Dead President Quote of the Week!
I'm starting a new feature since I don't really have any features aside from "WTF Moments in Local Editorials!" and even though I'd be content to do one of those every single day, it does take some effort to cut those things out of the newspaper and scan them in. (Plus, maybe with additional regular features, I'll have an incentive to update more...I've really been slacking lately.) So I'm taking a page from Simon's book and looking to the past, when men were Men, and presidents were Presidents!We'll start with the noble Harry "My Middle Initial Doesn't Actually Stand For Anything" Truman who, according to my 8th grade report on America's Presidents, had "no college eduaction," "reconstructed American postwar policies," and "issued a doctrine of international resistance to Communism." Dude, I forgot how smart I used to be. (Whereas the Prophecy Girl of 10 years later thinks, "Whoa, this dude looks just like that guy who played the Dick Cheney character in The Day After Tomorrow." What the hell happened to me?) Without further ado, our 33rd President:
I never gave anybody hell! I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.
- Harry S. Truman
Love it, Harry! So much so, I'm ordaining that the unofficial O.P. motto, because I like to think that's what I do around here. (I have lofty aspirations for myself.)
posted by Becky Heineke at 8/05/2006 05:40:00 PM
Comments on "Dead President Quote of the Week!"
-
Weirdland said ... (3:13 AM, August 06, 2006) :
-
Ninni said ... (4:07 AM, August 06, 2006) :
-
Weirdland said ... (9:50 AM, August 06, 2006) :
-
Ninni said ... (1:42 AM, August 07, 2006) :
-
Medio Pomelo said ... (4:40 AM, August 07, 2006) :
-
Ninni said ... (6:28 AM, August 07, 2006) :
-
Becky Heineke said ... (8:26 AM, August 07, 2006) :
-
Nothing Really Matters said ... (11:49 AM, August 07, 2006) :
-
Ninni said ... (3:51 AM, August 08, 2006) :
-
matt of comooxdom said ... (7:34 AM, August 08, 2006) :
-
britpopbaby said ... (3:24 PM, August 08, 2006) :
post a commentI don't agree particularly with this quote:"Wherever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship", what a bunch of hogwash!
"Wherever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship"
A bit of a paradox in practice, but in theory I agree. Democracy doesn't work, not the modern versiomn of it at least.
Yes, Simon, I suppose that Harry was a smart guy and all, but if you think it cold and calm, you'll see a democracy could be ruled in a "efficient" way withouth need of turning into a dictatorship. The European Union doesn't work in an unilateral way, but political chaos is not a valid alternative to a controlled government, imo.
a democracy could be ruled in a "efficient" way withouth need of turning into a dictatorship
Sorry for butting in, but no. Just no. Sorry. Modern democracy is, by definition, very inefficient. When you have to please the majority of the population, no radical but important decisions will ever get made.
Alas, the people do not know what's best for them.
Wesntia, completely agree with you. A democratic government (at least in Eastern Europe) relies heavily on the uneducated/ignorant/indifferent crowd who are happy to vote for the party that hands out free hotdogs and a glass of beer in their campaign... But as we also learnt it, dictatorship sux big time too... I would (and this is gonna sound sooooo snobbish and pretentious...) do a weighted election system where not everyone had the same voting right... Those who prove to have an idea about current affairs would get 3 voting tickets, the rest just 1...
Those who prove to have an idea about current affairs would get 3 voting tickets, the rest just 1...
Actually I agree with you, I don't think everybody should be allowed to vote, it's a privledge. That's why I keep saying modern democracy ie. the one we've had for the last 30 years or so, doesn't work.
Unfortunately, though, it would be extremely difficult to put the idea of "earning a right to vote" in practise. I guess some sort of a "driving license test" might work, but you would have to re-do the test, say, every five years.
But again, ideas like that will never pass in a modern democracy because....that's right, they don't please the majority *sigh*
This has nothing to do with anything, but the British voting system is hilarious. In the last elections a Finnish friend of mine who's been living in the UK illegally for a year, was allowed to vote in the elections...no wonder Blair keeps winning.
Wow, I've been neglecting my own blog and yet there's a highly insightful conversation going on! I feel very proud. :)
To weigh in on the democracy issue, I agree that in its modern form, it's far from perfect. To get back to the title of the blog, I think it's actually nearly impossible to have a healthy and successful democratic union when you've got 300 million people in a country. That's too many people to agree on ANYTHING, not to mention the people who choose not to participate because proportionally what they have to say doesn't count much.
Some sort of a test would go a long way towards solving a lot problems of voter ignorance, apathy, etc, but the problem is that such a system would have to be voted in. I don't know where this leaves the political process, but something's got to change. As it is, in this country at least, NOTHING ever gets done, because the system was created for a much smaller nation than the one it is currently governing.
People never like to hear the truth. I always tell it like it is. Most of the time people think i'm being mean!
To get back to the title of the blog, I think it's actually nearly impossible to have a healthy and successful democratic union when you've got 300 million people in a country. That's too many people to agree on ANYTHING, not to mention the people who choose not to participate because proportionally what they have to say doesn't count much.
I agree, democracy in Finland actually works relatively well. I think we have the lowest level of corruption in the world, but that's not because we're somehow magically honest or something, it's because nobody bothers to corrupt a government that rules 5 million people when you can corrupt a government that rules 300 million...
So yeah, smaller countries might help, but it seems we're headed to the opposite direction (EU...).
@bearded lady: Sorry for scaring you :)
What you said is basically the biggest problem with separating who gets to vote and who doesn't...like for example, a poor single-parent of three kids that has two jobs to support her family. She sure as hell doesn't, understandably, have the kind of time people like me have to follow politics but she should have the right to vote nevertheless... I don't know, it's a difficult issue.
my word an actually interesting debate....
We have a big problem over here but I think you have a bigger one in the states... money can buy you the presidency. Until we live in a real democracy then there is no point addressing how we vote.
How the hell has bush managed to stay for two terms?
Okay, I'm going to come back and read this tomorrow because it's hurting my brian right now, or brain as I sometimes like to call him.
Plus I've just heard a really interested documentary advertised on TV called 'Pram-face', the real story of single mothers in Britain.