Gallantry And Politics

[meganiwish]

Given what Russel Crowe said tonight http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/25/russell-crowe-lack-of-gallantry do you think there's a place for gallantry in politics?

[ilikekicks]

Gallantry? ROFLMAO!!! Politicians are the planets biggest cowards!! I have proof!! If I were to say something foul, I would get a beating, put in my place. A US President can lie, call in the dogs of war and millions will be killed. A gallant individual would lead by example and if a fight was to happen, they would be right there in it. Leaders og today? Absolute cowards, ALL of them!! How can there be gallantry without a noble cause to support with HONESTY and sincerity being in the fold? Gallantry? *I* dont believe such could happen.

[Chorlini]

Politicians sling mud at each other because they noticed again and again that despite the public saying otherwise it does work. And there is no such thing as a prize or position of power for becoming 2nd place in politics.

[crotchhiboots]

This is an oxymoron. Politicians are just another brand of crime.

[docs41]

What is the difference between a carp and a politician? One is a scum sucking, bottom dweller; the other is a fish!

[meganiwish]

All right, chaps, I've allowed you to vent your feelings about politicians. The debate about whether we need them is for another thread. My point here is, can it be done with gallantry. Should we have to behave like men to be represented? Because we do.

[yozz]

Well, the point is that we need to be represented, because not everybody can spend their whole day on issues to deal will governing the country. The problem starts with when these representatives become professional. They study for it and it is the (only?) thing they can do. At thay point they HAVE to be elected and they will do anything to get elected. Hence they behave as if they are very gallant, honest etc. And they promise us paradise. The one who can do so most convincing wins. Looking very elegant is of course essential. Unfortunately the ones who really are gallant do not last long. Once they make a serious error (and who does not once in a while) they are honest and step down. In the past this would still work reasonably well, even though there were bad scandals. But with the current level of investigative reporting and the near impossibility of really censoring things, the imago of politicians, bankers etc. is probably at an all time low. The few honest politicians are usually in the smaller parties that do not have much power. But whether that is because they really are honest, or just because they can afford to be honest, remains an open question. My personal preference would be to have people as representatives at the end of a regular career, when they have picked up much experience and should not look for jobs afterward. Politicians that see membership of parliament or being minister as part of building up a career are always suspect. If they do something that acts against certain interests they may kiss that career goodbye. Y.

[meganiwish]

Actually, whether we need to be governed is entirely moot, but it's a debate that will never happen because the status quo seems so obvious, though it isn't. Your preferred option is intriguing. A bit like village elders. Or the British House of Lords;) The point about gallantry, though, is more about personal attacks on opponents. Witty sparring is one thing, but at what point does it become character assassination? To attack a woman,s character because she has no children seems a little underhand.

[yozz]

You are right. Remarks like that are 'below the belt'. They show a total absence of civilization. Talking about witty remarks, I like the one by Disraeli: "Mr Speaker, I withdraw my statement that half the cabinet are asses - half the cabinet are not asses." Y.

[ilikekicks]

Well, the point is that we need to be represented, because not everybody can spend their whole day on issues to deal will governing the country.

The problem starts with when these representatives become professional.

I believe the problem starts with ourselves, the " voters ".

In the U.S. , just over half of all those whom can vote actually do. To say there is a reflection of how voters really feel or what they want in office is a pipe dream!

We have ( U.S. ) a reflection of a small percentage of voters and how they wish to live. If only half the people are voting ( 50% of all voters ) it only take 26% of all the people in the country to get elected to the Presidency. Thats only 1 in 4 people.

This is why the U.S. has so many scumbags ' representing ' (sic) and legislating us.

Its the main reason why I do NOT want things ' legislated ' and forced down all of our throats. If 1 in 4 people are putting this trash into office, the other 3 are not doing their part to stop it.

If they do something that acts against certain interests they may kiss that career goodbye.

I only wish such were true. Look into a guy named ' Marion Barry '. The guy was caught by the FBI smoking crack ( literally! ) and buying prostitutes with taxpayers dollars! He was arrested, imprisioned and then RE-ELECTED!

I wish I could be a Kennedy. Ya know, I think it would be great to get drunk, lake a car with a woman in it, walk away and not even be questioned the next day by the sheriff. I could drive drunk and kill people and then serve 30+ years in office making billions and serving my OWN interests with shady deals that lined my own pocket.

But those 1 in 4 will keep wanting those pieces of absolute garbage because their votes are bought and paid for. Welfare, promises of certain ' hope and change '.. and things continually get worse.

Fact is, theres maybe all of 10 people in the U.S. House and Senate that were worth a vote from a good citizen.

Where I used to live in the city of Buffalo, the City counsel was all one party. The mayor was of the same party. County director, governor, state rep, Wash reps, State Senate.. Everything is all one party and has been for the last 25-30 years. The same promises were made and the exact opposite has happened. Unemployment has risen, welfare doles have tripled, crime has gone up, quality of life has gone down, running a business is impossible as the ' state ' takes away everything you work for..

But to me, it all falls back on ' we the people ' , whom elect dung/crap/kah-cah/doo-doo/fecal matter..

[yozz]

The career I am talking about is that here many members of parliament quit after about 10 years and then get a whole string of fat paying jobs as advisors, members of the board or whatever with big companies. Y.

[ilikekicks]

The career I am talking about is that here many members of parliament quit after about 10 years and then get a whole string of fat paying jobs as advisors, members of the board or whatever with big companies.

Y.

Same here. Its not just with ' companies '. Its with PAC's or ' Political Action Comitties '.

A GREAT example is how everyone is screaming about global warming.. er ' climate change '. They had to correct the name of their stance after it was found out the planet was actually cooler not warmer after their studies were given an HONEST observation.

A guy makes a movie about how bad the planet is getting and how we need to change the ' carbon footprint ' of all mankind..

The same piece of crap owns and flies around in private lear jets, drives big gas guzzeling SUV's and has a MANSION on an Estate that sucks down more electricity in a day then my whole band with its PA system and lighting does in 5 years!!!

Yeah, he was a former vice president whom lost an election to a guy whom is to dumb to even know how to lie.. We all can laugh about it but it really makes me want to cry.

Its not just your parliament, its all sorts of countries governing types. Its like the roach motel, once they check in, they cant check out.

[Shafted]

To get off topic just a bit. Science has discovered that it our attempts to curb "global warming", that our attempts at fixing the problem have made it worse. How you ask? There are two type of air pollution gaseous and particulate. The greenhouse gasses are of the gaseous type, Particulate air pollution lowers the global temp while greenhouse gasses raise it. The problem is the only one we've been cleaning up is the particulate type. The net effect is a temperature rise. Our attempts at fixing it are making the problem worse. Imagine that, the legislation intended to protect the environment is destroying it. The environmentalist are destroying the planet.

[ilikekicks]

I will have to take a gander at your offering Shafted to see how it all ' comes together '. To stay on topic of sorts, and to show exactly why I cant trust and wont say any of the ' politicos ' possess an ounce of ' gallantry '.. I'd like to ask everyone to reflect on their education from ( for some of us ) ' way back when '. Im grade school, I learned about the Woolly Mammoth. He was supposedly killed off from the ' Ice Age '. Was anyone else taught about the Ice Age where the planet was frozen over? Glaciers carving up the planets surface creating lakes and pushing large rocks to help make mountains? So.. if the planet was frozen at one point.. and life came from the oceans due to them covering a large portion of the planet.. why isnt such being mentioned at all? Fact is, ' Climate Change ' is nothing new and has been happening for millions/billions of years. Instead of just saying humans are wrecking the planet, how about being truthful and saying were not doing ALL the damage, but helping it along? Such would be a break from the propaganda were fed everyday and welcomed warmly! Such would be quite Gallant in my view! -Ilk

[meganiwish]

Quite so. The nature of climate is constant change. You have an effect on the weather and eventually the climate by waving to your friend. But people are terribly anthrocentric and can't see us as part of the system. We're part of the Earth, not just something that lives on it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be nice to each other though.

[SleekHeels]

What exactly do we mean by gallantry? The dictionary seems to give definitions ranging from noble, honourable, brave and courageous through to dashing, showy, fashionable and even flirtatious. Ironically the latter, more superficial interpretation is the more archaic, whereas the modern career poltician probably only sees advantage in creating a superficial illusion of gallantry. Genuine gallantry is too much of a career-risk, which is probably why the closest we get to a gallant act in politics is resignation.

[meganiwish]

I suppose I've always viewed gallantry as not exploiting someone's weakness. Picking on someone your own size. But it has a thing, doesn't it, of looking after them too. But certainly, to be gallant is to be aware of someone's vulnerability.

[Amanda]

I suppose I've always viewed gallantry as not exploiting someone's weakness. Picking on someone your own size. But it has a thing, doesn't it, of looking after them too. But certainly, to be gallant is to be aware of someone's vulnerability.

Like

[SleekHeels]

I suppose I've always viewed gallantry as not exploiting someone's weakness. Picking on someone your own size. But it has a thing, doesn't it, of looking after them too. But certainly, to be gallant is to be aware of someone's vulnerability.

So I guess that not picking on someone smaller than you just to make yourself feel good is a start, while choosing to pick on someone bigger than you in order to challenge an injustice against the vulnerable is proper gallantry. I'm far from convinced that modern politics aspires to either, but on the other hand many people seem willing to expect such gallantry from politicians but don't expect it of themselves.

[Dr. Shoe]

Going back to "Climate Change", we are having absolutely zero effect on mean global tempertures. Scientists have spent millions, if not billions in a vain attempt to come up with weather control. To think that we're doing it accidentally is absurd. CO2 is not the problem, it comprises about 0.04%, that's 1/250, of the atmospheric gases. Water vapour is about 0.25%, more than 6 times as much and has 75 times the global warming effect. This means that water vapour (which we have no control over) contributes 450 times more to the greenhouse effect than CO2 does. When you consider that about 95% of all CO2 occurs naturally, then trying to bring down the MGT by cutting man-made CO2 emmissions is much like a flea trying to direct the course of an elephant.

[meganiwish]

We're not aliens on the Earth, We're of the Earth and part of her cycles. 'Have no fear for atomic energy, cause none of them can stop the time.' Bob Marley, Redemption Song

We just need to get on with it.

[Chorlini]

To get off topic just a bit.

Science has discovered that it our attempts to curb "global warming", that our attempts at fixing the problem have made it worse. How you ask?

There are two type of air pollution gaseous and particulate. The greenhouse gasses are of the gaseous type,

Particulate air pollution lowers the global temp while greenhouse gasses raise it. The problem is the only one we've been cleaning up is the particulate type. The net effect is a temperature rise. Our attempts at fixing it are making the problem worse.

Imagine that, the legislation intended to protect the environment is destroying it.

The environmentalist are destroying the planet.

I disagree. While I believe that most activists fall into the category 'road to hell paved with good intentions' what clearly caused this was insufficient information. There was a problem, and clearly pollution was at its core fault. What they didn't know at the time was that there were multiple types of greenhouse gasses with different effects.

Unfortunately the Earth's climate is a very chaotic and hard to understand system. It's not like we can easily observe and understand it under laboratory conditions. And yes, like in most cases when you lack all the information that you need to make a decision sometimes the best (or least worst) decision is to do nothing. Still, we cannot pollute the environment like there is no tomorrow. Ending pollution because it makes sense alone is a good enough reason.

I'd like to ask everyone to reflect on their education from ( for some of us ) ' way back when '. Im grade school, I learned about the Woolly Mammoth. He was supposedly killed off from the ' Ice Age '. Was anyone else taught about the Ice Age where the planet was frozen over? Glaciers carving up the planets surface creating lakes and pushing large rocks to help make mountains?

So.. if the planet was frozen at one point.. and life came from the oceans due to them covering a large portion of the planet.. why isnt such being mentioned at all?

Except the Earth was never frozen as you put it. At best global temperature dropped enough for the polar ice caps to extend themselves southwards to a large degree. But that still left most of the planet free of ice and left the tropics still tropical.

Fact is, ' Climate Change ' is nothing new and has been happening for millions/billions of years.

True. But more evidence then ever points to the current climate change being of human origin. And even if it didn't, it still makes good common sense to not pollute the planet that you live on. Unfortunately it makes no business sense to do so. Which means that we're in the mess we're in because of greed. And unfortunately climate isn't the only mess we're currently in because of that.

I suppose I've always viewed gallantry as not exploiting someone's weakness. Picking on someone your own size. But it has a thing, doesn't it, of looking after them too. But certainly, to be gallant is to be aware of someone's vulnerability.

Like I said, in politics there are no awards for finishing second place. And if voters didn't reward smear campaigning and dirty tricks with votes the politicians wouldn't do it all the time. It's that simple. If people wouldn't reward assholes there wouldn't be any assholes. People are usually really good at knowing when something works in their advantage or not.

It used to be that when politicians were on campaign they held political rallies and people would go there and listen to their politicians. Sometimes for hours. This was before the rise of the mass media. Imagine what a difference it makes in people's political perceptions when they take the time to listen to everything a politician says, instead of just the 5 second soundbyte on the news. Now that people get their information from 5 second soundbytes is it any wonder that dirty campaigning is so successful? Soundbytes distort political realities and turn what used to be well informed opinions into 'I have a feeling this guy might be on the level'. But feelings are easily swayed by planting a seed of doubt. And it doesn't even have to be true. And that's why dirty politics is so successful and here to stay. Gallantry in politics, like in real life, is dead. And we all killed it.

[Dr. Shoe]

Ending pollution because it makes sense alone is a good enough reason.

Indeed. I think it's astonishing that there are people that think that limiting the emmissions of polluting substances is a a good idea! Even ignoring the problem is dangerous.

Except the Earth was never frozen as you put it. At best global temperature dropped enough for the polar ice caps to extend themselves southwards to a large degree. But that still left most of the planet free of ice and left the tropics still tropical.

Not completely true. The tropics became "sub tropical" and the sub tropics became temperate. This is why many prehistoric plants died out.

But more evidence then ever points to the current climate change being of human origin. And even if it didn't, it still makes good common sense to not pollute the planet that you live on. Unfortunately it makes no business sense to do so. Which means that we're in the mess we're in because of greed. And unfortunately climate isn't the only mess we're currently in because of that.

Again not entirely true. In actual fact most of the evidence has been discredited or debunked. I do agree about pollution though.