Sunday Reading

60 comments on “Sunday Reading ”

• Comments are now closed

1. kiwi_prometheus 1

   26 August 2012 at 10:57 am

   A guy pisses off powerful govenrments and individuals by exposing their lies and power abuses.

   Surprise, surprise, suddenly he is accused of some obscure sex crime under Swedish law.

   The feminists should be on the CIA payroll.
2. Maui 2

   26 August 2012 at 11:12 am

   Maybe they are.

   The ethics of making love to a sleeping partner goes both ways .. and there are such things as nice surprises.
   • just saying 2.1

     26 August 2012 at 11:23 am

     http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/laurie-penny-its-nice-to-think-that-only-evil-men-are-rapists–that-its-only-pantomime-villains-with-knives-in-alleyways-but-the-reality-is-different-8079403.html

     ….and there are such things as nasty shocks.
     • Maui 2.1.1

       26 August 2012 at 11:28 am

       Can Assange’s affaire be compared to the trust developed in a long-term relationship ? Clearly not.

       Sexual entrapment has a long history in intelligence operations.
       • weka 2.1.1.1

         26 August 2012 at 11:54 am

         Maui, did you read js’ link? The woman describes being raped while asleep (and probably drugged) by a man she knew but wasn’t in a long term relationship with.
          
     • Maui 2.1.2

       26 August 2012 at 11:34 am

       When I click this link I get

       “An unexpected error occurred

       Please contact your system administrator”
       • weka 2.1.2.1

         26 August 2012 at 11:55 am

         http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/laurie-penny-its-nice-to-think-that-only-evil-men-are-rapists–that-its-only-pantomime-villains-with-knives-in-alleyways-but-the-reality-is-different-8079403.html
         • KJT 2.1.2.1.1

           26 August 2012 at 3:44 pm

           I disagree. The person that raped Laurie Penny was an evil man. No matter how he appeared on the outside.

           Despite her article, men who do things like that are evil.

           Same as those who laugh when they gun down civilians from helicopters, or put a man in solitary confinement for exposing them.

           I am not commenting on whether Assuange is guilty of rape, apart from the fact that the first prosecuter said there was no case. A second prompted by a right wing politician got it re-opened.

           It is obvious that Sweden’s pursuit of Assuange has nothing to do with rape, or they would agree not to extradite him to any place under US control, if he gives himself up for questioning by the Swedes.

           Are we now going to allow Russia, Zimbabwe or Iran to extradite any journalist they are unhappy with..
           • Bunji 2.1.2.1.1.1

             26 August 2012 at 7:49 pm

             The article linked to in the post makes the point that Sweden cannot agree to that point. Extradition law across the world says every case must be dealt with on its merits. A government cannot agree to a blanket “no extradition for X” as they have no right to – it is up for the courts to decide. Separation of powers and all that.

             It also makes the point that once in Sweden, Sweden agreeing to his extradition is not enough – because he was extradited from the UK, both must to his extradition. Currently only the UK needs to. So it will be by definition more difficult to extradite him from Sweden than from the UK, before you even get into the fact that the UK has an incredibly easy extradition treaty with the US, and Sweden doesn’t.
             • Colonial Viper …

               26 August 2012 at 7:53 pm

               the other party here is the US. The US can come clean and declare whether or not it has already laid sealed (secret) charges against Julian Assange.
               • McFlock …

                 26 August 2012 at 8:08 pm

                 Seriously?
                        
                 If they haven’t laid sealed charges and they issue a denial, I doubt teamassange would believe it.
                    
                 Because if they are evil oppressors who lay secret charges, they’d still deny having laid sealed charges. 
   • kiwi_prometheus 2.2

     26 August 2012 at 11:27 am

     “Maybe they are.”

     Well they certainly suck up plenty of tax payer money via the Literature Departments of Universities.

     Gender Studies, Herstory. 🙄

     I remember in the 80s when the Feminists manhaters blamed gay men for AIDS “because of their promiscous lifestyle”.

     The feminist also get into bed with Right Wing Moral Crusaders on issues like porno. That hysterical monomaniac feminist Andrea Dworkin is a good example.

     And don’t forget their suppressed memory recall BS, it was another bender who took it in the arse figuratively speaking, in that Christchurch creche case – one of the child ‘victims’ and her mother had a track record of lying about abuse.

     And lets not forget all the false rape allegations.

     If you object to Feminist ideology they scream “Rape!”.
     • weka 2.2.1

       26 August 2012 at 11:38 am

       “And lets not forget all the false rape allegations.”

        
       There’s an army of commentators who also believe “that’s not real rape” is both a valid defence of a specific political asylum-seeker and objective truth. Women lie, they say. Women lie about rape, about sexual assault, they do it because they’re stupid or wicked or attention-seeking or deluded. The observation that the rate of fraud in rape cases remains as low as the rate of fraud in any other criminal allegation – between 2 and 4 per cent – has no impact. Women lie, and they do it to ruin men in positions of power.
        

       My emphasis 🙄
        
       http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/laurie-penny-its-nice-to-think-that-only-evil-men-are-rapists–that-its-only-pantomime-villains-with-knives-in-alleyways-but-the-reality-is-different-8079403.html
        
        
       • kiwi_prometheus 2.2.1.1

         26 August 2012 at 11:55 am

         Feminists pump out dodgy stats about rape to push their agenda.

         The manhater Harriet Harman got slapped down for releasing dodgy stats about low rates of successful prosecution in rape cases.

         “The review by Baroness Stern appeared to put an end to years of claims by ministers that laws and criminal procedures for dealing with rape need radical reform because only six per cent of complaints end in a conviction.

         Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257981/Harriet-Harmans-unreliable-statistics-rape-scare-victims.html#ixzz24baWW4pe
         “
         • weka 2.2.1.1.1

           26 August 2012 at 12:14 pm

           The review by Baroness Stern appeared to put an end to years of claims by ministers that laws and criminal procedures for dealing with rape need radical reform because only six per cent of complaints end in a conviction.

           …The six per cent figure relates to reported cases. In fact, the conviction rate for those actually charged with rape is nearly two out of three, higher than comparable figures for other violent crime.

            

           Your link doesn’t prove anything k_p. I’m guessing that the difference in the rates is because the police and CPS are being much more selective in what they allow to go to trial ie only cases with a higher likelihood of success are prosecuted. This fits with the difficulty of trying rape cases because it relies on the testimony of the woman in a culture that routinely assumes women lie about rape, and that believes that certain kinds of rape aren’t ‘real’ rape.

           If you read the article, they are basically saying that stranger rape should be focussed on. Subtext = aquaintance rape, date rape, etc will have lower conviction rates so don’t focus on them.

           Hardly surprising to see the DM put such a distorted slant on rape stats, and it in no way supports your assertion that women routinely lie or that feminists misuse rape stats. You will have to do better than that.

           “Lady Stern said there should be more help for victims and greater use of police intelligence to track down men who serially attack and rape strangers.”

           Maybe she has been misquoted, but on the face of it she is hardly a credible expert when we know that most rape is done by men known to the victim.
       • kiwi_prometheus 2.2.1.2

         26 August 2012 at 12:03 pm

         Lets not forget Weka, this is about an individual who threatens the powers that be, you know the ones you are usually raving on about as being evil.

         Suddenly he’s accused of sexual misconduct.

         Just a little bit suspicious wouldn’t you think?

         But the Feminist show their true colors acting as attack dogs for the Yanks. They are central actors in a trial by media.

         They want Assange forced back to Sweden where they can grab him take him back to Mickey Mouse Land and make an example of him for anyone else who is thinking of standing up to Yank imperial power.

         Some kind of Lefties the anti Assange crowd are. 🙄
         • felix 2.2.1.2.1

           26 August 2012 at 12:12 pm

           “Suddenly he’s accused of sexual misconduct.

           Just a little bit suspicious wouldn’t you think?”

           Given the relatively frequent incidence of sexual abuse in general, no, not at all.

           Why do you find it so unbelievable that this particular man could be capable of sexual abuse?
           • kiwi_prometheus 2.2.1.2.1.1

             26 August 2012 at 12:45 pm

             Because he pissed off powerful governments then suddenly sexual misconduct accusations pop up.

             Mere coincidence is it?

             You are so ideologically blinded, felix.

             You qualify for CIA Asset status.
             • felix …

               26 August 2012 at 1:28 pm

               Sexual abuse in all its various forms is fairly commonplace k_p, so no; there is no need for an astounding or unlikely coincidence.

               However your answer to my question seems to be that people who piss off powerful governments are less likely to be capable of sexual abuse than the general population.

               Now that would be an amazing coincidence, k_p.
             • RedLogix …

               26 August 2012 at 1:35 pm

               Equally is it possible that people who piss off powerful governments might have ‘politically useful’ sexual misconduct allegations brought against them? Are you characterising such a thing as an ‘amazing coincidence’ felix? Impossible even?
               • felix …

                 26 August 2012 at 1:47 pm

                 No, and I’m pretty sure I haven’t suggested any such thing.

                 k_p though seems to be arguing that it would require an unlikely coincidence for someone to both “piss off powerful govts” and to be a sexual abuser as well.

                 I’d like to know why s/he thinks this is so unlikely but I’m not holding my breath.
                 • RedLogix …

                   26 August 2012 at 1:50 pm

                   unlikely coincidence for someone to both “piss off powerful govts” and to be a sexual abuser as well.

                   On the contrary I agree with you felix. I think it’s almost a complete certainty that almost anyone who is sexually active could be compromised in this way.

                   Especially as no-one seems to be able to tell me exactly how one should go about establishing consent in Court … for each and every sex act you have ever been involved in.
                   • felix …

                     26 August 2012 at 2:05 pm

                     I have no knowledge of or insight into the guilt or innocence in this specific case, so I haven’t commented or even privately formed any sort of opinion on it.
                   • weka …

                     26 August 2012 at 2:27 pm

                     RL, do you understand the difference between sexual abuse and sexual activity? Because you appear to be confusing the two things.
                      
                      
                   • RedLogix …

                     26 August 2012 at 2:32 pm

                     @weka,

                     Given that the difference is largely predicated on consent … then yes that is the simplest way to characterise the difference. What I’m asking is how consent should be established in Court when there are no witnesses or corroborating evidence.

                     That’s a fair and logical question to ask surely?
                   • weka …

                     26 August 2012 at 2:47 pm

                     The same way that all other crimes are dealt with in court when the only evidence is the word of the complainant vs the word of the defendant? eg A man physically assaults another man and no-one else sees.  Seriously, have you never thought about that before?
                      
                     But forget about court for now, let me ask you again, do you understand the differences between sexual abuse and sexual activity? Forget about the Assange case, I mean the differences in general.
                   • RedLogix …

                     26 August 2012 at 3:13 pm

                     A man physically assaults another man and no-one else sees.

                     In that event there would usually be some medical or physical evidence to corroborate the claims. Certainly a Court would expect such evidence to be presented if it existed.

                     In the complete absence of such evidence and it just came down to one person’s word against another; then such a case would be unlikely to get over the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ hurdle. (As do many sexual offence prosecutions for exactly the same reason.)

                     But forget about court for now, let me ask you again, do you understand the differences between sexual abuse and sexual activity?

                     Given the enormously broad canvas of sexual activity that consenting adults routinely engage in; then I really cannot see a useful way of defining the difference in terms of sexual acts themselves. One person’s list of taboos is just as likely to another’s faves. Therefore it has to be something else that defines the difference … and the much used word ‘consent’ is the concept we usually fall back on.

                     Of course not all ‘consent’ is good consent. Often it could be elicited under dubious circumstances, or with the exploitation of a gross imbalance of power, or with one’s judgement dulled by alcohol. Often in these situations one person realises afterwards that they been exploited and feel awful about it… but given that they technically consented at the time … how should we make sense of this?
         • weka 2.2.1.2.2

           26 August 2012 at 12:20 pm

           k_p, if you’ve been reading my comments recently you will know that I haven’t said that Assange is guilty, or that it’s not possible the powers of suppression aren’t using the woman complainants.
            
           It’s you that seems incapable of believing that some things are possible.
            
           For instance, if the behaviour the complainants claim is true, and if Assange behaves like that normally with women, then I would expect the CIA or whoever to know that and to use it to their advantage. That his behaviour could be used against him doesn’t mean the behaviour is ok or  not true.
            
           That’s all theortetical btw, I have not idea what went on.
            
           The fact that you cannot see all the possibilities here says more about your own ideas and attitudes about rape and women. But we knew that anyway from your general anti-feminism rants.
           • kiwi_prometheus 2.2.1.2.2.1

             26 August 2012 at 12:46 pm

             Go ask the CIA for some pay.
           • RedLogix 2.2.1.2.2.2

             26 August 2012 at 1:07 pm

             That’s all theortetical btw, I have not idea what went on.

             And indeed only several people do. Which prompts me to ask … exactly what do you mean by ‘consent’? Given that sex in our society mostly occurs in private what are we supposed to make of the plausible situation where one person says “I did have consent” and the other says “Well no I did not give consent”?

             I’m not being flippant. The failure to be able to determine consent in a Court of law means that you should be convicted of rape which is an offence somewhat worse than murder. So this is a serious question.
             • weka …

               26 August 2012 at 2:56 pm

               No, you’re not being flippant. I was going to say that this is a very important question. Much more important than whether Assange is guilty or not (that is also an important question, but one for the courts not public opinion).
                
               However, I see elsewhere you have made comment, again, about having to give/receive consent for every single sexual act you ever do, including historically. This puzzles me alot. It seems like a complete red herring to me, something that disrupts or distracts good communication about consent, but I can understand why some men start to feel very uncomfortable when talking about rape and realising that their own unclear boundaries may be suspect.
                
               “What is consent?” is a really big question, and apparently quite complex (although for some of us it is really very simple). I’d love to see a serious, intelligent debate about that here.
                
               I’ll start by saying that useful discussion about consent cannot be based on what a man needs to not be charged with rape in a court of law. It needs to start with looking at what is ok in terms of sexual behaviour between men and women.
                
               (and my apologies to all the people who have been sexually assaulted outside that male/female dynamic. Personally I think the core of understanding rape, and consent, is to look at power dynamics and it’s easiest to do that by looking at male rape of women. Once that is understood, other rapes can be better understood too).
                
               Consent is a baseline concept that exists to protect women in a society that doesn’t inherently allow women control of the bodies. But beyond that, it should be about mutuality. This means that one’s own sexual needs and ideas about sex don’t take precedence over the wellbeing of one’s sexual partner. This means you need to be able to communicate. This means if you don’t know, or if you have any doubts, then don’t do it until you do know. This means that any man reading the debate about Assange now has fair warning that many women do not consider it is acceptable for men to have sex with them when they are asleep. This means you have to ask. Why is that so hard to understand, and to do?
                
               I also think that there need to be clear societal guidelines about what rape is, and we don’t have anything close to consensus on that yet (thank-you rape culture). In order to understand consent you need to understand rape myths and how they sanction rape despite it being illegal.
                
               But really, why not listen to the women who say “this is not ok” and then start to think about what that means, for women? ie the people you want to have sex with. Because either women’s needs in this are important or they’re not, and whether you are willing to consider this as an absolute says much about whether you are willing to work with consent at the bottom line.
               • RedLogix …

                 26 August 2012 at 3:39 pm

                 Sorry I missed your reply and I’ll carry on from here.

                 This means that any man reading the debate about Assange now has fair warning that many women do not consider it is acceptable for men to have sex with them when they are asleep.

                 But so far we have only had the complainants version of events. Too many people seem to have leapt to a whole lot of guilty verdicts based on just one side of the evidence.

                 And you also only have to look at one of the allegations against Assange which, from memory, was framed as “assault with an erect penis” to wonder exactly how basic male biology has now become a crime. (And what about erect clitoris’s … can they an commit an offence too?)

                 For most people their testosterone levels are highest at around dawn, and having morning sex with the person you had sex with the same evening earlier is pretty normal … and doesn’t feel like it demands another conversation around ‘consent’ or not. Complicating matters is that the difference between asleep, half-awake and fully alert is not always obvious to the other person. And while ‘many women’ may well feel one way about this .. not all do and given that most people don’t communicate honestly about their sexual desires and preferences then is it any wonder you complain of ‘unclear boundaries’.

                 Or putting it more plainly… if this person was happily fucking with me a few hours earlier … what would have realistically changed in the few hours that have passed since to change the basic consent conditions that applied when you got naked into the same bed together?

                 But I can accept you may have different perspective. Fine … but if you are going to demand a legally defend-able consent for every single sex act … then you really need to tell us how you think this can be achieved in practise.
                 • felix …

                   26 August 2012 at 4:11 pm

                   Broadly speaking I understand the point you’re making and I don’t really disagree with you, but this is a really odd statement:

                   And you also only have to look at one of the allegations against Assange which, from memory, was framed as “assault with an erect penis” to wonder exactly some how basic male biology has now become a crime.

                   How do you get from a) an erect penis being used to assault someone, to b) having an erection being a crime?

                   Are you saying you don’t know how, say, a person’s hand can be used as a weapon but having hands isn’t a crime?
                   • RedLogix …

                     26 August 2012 at 4:14 pm

                     How do you get from a) an erect penis being used to assault someone, to b) having an erection being a crime?

                     ermmm … by being naked together in the same bed?
                 • just saying …

                   26 August 2012 at 4:32 pm

                   Or putting it more plainly… if this person was happily fucking with me a few hours earlier … what would have realistically changed in the few hours that have passed since to change the basic consent conditions that applied when you got naked into the same bed together?

                   Who hasn’t been in this situation – male or female? Surely the point isn’t whether your partner wanted to hours before, but whether they want to at a later point. And surely it is of great relevance and importance whether they want to have sex, as opposed to just whether you want to. And surely that is something it would be important to find out.

                   In a longer term relationship maybe you know (or maybe you just assume you know) whether your partner wants to wake up with you fucking him or her (or maybe just doesn’t care enough if you get it over and done with quickly, to insist on their own wishes.) But how could you assume this with a new partner?

                   Would it matter to you if they didn’t want to if you knew you could get away with it? (legalities aside for the moment)?
                   • RedLogix …

                     26 August 2012 at 5:03 pm

                     However, I see elsewhere you have made comment, again, about having to give/receive consent for every single sexual act you ever do, including historically. This puzzles me a lot.

                     Let me relieve your puzzlement. If you decide afterwards that you didn’t give consent for a particular act … even if in good faith I had assumed implicit consent at the time… then at the very least I face an unpleasant police investigation, a permanent stain on my reputation … or the possibility of a very long prison sentence. You may consider all this a trifling but excuse me if I do not. But if as you wish we should set legalities aside … at the very least this also implies you have to set aside the word ‘rape’ which is a specific criminal offence.

                     So now this becomes a plain question of ethics. A fundamental problem in all ethics is how to deal with things that are done in secret. Without transparency, without openness, there is no possibility of holding actions to account. This is why all formal organisations keep minutes and records … so that there is a trail of evidence to support their actions.

                     Because we are a property owning culture, and sex is all about property rights to most people, we almost always conduct sex in secret. And negotiations done in secret are thus impossible to hold to account. Anyone else see a problem here?
       • Maui 2.2.1.3

         26 August 2012 at 12:28 pm

         Thanks, I managed to read it .. and its all true.

         But it is also true that the image of Sweden and Scandinavia as a sexually and socially liberal nirvana are contradicted by the sort of neo-nazi right-wing underground described in Stig Larsson’s novels (“The Girl With the Red Tattoo”), and the events at Utoya. I find it hard to believe that Breivik had the capacity to do all that on his own.

         The investigative British author Nick Kollerstrom (‘Terror on the Tube’, examining the July 2005 London underground attacks) surmises that Breivik was probably on the island, but cannot be conclusively traced to the explosions in Oslo that same morning. The only proof is in the form of a clearly photo-shopped image of a ‘man in black’ who was purportedly seen by one witness, although it appears that he may have subsequently assumed that it was Breivik, after the enormous propaganda blitz.

         Wikileaks itself has been described as a ‘limited intelligence hangout’. Frankly, I don’t know – but some powerful people had strong motives to neutralise Assange.

         In short, the situation is probably more complex than it appears from the Antipodes.
         • kiwi_prometheus 2.2.1.3.1

           26 August 2012 at 1:01 pm

           “but some powerful people had strong motives to neutralise Assange. ”

           He’s only pissed off the most powerful arseholes on this planet, lol.

           The Poms threatening to attack the Ecuadorean Embassy. They sure are motivated.

           Now there is a propaganda campaign against Ecuador’s Human Rights record. Maybe they can get prominent feminists help again, mouthing some more propaganda about Ecuador promoting “Rape Culture” and the regime being “anti feminist’.

           That will would get you feminist suckers on side.
           • Maui 2.2.1.3.1.1

             26 August 2012 at 1:15 pm

             Well, some of my best friends are or have been feminists.
             Don’t stereotype us ..
           • Blue 2.2.1.3.1.2

             26 August 2012 at 1:37 pm

             kiwi_p, have you ever considered counselling?

             Your obsession with feminism is disturbing. All your posts contains angry diatribes about feminism. You seem to turn every single topic into an anti-feminist rant.

             Is there really nothing else you are interested in?
         • Maui 2.2.1.3.2

           26 August 2012 at 1:02 pm

           Probably ..
         • just saying 2.2.1.3.3

           26 August 2012 at 5:26 pm

           Reply to Redlogix at 2.213 above.
           You’ve mixed up two different replies from two different people which confuses things.

           Because we are a property owning culture, and sex is all about property rights to most people, we almost always conduct sex in secret. And negotiations done in secret are thus impossible to hold to account. Anyone else see a problem here?

           I think this is the root of the problem. Sex, to me, has nothing whatsoever to do with property rights, it’s about mutual pleasure. Which is why I asked if it would matter to you if your partner didn’t want to have sex with you.
           • RedLogix 2.2.1.3.3.1

             26 August 2012 at 5:32 pm

             Sex, to me, has nothing whatsoever to do with property rights, it’s about mutual pleasure.

             In which case … what’s your stance on monogamy? How about if you came home and found your partner in bed with another person … happily indulging in “mutual pleasure”? Would be happy for them? Ask to join in? Or would you react in rage and horror as the standard cultural narrative demands from us? (OK I know nothing about you personally but for the vast majority of people I’m on the money.)

             Or how about if you discovered that one of your children (assuming you were a man) was not actually your own? (In fact about 1 in 7 children does not have the father the mother claims it has.)

             Or how about if as a woman you caught you male partner flirting hard out with a cute young thing?

             Not the slightest trace of possessiveness?
             • just saying …

               26 August 2012 at 5:38 pm

               I’ve never felt I “owned” another person.
               Fidelty, promising to be faithful – whole different thing. Not about “ownership”.

               edit: How does the “ownership” model pertain to a one-night stand anyway?
               • RedLogix …

                 26 August 2012 at 5:56 pm

                 I’ve never felt I “owned” another person. Fidelty, promising to be faithful – whole different thing.

                 That’s the story we tell ourselves; but what is ‘fidelity’ if not a form of implicit contract? It’s a deal is it not? “I won’t have sex with anyone else if you don’t”. Which implies a degree control over the other person and vice versa.

                 I wouldn’t labour this point except that virtually every Shortland St sub-plot and at least half of popular culture is built upon this idea.
                 • Carol …

                   26 August 2012 at 6:16 pm

                   Ah, yes, soap operas continually use the romantic triangle to drive the drama, providing a fairly accessible way to construct tension/conflict.

                   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_triangle#History_and_definitions

                   Some see it as being based in the Oedipal triangle of psychoanalysis. But then, to me psychoanalysis is based in the nuclear family prevalent in western capitalism. I guess that also is linked to the notion of ownership of children.

                   But there are other kinds of love triangles eg between close friends. Many people seem to want to be the “favourite” of a person who is significant to them.
3. Dr Terry 3

   26 August 2012 at 11:55 am

   Of course the unemployed are neither “idle,” nor necessarily more “unsuccessful” than anybody else. (Exactly, how do we begin to define “success”?) Certainly the unemployed are likely to feel vulnerable, (better, “victims”?) of an acquisitive society busily scapegoating them. (Ayn Rand described as desirable “ruthless selfishness” in society, and wow, how we are seeing this! Gore Vidal considered this opinion grossly immoral).

   Britons may well be the “worst idlers” in the world, but that does not apply particularly to unemployed folk as much as it might to the filthy rich, or to certain self-satisfied others.

   As incomes of the middle-classes continue to shrink, there is ever more likely to be a backlash against conservative politics which serve the wealthy and powerful, making future revolutions increasingly possible, if not inevitable.
   • blue leopard 3.1

     26 August 2012 at 4:54 pm

     The issue regarding “idleness” is simply another case of divide and rule

     And I am repeating a comment I made on another thread because I feel its pertinent here.

     It is of great concern to me when our politicians play into the baser elements of our characters.

     I would like to see a point when this tactic of divide and rule gets seen for what it is, an unnecessary creator of disharmony amongst us and it gets to be such an embarrassment to those caught playing it, that it becomes an obsolete approach.

     I am completely fed up with this bulls** way of “managing” our countries affairs, which creates more damage than anything that is trying to be repaired by peddling such rubbish. Ultimately politics appears to have become NOTHING about moving forward positively together and ALL about politicians saying whatever it takes so that they can get the salary of being in office.

     Ultimately intelligence is our strength and saving grace, we all need to start applying it.
   • blue leopard 3.2

     26 August 2012 at 5:03 pm

     …and this issue of inequality indicates a COMPLETE FAILURE of all politicians in western countries. (at least)

     While I acknowledge being a politician is not an easy job, I don’t consider that this issue surrounding inequality and the inevitable negative consequences to ALL members of society is so debatable that it need be left unaddressed for as long as it has, nor so difficult to address that it needs to be getting as extreme as it is.

     Inequality in western nations is an utterly inexcusable PROFOUND failure of our governments and the more people that see this, the quicker we will start to see positive progress in a lot of areas of our communities.
4. Draco T Bastard 4

   26 August 2012 at 11:58 am

   (nicely satirised by The Onion)

   Raging Grannies
5. Fortran 5

   26 August 2012 at 1:20 pm

   If Assange gets to Sweden he will disappear suddenly, and guess what, be found again some time later in Guantanamo.
   Why when Assange was interviewed for these rape allegations, he remained in Sweden as no charges were brought – then the new woman public prosecutor arrived in the scene and it suddenly became all on ?
   That’s when the smell began.
   Sweden is playing to the USA like the UK.
   Like New Zealand and Dotcom – but no rape suggestion here.
   • Maui 5.1

     26 August 2012 at 1:25 pm

     Olaf Palme, R.I.P
     Anna Lindh, R.I.P.
     ..
   • Maui 5.2

     26 August 2012 at 2:22 pm

     Good point.
     • McFlock 5.2.1

       26 August 2012 at 3:16 pm

       [sigh]
       No, it’s not.
       1: Fortran is making categorical predictions about rendition that s/he has no grounds for believing are anywhere near a certainty.
           
       2: The women’s lawyer appealed the initial “no prosecution” decision, so it was referred to another prosecutor who made a different decision. It’s called “process”.
           

        
       • Maui 5.2.1.1

         26 August 2012 at 4:45 pm

         Fair enough ..
       • bad12 5.2.1.2

         26 August 2012 at 4:59 pm

         A procession of process, sort of a ‘if at first you don’t succeed sort of thing, it ain’t quite at the point of trying someone until you get the verdict you want,but, it’s going that way,

         Sort of like ancient witch trials, if they survive the first dunking underwater that just proves the witchery…
         • McFlock 5.2.1.2.1

           26 August 2012 at 5:06 pm

           Yeah, damned complainants having right of appeal if they think their complaint wasn’t taken seriously.
6. Maui 6

   26 August 2012 at 5:16 pm

   “Why when Assange was interviewed for these rape allegations, he remained in Sweden as no charges were brought – then the new woman public prosecutor arrived in the scene and it suddenly became all on ?
   That’s when the smell began.”

   It implies that if Assange had a guilty conscience at that point, he would not have remained in Sweden. It can be interpreted in a number of different ways.
7. fnjckg 7

   26 August 2012 at 5:44 pm

   re all this rape
   regrettably, much, much more rape yet to come
   a great sadness
8. Tom 8

   5 September 2012 at 8:52 am

   [deleted]
   [lprent: Banned for 3 weeks for idiotic link-whoring across posts ]

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS