long teased for his, dare I say, realistic, outlook on politics. And nightly news teased him because he rode the middle, trying to understand the issues from both sides. :confused: It's hardly a new story, but we complain about current world leaders, but fear any substantial change when the time comes to replace them. It's why I don't believe either Obama or Hilary (who aren't all that different) will win anything and we'll probably end up with McCain. Sure, we've got the opportunity to make history- and in so many ways: A first black president, a first female president, a first female vice president, a first black vice president- we could progress substantially as a nation. I don't think that'll happen though. In this light, I think it's right to say "we deserve the leaders we elect", especially in the States where we pride ourself on our political "freedom", but rarely exercise it. Back on track, politicians do a job, which defines them. Not so foreign a concept. I say their ranks reek of salespeople trying to convince us why their brand name trumps the competition. The biggest difference? Salespeople get to take a day off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewtC Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 I for one have a policy when I see a politician. Hang them by a wire out the window. Of a ten story building. Muhahahahahaha! :devil: Anyway, yup I do believe politicians are a subspecies of the human race. After all, who but a politician could figure out how to pu a country in debt and remain unimpeached? Plus, like woogie monster I have a deep hatred of politicians. :wallbash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordNyghthawk Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 We're drifting from the topic here. I'm not sure that we were asked whether the country could be better run, just whether politicians were lacking certain basic human attributes. I think you have to be of a certain specific mind set to go into politics in the first place. Whether the propensity to being dishonest is part of it I don't know but to survive in politics it's something that has to be learned pretty quickly. Initially the odd bit of covering up here, or misinformation there may be unimportant. Sometimes a politician may have to cover up the truth for national security. After a while it becomes a habit. And sometimes I believe it is not even intentional. The latest round of scandals in the UK seem to involve the MP paying family members inflated salaries at the taxpayers expense for work they arguably didn't do or even needed to do. (The EU government is much much worse but since they have no higher level regulators they simply cover up all criticism.) These MPs seem to be surprised that others think it inappropriate. But, as I said before, we do seem to want our MPs to be more than human. In most walks of life a married man having an affair with another woman would not cause him to lose his job. A man who used prostitutes or picked up men in gay bars might cause a raised eyebrow but again would probably not result in them being dismissed. (I'll except anything connected to religion.) Does it matter whether President Clinton smoked pot in his youth or Bush was an alcoholic? Of course not. So why do we try to make issues out of these things? That is where society (encouraged by the media), in claiming that public figures cannot have private lives, reinforces the need for dishonesty. Any government member has to be FINANCIALLY scrupulous. Their sexual peccadilloes only matter when they publically adopt a position on an issue while conducting their lives in a manner contrary that position. But sadly such salacious information sells 'news'. So, whatever genetic make up leads on into politics, in the matter of dishonesty, society helps to make them the way they are. Actually, many politicians take stands on these very points to win votes, and then either ignore that stand when they win, or are found out to have done things to contradict their "stand". I could respect a person, and even a politician, if he or she said, "I think family is important. Yes I have made mistakes and am paying for it. I am learning my lesson. This is why I think this is important." Substitute family for any number of issues, and you get my point. Instead, these politicians act like they are the judge, jury, and executioner of anything that violates that stand. And yet, secretly, many of them either are, or have, violated that stand themselves. I can't respect a total liar like that. And since these people do VOLUNTEER to try to gain public office, the media playing upon findings about these people do NOT draw any sympathy from me. The average person that might make a mistake isn't trying to put themselves in the spotlight, and gain a measure of large power over others. Politicians do, therefore they should be subject to much more intense scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chesto Posted March 15, 2008 Author Share Posted March 15, 2008 I knew from the start when I had to read the constitution for American Government, that there was as problem. There is a term limit set for the President, but no term limit set for Congress. Reality check! Why the hell not? If one were to limit the term of a “House” member to six years and a Senate limit to twelve (three terms and two terms respectively), there would be less focus on keeping their job and more on actually accomplishing things. Old crusties who have been in the “business” for decades have lost vision and sight (power corrupts; it’s a plain and simple fact of human nature). But what do I know, yes? I’m just an analysis, a realist, and analytical. I take your point, xen, but I think that limiting member's terms would just increase the frequency of malfeasence (SP?), not do away with it. The 'old lags' just take a more leisurely view of their potential for wrong doing, and spread the naughtiness over a longer period of time. A lawyer, hey, Freddy? The study of Law is an exercise in idealism. The practice of it...? You might be morally strong enough to withstand the demands to park your personal ethics while you work on a client's behalf. I hope that you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chesto Posted March 15, 2008 Author Share Posted March 15, 2008 It's a short story. The 1952 Omnibus of Science Fiction is the anthology in which I have it. The plot is of an atypical lifeform capable of feeding on the life-force of females, able to travel through conductors (electron-based lifeform) being defeated through applied gadgetry. Fairly typical pulp, likely. However, the theme is of a galaxy in which one administrative service has gone unchallenged, and has taken 'red tape' to a new level. An example:A clerk of the Administrative Service unearthed the fact that the charter of the Allioth Colonization Co-operative lacked two commas and a semi-colon, and that seven million people, therefore, lacked legal right to the cities, factories, and installations they had built, and that they could be displaced by anybody who filed a new application for colonists' rights on the planet. The clerk was regarded as a coming man in the Administrative Service.P.S. Teh intarwebs teach typing skills! Ab... the idea of the screening out undesirable personality types from the politcal sphere is an intriquing one. So deliciously Brave New World. Trouble is... who would set the parameters?The people referred to in your 'comic' would seem to be bureaucrats, not politicians. Of course the only real difference between the two is that one enjoys fighting a battle to attain his/her position, whereas the other is content serve his/her time, patiently, inexorably working his/her way to a position of obscene, behind the scenes, influence.Though they live in a symbiotic (sp?) relationship, just like a virus and its host, I suspect that pols rely on bureaucrats for their continued existence, whereas bureaucrats could probably get by without politicians, who they would see as a minor irritating hindrance to what really should be 'done'. Doomjockey... the novelty of the first this or the first that would soon wear off. We had a 'first' woman PM. We had a 'first' former rocknroll lead singer PM. I've already expended enough bile on them, so I wont comment futher. And I think that the race and/or sex of the prospective candidate soon becomes irrelevent once the smoke and mirrors period of 'The Election' is over and he/she gets their slippery legs under the head honcho's desk. They remain politicians. BTW, salespeople have to show something for their efforts, pols merely have to try to convince us that they are making the effort. And look good doing it. Newt C... why would you waste a perfectly good bit of wire? Just push, then close the window. Unless, of course, you get off on the rapidly diminishing scream. I know I did. ...oops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.