Text 53, 118 rader
Skriven 2004-09-05 09:12:04 av Bob Lawrence
     Kommentar till en text av Robert Bull
Ärende: Fantastic fantasy!
==========================
BL> Everyone says that war is wicked, but they think it means the
BL> act itself - shooting the enemy, relying on your mates, raping
BL> the women, etc. That's the *good* part that men really like!
BL> The wicked part is what they come home with...

RB> And what they leave behind, the destruction of cultures and
RB> ways of life, social structures, health services, the means of
RB> productive work or even agriculture.

 That only applies to the losers, and no one cares about the losers
or they wouldn't do it. Did Dubya and his bureaucrats give a moment's
thought to the Iraqi people? They demonise their leaders, make "Iraq"
the enemy, organise proper PR and get the Media onside, and to hell
with the innocent "enemy."

BL> The only safe position is a minimalist government which tries
BL> to maximise freedom of choice.

RB> We had enough of that with Mrs. Thatcher :-( but it isn't much
RB> different under Mr. Blair... :-(

 Because they both controlled the Media...  

 Maggie *said* she believed in small government and freedom, but take
a step back now that the smoke has cleared and see what she actually *did*.

 We've got a Maggie running Oz (less fright wig and frock). He talks
about freedom and locks up children in "detention" centres... in
Woomera, in the desert where they tested nukes in the 50's! All the
poor buggers did was try to get into Oz through the back door, and
they end up "detained" for five years. He talks of "improving" our
terific health system while he destroys it, and like Maggie with her
poll tax, the Media (mostly Murdoch and Packer) is about to swap
sides and hang him out to dry.

 At present, he is fighting the election campaign on terrorism... of 
which have none, fortunately. The only problem we have with terror is
this little man who thinks he's Maggie Thatcher (or maybe Dubya Bush, 
it's hard to tell the difference).

 You may have guessed that I won't be voting Conservative this time... 

RB> We need ways of stopping bullies or Big Money running the place
RB> for themselves...

 Yes, but unfortunately Democracy can't do that. As soon as Pitt
invented the political party, and left the system open to lobbying
corruption, real democracy went out the window. I understand why the
anarchists are so active now. I look forward to the time when they
start shooting politicians and power-freaks like Packer and Murdoch
(and perhaps the Archduke Ferdinand). I've always had a soft spot for
those little round bombs with a wick.

BL> A classic example of the Nanny State is here in New South Wales
BL> where they are talking about imposing a curfew on young drivers
BL> becasue they keep killing themselves at night.

RB> I think they introduced a section on driving on motorways into
RB> our driving test, which seems to be a good idea.

 I'm all in favour of a longer training period, and I'd include rainy
nights, too. 

RB> As for after dark, why was that so much more dangerous?

 Two reasons...

 1.  night driving is different. You need to know where to look
because you don't see much and you get less time to react when a dick
on a bike without lights suddenly appears. A new driver does not react
instinctively because he's still training his autonomic sytem. They
rarely have time to yell obscenities out the windows, for instance.

 An experienced driver has time to miss him, swerve closer so he
*almost* hits him, and then yell "Dopey poofter!"

 2.  Young people at night are usually with their mates egging each
other on chucking donuts, spinning wheels, leaving braking much too
late... because they think it's important to be manly and strong.

RB> Somtow Sucharitkul wrote a series of stories in the "Inquestor
RB> Universe" where planetary governments had tried something like
RB> that in order to have happy-happy citizens. The purpose of the
RB> Inquestors was to seek out Utopias - in order to destroy them.

 ROFL! I take it Mr Sucharitkul was in favour?

RB> I find lots of 19th century stuff hard going because of the
RB> length of the sentences.

 I've never noticed that! My reading history is in three parts: at
school where we were *required* to read that sort of stuff but I
actually enjoyed it (I read the entire list under the mistaken belief
that it that was expected); an interregnum of 15 years when the only
things I read were text books and technical magazinesl; and then I,
ROBOT... which started me on SF and eventually everything, where I
read a book every second day.

 Nowadays, if I find a book with awkward grammar, I just throw it out
the window (so many books, so little time). I don't mind long
sentences so long as they go somewhere, but I *abhor* smartarse
writers who bury the story in style. I expect it's because I spent 15
years trying to distill meaioning out of what was mostly meaningless
prose but hey... text books are like that.

RB> Does sound good... I really should look out for it. Oh, well,
RB> darker evenings will be coming soon...

 Oh! Of course. Unlucky you is facing a European autumn while I've
just dumped the doona and have begun to wear shorts again, as an Oz
Spring arrives in all its glory. I mowed the lawn yesterday...
grizzle, grizzle.

Regards,
Bob

--- BQWK Alpha 0.5
 * Origin: Precision Nonsense, Sydney  (3:712/610.12)