General Chat

Ginny -- "But, when he is in the public eye, being paid by the public then the public also have a right to hold him accountable."

That's just what I was getting at, at least in part.

We are all entitled to vote as we choose -- based on a candidate's values or views, or based on their religion, or their haircut. Or based on how our parents and their parents voted. Yes, I spent a lot of time in a riding where people actually told me on the doorstep they were voting Liberal (sounds nice, but it's a corporatist party) because their parents did. And yes, they could have run a pig in that riding as a Liberal and it would have got elected.

Integrity is a big one for me, and I think most people. It really isn't "monogamy" when it comes to those private behaviours I was lumping together under "adultery".

Would Clinton or Edwards or Sarkozi or (hypothetically) the Premier of South Australia have had all those lovely ladies lusting after them if they were not *powerful* men? I think not.

So what they did wasn't just cheat on their wives -- but yes, I think *cheating* is a bad thing in a person. If someone isn't in a marriage or partnership, I don't care how many people they have private relationships with. It's the cheating.

But that wasn't what it really was. What it was, was an abuse of power. They used their position to get something, something as piddlingly little as it was: sex with women who only wanted them because they were powerful (or they paid well). And *that* is what speaks to their integrity. Badly.

If they'll exploit their position of power to get sex, what else would they do it for? Money? More power? Jobs for their friends? How about what our former PM Paul Martin did when he was Finance Minister -- arrange a nice little tax haven, under Canadian tax law, in the Caribbean country where he happens to stash his $$?

That's corruption. Using power for personal gain. And sometimes that's what otherwise "private" behaviours do amount to.

I couldn't have put it better JC....a little more succinct maybe!!

Ginny
x

I always vote for the party who lies the best
because they never do what they promise to do before the election
and the only time things get done in my town
is by the party thats in government just before the elections
to be decided again

Okay now, gimme a break here, I'm trying to catch up! It's only noon here and I had to watch a week's worth of East Enders and get the chicken stew and beef noodle soup made before rejoining you. ;)

What I'm seeing is a bunch of people trying to out-do Stanley Knowles. Ha. Can't be done. Stanley actually was a saint.

Very true though about people voting based on personal experience with their representatives -- and not realizing how much that depends on the luck of the draw a lot of the time. If a Labour MP helped with a problem, wouldn't the Tory have done it if they'd been elected? If the problem just can't be solved by an MP, is that the MP's or party's fault?

I did have people tell me at the door that they'd vote for my party because I showed up to talk to them and the others hadn't. I wondered what would happen if the Liberal came by an hour later ... and the Conservative made it there the day before the election. Heaven help us if the loony gambler's party was the last one there ...

Cynthia - "I think it's fine to say that people should have freedom to do as they please as long as no one is hurt in the process because it's no-one else's business but, the problem is, so many people DO get hurt in the drugs/pornography/sex scenario and then someone has to pick up the pieces. So often I have walked alongside despairing families who have said..."what could I have done to prevent this happening?""

Absolutely. I'm one who has been through a lot of the hell of someone near and dear lost to drink and drugs. I didn't know when we started, I spent 3 years trying everything I could think of to help, and then I made him go away. He died a few years ago, just before reaching 50. Clean and sober for a year at that point, but too late. Meanwhile, I still suffer the fallout - economically, psychologically - of it all.

But what do laws do to fix that? There are laws against drug possession. Does anyone think they actually stop anybody from getting drugs? What they may do is stop people from getting treatment. And increase the risk of us all getting diseases that are spread by drug-use paraphernalia and by the things that people do to get drugs (prostitution being the big one). And put us at risk of victimization by people who commit break-ins and robberies in order to get money for drugs.

The theory I'm getting at is called "harm reduction". It would be nice if making rules and laws and punishing people prevented them from doing these harmful things. But they don't. They just don't. So if we want to reduce the harm -- work on solving the problem -- we have to look at other ways.

In Vancouver, there is a place on the downtown east side called InSite. It's where addicts can inject safely. Clean needles. Medical help on site if they overdose. Less chance that they'll get HIV or HepC and pass it to someone else, and maybe eventually to *us*. (I was naive, myself - I had no idea what was going on for quite some time, and my luck at not having got that kind of disease is just that, luck.)

Are more people going to become drug addicts just because they know there's a safe place to inject? Hardly likely, I think.

And then there's the whole question of how far we go to stop people from doing things to themselves when someone else might be affected. How about the Georgian luger who died at the Olympics? He did something extremely dangerous to himself. His family and friends are devastated. People do all sorts of risky things that we don't make laws against. Driving. Adultery hurts lots of people. We don't make laws against it these days.

What can we do to prevent these things happening? Sometimes, nothing. But working for a more just society, and in particular one where women are safe and equal, is the best I've got. The sex trade (without getting into a big discussion of feminist theory) is peopled largely by women and girls who were victims of abuse, who do not have educational and economic opportunities, and who are addicts.

Btw, I like Sweden's solution. Make it a crime to pay for sexual services, not to sell them. The buyers are participating in an industry that exploits and harms and traffics in women. That really isn't just private behaviour. Hold *them* accountable!

Well, I'm going to go back to family values and Margaret Thatcher.

In the 'good old days' things were not always that good and bad things happened for sure.....but we had community and with that came, trust, loyalty and knowledge.

If YOU didn’t know what your children were up to someone else did and they would tell you.

Today, we don’t speak to our neighbours, we don’t know who the kids are that are dealing on the corner of our streets......and we have no one to tell us

Mrs T put an end to 'community' and although I was a young child when 'she' ran this country, I have learned much since

She turned people against people and the result is what we live with today

Ginny


x

Thank you for that Janey.

I'm with you on the family values thought Ginny and what you say is so true. Society is crumbling at it's core but, like Janey says ....

"What can we do to prevent these things happening? Sometimes, nothing. But working for a more just society, and in particular one where women are safe and equal, is the best I've got."

I have been part of a world wide family organisation for many years - apart from our overseas work, we support various Women's Aid hostels, family centres, run parenting courses, contact centres etc.etc. Sometimes, however, it's as though you are fighting a losing battle. Each government comes and goes and nothing seems to get any better. Promises to improve housing, health, education rarely seem to materialise.


Despite Mr. Blair's promise of 'education, education, education', there was an article in a newspaper last year which stated that HALF of teenagers left school unable to read, write and add up to the standard expected by employers last year. What chance to these children have?


So many people are saying that they are not going to vote at the General Election because 'they are all as bad as each other'. The recent expenses debacle has caused much outcry and distrust of politians generally, so where do we go from here?

How do we return to family values in the present political climate where integrity is so obviously missing from so many lives?


I am now going to put my soap box away and get some of my messages sent out.


Cx

I had just meant to wave to Lorraine rather than ignore you!

Back c1970 I was myself a hanger-around with the local Fourth International crowd. And I can still tell you the difference between a Trostkist and a Trotksyite!

For those who don't know -- it's like the difference between a socialist and a socialite. ;)

... It isn't, actually, but Troskyists take great offence at being called Troskyites.

There's a joke that was told by Michael J Fox a few years ago in a panel discussion in New York about why Canadians are so funny. Apparently Macleans magazine (the major Canadian mainstream-media weekly news mag) had run a contest to find a Canadian equivalent for "as American as apple pie".

The winning entry was: As Canadian as possible under the circumstances.

So me, I'm as socialist as possible under the circumstances. ;)

In terms of *electoral* politics, that means social democrat.

Sorry to bring this up again but this really has my interest.

Has anyone else looked at the FAQ for the test. I just did. There are several categories of frequently asked questions I have chosen the first category and pulled out two questions for answering in full.

Here is one set the frequently asked questions, here are four or five different categories.

The Test

Some of the questions are slanted
Respondents are going to feel under pressure to be politically correct
Some of the propositions are culturally biased
My position on The Political Compass™ is at odds with the politicians I support
In some cases none of the four possible responses reflected my attitude
You should have a "don't know" option
Why don't you collect statistics and report on test results ?
Where would Jesus and/or Mohammed appear ?
How can you determine where politicians are honestly at without asking them ?

Here is their answer to Question No 7.

Why don't you collect statistics and report on test results ?

It is important to us - and most of our respondents - that the test remains anonymous, and purely for personal information. If we were to log anyone's results, those results would have to be given voluntarily. This would mean that our sample would be self-selected, and therefore not statistically valid.

In other words, such data would tell us nothing about the political position of a particular population; it would only tell us about the type of person who volunteered to have their result recorded.

Trials have revealed that a wildly disproportionate number of visitors from particular cultures, and of certain age and socio-economic groups, were more willing than others to opt in.


And another two questions, which complement each other

In some cases none of the four possible responses reflected my attitude

One expert in the field suggested that we restrict the responses to simply 'agree' and 'disagree'. But how many do you need? Ten? Twenty? If you choose the one that most nearly reflects your feeling, you'll get an accurate reading...even if it niggles.


You should have a "don't know" option

This makes it too easy for people to duck difficult issues. By forcing people to take a positive or negative stance, the propositions make people really evaluate their feelings. Often people find they wanted to select 'don't know' mainly because they'd never really thought about the idea.



There are many many more frequently asked questions. Here is another set.

The Political Compass Definitions

There have to be other measures for a political compass

You can't be libertarian and left wing

Where are the right-wing social libertarians on the international chart ?

Why is Hitler slightly right ? The Nazis were socialists, so they weren't fascists either.

How can I be in the same quadrant as Pol Pot/Hitler/Stalin ? I'm no Pol Pot/Hitler/Stalin !

You've got liberals on the right. Don't you know they're left ?

Politics have moved, but you're still using the old economic parameters.

Most governments and political figures are plotted on the right. Doesn't that mean that your centre is misplaced ?


In fact the FAQs make almost as interesting reading as the original questions!!

Confused thats a joke, how about RABBLE and your total disdain...Keep scoutin my dear..And just by the way I pay to add to any board....keep yer step warm neck winder....

Lets all get clued in here, Janey has political views that she wants to share and she promotes web sites that share that....This is not the forum...I said this yesterday....

OMG your in Canada by the way,,,,Stick to your own ....Free medical american poxed wildlife, how lucky are you ,throw in ten foot of snow it must be heaven, it just adds to your obvious demeaner which is more than ****challlenged**** Do you even have the ability to vote by the way? We both know they take that away for certain reasons........


********************wooooooooooooooooooo************

join your mates on the Lithium express..........

Keep pressi\ng your RR buttons, it makes my day...

Kathryn you got a lifetime ban along with many others ,you begged on your knees to come back here....We know that....We treat you accordingly...

Dear Fairies are us.

I, personally, am quite happy to continue with this thread despite your harrassing and rather odd comments. I hope others feel the same. We can simply talk around you.

However, it does make for distressing reading and so I have reported you.

Cx.

lmao. you can tweet her by the way...it should read twatter me ...

Why are you being so horrid fAiRiEs r uS?

Please can you stop leaving childish messages....what's the point, you're making yourself look foolish

Ginny

Hi Ginny, now where were we?

Cx.

lmao get a life.....Ginny and your mate,as i f care...deleted..

Hi AuntySherlock, that was an interesting read. The bit that stuck with me was:

You should have a "don't know" option

This makes it too easy for people to duck difficult issues. By forcing people to take a positive or negative stance, the propositions make people really evaluate their feelings. Often people find they wanted to select 'don't know' mainly because they'd never really thought about the idea.


Like others, I had difficulty with some of the questions because I wanted to opt out of them. I was forced to think a few things through rather than sit on the proverbial fence. It may help me to be a bit more decisive about things in the future.....!


Thanks for that. (but I know I should have really looked for myself)


Cx.