The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
You can tell it's near Christmas by the increase in media items of no real consequence that no one is particularly interested in. For example, Cherie Blair's recent financial faux pas (which, near as I can tell, seems to revolve around allowing a friend of questionable honesty to do some financial dealings on her behalf) has entirely failed to rouse a huge amount of interest outside of the media. Pretty much everyone I've talked to about it couldn't give the remotest beginnings of a damn. Yet if you read the papers you'd think it was a scandal on a par with finding that John Prescott sodomises and sacrifices a live ostrich every night.
To a certain extent, the fuss is the fault of the Labour party itself. It was originally elected on a wave of public antipathy towards the Conservative party and the attendant sleaze allegations against it. To fully capitalise on that, Labour cast itself as a group of men and women so ethically pure that they wouldn't be out of place in the Vatican. The problem is, now that they're the entrenched government and now that the full glare of the media has been applied to pretty much every dealing of every Labour party member and all of their relatives. Naturally enough, we're finding that the government really wouldn't be out of place in the Vatican. Unfortunately, as it seems that 1 in every 3 paedophiles and pederasts is a Catholic priest, that is no longer such a grand boast.
So then, we're finding out that our government and their families are not perfect models of integrity. Is anybody actually surprised? I mean look at the Conservative government; it seemed to consist entirely of people whose facade of normality was so studied and false that we were expected to believe that not one of them had ever acted in a weak, foolish, and altogether human way. No, all of these men and women were infallible! And, unsurprisingly, that facade didn't stand up to scrutiny. Did that lead to the realisation that it is unreasonable of us to expect perfection in our politicians? Did it create an atmosphere similar to that of France, where politicians seem to get a mistress or toyboy as a part of their job description? Of course not. It led to us electing a bunch of people who made equally unreasonable claims to perfection, but who simply hadn't been caught out yet.
There are a couple of standard get out clauses exercised by most people (myself especially) at this point, one of the favourites being "They're all the same so there's no point in voting. The same kind of selfish mungwits will always get in". Well, yes they will. For as long as we allow ourselves to be distracted by the meaningless popularity contest that is politics in the UK they will anyway. How many people know anything about any political parties other than the Conservatives or Labour? Come to think of it, how many people even know whom their local MP is? Essentially, when it comes to election time we decide who we think looks the most 'normal' out of the politicians who appear on our TV. Then (assuming we can all be bothered to drag our fat bascksides off the sofa) we vote for them. And yes, we get people who are imperfect (some more than others). If our media actually did their job and bothered to find out about their ability as politicians, rather than how many affairs they've had, or how many dodgy friends they've got; and if we deigned to care about such trivialities like "Who are the best people to govern the country?" then chances are we'd be spared this false high-ground haughtiness that the press indulge in the instant a scandal is required to boost newspaper sales. What right has anyone got to say, "They're all the same" when very few know what the hell any of them are like in the first place?
At which point did leadership stop being about ability and start being about popularity? Or has it always been like this? Can anyone seriously imagine that Dubya would be in office if we lived in a meritocracy? He's a bumbling idiot who got where he is by money and luck. In our own government, only Gordon Brown springs to mind as a politician who's ability to do the job is adequate to justify him being there. There was a while when I thought the tide may have been turning against those who ruminate scandal for scandal's sake; by the end of Clinton's time as US president, everyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together was sick to death of hearing about his poor taste in women. Yet the only effect that the long running saga had was to give Clinton a peculiar sort of legitimacy; all of his other (many) errors and failures, as well as most of his successes were pushed to the back of our collective minds. We don't really remember that he ordered bombs launched at suspected Al-Quaida camps, or that he so nearly brought peace to Israel. We only remember a smear of sperm on a cheap dress. So it's impossible (or at least, so difficult as to be nearly impossible) to say whether he was a good leader or a bad one (Happily the only scandals that have thus far surrounded Dubya concern corruption on such a huge scale that one feels rather more justified in complaining about him).
The faint whiff of scandal surrounding the Blairs is being magnified so that it has become a stench, yet they have acted little differently from someone getting a sacked British Gas Engineer to fit their boiler on the cheap. Or asking a struck off solicitor to give legal advice. Or asking a friend to bring back rather more beer and wine from a trip to France than they otherwise would have. If we're going to have a tabloid feeding frenzy around 10 Downing St, is it really that unrealistic to ask that it's about something like the forests of money that have gone into businessmen’s pockets due to Public-Private partnerships? There are many reasons for us to mistrust our government. Let's not get distracted by a rapidly growing molehill of a scandal.
Still, Merry Christmas eh?
To a certain extent, the fuss is the fault of the Labour party itself. It was originally elected on a wave of public antipathy towards the Conservative party and the attendant sleaze allegations against it. To fully capitalise on that, Labour cast itself as a group of men and women so ethically pure that they wouldn't be out of place in the Vatican. The problem is, now that they're the entrenched government and now that the full glare of the media has been applied to pretty much every dealing of every Labour party member and all of their relatives. Naturally enough, we're finding that the government really wouldn't be out of place in the Vatican. Unfortunately, as it seems that 1 in every 3 paedophiles and pederasts is a Catholic priest, that is no longer such a grand boast.
So then, we're finding out that our government and their families are not perfect models of integrity. Is anybody actually surprised? I mean look at the Conservative government; it seemed to consist entirely of people whose facade of normality was so studied and false that we were expected to believe that not one of them had ever acted in a weak, foolish, and altogether human way. No, all of these men and women were infallible! And, unsurprisingly, that facade didn't stand up to scrutiny. Did that lead to the realisation that it is unreasonable of us to expect perfection in our politicians? Did it create an atmosphere similar to that of France, where politicians seem to get a mistress or toyboy as a part of their job description? Of course not. It led to us electing a bunch of people who made equally unreasonable claims to perfection, but who simply hadn't been caught out yet.
There are a couple of standard get out clauses exercised by most people (myself especially) at this point, one of the favourites being "They're all the same so there's no point in voting. The same kind of selfish mungwits will always get in". Well, yes they will. For as long as we allow ourselves to be distracted by the meaningless popularity contest that is politics in the UK they will anyway. How many people know anything about any political parties other than the Conservatives or Labour? Come to think of it, how many people even know whom their local MP is? Essentially, when it comes to election time we decide who we think looks the most 'normal' out of the politicians who appear on our TV. Then (assuming we can all be bothered to drag our fat bascksides off the sofa) we vote for them. And yes, we get people who are imperfect (some more than others). If our media actually did their job and bothered to find out about their ability as politicians, rather than how many affairs they've had, or how many dodgy friends they've got; and if we deigned to care about such trivialities like "Who are the best people to govern the country?" then chances are we'd be spared this false high-ground haughtiness that the press indulge in the instant a scandal is required to boost newspaper sales. What right has anyone got to say, "They're all the same" when very few know what the hell any of them are like in the first place?
At which point did leadership stop being about ability and start being about popularity? Or has it always been like this? Can anyone seriously imagine that Dubya would be in office if we lived in a meritocracy? He's a bumbling idiot who got where he is by money and luck. In our own government, only Gordon Brown springs to mind as a politician who's ability to do the job is adequate to justify him being there. There was a while when I thought the tide may have been turning against those who ruminate scandal for scandal's sake; by the end of Clinton's time as US president, everyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together was sick to death of hearing about his poor taste in women. Yet the only effect that the long running saga had was to give Clinton a peculiar sort of legitimacy; all of his other (many) errors and failures, as well as most of his successes were pushed to the back of our collective minds. We don't really remember that he ordered bombs launched at suspected Al-Quaida camps, or that he so nearly brought peace to Israel. We only remember a smear of sperm on a cheap dress. So it's impossible (or at least, so difficult as to be nearly impossible) to say whether he was a good leader or a bad one (Happily the only scandals that have thus far surrounded Dubya concern corruption on such a huge scale that one feels rather more justified in complaining about him).
The faint whiff of scandal surrounding the Blairs is being magnified so that it has become a stench, yet they have acted little differently from someone getting a sacked British Gas Engineer to fit their boiler on the cheap. Or asking a struck off solicitor to give legal advice. Or asking a friend to bring back rather more beer and wine from a trip to France than they otherwise would have. If we're going to have a tabloid feeding frenzy around 10 Downing St, is it really that unrealistic to ask that it's about something like the forests of money that have gone into businessmen’s pockets due to Public-Private partnerships? There are many reasons for us to mistrust our government. Let's not get distracted by a rapidly growing molehill of a scandal.
Still, Merry Christmas eh?
You can tell it's near Christmas by the increase in media items of no real consequence that no one is particularly interested in. For example, Cherie Blair's recent financial faux pas (which, near as I can tell, seems to revolve around allowing a friend of questionable honesty to do some financial dealings on her behalf) has entirely failed to rouse a huge amount of interest outside of the media. Pretty much everyone I've talked to about it couldn't give the remotest beginnings of a damn. Yet if you read the papers you'd think it was a scandal on a par with finding that John Prescott sodomises and sacrifices a live ostrich every night.
To a certain extent, the fuss is the fault of the Labour party itself. It was originally elected on a wave of public antipathy towards the Conservative party and the attendant sleaze allegations against it. To fully capitalise on that, Labour cast itself as a group of men and women so ethically pure that they wouldn't be out of place in the Vatican. The problem is, now that they're the entrenched government and now that the full glare of the media has been applied to pretty much every dealing of every Labour party member and all of their relatives. Naturally enough, we're finding that the government really wouldn't be out of place in the Vatican. Unfortunately, as it seems that 1 in every 3 paedophiles and pederasts is a Catholic priest, that is no longer such a grand boast.
So then, we're finding out that our government and their families are not perfect models of integrity. Is anybody actually surprised? I mean look at the Conservative government; it seemed to consist entirely of people whose facade of normality was so studied and false that we were expected to believe that not one of them had ever acted in a weak, foolish, and altogether human way. No, all of these men and women were infallible! And, unsurprisingly, that facade didn't stand up to scrutiny. Did that lead to the realisation that it is unreasonable of us to expect perfection in our politicians? Did it create an atmosphere similar to that of France, where politicians seem to get a mistress or toyboy as a part of their job description? Of course not. It led to us electing a bunch of people who made equally unreasonable claims to perfection, but who simply hadn't been caught out yet.
There are a couple of standard get out clauses exercised by most people (myself especially) at this point, one of the favourites being "They're all the same so there's no point in voting. The same kind of selfish mungwits will always get in". Well, yes they will. For as long as we allow ourselves to be distracted by the meaningless popularity contest that is politics in the UK they will anyway. How many people know anything about any political parties other than the Conservatives or Labour? Come to think of it, how many people even know whom their local MP is? Essentially, when it comes to election time we decide who we think looks the most 'normal' out of the politicians who appear on our TV. Then (assuming we can all be bothered to drag our fat bascksides off the sofa) we vote for them. And yes, we get people who are imperfect (some more than others). If our media actually did their job and bothered to find out about their ability as politicians, rather than how many affairs they've had, or how many dodgy friends they've got; and if we deigned to care about such trivialities like "Who are the best people to govern the country?" then chances are we'd be spared this false high-ground haughtiness that the press indulge in the instant a scandal is required to boost newspaper sales. What right has anyone got to say, "They're all the same" when very few know what the hell any of them are like in the first place?
At which point did leadership stop being about ability and start being about popularity? Or has it always been like this? Can anyone seriously imagine that Dubya would be in office if we lived in a meritocracy? He's a bumbling idiot who got where he is by money and luck. In our own government, only Gordon Brown springs to mind as a politician who's ability to do the job is adequate to justify him being there. There was a while when I thought the tide may have been turning against those who ruminate scandal for scandal's sake; by the end of Clinton's time as US president, everyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together was sick to death of hearing about his poor taste in women. Yet the only effect that the long running saga had was to give Clinton a peculiar sort of legitimacy; all of his other (many) errors and failures, as well as most of his successes were pushed to the back of our collective minds. We don't really remember that he ordered bombs launched at suspected Al-Quaida camps, or that he so nearly brought peace to Israel. We only remember a smear of sperm on a cheap dress. So it's impossible (or at least, so difficult as to be nearly impossible) to say whether he was a good leader or a bad one (Happily the only scandals that have thus far surrounded Dubya concern corruption on such a huge scale that one feels rather more justified in complaining about him).
The faint whiff of scandal surrounding the Blairs is being magnified so that it has become a stench, yet they have acted little differently from someone getting a sacked British Gas Engineer to fit their boiler on the cheap. Or asking a struck off solicitor to give legal advice. Or asking a friend to bring back rather more beer and wine from a trip to France than they otherwise would have. If we're going to have a tabloid feeding frenzy around 10 Downing St, is it really that unrealistic to ask that it's about something like the forests of money that have gone into businessmen’s pockets due to Public-Private partnerships? There are many reasons for us to mistrust our government. Let's not get distracted by a rapidly growing molehill of a scandal.
Still, Merry Christmas eh?
To a certain extent, the fuss is the fault of the Labour party itself. It was originally elected on a wave of public antipathy towards the Conservative party and the attendant sleaze allegations against it. To fully capitalise on that, Labour cast itself as a group of men and women so ethically pure that they wouldn't be out of place in the Vatican. The problem is, now that they're the entrenched government and now that the full glare of the media has been applied to pretty much every dealing of every Labour party member and all of their relatives. Naturally enough, we're finding that the government really wouldn't be out of place in the Vatican. Unfortunately, as it seems that 1 in every 3 paedophiles and pederasts is a Catholic priest, that is no longer such a grand boast.
So then, we're finding out that our government and their families are not perfect models of integrity. Is anybody actually surprised? I mean look at the Conservative government; it seemed to consist entirely of people whose facade of normality was so studied and false that we were expected to believe that not one of them had ever acted in a weak, foolish, and altogether human way. No, all of these men and women were infallible! And, unsurprisingly, that facade didn't stand up to scrutiny. Did that lead to the realisation that it is unreasonable of us to expect perfection in our politicians? Did it create an atmosphere similar to that of France, where politicians seem to get a mistress or toyboy as a part of their job description? Of course not. It led to us electing a bunch of people who made equally unreasonable claims to perfection, but who simply hadn't been caught out yet.
There are a couple of standard get out clauses exercised by most people (myself especially) at this point, one of the favourites being "They're all the same so there's no point in voting. The same kind of selfish mungwits will always get in". Well, yes they will. For as long as we allow ourselves to be distracted by the meaningless popularity contest that is politics in the UK they will anyway. How many people know anything about any political parties other than the Conservatives or Labour? Come to think of it, how many people even know whom their local MP is? Essentially, when it comes to election time we decide who we think looks the most 'normal' out of the politicians who appear on our TV. Then (assuming we can all be bothered to drag our fat bascksides off the sofa) we vote for them. And yes, we get people who are imperfect (some more than others). If our media actually did their job and bothered to find out about their ability as politicians, rather than how many affairs they've had, or how many dodgy friends they've got; and if we deigned to care about such trivialities like "Who are the best people to govern the country?" then chances are we'd be spared this false high-ground haughtiness that the press indulge in the instant a scandal is required to boost newspaper sales. What right has anyone got to say, "They're all the same" when very few know what the hell any of them are like in the first place?
At which point did leadership stop being about ability and start being about popularity? Or has it always been like this? Can anyone seriously imagine that Dubya would be in office if we lived in a meritocracy? He's a bumbling idiot who got where he is by money and luck. In our own government, only Gordon Brown springs to mind as a politician who's ability to do the job is adequate to justify him being there. There was a while when I thought the tide may have been turning against those who ruminate scandal for scandal's sake; by the end of Clinton's time as US president, everyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together was sick to death of hearing about his poor taste in women. Yet the only effect that the long running saga had was to give Clinton a peculiar sort of legitimacy; all of his other (many) errors and failures, as well as most of his successes were pushed to the back of our collective minds. We don't really remember that he ordered bombs launched at suspected Al-Quaida camps, or that he so nearly brought peace to Israel. We only remember a smear of sperm on a cheap dress. So it's impossible (or at least, so difficult as to be nearly impossible) to say whether he was a good leader or a bad one (Happily the only scandals that have thus far surrounded Dubya concern corruption on such a huge scale that one feels rather more justified in complaining about him).
The faint whiff of scandal surrounding the Blairs is being magnified so that it has become a stench, yet they have acted little differently from someone getting a sacked British Gas Engineer to fit their boiler on the cheap. Or asking a struck off solicitor to give legal advice. Or asking a friend to bring back rather more beer and wine from a trip to France than they otherwise would have. If we're going to have a tabloid feeding frenzy around 10 Downing St, is it really that unrealistic to ask that it's about something like the forests of money that have gone into businessmen’s pockets due to Public-Private partnerships? There are many reasons for us to mistrust our government. Let's not get distracted by a rapidly growing molehill of a scandal.
Still, Merry Christmas eh?
I don't vote as I'm ignorant to the truth about which party is best. I only see what the press choose to show me, by which I mean the BBC and various other highbrow news sources.
The old Conservative government seemed to be wrong/lying/breaking the law all the time, but they also carried some weight of presence as a political power. The current Labour government is much the same - for better or for worse, they at least seem to be doing something, whereas the current Conservative party disappear from my view on the world for months on end. Who is the shadow chancellor? Couldn't tell you I'm afraid.
The point is, my perspective on who is a good political party is just that - a perspective. I acknowledge that my perspective is severely flawed, as it was given to me by other people. Therefore I don't vote.
Having said that, that Charles Kennedy chap seems to be a good bloke, so perhaps I'll vote for him.
The old Conservative government seemed to be wrong/lying/breaking the law all the time, but they also carried some weight of presence as a political power. The current Labour government is much the same - for better or for worse, they at least seem to be doing something, whereas the current Conservative party disappear from my view on the world for months on end. Who is the shadow chancellor? Couldn't tell you I'm afraid.
The point is, my perspective on who is a good political party is just that - a perspective. I acknowledge that my perspective is severely flawed, as it was given to me by other people. Therefore I don't vote.
Having said that, that Charles Kennedy chap seems to be a good bloke, so perhaps I'll vote for him.
Ha ha, you compared Ulrika-ka-ka to an ostrich. Nice one!
So I'm not the only one that doesnt give a hoot about Cherie Blair then?
And you're bang on with us expecting politicians to be any different.
I personally liked Clinton. He was just there to eat, smoke cigars and plax Sax on saturday night live (along with banging interns). Best economy ever, almost brought peace to Isreal and seemed more interested in chasing skirt than blowing things up.
A normal guy that happened to get into power. I would have been a lot more respectful of him if he just admitted straight away to Lewinsky. Can you imagine the press conference?
"Mr President, it's alleged you recieved oral sex in the Oval Office from an intern. Any comment?"
"Yep, it was great. So what?"
"...well...um..."
"Oh like you wouldn't if you were The President?"
"Yeah but..."
And you're bang on with us expecting politicians to be any different.
I personally liked Clinton. He was just there to eat, smoke cigars and plax Sax on saturday night live (along with banging interns). Best economy ever, almost brought peace to Isreal and seemed more interested in chasing skirt than blowing things up.
A normal guy that happened to get into power. I would have been a lot more respectful of him if he just admitted straight away to Lewinsky. Can you imagine the press conference?
"Mr President, it's alleged you recieved oral sex in the Oval Office from an intern. Any comment?"
"Yep, it was great. So what?"
"...well...um..."
"Oh like you wouldn't if you were The President?"
"Yeah but..."
I hate the way that the media are now saying "Cherie seemed really repentant and that should be enough for everyone concerned". So because she is deemed "important" she only has to apologise and everything is ok?
However at the end of the day we all must know that every politician/associated person with aforementioned is only in it for the money they can make on the side, their other interests and the ladies/men/small donkeys with proud faces.
However at the end of the day we all must know that every politician/associated person with aforementioned is only in it for the money they can make on the side, their other interests and the ladies/men/small donkeys with proud faces.
I totally agree about the whole Cherie Blair 'scandal'. It's just such a nothing story: no law-breaking, no corruption, no bribery. Besides which it has absolutely nothing to do with politics; it just seems to be an attempt to damn Blair by association, and it comes across as pathetic. The ability of the government to govern has nothing to do with the people the Prime Minister's wife chooses as friends. It reminds me of the Euan Blair thing a few years ago: fifteen year old gets drunk, shock horror. This is the kind of thing that keeps politics stupid. No issues, no debate, just tabloid gossip.
Light wrote:
> There are a couple of standard get out clauses exercised by most
> people (myself especially) at this point, one of the favourites being
> "They're all the same so there's no point in voting. The same
> kind of selfish mungwits will always get in". Well, yes they
> will. For as long as we allow ourselves to be distracted by the
> meaningless popularity contest that is politics in the UK they will
> anyway. How many people know anything about any political parties
> other than the Conservatives or Labour?
I live in Scotland, where the situation is marginally better. We use proportional representation so people aren't forced into the 'least worst' option in quite the same way. In the first parliament we got the usual suspects, plus a socialist, a green and an independent. Hopefully the stranglehold of the vacuous mainstream politicians will be broken by this system.
Light wrote:
> There are a couple of standard get out clauses exercised by most
> people (myself especially) at this point, one of the favourites being
> "They're all the same so there's no point in voting. The same
> kind of selfish mungwits will always get in". Well, yes they
> will. For as long as we allow ourselves to be distracted by the
> meaningless popularity contest that is politics in the UK they will
> anyway. How many people know anything about any political parties
> other than the Conservatives or Labour?
I live in Scotland, where the situation is marginally better. We use proportional representation so people aren't forced into the 'least worst' option in quite the same way. In the first parliament we got the usual suspects, plus a socialist, a green and an independent. Hopefully the stranglehold of the vacuous mainstream politicians will be broken by this system.