The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
It’s about that time of the year when the weather gets duller. The skies become greyer with each passing hour, the leaves have long since stopped being a myriad of colours, and chill winds blast icy needles through anyone unfortunate enough to be caught outside. All in all, it seems like the perfect time to talk about politics.
Now, I’m aware as I write this that chances are, not many of you will read it. After all, politics is earthshatteringly dull, and more than a little perverse. Where else would a man who professed admiration for the BNP be considered ‘a bit of a character’? In which other profession could the boss lie through his teeth to the shop floor (i.e. us) and, when caught out, refuse to bring the matter up again? Not very many I’d bet.
But why is it so boring? I mean, whether we like it or not, politics is an important matter. Speaking personally, whenever I write these little bursts of vitriol about the political world, I try and make them as accessible and entertaining is possible as possible (not always easy when talking about something duller than the wits of a US President). And one would have thought that it would be in everyone’s best interests to make sure that every effort is made to include people in debate on something as important as politics. Wouldn’t you?
Apparently it is not. A century ago, people were encouraged to believe that the ‘ruling classes’ knew what was best, and should be left alone to the important business of running the country, whilst the working classes should busy themselves working. This attitude disappeared almost totally in the UK after WWII. We’d seen in the build up to the war just what an utter barrel of monkey’s bumholes the supposed ruling elite had made of seeing which way the wind was blowing (“What’s that old chap? Some Austrian chappy is shouting about how he intends to invade half of Europe? And he’s making lots of weapons you say? Well, I’m sure it’s nothing. Now; who’s for a spot of incest? Incest anyone?”), people started to pay a lot more attention to who it was they gave power to. A 6-year war and revelations like the Holocaust tend to concentrate ones mind, and make one less likely to be blindly and idiotically faithful to the idea that their government will do what is best for everyone.
Then we had the Thatcher years. Now, I do tend to think that she was a strong leader and a rather good one (though with the benefit of hindsight, I do get the impression that given a few more years and she would have started doing things like declaring herself “Dictator for Life”...) for the country at the time. However, she did tend to encourage people not to pay much attention to politics. Hers was a pretty much authoritarian rule, and so people grew apathetic about politics because no matter what they said or did, Thatcher went ahead and did what she wanted. And because it mainly worked out for the best (in the short term certainly), no one really wanted to question her too closely anyway. “So a few thousand miners are out of work, and all our heavy industry got canned? Aye well...it was going to die a death soon anyway and who cares when we’re making SO MUCH MONEY!”
So now we’re back in the situation where we’re gently encouraged to leave the ruling classes alone to get on with running society. Only now, we don’t have the excuse of being ill informed, or ignorant. We’re better informed now as a society than we ever have been before. And, as a result, even someone only casually acquainted with the cavernous headed prats who call themselves our government will be well aware that they are a bunch of shifty, power hungry sh*tcake bakers. We wouldn’t trust these people to look after our house for a weekend, but we don’t really much care about letting them look after our country. Why is this?
It’s not as if those in opposition are any better; the Tory party have just jettisoned their leader (I’m not going to mention him by name; I’m intrigued to know how many people actually know it without being prompted...) in favour of Michael Howard; a man who became a byword for Shiftyness after his interview by Paxman, and who is recognised by the general public as “that smarmy Tory bloke”. Doesn’t encourage faith in them as an alternative government really. The Libdems are...well, they’re there. And nobody seems to care.
So we have a bunch of people jostling for power, none of whom are liked or trusted very much. The only ones who aren’t disliked or considered untrustworthy are the ones whom nobody has really heard of. And so, most people simply don’t bother to choose their leaders. We just leave it to people who still seem to give a damn about politics.
And who are most of these people? They’re the people who will vote for one party because they have done all their life and their parents before them, and so on. They’d vote for Labour if Tony Blair stood up in Parliament, flicked the V’s at the camera’s, then gave a speech on how he intended to solve unemployment by grinding the jobless up in a giant mincing machine and selling the resulting mush to their families. They’d vote Tory if...well, lets face it; anyone who still votes Tory after the pigs ear they made of things in living memory has clearly not bothered to engage their brain since 1990. But you get the picture; the majority of those who vote are those who are rabidly in favour of one side, and seem to believe that their opposition are in league with Satan.
Because of this, politics has polarised. The parties know that they have to appeal to their hard-core base of voters, and it seems that they’ve decided that the best way to do this is to heap scorn on whoever is their opposition (although it does seem that, using that logic, the Tory party’s main opponent is the Tory party...). So now, when one looks at the political arena, one sees what looks very much like a slightly more grownup version of that old playground favourite, “My gang is better than your gang”.
This doesn’t benefit anybody (except perhaps the Sun and the Daily Mail, who like to keep things simple...), and just reinforces the idea that politics should be ignored. But things have been like this for over 20 years now; to new voters, this venal popularity contest between two main parties is the way things have always been. And those people who DO vote are so preoccupied with denouncing whomever is on the other team politically, that they’ve stopped bothering to examine what exactly their own side is getting up to.
So what are we left with? Well, we have a gang of greedy fools supported by mindless idiots on one side...and much the same on the other. Both of these groups are, I would say, in the minority. The overwhelming majority of the public is made up of people who have simply ceased to care what happens in politics any more. They still complain about the government when it affects them personally, but bearing in mind they don’t vote, why should the government give a toss? Answer: They don’t have too. As long as they pander to the minorities who elect them, they can get away with murder (literally in some cases).
So what am I trying to say (other than the same thing that, in a roundabout sort of way, I always say: I’m bored at work)? Basically I think I’m saying that, boring though it is, politics is something we should try to at least take a passing interest in if we actually want to see any improvements in our own lives, and in society as a whole. The alternative is more leaders like Dubya, who doesn’t even need to hide the fact that he’s only in government in order to line his pockets any more as there are idiots out there who would believe him if he said the sky was yellow, black was white, and WOMD will be found in Iraq any day now. Surely we deserve better than that?
Now, I’m aware as I write this that chances are, not many of you will read it. After all, politics is earthshatteringly dull, and more than a little perverse. Where else would a man who professed admiration for the BNP be considered ‘a bit of a character’? In which other profession could the boss lie through his teeth to the shop floor (i.e. us) and, when caught out, refuse to bring the matter up again? Not very many I’d bet.
But why is it so boring? I mean, whether we like it or not, politics is an important matter. Speaking personally, whenever I write these little bursts of vitriol about the political world, I try and make them as accessible and entertaining is possible as possible (not always easy when talking about something duller than the wits of a US President). And one would have thought that it would be in everyone’s best interests to make sure that every effort is made to include people in debate on something as important as politics. Wouldn’t you?
Apparently it is not. A century ago, people were encouraged to believe that the ‘ruling classes’ knew what was best, and should be left alone to the important business of running the country, whilst the working classes should busy themselves working. This attitude disappeared almost totally in the UK after WWII. We’d seen in the build up to the war just what an utter barrel of monkey’s bumholes the supposed ruling elite had made of seeing which way the wind was blowing (“What’s that old chap? Some Austrian chappy is shouting about how he intends to invade half of Europe? And he’s making lots of weapons you say? Well, I’m sure it’s nothing. Now; who’s for a spot of incest? Incest anyone?”), people started to pay a lot more attention to who it was they gave power to. A 6-year war and revelations like the Holocaust tend to concentrate ones mind, and make one less likely to be blindly and idiotically faithful to the idea that their government will do what is best for everyone.
Then we had the Thatcher years. Now, I do tend to think that she was a strong leader and a rather good one (though with the benefit of hindsight, I do get the impression that given a few more years and she would have started doing things like declaring herself “Dictator for Life”...) for the country at the time. However, she did tend to encourage people not to pay much attention to politics. Hers was a pretty much authoritarian rule, and so people grew apathetic about politics because no matter what they said or did, Thatcher went ahead and did what she wanted. And because it mainly worked out for the best (in the short term certainly), no one really wanted to question her too closely anyway. “So a few thousand miners are out of work, and all our heavy industry got canned? Aye well...it was going to die a death soon anyway and who cares when we’re making SO MUCH MONEY!”
So now we’re back in the situation where we’re gently encouraged to leave the ruling classes alone to get on with running society. Only now, we don’t have the excuse of being ill informed, or ignorant. We’re better informed now as a society than we ever have been before. And, as a result, even someone only casually acquainted with the cavernous headed prats who call themselves our government will be well aware that they are a bunch of shifty, power hungry sh*tcake bakers. We wouldn’t trust these people to look after our house for a weekend, but we don’t really much care about letting them look after our country. Why is this?
It’s not as if those in opposition are any better; the Tory party have just jettisoned their leader (I’m not going to mention him by name; I’m intrigued to know how many people actually know it without being prompted...) in favour of Michael Howard; a man who became a byword for Shiftyness after his interview by Paxman, and who is recognised by the general public as “that smarmy Tory bloke”. Doesn’t encourage faith in them as an alternative government really. The Libdems are...well, they’re there. And nobody seems to care.
So we have a bunch of people jostling for power, none of whom are liked or trusted very much. The only ones who aren’t disliked or considered untrustworthy are the ones whom nobody has really heard of. And so, most people simply don’t bother to choose their leaders. We just leave it to people who still seem to give a damn about politics.
And who are most of these people? They’re the people who will vote for one party because they have done all their life and their parents before them, and so on. They’d vote for Labour if Tony Blair stood up in Parliament, flicked the V’s at the camera’s, then gave a speech on how he intended to solve unemployment by grinding the jobless up in a giant mincing machine and selling the resulting mush to their families. They’d vote Tory if...well, lets face it; anyone who still votes Tory after the pigs ear they made of things in living memory has clearly not bothered to engage their brain since 1990. But you get the picture; the majority of those who vote are those who are rabidly in favour of one side, and seem to believe that their opposition are in league with Satan.
Because of this, politics has polarised. The parties know that they have to appeal to their hard-core base of voters, and it seems that they’ve decided that the best way to do this is to heap scorn on whoever is their opposition (although it does seem that, using that logic, the Tory party’s main opponent is the Tory party...). So now, when one looks at the political arena, one sees what looks very much like a slightly more grownup version of that old playground favourite, “My gang is better than your gang”.
This doesn’t benefit anybody (except perhaps the Sun and the Daily Mail, who like to keep things simple...), and just reinforces the idea that politics should be ignored. But things have been like this for over 20 years now; to new voters, this venal popularity contest between two main parties is the way things have always been. And those people who DO vote are so preoccupied with denouncing whomever is on the other team politically, that they’ve stopped bothering to examine what exactly their own side is getting up to.
So what are we left with? Well, we have a gang of greedy fools supported by mindless idiots on one side...and much the same on the other. Both of these groups are, I would say, in the minority. The overwhelming majority of the public is made up of people who have simply ceased to care what happens in politics any more. They still complain about the government when it affects them personally, but bearing in mind they don’t vote, why should the government give a toss? Answer: They don’t have too. As long as they pander to the minorities who elect them, they can get away with murder (literally in some cases).
So what am I trying to say (other than the same thing that, in a roundabout sort of way, I always say: I’m bored at work)? Basically I think I’m saying that, boring though it is, politics is something we should try to at least take a passing interest in if we actually want to see any improvements in our own lives, and in society as a whole. The alternative is more leaders like Dubya, who doesn’t even need to hide the fact that he’s only in government in order to line his pockets any more as there are idiots out there who would believe him if he said the sky was yellow, black was white, and WOMD will be found in Iraq any day now. Surely we deserve better than that?
Page:
Light wrote:
> cookie monster wrote:
>
> After getting your wang out on stage you can't use that excuse.
>
> Hey, don't knock it;
I never intend to.
:)
> cookie monster wrote:
>
> After getting your wang out on stage you can't use that excuse.
>
> Hey, don't knock it;
I never intend to.
:)
Light wrote:
> cookie monster wrote:
>
> After getting your wang out on stage you can't use that excuse.
>
*Shudder* Don't remind me of that please..................
> cookie monster wrote:
>
> After getting your wang out on stage you can't use that excuse.
>
*Shudder* Don't remind me of that please..................
cookie monster wrote:
> After getting your wang out on stage you can't use that excuse.
Hey, don't knock it; this here piece of flesh got a standing ovation! If anyone else here can say that they got their genderflag out in front of a crowded room and got a round of applause, then I'll officially stop being quite so pleased with myself.
> After getting your wang out on stage you can't use that excuse.
Hey, don't knock it; this here piece of flesh got a standing ovation! If anyone else here can say that they got their genderflag out in front of a crowded room and got a round of applause, then I'll officially stop being quite so pleased with myself.
Light wrote:
> For anyone stupid reading, I also have a highly developed sense of
> irony...
After getting your wang out on stage you can't use that excuse.
> For anyone stupid reading, I also have a highly developed sense of
> irony...
After getting your wang out on stage you can't use that excuse.
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> I fancy Light.
As well you should. For I am gorgeous, and have the photo's to prove it!
For anyone stupid reading, I also have a highly developed sense of irony...
> I fancy Light.
As well you should. For I am gorgeous, and have the photo's to prove it!
For anyone stupid reading, I also have a highly developed sense of irony...
I try to take an interest in politics. I watch Question Time :-/
I'll probably vote at the next General Election - for the BNP... only joking. And er, oh let's face it! politics is as dull as a blunt sword. Michael Howard, the new Tory leader, man, I feel some REAL exciting change coming - not.
I'll probably vote at the next General Election - for the BNP... only joking. And er, oh let's face it! politics is as dull as a blunt sword. Michael Howard, the new Tory leader, man, I feel some REAL exciting change coming - not.
Belldandy wrote:
> Bane wrote:
> scumbutter? surely you can do better than that?
>
> Well he is working against the swear filter, but if he feels the need
> for childish name calling leave him be. Strangely I haven't needed to
> call him names, but if it benefits his argument...
*L* Well you see I was worrying that if I called you too rude a name you'd squeal to Snuggly about how offensive and slanderous I was. God, your self-important whining gets old very quickly...
Nice to see you've concentrated on one word in the whole post and used it as an excuse to avoid addressing a single point made. Could that be because...well, you'd missed the point and made yourself look like an idiot, and now you just want to avoid that?
> Bane wrote:
> scumbutter? surely you can do better than that?
>
> Well he is working against the swear filter, but if he feels the need
> for childish name calling leave him be. Strangely I haven't needed to
> call him names, but if it benefits his argument...
*L* Well you see I was worrying that if I called you too rude a name you'd squeal to Snuggly about how offensive and slanderous I was. God, your self-important whining gets old very quickly...
Nice to see you've concentrated on one word in the whole post and used it as an excuse to avoid addressing a single point made. Could that be because...well, you'd missed the point and made yourself look like an idiot, and now you just want to avoid that?
Bane wrote:
> scumbutter? surely you can do better than that?
I think that 'scumbutter' is an excellent insult. It mixes contempt with dairy produce in an unprecedented way.
I actually agree with most of what Light says, especially about the 'you suck!' Jerry Springer style debate that goes on in Parliament. Who exactly does this willy waving impress, apart from other public schoolboys? I'm very interested in politics (the real, non-yah-boo stuff anyway) but I still can't watch parliamentary debates without shaking my head and calling them all contemptible little boys.
> scumbutter? surely you can do better than that?
I think that 'scumbutter' is an excellent insult. It mixes contempt with dairy produce in an unprecedented way.
I actually agree with most of what Light says, especially about the 'you suck!' Jerry Springer style debate that goes on in Parliament. Who exactly does this willy waving impress, apart from other public schoolboys? I'm very interested in politics (the real, non-yah-boo stuff anyway) but I still can't watch parliamentary debates without shaking my head and calling them all contemptible little boys.
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> I fancy Light.
He explained himself to you back in the car! Now will you please drop it!
> I fancy Light.
He explained himself to you back in the car! Now will you please drop it!
LL Cool TT wrote:
> Assuming, natch, that all people live forever,
Nope, because such voting would still mean a governing party staying in power for far longer than most have. It's assuming that of those alive equal numbers vote the same, which makes no sense at all as fewer people vote in every election. Hence I find this idea of lifelong voters quite silly. Even if people did vote for the same party then deaths amongst supporters would generally be spread evenly amongst them.
> That their offspring will vote exactly the same as them, which is
> unlikely in many situations (due to world conditions, the media etc
> etc etc)
Also whether their offspring vote at all...
> Or have I got the wrong end of this curiously-constructed Bellstick?
Yup, it's a Lightstick this time.
> Assuming, natch, that all people live forever,
Nope, because such voting would still mean a governing party staying in power for far longer than most have. It's assuming that of those alive equal numbers vote the same, which makes no sense at all as fewer people vote in every election. Hence I find this idea of lifelong voters quite silly. Even if people did vote for the same party then deaths amongst supporters would generally be spread evenly amongst them.
> That their offspring will vote exactly the same as them, which is
> unlikely in many situations (due to world conditions, the media etc
> etc etc)
Also whether their offspring vote at all...
> Or have I got the wrong end of this curiously-constructed Bellstick?
Yup, it's a Lightstick this time.
Page: