The Mad Hatters

…and the USA isn’t?

by NobblySan

9 Comments to “…and the USA isn’t?”

1. 
   allesklar
   July 30, 2012 at 5:47 am

   Agreed. But… (!!! warning !!! bad tempered rant !!!)
   The majority demonstrate time and again, that they’re not prepared to sacrifice the price of a take-away coffee to support abstract matters of principle, even if such principles cause death and destruction in far off places. Out of sight, out of mind. They’ll only act if the principle impacts directly and negatively on their own selfish interests.
   So we are told: “You should be glad you live in a ‘democracy’; in ‘other countries’ you’d be thrown in jail for saying that.”
   True. But whoopee do. What’s the point of being one of a majority who wring their hands at every new atrocity, delivered to their TV by the infotainment industry, in the certain knowledge that not one of those individuals has the power to change the facts on the ground.
   Things won’t change until the so-called democracies become globally accountable to local democratic process, among the people most affected by their actions (I don’t expect this to happen any time soon). That means, that people who are insulated from the effects of their actions (such as those working in the global finance industry) cannot claim ‘innocence’ simply because they haven’t bothered to think about, and be concerned about, how their actions affect others. OBL was a consequence of their own actions, and groups such as Al Qaeda will continue to flourish until people figure it out and change what they are doing. And people like Mitt Romney will either never figure it out, or what’s worse, continue the same way in the full knowledge of the consequences.

   A case in point: I live in a region which is under threat from coal seam gas mining. An estimated 95% of the local traditionally conservative-voting population is opposed to exploitation of the coal seam gas under our land, as it has the potential to wreck and pollute underground water aquifers, destroying prime agricultural land in our region for thousands of years to come. And for what? At most thirty years of obscene profit for our bankrupt economic managers in multinational business, and temporary political salvation for their government lackeys.

   Reply
   • 
     allesklar
     July 30, 2012 at 2:03 pm

     Oops – forgot to include the whole point of the ‘case in point’ – According to the letter of the mining laws, which were written a century before mining of coal seam gas (CSG) was even dreamt of, the Federal and State Governments quite possibly have the right to compel our region to accept the unwanted imposition of mining. Resulting short-term environmental damage is known without a doubt, because we can see what has happened in areas not far to our north in Queensland. The long-term effects are not known with certainty, but in the worst case, they could be catastrophic for huge areas of rich fertile agricultural land. (And I mean huge – two-thirds of the total area of New South Wales could be impacted). In some local areas 99% of voters, of all political persuasions, have rallied in opposition to CSG mining. But the State and Federal Governments, secure in the knowledge that their voters reside largely in the major cities, seem hell-bent on overriding the minority who live in these areas.
     The point is, that democracy assumes the majority of voters to be well-informed and competent to decide on issues. In this case, the city-dwellers are neither competent nor well-informed (many are barely aware that their food doesn’t actually originate in the supermarket), yet it is their voice which dominates the debate.
     This is the Achilles’ heel of nearly all democratic systems everywhere, and unless a fix is invented and implemented, it will inevitably lead to poor decisions on a global scale, which could quite possibly wreck the planet.

     Reply
2. 
   duncanr
   July 30, 2012 at 6:29 am

   Spot on, nobbly

   The man’s a clown. Heaven help us all if he succeeds in his bid to become President.

   The USA has an unhappy record of electing intellectual pigmies who would struggle to pass the 11+ in the UK to it’s highest political Office in recent years, but at least Reagan and Bush jnr had some personal charm and warmth to offset their limitations in other areas. Romney does not even have that to mitigate his lack of diplomatic/political nous

   His European tour designed to bolster his image at home and abroad and strengthen his credentials to be a world leader have simply exposed his unsuitability for the position and made him a figure of ridicule

   http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/07/mitt-hits-the-fan-as-romney-visits-london.html

   Reply
   • 
     NobblySan
     July 30, 2012 at 12:59 pm

     It doesn’t really matter which particular jingoistic eejit gets elected to the position of president; the place is run by corporate and religious interests.

     like Blair’s rise to power over here, Obama’s election proved this. Despite all the hoo-hah and optimism about things being done differently, and there being a new beginning to champion the cause of the bloke and bloke-ess in the street, two thirds of the square root of fuck all changed.

     Shit happens for Joe Public whoever is in charge, because at the end of the day, we don’t matter.

     Reply
     • 
       duncanr
       July 30, 2012 at 4:22 pm

       Another gem from the clown -

       http://tinyurl.com/ch3k5h7

       Reply
3. 
   Scott
   July 31, 2012 at 9:23 am

   No nation with nuclear weapons capabilities has the right to prevent another nation from developing nuclear capabilities (no matter what the purpose). Because ANY nation with nuclear weapons capabilities is a potential threat to the entire world. (There are only nine nations with nuclear weapons capabilities: China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, the Zionist State (Israel), France, Great Britain, Russia, and the United States–and any of these is as dangerous as any of the others). And by introducing a computer virus into Iran’s computer network, the U.S. and the Zionist State have already begun a war with Iran.

   Reply
   • 
     Scott
     July 31, 2012 at 9:27 am

     …and the U.S. is.

     Before 1917, this country was, arguably, the best influence of any in the world. But since 1917, it has been, without argument, the worst influence of any country in the world. The U.S. is an empire, in all but name.

     Reply
     • 
       ratty
       July 31, 2012 at 7:45 pm

       You’re right. A dollar empire.

       Reply
4. 
   NobblySan
   July 31, 2012 at 7:02 pm

   Statesman…. my arse!

   Great headline, though.

   Reply