(no subject)
I'm mildly disturbed by the number of male welsh names that become female names in America, Rhys (reese in US), Morgan, Meredith, Griff, just slightly odd 'tis all
cut for Da Vinci Code spoilers
it's not as bad a film as everyone seems to be saying, in parts its excellent, in other parts (the anagrams part in the Louvre) it's awful. The explanation part by Teabing was done very well, and they nicely incorporated arguments about the book into the story.
What annoys me is two messages, in a book that's admittedly filled with them, that are constantly ignored. Firstly, the idea of interconnectedness of religions, basically the whole, it's not all that different shit.
Secondly, the idea of thinking for yourself. It's there, don't accept that because people say something has to be interpreted a certain way you have to interpret that way or even that it should be, look for yourselves and think for yourselves. It's not that hard surely. Though looking at the intelligence of most people, I wonder whether I want those people thinking for themselves when voting. At least if they're sheep they won't wander too far from the mainstream, less risk of BNP etc gaining much support.
Democracy is fundamentally flawed, as are all forms of government, the old humans are flawed so everything they touch is inherently flawed. Democracy is flawed in that it has the potential to become the tyranny of the majority over the minority. If a democracy votes to rule out free speech etc, then should it be followed? If you protect some things by change by majority will, who are you to decide what they are, and why should anyone's opinion at one time be superior to another's at a later time. And so what was once a war of policies has become a war of perceptions, it has been recognised that perceived improvement are better than actual ones, since perception has a gloss reality has never attained.
We're entering a new age of history, the time of apathy (altough since my area of expertise is primarily British history with random other bits mixed in I may be wrong). Up to this point people have almost always desired more power, and wielded what they had. From peasants to princes everyone wanted more say in what happened.
Well, arguably in the 17th century in the after the British Civil war, people were actually afraid of the power they now might have had, before the King and via him God had been the protector and ajudicator, the final great authority over the land. After it was left to them, there was no leviathan left to call for protection, no-one to save them from themselves and their self-doubt. Hence why they went to Oliver Cromwell and got themselves a new king in all but name, got themselves a new leviathan. But that was out of fear, now is about apathy.
Now people no longer have to fight for it, they seem to be uninterested in it. We're drifting towards a government representative of those who vote, and that tends to be heavier in the middle class (I think). Or perhaps it's a result of democracy's nature, it's greatest strength and weakness.
Democracy's main advantage is it's common stagnancy. The checks and balances system. By limiting the power of any single person the amount of good and bad they can do is equally limited. Like a pendulum the aim is for succeding governments to further limit the effects of past one, and hence the centre ground is maintained, the country only changes as the middle ground changes, which means constant evolution as opposed to revolution.
Perhaps these are just the speculations of someone arrogant enough to think he can interpret history overanalysing things. I still get funny looks when I claim Blood Brothers is an indictment of the aristocracy, perhaps...
cut for Da Vinci Code spoilers
it's not as bad a film as everyone seems to be saying, in parts its excellent, in other parts (the anagrams part in the Louvre) it's awful. The explanation part by Teabing was done very well, and they nicely incorporated arguments about the book into the story.
What annoys me is two messages, in a book that's admittedly filled with them, that are constantly ignored. Firstly, the idea of interconnectedness of religions, basically the whole, it's not all that different shit.
Secondly, the idea of thinking for yourself. It's there, don't accept that because people say something has to be interpreted a certain way you have to interpret that way or even that it should be, look for yourselves and think for yourselves. It's not that hard surely. Though looking at the intelligence of most people, I wonder whether I want those people thinking for themselves when voting. At least if they're sheep they won't wander too far from the mainstream, less risk of BNP etc gaining much support.
Democracy is fundamentally flawed, as are all forms of government, the old humans are flawed so everything they touch is inherently flawed. Democracy is flawed in that it has the potential to become the tyranny of the majority over the minority. If a democracy votes to rule out free speech etc, then should it be followed? If you protect some things by change by majority will, who are you to decide what they are, and why should anyone's opinion at one time be superior to another's at a later time. And so what was once a war of policies has become a war of perceptions, it has been recognised that perceived improvement are better than actual ones, since perception has a gloss reality has never attained.
We're entering a new age of history, the time of apathy (altough since my area of expertise is primarily British history with random other bits mixed in I may be wrong). Up to this point people have almost always desired more power, and wielded what they had. From peasants to princes everyone wanted more say in what happened.
Well, arguably in the 17th century in the after the British Civil war, people were actually afraid of the power they now might have had, before the King and via him God had been the protector and ajudicator, the final great authority over the land. After it was left to them, there was no leviathan left to call for protection, no-one to save them from themselves and their self-doubt. Hence why they went to Oliver Cromwell and got themselves a new king in all but name, got themselves a new leviathan. But that was out of fear, now is about apathy.
Now people no longer have to fight for it, they seem to be uninterested in it. We're drifting towards a government representative of those who vote, and that tends to be heavier in the middle class (I think). Or perhaps it's a result of democracy's nature, it's greatest strength and weakness.
Democracy's main advantage is it's common stagnancy. The checks and balances system. By limiting the power of any single person the amount of good and bad they can do is equally limited. Like a pendulum the aim is for succeding governments to further limit the effects of past one, and hence the centre ground is maintained, the country only changes as the middle ground changes, which means constant evolution as opposed to revolution.
Perhaps these are just the speculations of someone arrogant enough to think he can interpret history overanalysing things. I still get funny looks when I claim Blood Brothers is an indictment of the aristocracy, perhaps...