Social studies say we live in a post modernity society, even the label is daunting. It took an practical exercise to explain it to me. A few years back I was at an away course for religious enlightenment and the concept was fully explained to me. The hall set up for the usual lecture and debate, but instead there was total silence, which itself can be very eerie when there are so many. We are told that when we are overwhelmed or over stimulated we were to either move to the side or bow our heads. Then slowly one by one various sensory stimuli were introduced, first being classical music, then a slide show on top, then a fragrance and so on layered on top of each other when we started to get things like two different music tracks and a film as well as slide show so around the 6 or even 5 mark most people bailed. By 10 there was me and two others and by 12 or 13 I was on my own and the exercised stopped. Not believing I had got that far I was asked to list in order and detail what I had been exposed to. Unfortunately for the leader I could and did in detail, right down to the movement of Mozart 40th, the possible origin of the perfume and the lines in the film. This kind of put a spanner in his lecture, or rather I was the exception that proved the rule.
The whole point of it was to prove how hard it is for the human brain to deal with the bombardment of media in this post modern world. And how hard it is to deal with too much information at any given moment. Perhaps I should have warned him I have a high I and photographic memory. But then there are a few who can cope, most think they can but only a few truly can. Try it at home start with the TV on , add music, then start reading or writing whilst someone sprays a perfume, now add a second music. It all becomes a blur of information to the majority, and that's not a bad thing humans are programmed to prioritise. It's basic human instinct to judge the most important threat and act on it.
For me being able to work under multiple stimuli, actually was a problem. I can't concentrate on just one thing and it got me in real grief and school, and lead to multiple exam retakes as my mind panics if it has to focus on one solo activity and suddenly everything I know goes out the window. But it does mean there is room for evolution, even if it is a bit scary. So while you may be a little jealous don't be, it's a curse as much as blessing as it doesn't fit the current norm, and that then becomes a source of ridicule.
However it does help at the moment when so much is happening most people are left spinning or at least emotionally exhumed with the current state of world affairs. It means a few people like myself, and some a lot more qualified are able to focus on this consent white noise that is being thrown at us all and not quite see what is being hidden but be prepared for it. For we can focus on the patterns of the past amid the chaos that is no doubt being deliberately caused by press offices and media alike. For much as I have since looked into post modernity after I was told about it, you can beat every spin doctor, press agent and so has studied it in immense detail, learning how to work this system of over stimulation by media to make it work for what ever cause or action they are trying to achieve.
It's a well know fact that if you continually repeat a lie, eventually some people start believing it's truth. Now take that principle and times by 10, reiterating on TV, in the press, on line, in the radio. Eventually people on mass start taking it as fact, and once you get a core of believers it is easy to expand. That's how the crazy becomes the normal. If you allow your gut instinct to be drowned out by the noise of the mass, you then lose grip on reality and commonsense. That's the principle of post modernity, to drown out everything with what they want to hear, see and do.
Now in the future the numbers of people who can naturally isolate every action will increase,and at the rate we are going it's going to be sooner rather than later, but for those who are still left confused and lost in this flood of voices, all I can suggest is you stop and listen to your own heart and head first and let the lead you into your next course of action. Humans are like lemmings naturally, we are just being treated as such by those who think they are cleverer.
The truth is knowledge is power, but the skill is to work out where you obtain said knowledge. If something niggles at you to double check you facts then that's the right course of action for you. I know I have written some hardcore comments recently, but only after I have checked and doubled checked what are the hard facts of the matter. Sometimes I have to delay what I want to write, as what has been said may not be the most honest account of what is happening. I never read just one paper, but many, sometimes all of the ones I can get hold of. This is the world we live in, every has their spin and often the most powerful make the most noise, when it may not be the most truthful. Leaving us all bemused, befuddled and bewildered when it all goes horribly wrong.
Monday, 6 February 2017
Common sense from strange places
If you have read my previous posts you will know I have little love for our governments either side of the Atlantic, however I do believe in praise where it's due. Today I have to applaud The speaker of the house of commons.
In the British set up the speaker is meant to be politically neutral, although in this day and age that is harder to believe. However today a man I have little time for as I personally think he is a bit of a wet blanket, stood up and spoke the words a majority of the British public have been shouting. That in present light, due to present behaviour Donald Trump has no right to address our parliament and to allow him to do so would disregard all our values against racism, gender quality and the like.
Now this is a brave move as the MPs are set to discuss the reduction of the invitation of a state visit to be downgraded later in the month, if as I suspect they vote to down grade the presidential invitation, alongside the now decision not to allow him to speak to the two leading houses., its an indirect way to cancel the invitation as a whole. Without say the honest truth that most of us don't want to waste our hard earned taxes on such a bigot.
In a way it's the British stiff upper lip that has dug us out the political mine field our wonderful leader dumped us in. So instead of saying sorry your invitation has been retracted because our voting public have said so they can now say, sorry but your recent actions have lead us to withdraw the offer as it undermines all we stand for. Not bad from a idiot who struggles to keep the most daily language in debates to a pg rating.
Like I said I have no time for most of our governing force at the present, but for showing some balls and acting in commonsense, well done Mr Bercow, nice way to calm the waters, for the moment at least.
In the British set up the speaker is meant to be politically neutral, although in this day and age that is harder to believe. However today a man I have little time for as I personally think he is a bit of a wet blanket, stood up and spoke the words a majority of the British public have been shouting. That in present light, due to present behaviour Donald Trump has no right to address our parliament and to allow him to do so would disregard all our values against racism, gender quality and the like.
Now this is a brave move as the MPs are set to discuss the reduction of the invitation of a state visit to be downgraded later in the month, if as I suspect they vote to down grade the presidential invitation, alongside the now decision not to allow him to speak to the two leading houses., its an indirect way to cancel the invitation as a whole. Without say the honest truth that most of us don't want to waste our hard earned taxes on such a bigot.
In a way it's the British stiff upper lip that has dug us out the political mine field our wonderful leader dumped us in. So instead of saying sorry your invitation has been retracted because our voting public have said so they can now say, sorry but your recent actions have lead us to withdraw the offer as it undermines all we stand for. Not bad from a idiot who struggles to keep the most daily language in debates to a pg rating.
Like I said I have no time for most of our governing force at the present, but for showing some balls and acting in commonsense, well done Mr Bercow, nice way to calm the waters, for the moment at least.
Sunday, 5 February 2017
The fine line between democracy and dictatorship
It's a fine line living in a democratic society, the line between listening and representing the masses and turning into a fascist society. I think you know where I am going with this but I am not going say it is one country alone but the whole of the western world is heading to take a giant leap into the darkened past. Russia I believe is leading the way closely followed by the a large chunk of the rest of us.
What made me think this was in the new today where it has documented that several states of the USA are applying to remove the right to protest. A fundemental right of every civilian in the west. If things aren't running how people believe they should, they have always had the right to protest, and speak out against them. To remove this rights is to remove our basic liberty and freedom and to become a non free society. So the out come of these court actions is crucial to us all, because if one court in one country rules in favour of this application it opens the flood gates for all courts in all countries to rule this way. Once we lose the right to protest, we lose other rights, like the right to petition, to question, to have a voice. Thus quietly allowing a democracy to become a dictatorship.
So this news that has convientantly shoved into the general whole noise of all the other horrors that are going on, becomes overlooked. In fact that is a very concious ploy to allow these laws to be past. Amid the fury of a fictional massacre, the ongoing travel ban of Muslims and so on, this is side note that is quietly slipping through and thus becoming the most missed opportunity.The British government is just as guilty, slipping laws through under the noise of Brexit, keeping the voting public distracted and blind to their deviousness.
I guess what I am trying to say is that to avoid being misled by our leaders, we need to pay attention to more than the big noise events. Protest, demos rate by all means but for all that is sacred, pay attention to the sie columns of news, the debates in government and get on your representatives case if you see something that you don't like. Remember a lot of pevious dictators were voted in by the masses in the belief they were the new hope, only to find they were less luke skywalker and more darth vader. Even Hitler was popular in the beginning, and Stalin was part of the allied resistance..
Il give you a few quick statistics, 20 days in power, 10 executive decisions, staff replaced if they dare to defy or question, falsified events, failure to disclose tax returns, or business interests. This is the list so far for someone leading a democracy, when in reality it's a worse start than any of the dictators of the 20th century. Now ask yourself are we really still in a democracy?
What made me think this was in the new today where it has documented that several states of the USA are applying to remove the right to protest. A fundemental right of every civilian in the west. If things aren't running how people believe they should, they have always had the right to protest, and speak out against them. To remove this rights is to remove our basic liberty and freedom and to become a non free society. So the out come of these court actions is crucial to us all, because if one court in one country rules in favour of this application it opens the flood gates for all courts in all countries to rule this way. Once we lose the right to protest, we lose other rights, like the right to petition, to question, to have a voice. Thus quietly allowing a democracy to become a dictatorship.
So this news that has convientantly shoved into the general whole noise of all the other horrors that are going on, becomes overlooked. In fact that is a very concious ploy to allow these laws to be past. Amid the fury of a fictional massacre, the ongoing travel ban of Muslims and so on, this is side note that is quietly slipping through and thus becoming the most missed opportunity.The British government is just as guilty, slipping laws through under the noise of Brexit, keeping the voting public distracted and blind to their deviousness.
I guess what I am trying to say is that to avoid being misled by our leaders, we need to pay attention to more than the big noise events. Protest, demos rate by all means but for all that is sacred, pay attention to the sie columns of news, the debates in government and get on your representatives case if you see something that you don't like. Remember a lot of pevious dictators were voted in by the masses in the belief they were the new hope, only to find they were less luke skywalker and more darth vader. Even Hitler was popular in the beginning, and Stalin was part of the allied resistance..
Il give you a few quick statistics, 20 days in power, 10 executive decisions, staff replaced if they dare to defy or question, falsified events, failure to disclose tax returns, or business interests. This is the list so far for someone leading a democracy, when in reality it's a worse start than any of the dictators of the 20th century. Now ask yourself are we really still in a democracy?
Friday, 3 February 2017
Beginning to fume here
Ok, would some one kindly tell me what is going on. Like where has all the tolerance gone from the world. I have just been left absolutely steaming by the leader of our opposite party claiming people "choose to be gay". Like hell they do, they choose their sexuality as much as they do their eye colour, I.e it's defined by the dna and hormones. With such public people speaking in such a way we will never gain true equality.
How stupid are these people, it's not as if some one wakes up and says oh I fancy making my life ten times more difficult today by switching my sexual orientation. We are in a world where there is a real struggle to get certain demographics the correct support they need, like the trans gendered, or even pan sexual. I guess I cheated my way through life by acting heterosexual for the first thirty years, when in reality I am obviously bi. But I grew up in a less accepting time with the start of the aids crisis. That said every move to progress our freedom I have supported, to the point I have become very outspoken about it. Especially as statistically it has been proved more people are disposed to being bi rather than hero, and there is a definite hormonal difference in the make up of people who are gay, trans, even A sexual. So we have the science to back up the emotions.
Personal I would love to take it a step further and remove all labels from society and allow people to just be with their sexual peference. Providing both parties are of the age of consent, what the hell does it matter? I don't define my friends by who they sleep with, but what they hold in their heart and soul. The whole put a label on people, is a crazy situation, created by controlling bodies to divide people and install fear.
A person does not choose their Sexuality and that's a fact, but they do choose to be a closet minded idiot and there seems to be an awful lot of that going on with people who have too loud a voice on the public soap box. I have lost all respect I may have had for that one leader in the thirty seconds it took for him to utter those words. When all he had to do was use those thirty seconds to say something constructive, rather than something so destructive. Tolerance people please, and if you can't say something positive, just shut up.
How stupid are these people, it's not as if some one wakes up and says oh I fancy making my life ten times more difficult today by switching my sexual orientation. We are in a world where there is a real struggle to get certain demographics the correct support they need, like the trans gendered, or even pan sexual. I guess I cheated my way through life by acting heterosexual for the first thirty years, when in reality I am obviously bi. But I grew up in a less accepting time with the start of the aids crisis. That said every move to progress our freedom I have supported, to the point I have become very outspoken about it. Especially as statistically it has been proved more people are disposed to being bi rather than hero, and there is a definite hormonal difference in the make up of people who are gay, trans, even A sexual. So we have the science to back up the emotions.
Personal I would love to take it a step further and remove all labels from society and allow people to just be with their sexual peference. Providing both parties are of the age of consent, what the hell does it matter? I don't define my friends by who they sleep with, but what they hold in their heart and soul. The whole put a label on people, is a crazy situation, created by controlling bodies to divide people and install fear.
A person does not choose their Sexuality and that's a fact, but they do choose to be a closet minded idiot and there seems to be an awful lot of that going on with people who have too loud a voice on the public soap box. I have lost all respect I may have had for that one leader in the thirty seconds it took for him to utter those words. When all he had to do was use those thirty seconds to say something constructive, rather than something so destructive. Tolerance people please, and if you can't say something positive, just shut up.
Thursday, 2 February 2017
And on day 14
I wasn't going to write today, thinking the day wasn't going that bad, until my news feed started beeping at me. How I wished I hadn't looked. To be truthful I was trying to stick my head in the sand with today's white paper over the infamous Brexit. But no the bad keeps coming. Apparently not happy with directly upsetting Iran, Australia and Mexico, not to mention all the barred countries, wasn't enough upset for the week. No in America they have just overruled the law to prohibit the mentally unstable from carrying and buying guns.
Now anyone who knows me knows I hate guns with a vengeance. Apart from the odd air rifle at the fair I won't go near them. I am lucky the UK doesn't have the right to bare arms unless you are a farmer or similar, and that's the way it should be. Guns are a weapon of deadly intent and I see little need for them in our society, as you are hardly going to run into a polar bear in the middle of the street, or meet a rogue lion in your living room. It's one of the main reasons I'm often ill at ease in America, the knowledge that some people are always carrying a weapon. Unless you live in the mountains or Alaska there is no need for anyone other than farmers, rangers and police to be carrying.
I'm sorry but are you wanting to get shot, letting everyone and anyone carry a life ending weapon? This is not the 1890s and you are not in the wild west anymore! Why am I bothered you ask? Well a few reasons the first is i have my husbands family and some friends who live out there and their safety is always my concern. Secondly I actually like parts of America and would like to see more even study out there. But the main reason is these weapons become easily obtainable they have a tendency to pop up anywhere, even in other countries.
In all seriousness is this the right path to be following, opening up less stable people's access to guns, when society as a majority would like to see regulations tightened on them. And before anyone says you have never shot a gun you don't know what it feels like. Yes I have , my great uncle had a remote farm in England a bit to near a prison for safety. We were all taught how to fire both a rifle and shotgun, and in my case a pistol. We were all taught the severity of it all and the dangers, like the wrong ammunition in the wrong gun. Most of all we were taught it was the last resort action to fire on another. Even then I practised enough to be able to wound without taking life just causing massive pain. That said I can do the same with a knife and a bow and arrow. But I choose not to have these weapons on me, in my house or anywhere else. I leave it to the people who need to do it. People who are trained to deal with psychology of it all.
Basically what has happened now has challenged the safety of every man woman and child, plus any animals on that continent. Because it only takes one unstable person in a bad mood, with a couple of semi automatic weapons and another school or mall could become a place of the next massacre. Not to mention it puts any dignitaries in further danger, just look at past history, 4 sitting presidents shot dead, 2 further injured, and that's just presidents. Celebrities, senators even popes have either died or been injured by guns. Guns have no place in domestic life of the 21st century and certainly no place in the hands of those less stable than the norm.
I breath a sigh of relief that the UK doesn't seem to want to follow this path, for a change. But this law will have a ripple effect and one I really don't want to read or hear in tomorrow's news. We are meant to have evolved beyond caveman mentality, but I am now convinced of this less and less.
Now anyone who knows me knows I hate guns with a vengeance. Apart from the odd air rifle at the fair I won't go near them. I am lucky the UK doesn't have the right to bare arms unless you are a farmer or similar, and that's the way it should be. Guns are a weapon of deadly intent and I see little need for them in our society, as you are hardly going to run into a polar bear in the middle of the street, or meet a rogue lion in your living room. It's one of the main reasons I'm often ill at ease in America, the knowledge that some people are always carrying a weapon. Unless you live in the mountains or Alaska there is no need for anyone other than farmers, rangers and police to be carrying.
I'm sorry but are you wanting to get shot, letting everyone and anyone carry a life ending weapon? This is not the 1890s and you are not in the wild west anymore! Why am I bothered you ask? Well a few reasons the first is i have my husbands family and some friends who live out there and their safety is always my concern. Secondly I actually like parts of America and would like to see more even study out there. But the main reason is these weapons become easily obtainable they have a tendency to pop up anywhere, even in other countries.
In all seriousness is this the right path to be following, opening up less stable people's access to guns, when society as a majority would like to see regulations tightened on them. And before anyone says you have never shot a gun you don't know what it feels like. Yes I have , my great uncle had a remote farm in England a bit to near a prison for safety. We were all taught how to fire both a rifle and shotgun, and in my case a pistol. We were all taught the severity of it all and the dangers, like the wrong ammunition in the wrong gun. Most of all we were taught it was the last resort action to fire on another. Even then I practised enough to be able to wound without taking life just causing massive pain. That said I can do the same with a knife and a bow and arrow. But I choose not to have these weapons on me, in my house or anywhere else. I leave it to the people who need to do it. People who are trained to deal with psychology of it all.
Basically what has happened now has challenged the safety of every man woman and child, plus any animals on that continent. Because it only takes one unstable person in a bad mood, with a couple of semi automatic weapons and another school or mall could become a place of the next massacre. Not to mention it puts any dignitaries in further danger, just look at past history, 4 sitting presidents shot dead, 2 further injured, and that's just presidents. Celebrities, senators even popes have either died or been injured by guns. Guns have no place in domestic life of the 21st century and certainly no place in the hands of those less stable than the norm.
I breath a sigh of relief that the UK doesn't seem to want to follow this path, for a change. But this law will have a ripple effect and one I really don't want to read or hear in tomorrow's news. We are meant to have evolved beyond caveman mentality, but I am now convinced of this less and less.
Did we create this monster
To start let me say the is a big difference between celebrity and say star or artist. Keep this in mind when you read as a star or artist is someone who has studied and refined a talent or skill over many years of hard work and often blood sweat and tears. A celebrity is some one who seeks attention for attentions sake and to make an easy dollar or pound.
With that in mind I have been thinking. Is a lot of the social mess we are all in based purely from our almost social addiction of celebrity. Somewhere in the last twenty years we have moved our appetite from star gossip to celebrity overload. Gone is our desire to aspire to the lofty airs of a Hollywood star, and replaced with the instant gratification of the reality. I personally hate reality TV. I find it demeaning and often too graphically explicit to be called entertainment. I have no desire to watch some ones sex tape or want to torture my body into a caricature of ridiculous proportions. Give me old school glamour and the air of mystery any day.
But how much of this demand of instant wanton greed is what has fuelled our social decisions. Sure artists and politics have over lapped over the last decade, both successfully and sometimes less so. In many cases it's because a person has studied society and how to manipulate speech to varying levels of service to the public. But also they also know how to inspire and lift spirits and that's why they are not so much a danger as a logical progression.
However a celebrity who is more famed for getting caught in sexuality explicit antics, or drunken brawls is nothing to aspire to. Instead it should in common decency be condoned and shunned. However it has become the stable filler of tabloids and glossy magazines alike. What's worse is it has become a job many desire as it is shown as an easy way to accumulate wealth and cultural status. Life has become more instagram and less intelligence.
Sure if it's your desire to pickle your liver and let people see enough of your anatomy that they could become your gynaecologist, so be it, but don't consider it to be a talent worthy of mass wealthy and status. Yet that is how our youth and not so young are viewing it.
Now if that is how you set your moral compass by what standards are you judging others. More importantly how are you choosing who has the conscious to represent yourself in major decisions. Or are you even bothering. The media itself is as much to blame by guiding us down a false path, by putting high ranking officials in the same glossy magazine as some one whose main claim to fame is whose is her babies daddy. It's crazy, it's like the who moral guidelines got shredded and replaced by whose who of fashion and social notoriety.
So I am left asking the question, if will fill our minds with utter rubbish on a daily basis do we leave ourselves enough intelligence to question things that really matter before its too late?
With that in mind I have been thinking. Is a lot of the social mess we are all in based purely from our almost social addiction of celebrity. Somewhere in the last twenty years we have moved our appetite from star gossip to celebrity overload. Gone is our desire to aspire to the lofty airs of a Hollywood star, and replaced with the instant gratification of the reality. I personally hate reality TV. I find it demeaning and often too graphically explicit to be called entertainment. I have no desire to watch some ones sex tape or want to torture my body into a caricature of ridiculous proportions. Give me old school glamour and the air of mystery any day.
But how much of this demand of instant wanton greed is what has fuelled our social decisions. Sure artists and politics have over lapped over the last decade, both successfully and sometimes less so. In many cases it's because a person has studied society and how to manipulate speech to varying levels of service to the public. But also they also know how to inspire and lift spirits and that's why they are not so much a danger as a logical progression.
However a celebrity who is more famed for getting caught in sexuality explicit antics, or drunken brawls is nothing to aspire to. Instead it should in common decency be condoned and shunned. However it has become the stable filler of tabloids and glossy magazines alike. What's worse is it has become a job many desire as it is shown as an easy way to accumulate wealth and cultural status. Life has become more instagram and less intelligence.
Sure if it's your desire to pickle your liver and let people see enough of your anatomy that they could become your gynaecologist, so be it, but don't consider it to be a talent worthy of mass wealthy and status. Yet that is how our youth and not so young are viewing it.
Now if that is how you set your moral compass by what standards are you judging others. More importantly how are you choosing who has the conscious to represent yourself in major decisions. Or are you even bothering. The media itself is as much to blame by guiding us down a false path, by putting high ranking officials in the same glossy magazine as some one whose main claim to fame is whose is her babies daddy. It's crazy, it's like the who moral guidelines got shredded and replaced by whose who of fashion and social notoriety.
So I am left asking the question, if will fill our minds with utter rubbish on a daily basis do we leave ourselves enough intelligence to question things that really matter before its too late?
Wednesday, 1 February 2017
The road less traveled
So Britain starts along the path of Brexit, and for or against it our future now is held in the palm of our so called government. My view of for or against has little meaning at the present as the bigger question is can our leader actually be trusted with such a responsibly. In current light I am not so sure she is the person for the job. Not that I trust the opposition any more. The problem and questions I am left asking are should such a decision even be on the table in such a political climate and what can we do to ensure our rights and needs are protected?
My fear is in current political light and with the rumblings of civil unrest, parliament here in the UK has no place in making such decisions. Especially as they won't clear up the mess from their outing last week, but instead dig their heels in and say tough that's what's going to happen, regardless of the fact nearly two million people so far , would rather put our leaders head on a spike than continue with her constant path.
Now I am not advocating violence, quite the opposite, but I do wish to remind our government of just how fragile our social history is. We have had a civil war that took the head of our monarch, we have had attempts on our parliament that are now a festival in the year, we have forced our monarchy to cut ties with Europe and change their house name in the last 100 years. We the public are quite intolerant of our governing bodies getting drunk on power. In fact in relation to social history we have been quite well behaved in the last 60 years so a social revolt is actually statistically overdue. With all this in mind , our so called leader is continuing on a very blinkered path. She has chosen to ignore her female predecessor came a cropper to her own party after 3 terms for doing just the same thing, and this time this leader hasn't even managed a year.
In fact the only thing holding her onto her fragile leadership is probably the great cracks of opinion in the main opposition. But the moment those fractures are plastered over, then there is a chance of a vote of no confidence.
Personally the best way forward I can think of is one we the public like to avoid. Unlike the duel party rule in the last decade we were subjected to, we need a full collation government like we had in world war two. We had a strong leader in the form of Churchill who apart from hands on war experience, had a tendency to change party as the mood took him, having actively been both liberal and tory. He was called by our monarch to make a government that would best serve the country from across all the parties. That's what we need now, a government that will best serve the whole country, stuff political persuasion. It's not an easy call and it's hard to find a good leader who can do such a job, I will be the first to say we as a country got lucky with Churchill last time. But surely somewhere rattling around the houses of Westminster there has to be someone who can focus less on personal political agenda and more on the actual need for calm and commonsense.
Sure it is a rocky path to ask the country to walk, and the tracks have become muddy from years of non use. But just because it's not the common choice doesn't make it the right choice. It a path I would much rather walk that resort to the violent methods of the past, Its clean and democratic, mature and gives a voice to all. Maybe it's because no one has been brave enough to call the current situation what it is that the world is at war, that no one wants to mention this way, but maybe we the public should start. Remember Vietnam was never classified as a war but a police action, but I'm sure very man who served there would say otherwise. And war times call for doing the unusual for the best of the country so may be it's time to walk this less travelled path.
My fear is in current political light and with the rumblings of civil unrest, parliament here in the UK has no place in making such decisions. Especially as they won't clear up the mess from their outing last week, but instead dig their heels in and say tough that's what's going to happen, regardless of the fact nearly two million people so far , would rather put our leaders head on a spike than continue with her constant path.
Now I am not advocating violence, quite the opposite, but I do wish to remind our government of just how fragile our social history is. We have had a civil war that took the head of our monarch, we have had attempts on our parliament that are now a festival in the year, we have forced our monarchy to cut ties with Europe and change their house name in the last 100 years. We the public are quite intolerant of our governing bodies getting drunk on power. In fact in relation to social history we have been quite well behaved in the last 60 years so a social revolt is actually statistically overdue. With all this in mind , our so called leader is continuing on a very blinkered path. She has chosen to ignore her female predecessor came a cropper to her own party after 3 terms for doing just the same thing, and this time this leader hasn't even managed a year.
In fact the only thing holding her onto her fragile leadership is probably the great cracks of opinion in the main opposition. But the moment those fractures are plastered over, then there is a chance of a vote of no confidence.
Personally the best way forward I can think of is one we the public like to avoid. Unlike the duel party rule in the last decade we were subjected to, we need a full collation government like we had in world war two. We had a strong leader in the form of Churchill who apart from hands on war experience, had a tendency to change party as the mood took him, having actively been both liberal and tory. He was called by our monarch to make a government that would best serve the country from across all the parties. That's what we need now, a government that will best serve the whole country, stuff political persuasion. It's not an easy call and it's hard to find a good leader who can do such a job, I will be the first to say we as a country got lucky with Churchill last time. But surely somewhere rattling around the houses of Westminster there has to be someone who can focus less on personal political agenda and more on the actual need for calm and commonsense.
Sure it is a rocky path to ask the country to walk, and the tracks have become muddy from years of non use. But just because it's not the common choice doesn't make it the right choice. It a path I would much rather walk that resort to the violent methods of the past, Its clean and democratic, mature and gives a voice to all. Maybe it's because no one has been brave enough to call the current situation what it is that the world is at war, that no one wants to mention this way, but maybe we the public should start. Remember Vietnam was never classified as a war but a police action, but I'm sure very man who served there would say otherwise. And war times call for doing the unusual for the best of the country so may be it's time to walk this less travelled path.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)