... I haven't finished. And yet some sort of closure is necessary. More questions, more sidenotes, things that have nothing to do with what the question was, things that were somewhat applicable but ended up veering into the abyss and things that were on topic and jumped straight off the thin white line keep cropping up everywhere. Rather than develop a cohesive argument with well fleshed out ideas and explanations, I've more or less created a stream of consciousness along which some more-or-less reasonably formulated ideas have appeared. Along the way I've gone left and right to find things that would further my argument, or ended up proving me wrong, thus forcing me to either fess up or Delete Spam And Rewrite a more suitable progression. I've also stated countless times that I had no idea where I was going. The advantage is that now, I can keep using this to create some kind of personal database... Though I'm unsure of how it works as a conclusion. Usually I would write a whole bunch of ideas for how to wrap up my text and I'd keep writing until an exoskeleton appeared, crop that and stick the good stock phrases in there. But this time the entire project was developped like this, me thinking with my fingers...
At any rate, I did somewhat answer my question. Democracy is, I have to admit, not bad. It's not the best system and internationally the response sucks across the board, but for governing a country, it's pretty close to decent. The only thing it needs to work is public response, to which Monbiot agrees, according to that interview he gave. The challenge here is getting a government to show their cards.
Wait. The school doesn't show it's cards. There was an incident in the JWLY department where they decided to shut off the gas at 10 instead of 12, and the SUNSCAD girl that marched into the studio created such a ruckus that I personally ran up to the Dean's office and asked for an explanation. Not the best way to deal with it. I later learned that they had hired an additional tech to compensate, and explained that there was no choice, that the studio had always created concern but they had simply been waived until the wave of incidents this winter term... Lillian further reassured me by explaining the situation, and the Craft chair came down and explained the situation in detail - though by then we already knew everything... I had asked the Dean why they bothered to tell us if they thought it the advantages outweighed the inconveniences. She said "That's what we do." Though I hated that reply immediately, and dismissed it as condescending, Lillian reassured me that the Dean was a trustworthy woman. My point is this. People across the net and on the boards complain about how all of our leaders suck and we can never get them to change so there's no use in trying. That corruption is rampant in the upper echelons of any corporation and any society, and that's just how things are so we better brace ourselves and take what we can steal because that's all we're going to get. Though I'm more or less one of those people, I think now that's a fairly gray and cynical vision. The main idea is that democracy can work if we can begin to have faith in it, rather than sitting on our laurels waiting for the good things to come. When the people mobilize in the name of democracy, to protest and make some noise so their opinions and views are heard, they are complaining about the system, but their actions show that they are placing their trust in democracy's power to change things. Sometimes it can get the parliament to think about, to talk about an issue when the leaders previously set on, or unaware of. This may lead to change, because ultimately, they are the civil servants, not the other way around. Since their job is to move in the direction they think is best, it would help if we had a bit of faith in their abilities. I'm not a grown man yet, so it's better if I don't get all caught up in fear of what can't be done, and actually do something, say something, when I think it should be so.
Don't you think that's a fairly youthful conclusion? I do think I have some kind of redundant skill at making these sorts of endings. Could come in handy if I decide to make stories. Essays, well I have to hope that the reader is similarly idealistic.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
The Division Bell
To "pause" the time: essentially a trick where I publish a dud page and fill it in after the time has expired. This way I can add an extra bit to my final without it looking like I did it later. As long as it's done on monday, hopefully you won't notice. Naturally if you see this you may have a moment of private celebration, for I have been outsmarted.
-G
-G
Vanishing Point2.0
So what does "preventing the strong from oppressing the weak mean"?
As I see it, what is meant is optionally the regulating of those in a position on power, as corruption within the government's own body; police, judges, ministers, etc... but mostly the weak as in "the helpless" Now I don't know if this applies to Canada, since a good example of weak and strong would be Rwanda. Ideally the government would seek to follow this policy in it's international agendas as well as it's national agenda, but (again, Rwanda) this is not often the case. One might conjecture that this is the case whenever it is profitable or advantageous to do so, but not when there is little payoff and great risk. (In other words, doing it for it's own sake is not good enough of a reason, which is arguable as a claim...Though if Canada had immediately declared war on Rwanda because of the Genocide, just the threat of a developed nation coming in to set things straight, possibly bringing in buddies, might have been enough to stop the entire charade. After all, they had knives, and we all know how good those are in a gunfight.) Come to think of it, why didn't we say something? Did the population know what was going on? I certainly didn't, I was 3 years old. But if there had been a negative public response, perhaps our governments, fearing bad press, would have done something in the two and some months from start to finish...
Two things have just come to mind. Is it out of Canada's league to spot a problem in the world and act on it? The states are not above this, but we are not the states. Would we be liable to trade sanctions? Don't know, but it would seem that trade sanctions are allowed if there is a credible reason, however there is no doubt that Rwanda In The Grips Of Civil War wouldn't give two flying s#its about a country imposing trade sanctions on them, nevermind that country being measly and insignificant Canada which let's be honest has nothing of note to sell except firewood. [Edit: That link brings you to a wiki article that quotes a british constitution paper that's 162 pages long that I decided not to skim through but basically sets a bunch of terms and says that using the threat of force by issuing a declaration of war is no longer applicable.]
Not to mention that in this case Canada would be doing exaclty what Monbiot said; that democracies, as the best or least-bad form of government, shouldn't use force to make people do things. Ogo. I've found something interesting.
The phrase Monbiot uses can be re-worded as "Democratic governments exists to ensure that the strong do not use force to subdue the weak."
As I see it, what is meant is optionally the regulating of those in a position on power, as corruption within the government's own body; police, judges, ministers, etc... but mostly the weak as in "the helpless" Now I don't know if this applies to Canada, since a good example of weak and strong would be Rwanda. Ideally the government would seek to follow this policy in it's international agendas as well as it's national agenda, but (again, Rwanda) this is not often the case. One might conjecture that this is the case whenever it is profitable or advantageous to do so, but not when there is little payoff and great risk. (In other words, doing it for it's own sake is not good enough of a reason, which is arguable as a claim...Though if Canada had immediately declared war on Rwanda because of the Genocide, just the threat of a developed nation coming in to set things straight, possibly bringing in buddies, might have been enough to stop the entire charade. After all, they had knives, and we all know how good those are in a gunfight.) Come to think of it, why didn't we say something? Did the population know what was going on? I certainly didn't, I was 3 years old. But if there had been a negative public response, perhaps our governments, fearing bad press, would have done something in the two and some months from start to finish...
Two things have just come to mind. Is it out of Canada's league to spot a problem in the world and act on it? The states are not above this, but we are not the states. Would we be liable to trade sanctions? Don't know, but it would seem that trade sanctions are allowed if there is a credible reason, however there is no doubt that Rwanda In The Grips Of Civil War wouldn't give two flying s#its about a country imposing trade sanctions on them, nevermind that country being measly and insignificant Canada which let's be honest has nothing of note to sell except firewood. [Edit: That link brings you to a wiki article that quotes a british constitution paper that's 162 pages long that I decided not to skim through but basically sets a bunch of terms and says that using the threat of force by issuing a declaration of war is no longer applicable.]
Not to mention that in this case Canada would be doing exaclty what Monbiot said; that democracies, as the best or least-bad form of government, shouldn't use force to make people do things. Ogo. I've found something interesting.
The phrase Monbiot uses can be re-worded as "Democratic governments exists to ensure that the strong do not use force to subdue the weak."
Need To Be Strong
"Who's primary purpose is to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak..."
You know, I just realized something. This does not mean "in court". Because what happens in court stays in court. I was trying to wrap my mind around the fact that the government sometimes decides to support MNCs and sell canadian assets to foreign companies, and that these companies enter in direct competition with local small business owners who then either sell off their businesses to chains or fight the fight and take what they can. A friend of mine made a similar research project on factory farming, which effectively out-classes traditional farms in terms of production quantity, lowering their demand and resulting in many to sell their lands. She then provided us with a humoorus but instructive video called the Meatrix. (Her father was a traditional farmer, and proud of it.) As I understand it there is a growing market for quality, which will result, if the trend persists, in factory farms raising their standards to better compete with the free run type farms. The interesting thing about this though is that factory farms only exist because of a demand for cheaper meat. Meat is expensive, let's face it, but if you have two identical slices of steak sitting side by side in the supermarket, and one is worth 12$ while the other is worth 4, you have the option of re-examining your priorities. No, more is not always better.
Back to the topic, I realized that what the sentence means is not "support the weak in court" because either party are not referred to as such and the truthfulness of accusations is decided by the court. You could say that what the court decides becomes the truth... Until put into question. So weakness or strength has no merit before the court, though a finacially strong company can pressure a weaker individual regardless of righteousness either by employing an expensive lawyer - the pricier the better, yes? - or they can use threats or bribes to avoid notice. On the other hand, corporations can abuse workers, pay them too little, see "nike" for an past example. The soccer balls are another example, as they sell soccer balls that say "this ball was not made in Pakistan or some such country by children working for shit wages" which suggest that many of those that don't do in fact have children in XYZ country making those...
_____________
Enviropig™ Because pigs are products, they are now being trademarked. Of course the enviro- prefix is just a beautifying add-on, because biopig somehow doesn't sound quite right. Mutapig sounds similarly unappealing. There is nothing environmentally friendly about a pig. Ooh in protest, I'd start a line of enviroshirts. Envirolaptops. Envirocats. (comes with envirocat catlitter. For more information on how to train your Envirocat, visit our tutorial website at www.envirocat/howto.com)
The word granola brings to mind weed smoking hippies with macrame shirts parading about Gaia and making the planet green... Green is not a sustainable business model! Nobody that cares about quality is willing to buy green products
You know, I just realized something. This does not mean "in court". Because what happens in court stays in court. I was trying to wrap my mind around the fact that the government sometimes decides to support MNCs and sell canadian assets to foreign companies, and that these companies enter in direct competition with local small business owners who then either sell off their businesses to chains or fight the fight and take what they can. A friend of mine made a similar research project on factory farming, which effectively out-classes traditional farms in terms of production quantity, lowering their demand and resulting in many to sell their lands. She then provided us with a humoorus but instructive video called the Meatrix. (Her father was a traditional farmer, and proud of it.) As I understand it there is a growing market for quality, which will result, if the trend persists, in factory farms raising their standards to better compete with the free run type farms. The interesting thing about this though is that factory farms only exist because of a demand for cheaper meat. Meat is expensive, let's face it, but if you have two identical slices of steak sitting side by side in the supermarket, and one is worth 12$ while the other is worth 4, you have the option of re-examining your priorities. No, more is not always better.
Back to the topic, I realized that what the sentence means is not "support the weak in court" because either party are not referred to as such and the truthfulness of accusations is decided by the court. You could say that what the court decides becomes the truth... Until put into question. So weakness or strength has no merit before the court, though a finacially strong company can pressure a weaker individual regardless of righteousness either by employing an expensive lawyer - the pricier the better, yes? - or they can use threats or bribes to avoid notice. On the other hand, corporations can abuse workers, pay them too little, see "nike" for an past example. The soccer balls are another example, as they sell soccer balls that say "this ball was not made in Pakistan or some such country by children working for shit wages" which suggest that many of those that don't do in fact have children in XYZ country making those...
_____________
Enviropig™ Because pigs are products, they are now being trademarked. Of course the enviro- prefix is just a beautifying add-on, because biopig somehow doesn't sound quite right. Mutapig sounds similarly unappealing. There is nothing environmentally friendly about a pig. Ooh in protest, I'd start a line of enviroshirts. Envirolaptops. Envirocats. (comes with envirocat catlitter. For more information on how to train your Envirocat, visit our tutorial website at www.envirocat/howto.com)
The word granola brings to mind weed smoking hippies with macrame shirts parading about Gaia and making the planet green... Green is not a sustainable business model! Nobody that cares about quality is willing to buy green products
Here Comes The Sun
[Edit: Okay maybe I'm taking things a little too far... Though my arguments seem valid to me, this is hardly an unbiased opinion.]
A smal note about SUNSCAD. This has nothing to do with the project. Some idiot VP cultural has decided that it would be good to rename the Persons of Color Representative position. This is a good idea, but her suggestion is that we call it the Black Persons Representative. To which I scoff. For many reasons, which may or may not have something to do with my "Elitist" background. I will elaborate, but first I think that having a representative for all minorities being downscaled to blacks simply because there are more blacks than there are other races at NSCAD is rather dumb. What about the others? Further questioning revealed the rationale behind her idea; to attract more aspiring artists from black communities in the Halifax area. This is what she meant by "connecting the school with the community". It is felt that minorities will be unwilling to enter a school if they feel it has no services with which to support them, against which more arguments have been made. "It isn't NSCAD's resoponsibility to recruit students for the school" "The same argument applies for Non-Blacks, if you will. Regardless, it is also likely that the members of these communities, which are - everybody seems to agree on this point, so I will not mince words - poorer, and have less opportunities, or are simply unaware of NSCAD's existance.*I* think that those that do not know about art schools in their own towns do not know because they do not really care, and that if they wanted to do art, then they would do art. That said, art is not an easy calling, providing no stable income and no promise of a career. Only the most insane or creatively deprived persons would even consider attending art school, let alone pay the university 6000$ per year in order to do so. This is where my "elitist" background comes in. I have been well raised, am rather independant, fund my education from my own pocket and am rather proud of this, and try to be as racially blind as possible. This may be because in the past, I was given opportunities others could not afford to take, and learned things differently, and developed a loathing for dependency. Regardless, I don't mean to say "no pity for the blacks" I say "no more pity for the blacks than for the blues."
Obviously I am not allowed to talk in this manner in public, given the unique and awkward position that my race and culture leave me in. The blog is nice, at times. The real issue here is the fact that this post may be seen badly by others, who may wonder if I have some small and lingering amount of racism. Possible, though it is more likely that I am simply bitter at the alleged helplessness of minorities raised in Canada. I would rather see an example of a person who has gotten somewhere regardless of race or wealth, because they wanted to get there, than hear people's concerns about minorities "who are not receiving proper support". I think the koreans at NSCAD are not receiving proper support. Some of them can't even speak english! Then again, this prevents them from asking for help, I suppose...
That said, I don't think of myself as much of an elitist. My mother is a small business owner. But I always wonder at what other people think of this. I don't want them to look down on my successes by saying that I was almost already there.
A smal note about SUNSCAD. This has nothing to do with the project. Some idiot VP cultural has decided that it would be good to rename the Persons of Color Representative position. This is a good idea, but her suggestion is that we call it the Black Persons Representative. To which I scoff. For many reasons, which may or may not have something to do with my "Elitist" background. I will elaborate, but first I think that having a representative for all minorities being downscaled to blacks simply because there are more blacks than there are other races at NSCAD is rather dumb. What about the others? Further questioning revealed the rationale behind her idea; to attract more aspiring artists from black communities in the Halifax area. This is what she meant by "connecting the school with the community". It is felt that minorities will be unwilling to enter a school if they feel it has no services with which to support them, against which more arguments have been made. "It isn't NSCAD's resoponsibility to recruit students for the school" "The same argument applies for Non-Blacks, if you will. Regardless, it is also likely that the members of these communities, which are - everybody seems to agree on this point, so I will not mince words - poorer, and have less opportunities, or are simply unaware of NSCAD's existance.*I* think that those that do not know about art schools in their own towns do not know because they do not really care, and that if they wanted to do art, then they would do art. That said, art is not an easy calling, providing no stable income and no promise of a career. Only the most insane or creatively deprived persons would even consider attending art school, let alone pay the university 6000$ per year in order to do so. This is where my "elitist" background comes in. I have been well raised, am rather independant, fund my education from my own pocket and am rather proud of this, and try to be as racially blind as possible. This may be because in the past, I was given opportunities others could not afford to take, and learned things differently, and developed a loathing for dependency. Regardless, I don't mean to say "no pity for the blacks" I say "no more pity for the blacks than for the blues."
Obviously I am not allowed to talk in this manner in public, given the unique and awkward position that my race and culture leave me in. The blog is nice, at times. The real issue here is the fact that this post may be seen badly by others, who may wonder if I have some small and lingering amount of racism. Possible, though it is more likely that I am simply bitter at the alleged helplessness of minorities raised in Canada. I would rather see an example of a person who has gotten somewhere regardless of race or wealth, because they wanted to get there, than hear people's concerns about minorities "who are not receiving proper support". I think the koreans at NSCAD are not receiving proper support. Some of them can't even speak english! Then again, this prevents them from asking for help, I suppose...
That said, I don't think of myself as much of an elitist. My mother is a small business owner. But I always wonder at what other people think of this. I don't want them to look down on my successes by saying that I was almost already there.
What's Wrong With This Picture?
In retrospect this is a very messy and disorganized format... Not to mention it's volume! It's hard to put myself in the mindframe of the last post because the post is "finished". Onwards, then. I consider the "institutions" part tackled. I would like to talk about the government's responsibilities in protecting the weak from the strong. I wonder... in 1878, were things different? I mean {les enjeux} here. You have to ask; who are the weak, and who are the strong. This system operates under the capitalist system, which is essentially a business plan. Financial terms fit right at home in a world where imaginary persons can be tried through stand - ins and prosecuted as if they were a real person - though they can't be sent to jail, now can they? In a financial system, wealth is power, not to mention that the military is an arm of the government, also more or less a corporation. Of course this doesn' t involve small cases. A poor and hungry man walks down the street, shoplifts a kitchen knife and walks off with food taken by force. He is arrested by the police and charged for whatever crime sounds more official. The strong is punished, the weak roams free. But perhaps this man was poor and hungry because he was fired due to - ah whatever! the important part is
I can't stay focused. I know what I want to say but my hair is in the way. I keep putting my hands through it and finding knots. I *have* to go deal with that! Right now! I'll be back.
And by right back I mean right back after I take a shower and make some lunch and sit outside for an hour in the sunday sun and read a comic and then come back. I also learned that my drawing teacher sneak-assigned me to do a watercolor painting of shells, marbles and a block or brick in a plastic bag filled with water. Shells. Marbles. Bricks. Oh yes, I've got just the thing in my wardrobe. Funny thing, I had a feeling when I left my small Ontario town that I might need to bring along some marbles and a seashell and a brick from the house wall and keep them in my spacious closet. Gee it's a good thing I listened to myself, how would I have been able to complete this assignment otherwise?
Back to business, can the government efficiently prevent the strong from opressing the weak? In other words, is our country just? It's definitely more just than that of a poor war-torn country ravaged by famine, but these aren't necessarily within the state's ability to regulate. And we regard ourselves as being more just than the arab world, especially when it comes to the treatment of our women. Certainly, our cultures are different, but in the less civilized parts of the world, things we consider basic rights here are often unheard of. Obviously, the use of the words "less civilized" arouses some debate; is it politically correct to regard another culture as "less civilized"? What if it is only "less civilized" from our point of view? I would like to use this as an opportunity to draw the line. When I returned to my small town in eastern Ontario I found that the demographics had changed slightly; where previously the town had been almost exclusively composed of white french canadian families from long ago, had already begun to diversify. There was talk of a chilling incident that had happened in a popular local bar; two haitian women were having an argument and a local man stepped in, trying to disperse the fight. The haitian man who was accompanying the two women saw the three arguing, and eventually stabbed the white man, killing him. This I heard in the car while returning home. I had a discussion about this with my family; disregarding that there may have been more to the story, a consensus was reached. We do not, as far as my family is concerned, fight unless provoked, and we do not carry knives, and we do not stab, because we do not wish to kill. However, in Haiti, where "justice" is likely a fairly different concept than what it represents here, taking action yourself in order to settle a dispute quickly and avoid a worse outcome in the future may be the norm. Perhaps in that country, one would not meddle in the affairs of others, but I think that a person with enough guts to step in and prevent others from fighting is worthy of praise.
In any case, the man died, and the other man was sent to jail. Hooray. Most likely believing that his action was justified, and that things are simply different in this country. FOR ONE, THIS COUNTRY HAS POLICE. One could argue that it was the white man's fault, that he should simply have made a report to the police, that his part would have ended there. The problem here is that the situation could have been avoided if Canada could somehow indoctrinate it's immigrants into understanding canadian mentality and culture, as well as the crucial but unspoken social conventions, such as Thou Shalt Not Kill Bystanders. Or anyone, for that usually ends up with you spending a sizeable portion of your life in jail, not to mention having to move to a different town, because in boxed in french communities like those, no one would ever trust you again. And you'd forever have a smear on your crimial record. A pretty big one; 2st degree murder. Perhaps there was a reason, but it seems unlikely as any reason would help the defendant, and none was disclosed to the medi, as far as my reliable source is aware.
The crux of the matter is this. Yes punishments are set in place to prevent people from taking the law into their own hands, it is rather difficult to be the legal posessor of hunting firearms, not to mention handguns and the like, inconspicuous weaponry is illegal, so it's not like the system doesn't already enforce peace, only it allows outsiders who are not, at least not at first, indoctrinated in the same manner as the rest of us, and they, with their inapplicable social norms, are liable to stir up trouble in unforseeable ways, with disastrous results. To return to the original point of this diversion, those cultures, when superimposed upon our own, seem less civilized. Where rights must be fought for tooth and nail, where the infrastructure put in place to protect you doesn't exist, or doesn't really care to ensure your safety, or will gladly look the other way in exchange for "compensation", being civilized is probably the least of your concerns. Alternately, if I were to take my cute imaginary girlfriend to Saudi Arabia and have her stroll around with no regard for their social norms -assuming she could pass for an arab, I would have another thing coming. When in Rome... clearly that idiot murdurer who sullied the reputation of black people in my village didn't get the message.
I did a test, later, walking around the grocery store with my scarf wrapped around my head - as it is meant to be worn, might I add - and got quite a few unpleasant looks from passers-by, though those who talked to me recognized my french accent and knew me as a local. What was I trying to use this example for? Do we have systems in place to prevent people from taking matters in their own hands? Well, yes, we do. Though their effectiveness is questionable, what is most effective is social norm, which is a subtle restraining bolt not unlike that used by the Dollars. But I have mentioned this earlier. Other than that, we certainly could do a better job at preparing immigrants to live in small towns with no services for foreigners.
I can't stay focused. I know what I want to say but my hair is in the way. I keep putting my hands through it and finding knots. I *have* to go deal with that! Right now! I'll be back.
And by right back I mean right back after I take a shower and make some lunch and sit outside for an hour in the sunday sun and read a comic and then come back. I also learned that my drawing teacher sneak-assigned me to do a watercolor painting of shells, marbles and a block or brick in a plastic bag filled with water. Shells. Marbles. Bricks. Oh yes, I've got just the thing in my wardrobe. Funny thing, I had a feeling when I left my small Ontario town that I might need to bring along some marbles and a seashell and a brick from the house wall and keep them in my spacious closet. Gee it's a good thing I listened to myself, how would I have been able to complete this assignment otherwise?
Back to business, can the government efficiently prevent the strong from opressing the weak? In other words, is our country just? It's definitely more just than that of a poor war-torn country ravaged by famine, but these aren't necessarily within the state's ability to regulate. And we regard ourselves as being more just than the arab world, especially when it comes to the treatment of our women. Certainly, our cultures are different, but in the less civilized parts of the world, things we consider basic rights here are often unheard of. Obviously, the use of the words "less civilized" arouses some debate; is it politically correct to regard another culture as "less civilized"? What if it is only "less civilized" from our point of view? I would like to use this as an opportunity to draw the line. When I returned to my small town in eastern Ontario I found that the demographics had changed slightly; where previously the town had been almost exclusively composed of white french canadian families from long ago, had already begun to diversify. There was talk of a chilling incident that had happened in a popular local bar; two haitian women were having an argument and a local man stepped in, trying to disperse the fight. The haitian man who was accompanying the two women saw the three arguing, and eventually stabbed the white man, killing him. This I heard in the car while returning home. I had a discussion about this with my family; disregarding that there may have been more to the story, a consensus was reached. We do not, as far as my family is concerned, fight unless provoked, and we do not carry knives, and we do not stab, because we do not wish to kill. However, in Haiti, where "justice" is likely a fairly different concept than what it represents here, taking action yourself in order to settle a dispute quickly and avoid a worse outcome in the future may be the norm. Perhaps in that country, one would not meddle in the affairs of others, but I think that a person with enough guts to step in and prevent others from fighting is worthy of praise.
In any case, the man died, and the other man was sent to jail. Hooray. Most likely believing that his action was justified, and that things are simply different in this country. FOR ONE, THIS COUNTRY HAS POLICE. One could argue that it was the white man's fault, that he should simply have made a report to the police, that his part would have ended there. The problem here is that the situation could have been avoided if Canada could somehow indoctrinate it's immigrants into understanding canadian mentality and culture, as well as the crucial but unspoken social conventions, such as Thou Shalt Not Kill Bystanders. Or anyone, for that usually ends up with you spending a sizeable portion of your life in jail, not to mention having to move to a different town, because in boxed in french communities like those, no one would ever trust you again. And you'd forever have a smear on your crimial record. A pretty big one; 2st degree murder. Perhaps there was a reason, but it seems unlikely as any reason would help the defendant, and none was disclosed to the medi, as far as my reliable source is aware.
The crux of the matter is this. Yes punishments are set in place to prevent people from taking the law into their own hands, it is rather difficult to be the legal posessor of hunting firearms, not to mention handguns and the like, inconspicuous weaponry is illegal, so it's not like the system doesn't already enforce peace, only it allows outsiders who are not, at least not at first, indoctrinated in the same manner as the rest of us, and they, with their inapplicable social norms, are liable to stir up trouble in unforseeable ways, with disastrous results. To return to the original point of this diversion, those cultures, when superimposed upon our own, seem less civilized. Where rights must be fought for tooth and nail, where the infrastructure put in place to protect you doesn't exist, or doesn't really care to ensure your safety, or will gladly look the other way in exchange for "compensation", being civilized is probably the least of your concerns. Alternately, if I were to take my cute imaginary girlfriend to Saudi Arabia and have her stroll around with no regard for their social norms -assuming she could pass for an arab, I would have another thing coming. When in Rome... clearly that idiot murdurer who sullied the reputation of black people in my village didn't get the message.
I did a test, later, walking around the grocery store with my scarf wrapped around my head - as it is meant to be worn, might I add - and got quite a few unpleasant looks from passers-by, though those who talked to me recognized my french accent and knew me as a local. What was I trying to use this example for? Do we have systems in place to prevent people from taking matters in their own hands? Well, yes, we do. Though their effectiveness is questionable, what is most effective is social norm, which is a subtle restraining bolt not unlike that used by the Dollars. But I have mentioned this earlier. Other than that, we certainly could do a better job at preparing immigrants to live in small towns with no services for foreigners.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
There Was a Time
I remember writing, two years ago, an essay on Global Politics. It was a second year university course. Actually, there was two of them, I took both. The final exam was no big deal, but the essay... I talked about africa a lot, I think. I remember reading about Congo. This man, Mobutu Sese Seko, was the president or some such of the Republic of Congo. He was also affiliated with the CIA. Anyway, it's a long and short story, but the upper echelons of government in congo were corrupt, and in the 90's, when he was exiled, this Seko guy had made the situation in Congo far, far worse that it would have been had the money given to Congo had actually gone somewhere other than his pockets. But I have mentioned this before, in class. This is a classic example of What Happens When Democracy Fails... In many, many cases the western world attempts to implement a System For The Betterment Of All Humans but it falls prey to the opportunistic personalities located helter skelter along the system. With nothing but empty sky above their heads, leaders are free to become What They Are In The Dark. I think that all nations that begin as a democratically - Haha. I just had a flashes-of -light-connecting-the-dots moment.
Our democracy is effectively protected and stabilized by the presence of the Crown. This is a statement. 19th c. France, {who's leaders at the time of the 1st and 2nd republic; Robespierre and Napoleon 3rd were chosen by election or vote within the parliament or commune} had abolished it's monarchy, and for good reason. But the reality of social instabilities, coupled with popular support within the ruling senate/commune/parliament infrastructure could potentially lead - and did, to the establishing of a regime. Alternately, a succession of regimes established by the ruling millitary authority in the region, and challenged by smaller groups inhabiting the more remote areas in that authority's jurisdiction, is common in the third world. Many, like Seko, ally with global powers to cement their rule, and through a mix of backdoor business deals and official restrictions/sanctions/requirements imposed upon the regime, a suitable level of stability is established in the area. Truly, a state ruled by an iron-fisted man can hardly be worse than a country torn apart by war... The problem in both cases is not the means by which an autocracy is established, but that the system doesn't have a means to ensure that the leader is indeed acting in the people's best interests. This of course can lead to civil war, or stigmatization and genocide. Naturally the entire modus operandi of autocracy means that the leader is not serving the people, but that it is them who serve him, and at best he acts upon his perception of what his state is or should be like, and at worst he - or she, really - does not care. My entire point is this; above the ruling authority, another is required that establishes the purpose of the first and maintains the state's course when there is instability, or in democracies like Canada, dissolving of the ruling body. Thus is Canadian democracy brokered by an institution; the Crown and not, as I had originally assumed, the Parliament.
However whether that democracy represents its people accurately is rightfully beyond the authority of the Crown, the institution, or little would separate us and them. The people govern themselves. The crown governs the governors. Paradox! The Crown has no power, and yet it is the base on which a (hopefully) righteous nation is based. Another point was brought up in class; that recycling of governance is preferable, and this to prevent the same response to conflicts. Another reason exists, I think; that is to prevent the leader from spending so much time in office that they can change the country too much: This would be a good thing, but only if the change represented the country's collective vision, not that of one man. Haha! This has led me to an interesting realization: Democracies are inherently conservative! Not strictly in the political sense; but they are slow to change partly because constitution requires it. Of course a man who has changed a nation might take a lifetime to have done so; by which time the -I have no words- issues may have changed, and his policies would be outdated. So shortening the terms ensures a country stays on course. But in case the course changes sharply, the changes will take long to implement, decades, possibly even centuries; it has been roughly 200 years since the industrial revolution, more than 50 years since political leaders became aware that there was an issue, but visionaries are not accepted by their peers, and in a majority vote system, the coolest cat has all the friends. I suppose that's why they are called revolutionaries. Unable to correct the course quickly enough, they either usurp it out of frustration and take control or destroy it and make a new one. Meanwhile countries like Canada are stuck arguing about whether to support the states and oil and the kyoto agreements and militarizing the nation. This is a good and a bad thing, bad when you agree with the leader because he can never move too far too quickly towards something or he'll lose parliament support, and good when you think the leader's a total idiot. Ultimately it is more or less a good thing,, if you think that it prevents us from erupting into civil war or political instability.
When you think about it, perhaps the US have a better system... Unlike Canada, you can't get re-elected for 30 years straight with a majority vote, which is as Quebec demonstrated rather damaging... This is common knowledge where I come from. Should I source it? Yes. What If I've been wrong all this time, in my assumption? I would look quite the fool.
"Everybody's jaded by fame?" Van, you are quite correct.
Our democracy is effectively protected and stabilized by the presence of the Crown. This is a statement. 19th c. France, {who's leaders at the time of the 1st and 2nd republic; Robespierre and Napoleon 3rd were chosen by election or vote within the parliament or commune} had abolished it's monarchy, and for good reason. But the reality of social instabilities, coupled with popular support within the ruling senate/commune/parliament infrastructure could potentially lead - and did, to the establishing of a regime. Alternately, a succession of regimes established by the ruling millitary authority in the region, and challenged by smaller groups inhabiting the more remote areas in that authority's jurisdiction, is common in the third world. Many, like Seko, ally with global powers to cement their rule, and through a mix of backdoor business deals and official restrictions/sanctions/requirements imposed upon the regime, a suitable level of stability is established in the area. Truly, a state ruled by an iron-fisted man can hardly be worse than a country torn apart by war... The problem in both cases is not the means by which an autocracy is established, but that the system doesn't have a means to ensure that the leader is indeed acting in the people's best interests. This of course can lead to civil war, or stigmatization and genocide. Naturally the entire modus operandi of autocracy means that the leader is not serving the people, but that it is them who serve him, and at best he acts upon his perception of what his state is or should be like, and at worst he - or she, really - does not care. My entire point is this; above the ruling authority, another is required that establishes the purpose of the first and maintains the state's course when there is instability, or in democracies like Canada, dissolving of the ruling body. Thus is Canadian democracy brokered by an institution; the Crown and not, as I had originally assumed, the Parliament.
However whether that democracy represents its people accurately is rightfully beyond the authority of the Crown, the institution, or little would separate us and them. The people govern themselves. The crown governs the governors. Paradox! The Crown has no power, and yet it is the base on which a (hopefully) righteous nation is based. Another point was brought up in class; that recycling of governance is preferable, and this to prevent the same response to conflicts. Another reason exists, I think; that is to prevent the leader from spending so much time in office that they can change the country too much: This would be a good thing, but only if the change represented the country's collective vision, not that of one man. Haha! This has led me to an interesting realization: Democracies are inherently conservative! Not strictly in the political sense; but they are slow to change partly because constitution requires it. Of course a man who has changed a nation might take a lifetime to have done so; by which time the -I have no words- issues may have changed, and his policies would be outdated. So shortening the terms ensures a country stays on course. But in case the course changes sharply, the changes will take long to implement, decades, possibly even centuries; it has been roughly 200 years since the industrial revolution, more than 50 years since political leaders became aware that there was an issue, but visionaries are not accepted by their peers, and in a majority vote system, the coolest cat has all the friends. I suppose that's why they are called revolutionaries. Unable to correct the course quickly enough, they either usurp it out of frustration and take control or destroy it and make a new one. Meanwhile countries like Canada are stuck arguing about whether to support the states and oil and the kyoto agreements and militarizing the nation. This is a good and a bad thing, bad when you agree with the leader because he can never move too far too quickly towards something or he'll lose parliament support, and good when you think the leader's a total idiot. Ultimately it is more or less a good thing,, if you think that it prevents us from erupting into civil war or political instability.
When you think about it, perhaps the US have a better system... Unlike Canada, you can't get re-elected for 30 years straight with a majority vote, which is as Quebec demonstrated rather damaging... This is common knowledge where I come from. Should I source it? Yes. What If I've been wrong all this time, in my assumption? I would look quite the fool.
"Everybody's jaded by fame?" Van, you are quite correct.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)