Sequel to the Einstein shocker

[beagle]

Look who we might have to let in.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Am I the only one disturbed by the use of the words 'unification', 'faith', 'religion', 'civilizing force' and 'conversion' on the same paragraph?

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

-sigh-
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[pieces o nine]

I scanned the article; will have to read more carefully later.

There is a world of difference between "uniting" as in "let's all think/speak/act the same" (a lost cause) and "let's all work for a common good from our different places" (which would be a refreshing change, no?).

[ivor]

"I'm a uniter not a divider." G W 

[Sibling Chatty]

There is a world of difference between "uniting" as in "let's all think/speak/act the same" (a lost cause) and "let's all work for a common good from our different places" (which would be a refreshing change, no?).

My thoughts exactly.

I am sceptical of the 'unite' word. I see a 'governmental diktat' sort of vibe to it, coming from that person with that background.  Now, if he's talking your Definition Two, I'll play a few rounds. (That he has recently joined a very top-down dictatorial style faith sort of shakes MY faith in what he means, though.)

[Griffin NoName]

(That he has recently joined a very top-down dictatorial style faith sort of shakes MY faith in what he means, though.)

I have a very simplistic approach to Bliar's "conversion" to Catholisism.

It goes like this:

Catholics?  Oh yes, big on guilt. Bliar? Oh yes, Iraq War. Big mistake. Guilty? Yes. Ah! Catholic! Right!

***disclaimer: if I offend anyone - sorry - I'm Jewish. What do I know? Guilt? Yeh. We do guilt too but he probably didn't want the operation

[Swatopluk]

From what I heared, Blair had planned that conversion long ago but would not risk his political career for it. Although there is (to my knowledge) no formal ban on Catholics except for occupants of the throne, I think being a catholic would still be a major liability in the eyes of the British public for anyone aspiring to be prime minister.
Let's wait for Holy Tony's campign to become pope*

*if they have not updated the rules, it is not actually mandatory to be priest for that. But he would have probably to get rid of his wife (becoming pope was once a sufficient resaon for divorce  )

[beagle]

...I think being a catholic would still be a major liability in the eyes of the British public for anyone aspiring to be prime minister...

Being a devout member of any religion would probably be a problem. We like to delude ourselves that our politicians get their instructions from the electorate.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

..... We like to delude ourselves that our politicians get their instructions from the electorate.

We Yanks like to entertain that delusion, too.

'been a very long time since any political-type hereabouts has been that, though.

Unless you can consider Big Money or Big Corporations (not exactly the same thing, but close) to be "the electorate".

I suppose, with LieBold Genuine Garunteed PickYourOutcome^tm vote simulator machines, you could consider one big business to be "the electorate" insofar as they created the "votes" needed to put the "candidate" into office....  Linky

I like this quote from the linky:  "This Country is based on the Fantasy that this government is the Voice of the People."

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

AFAIK almost all* of the so-called democracies are plutocracies in disguise. The thing is that to sustain that illusion you need a level of free speech, but a move toward a police state isn't that far.

*I have been told that the Nordic countries have something closer to a true democracy, perhaps Darlica can confirm or deny such accusation.

[Swatopluk]

As far as Norway is concerned I would agree on that. Denmark is currently on its way to the dark side (I fear).

Concerning results leaked in advance: In the 3rd Reich there was the joke that the elections had to be postponed because somebody had burgled Goebbel's office and stolen the results for the next decade.
In the former GDR there was also lots of suspense about the election results: Would it be 99.98% or would it drop to 99.7 for the regime. The last election before the peaceful revolution was a special case. The results were "adjusted" upwards at least twice on command of the politbureau* because the 92-93% were seen as a pure desaster. The "official" result in the end was 98.85%. This was one trigger of the revolution because independent observers had checked 200 polling places down to the last vote and could for the first time actually prove election fraud**.

*i.e. they send the "adjusted" results back because they were still too low for them.
** http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wende_%28DDR%29#Die_Kommunalwahl_am_7._Mai_1989

[Darlica]

AFAIK almost all* of the so-called democracies are plutocracies in disguise. The thing is that to sustain that illusion you need a level of free speech, but a move toward a police state isn't that far.

*I have been told that the Nordic countries have something closer to a true democracy, perhaps Darlica can confirm or deny such accusation.

Well we have seven well established political parties, neither of them is to be considered as extreme even if one of them is to the left of the Social democrats and one is a Conservative Christian Party. In the last 5 years the Swedish National Democrat Party (fascists) has grown with a disturbing speed and will probably make it into our Parliament the next election... However they will at most get a seat or two and be pretty much neglected (and I'm not sure neglect is the best way to take).

The two parties the alternates as the core of our government either on the left the Social Democrats supported by The Leftist party and The Green party, however they never let the two latter get any posts in the the government no matter the importance of their support.   On the right side the core party is The Conservatives (Moderaterna), with the support of The Liberals (Folkpartiet) The Middle alternative (Centern) and the Christian Conservatives (Kristdemokraterna).
The Conservatives divide the government posts between them self and the supporting parties but reserving the PM and Minister of Foreign Affairs post for them self.

No matter what alternative that is ruling for the moment there is a lot of bartering going on under the table which leave the people with the feeling of being cheated.   

If you want to see hands on democracy I would actually look at Switzerland and some parts of Germany that holds elections/peoples referendums about pretty much everything and on a very local level.
Here all peoples referendums are considered as guiding but if the Parliament (national or local) decides to go against the result of a peoples referendum  they can do so. That has been done several times and always fuels a lot of disdain and despair among the people.

But of cause compared to China, Iran, or even US the Scandinavian take on democracy is fantastic.
Norway, Iceland and even Finland is considered to be even more democratic than Sweden especially Iceland and Finland which are republics where Sweden Norway and Denmark still are monarchies, Denmark is falling behind mostly because the xenophobic Danske Folke Parti that has heavy fascistic tendencies even though they sometimes try to deny it (other times they flaunt it). 

I hope this shed some light over the Swedish way.

I guess it all has to do with your point of view, personally I can't understand how the people of USA can accept the current election system where your vote is more worth in one federal state than in another resulting in that the presidential candidate which the most people voted for still can lose the election.