Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category.
They’ve declared her dead more times than a cat’s got lives.
~~ Bill Clinton ~~
Former U.S. president Bill Clinton, slammed the press while campaigning in Kentucky, in support of his wife, Hillary.
I agree with him; the press coverage has been highly slanted against Hillary throughout this campaign. Lots of people (self-appointed political pundits?) have been making noise for quite a while now that she should quit. The Democratic party has a process in place to determine the winner, so why not let the process run its course?
Even though she is lagging behind in delegate count, and I also think she is unlikely to get the nomination, but the fact remains that none of the two has been able to gather enough delegates to declare victory. So the decision to quit or not to quit should be hers. After all, she is following the rules laid down by the party. And if the party thinks that the rules, as they stand, put the party nominee at a disadvantage against the Republicans, then they should change the rules before the next nomination; as it’s too late to change the rules now for this nomination. Forcing a candidate to quit before the candidate is defeated is undemocratic.
In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant.
~~ Charles De Gaulle ~~ (1890 - 1970)
That’s exactly what they do! I think they intentionally come up with titles such as ‘public servant’ to make the people feel good. LOL
Now, when a politician is elected to any office, it’s usually for a certain number of years and , therefore, the contract is essentially like that of an employer and employee, so they could call themselves ‘public employees’. But no, they call themselves ‘public servants’ and act like masters. It’s only a rare politician who contests an election to become a servant; most of them only pose as servants to get elected to the positions that have powers and privileges of a master.
By January, 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women. … The Iraq war has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension.
~~ John McCain ~~
John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate for the president of USA, predicts as to how the future will unfold during his first term in office.
Apparently, he predicted this after consulting his newly acquired crystal ball! LOL
Obviously, like any other politician, John thinks that people are just fools and they will believe anything he says. But people aren’t fools; it’s just that most of the time their choice is limited to choosing between the devil and the deep sea.
This talk of how the things will be in 2013, is simply a political rhetoric aimed at getting as many votes as he can. Sensing that American public is not too thrilled, he shifted his position from 100 years to 5 years because he knows that there are no consequences if what he says will happen, doesn’t happen. For example, what consequences George Bush faced for claiming victory in Iraq in 2003?
By the time 2013 comes around, John McCain - if he is elected, will have ample time to explain away why the future didn’t unfold the way he said it would. It’s a wonderful world! :-)
The election is over, everybody knows that. Obama has won.
~~ Vernon Watkins ~~
Vernon Watkins is a member of the Democratic National Committee from California and a superdelegate. Watkins, who endorsed Obama, made the above assessment as Obama has overtaken Hillary in the superdelegate support.
Strictly speaking, the election is not over and Obama has not won yet. But such statements are being frequently made by Obama supporting Democrats in an effort to prod Hillary to bow out of the race.
In spite of the tide turning against her, Hillary isn’t showing any signs of conceding the race.
While I do believe that, since the race is so close between the two, the election process should be carried out to the end to determine the eventual winner for the nomination but at some point one has to read the writing on the wall and call it a day. I think for Hillary that day has now come.
I also understand why it is so hard for Hillary to concede defeat. For years she was labeled, by the so called ‘political pundits’, a shoe-in for the Democratic nomination, so it must be really hard for her to accept that a relatively unknown contender is about to defeat her. But in politics, as in life, fortunes can and do change quickly; notwithstanding what the pundits predicted in the past!
How did Bush go from being an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world?
~~ Oliver Stone ~~
Oliver Stone is making a movie to attempt to answer the above question.
I don’t think it’s that difficult to figure this out. Here are the main reasons:
- Possession of tons of money. Money is by far the best ‘friend’ anybody could have to achieve anything in this world. It’s the root without which a tree can not grow. In this case it’s not a tree but a bush! LOL
- Powerful connections. If you got the dough, establishing powerful connections is a cinch. In Bush’s case it was even easier because his father was an ex-president. Not surprisingly, many people in his administration were the same who held positions in his father’s administration as well! Sort of all in the family affair. :-)
- Very friendly judiciary with right wingers in majority, mostly appointed by his father!
- Voter apathy. A lot of voters think, and rightly so, that one politician is just as bad as the other, and don’t bother to go out and vote.
With all these factors in his favor, it is not a surprise that this alcoholic bum went on to become the most powerful figure in the world. Politics is, indeed, a funny business!
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a tragedy - for Iraq, for the U.S., for the UN, for truth and human dignity.
~~ Hans Blix ~~
Hans Blix, the former United Nations chief weapons inspector, wrote the above quote in his opinion piece for The Guardian. As you may remember, he asked many times that the UN inspections be given a chance to establish if WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) exist before any military action is taken but was repeatedly over-ruled by the Bush administration.
The war was certainly a tragedy for Iraq and U.S., and still continues to be so with no end in sight. But it was a godsend for ‘private’ security firms, re-construction firms and the like who made a fortune and still continue to make millions. I’m sure ‘they’ don’t consider war to be such a bad thing. They probably wish there were more wars so that they could get some extra business!
In my view, so far as the prevention of wars is concerned, UN is pretty much a useless body; it has no teeth, its decisions are made based on politics rather than facts and the decisions are usually ignored. Or even worse, its decisions are used as a pretext to start a war.
So?
~~ Dick Cheney ~~
This was U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney’s response when Martha Raddatz, ABC’s White House correspondent, told him about a poll showing that most Americans do not believe the Iraq war was worth fighting.
It’s not a surprise considering that Mr. Cheney and his colleagues in this U.S. administration don’t really care much about what Americans think or say about their actions. They justify their actions by saying that an administration can’t govern by following public opinion. And, to an extent they are right; once the Americans elect their president then that president and his administration are free to pursue any policies they deem fit and are not bound by the public opinion.
However, what the elected president and his administration can’t do and shouldn’t do is blatantly mislead the public, disregard the constitution and break every law in the book. And this administration has done all of this; so much so that practically nobody believes them anymore and American credibility in the world has suffered a lot.
While everybody in the world feels that invading Iraq was a terrible mistake or mis-calculation, this administration keeps on insisting that invading Irag was the right thing to do! And the ‘So?’ answer of Mr. Cheney shows that they don’t give a damn that hundreds of thousands of people (American and Iraqi) have been killed or maimed in this foolish adventure.
What a shame!
I have learned the difference between a cactus and a caucus. On a cactus, the pricks are on the outside.
~~ Morris Udall ~~ (1922-1998)
Also, on a cactus the pricks are not only on the outside, they make no effort to hide the fact that they are, indeed, pricks. But in a caucus, the pricks are not only inside, they hide the fact really well that they are pricks!
And many of these pricks go on to attain powerful positions in government, further messing up the already messed up world. It’s their relentless pursuit for money and power that makes them behave the way they do and they get away with a lot. Only a few of them get incarcerated if and when they are caught grossly crossing the line and doing something outright illegal such as taking kickbacks etc. So they don’t have much of an incentive to change their prickly behavior inside or outside of a caucus.
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?
~~ Mahatma Gandhi ~~ (1869 - 1948)
So true and as events of the past few years in Iraq have shown that those in positions of power could not care less as to how much death or destruction their actions will cause. They have an agenda and they will follow that agenda conveniently using the holy name of liberty and democracy as a cloak. How much death and destruction their agenda will cause doesn’t seem to enter into their calculations or, which is even more likely, they are not intelligent enough to figure out death and destruction their actions will cause. Even worse, they usually laugh off the death and destruction caused by their actions as ‘collateral damage.’ For the dead, maimed or orphaned, the damage is not collateral but as real as the real can be.
And Iraq is just one of the examples of such madness. There have been many others in the past and, undoubtedly, there will be many in the future. The only way to stop such madness will be for the people all over the globe to rein-in their governments. The politicians have demonstrated time and again that they cannot be trusted.
For everyone who has stumbled but stood right back up, and for everyone who works hard and never gives up, this one is for you.
~~ Hillary Clinton ~~
After losing straight 12 contests to her rival, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton won both in Ohio and Texas. Many political pundits had predicted that her bid to become the Democratic party nominee for the US presidential election will collapse as it was widely predicted that she will lose one or probably both of these contests. She fought back hard, proved her detractors wrong and injected a new life in her campaign by winning contests in both these states.
After her victory in Ohio, she delivered a speech containing the above motivational quote to her cheering supporters. It was an excellent way to uplift the spirits of her loyal supporters and prepare them for contests coming up in other states.
In politics, as in life in general, fortunes can change very quickly. Not too long ago, Hillary Clinton was considered a shoe-in for the Democratic party nomination. Time has shown it to be anything but; the contest is so close that, at this point in time, nobody knows who of the two contestants will eventually win the nomination.
The important message in life is to get up when you stumble, keep working hard with courage and determination towards your goal and never to give up.
He would probably not last long, a black man in the position of president. They would kill him. Hillary is a very sharp lady. It might be calmer if she wins.
~~ Doris Lessing ~~
In an interview with Stockholm daily Dagens Nyheter, Nobel Prize winner Doris Lessing expressed her fears as to what may happen if Barack Obama becomes US president.
Unfortunately, these fears are not far fetched. The possibility is real that such an incident may occur. As a matter of fact, I won’t be surprised if an attempt is made on his life even before he becomes the president. It is conceivable that some individuals or groups would be extremely upset simply because Barack Obama is black and they might try to cause physical harm to him.
Such risks and dangers should not deter either Barack Obama or anybody else from seeking the office of the president. In the history of USA, many white presidents have been assassinated for one reason or another. That does not deter white folks from seeking the office of the president; nor it should. We can not allow people with extreme views in any society to dictate to us what we can and can not do.
The voters have spoken - the bastards!
~~ Morris Udall ~~ (1922-1998)
LOL. A good one that describes the true feelings of politicians when voters don’t vote for them and they lose the election. Though most of them may feel that way, they usually refrain from saying so publicly. On the other hand, those politicians who get elected describe the voters as ’smart and intelligent’ even though inside they may still feel that the voters were quite gullible in voting for them!
Even though I am not very fond of politicians, I try not to be unusually cynical about them. As in any profession, there are committed politicians who are genuinely interested in improving the lot of common people. Like any other game, politics has its own rules and regulations by which the politicians must play. Since it’s a politician’s job to convince people that he or she has got what it takes to make their country and the world a better place, many of them tend to go overboard when making promises.
Their unflattering thoughts about voters when defeated are not so unusual. Just like an employee would use colorful language to describe his or her employer when the employee is ‘let go’ (fired) by an employer, so do the politicians when ‘let go’ by the voters. It shows they are just humans like everybody else.
Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.
~~ Nikita Khrushchev ~~ (1894 - 1971)
That’s quite a generalization but nonetheless true in the case of most politicians if not all the politicians. Politicians all over make ridiculous promises which they can not deliver.
The question is: Why do politicians make promises they know or ought to know, they can’t keep? I think there are two primary reasons for it:
- Democratic form of government, though far more superior than any other form of government mankind has known or experienced so far, is still plagued with a lot of imperfections. Many a times the people (voters) do not have much of a choice in electing their government; they just have to choose between the devil and the deep sea. This situation discourages people from participating in the election of their government as evidenced by dwindling turnout at the polls.
- The people in democracies themselves have to share some of the blame for their politicians making unrealistic or totally ridiculous promises like ‘the promise to build a bridge where there is no river.’ :-) We, the people as voters, vote mostly for those politicians who promise us the rose garden! Most politicians, being humans like the rest of us, soon realize that to ‘win’ they must learn the art of ‘extending the truth’ and convincingly deliver unrealistic promises. Those politicians who fail to master this ‘art’ or whose conscience won’t allow them to play this ‘game’ soon drop out of the game or are sidelined. And we end up with the type of politicians we have today.
Blaming the politicians or ridiculing them won’t solve the problem. We all need to think as to how to improve the system of electing our governments and work towards improving it.
Speeches don’t solve our problems, but if we can’t inspire people to believe again it doesn’t matter how many policies we have.
~~ Barack Obama ~~
The above quote was Barack Obama’s response to Hillary Clinton’s criticism that speeches don’t solve problems, and it certainly is true. A true and successful leader needs to have both - the ability to inspire people and the fortitude to devise and follow policies for the common good.
You may be able to fool the people for a while with good speeches but if you don’t deliver results, the same people will turn against you, and rightly so. And if you have good policies but you can’t convince people and get them inspired and involved, it’ll become extremely difficult, if not impossible, to successfully implement those policies.
A leader possessing such qualities is hard to come by. Everybody makes grand speeches but very few deliver results. That’s why only a few leaders become popular and are remembered a long time after they are gone while most others are forgotten as soon as they exit the scene.
It is not our fault because we did not start it.
~~ Vladimir Putin ~~
Russian President Vladimir Putin, in a farewell address, expressed strong concerns against NATO’s expansion into former Soviet bloc states of eastern Europe and said Moscow would respond by modernizing its military and weapons systems. He blamed the West for starting a new arms race and phrased the above quote.
Politicians almost never admit that ‘anything’ is their fault but I think, in this case, Putin has a point. It will be foolhardy for the West to think that they can install ‘defensive’ interceptors and radars next door to Russia and expect Russia to stand idly by. The West’s rationale that these defensive installations are for containing threats from Iran seem very far fetched. What exactly is the difference between a defensive weapon and an offensive weapon? I don’t think there is much difference; it’s more like splitting hair!
These developments have obviously made Russia very edgy. Putin has stated more than once that arms race has begun and blames the West for starting it. It also gives Russia an excuse to assert itself as a power to be reckoned with. Personally, I think it’s much better for World security to have several more or less equal Super Powers rather than just one or two. With Putin’s rhetoric to respond to this arms race, I guess we are back to ‘The More the Things Change, The More They Remain the Same.’ ;-)
He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.
~~ Pat Buchanan ~~
That is quite a dig at his fellow conservative, John McCain - the leading Republican presidential hopeful, by U.S. conservative pundit Pat Buchanan. Cheney, as you know, is considered a hawk - some would say a war monger - in the Bush administration. So likening Cheney to Gandhi who practised and preached non-violence all his life, is like comparing night with day. But that is the whole point of Buchanan’s dig.
While McCain have made some quite hawkish statements, particularly about the war such as bombing Iran etc. - I think he said, “Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb” or something similar; I wouldn’t worry too much about it.
Although anything is possible in any election, I don’t think Americans are going to elect a Republican as their president this time around; be it McCain or anybody else. Most American voters do not seem to have much faith in Republicans at this point in time. This is borne by the fact that while record number of voters have been participating in Democratic primaries the same is not true of the Republicans.
Even if McCain does get elected, the realities of the world, including the precarious state of the American economy, would force him to moderate his views and actions on war and he won’t make Cheney look like Gandhi. :-)
As we all know too well, what politicians say during election speeches doesn’t necessarily translate into action. And if McCain really carries out his war agenda then the consequences for the world will indeed be disastrous as starting a war is easy and it’s outcome is always unpredictable.
This is what change looks like when it happens from the bottom up. This is the new American majority.
~~ Barack Obama ~~
Barack Obama is certainly making the change happen from bottom up in America. Starting as the underdog, lately he has won many decisive electoral victories and is now ahead of Hillary Clinton, in committed delegate count, in Democratic party’s nomination process for the president. Even though he has a long way to go before actually getting nominated, he is an excellent example of what one can accomplish by dreaming big and working towards your dream. I don’t think many people took him seriously when he entered the race for the president. After all, he didn’t have much experience in Washington.
Now the possibility exists that Barack Obama, a black man, may actually become the president of USA. It also shows that average American voter (at least those belonging to the Democratic party) is not concerned about the color of a presidential candidate but rather they care about as to what a candidate has to offer and how he or she is going to solve the problems facing the nation. That is exactly the way it should be.
In any case, the contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton has become very interesting, with no clear winner. Time will tell if Barack Obama can keep his ‘from the bottom up’ change happening. I think that either one of them will make a great president. It may be in their interest that whoever wins the nomination for the president chooses the other as the running mate for vice-president.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
~~ Albert Einstein ~~ (1879 - 1955)
I think this prediction of Einstein is not going to be correct as I don’t think there is going to be a World War III in spite of the fact that some highly placed public officials have recently mentioned the possibility of it happening. There will be localized wars as we are having wars right now but World War is highly unlikely.
The reason for that is that if World War III occurs today, there will be rapid nuclear exchanges among several countries. That will mean that the whole of human race may be wiped out including the top leadership of the warring parties. The top leadership of warring parties will never allow such an eventuality to occur.
You see, wars are only started when top leadership of at least one country has reasonable expectation that the leadership itself will not be annihilated during the war. If World War III was to happen today, it will be a nuclear war. That will certainly mean that the top leadership of warring parties will be annihilated along with the common folks. The top leadership will never allow such a situation to occur; instead they’ll find a compromise to their conflict just like it happened during the Cuban missile crisis.
Actually, I think that the World will become much more peaceful and secure if there were five or six nations with almost equal strength in nuclear weapons or something even more potent than nuclear weapons making 100% sure that in any World War, the top leadership will be annihilated along with the common folks. Under such circumstances, there will be no World War III - Guaranteed!
The cemeteries of the world are full of indispensable men.
~~ Charles De Gaulle ~~ (1890 - 1970)
Very funny and true. It’s usually the politicians, though there are others as well, who portray themselves as indispensable as if the world will come to a halt or cease to exist if they are gone. Time has shown, as evidenced by the burial of countless so called indispensable men, that the world is quite resilient and is not dependent on any one individual or even a group of individuals.
Nature made the law that everybody, without any exceptions, must ultimately die. The only unknown is when, where and how. Nature obviously doesn’t consider anybody indispensable; rich, poor, powerful, powerless and even those who claim themselves to be messengers of God with special access or connection to God, must die.
When any individual who thought himself to be indispensable ends up in a cemetery, there usually are a lot of others willing and able to fill in the shoes. And the world keeps humming along as usual. On a greater scale, nature doesn’t seem to consider even the entire human race as indispensable and even Earth existed long, long before humans showed up. So to portray or consider any individual as indispensable is a lot of stretch.
We should be more modest in our belief that we can impose democracy on a country through military force. In the past, it has been movements for freedom from within tyrannical regimes that have led to flourishing democracies; movements that continue today. This doesn’t mean abandoning our values and ideals; wherever we can, it’s in our interest to help foster democracy through the diplomatic and economic resources at our disposal. But even as we provide such help, we should be clear that the institutions of democracy – free markets, a free press, a strong civil society – cannot be built overnight, and they cannot be built at the end of a barrel of a gun.
~~ Barack Obama ~~
This is a very true and factual quote. Democracy is not something you can build overnight. While sometimes it may be possible to impose democracy on a country through military force, such an imposed democracy is unlikely to be successful unless a vast majority of the people of that country are convinced that the democratic form of government is in their best interests. In a true democracy, the willing participation of the people and their firm belief in the institutions of democracy is essential. And that can not be achieved through the barrel of a gun.
The best way to propagate democracy in any country is to educate and convince the people of that country the benefits of democracy; a task easier said than done. Probably a bit faster and more productive way to promote democracy may be to apply gentle political and economic pressure to convince the rulers of the autocratic countries to move towards democracy. Again, very slow and not an easy process but certainly much less expensive and less disruptive than flexing military muscle.
He was too New York, too Italian, and he had too many wives.
~~ Dorothy Kaliades ~~
Dorothy Kaliades, a New York Voter and retired jewelry designer, makes good points about the troubles and eventual withdrawal of Mr. Rudy Giuliani from the presidential race.
When you aspire to be a national leader like the President is supposed to be, you need to evolve your views and state your positions on a national level and not just on a city or state level or your ethnic background. One needs to tell the people what he or she will do for the nation as a whole if elected to be the President. As time has shown, Rudy Giuliani failed to do that, so he had no choice but to run for the exit. While he earned good reputation and praise for his handling of the aftermath of September 11, 2001 attacks, many of his detractors criticize him for totally ignoring the ongoing threats to New York City before the attacks occurred.
Considering how people seem to have very little faith and trust in politicians in general, having too many spouses in the past doesn’t help. It raises even more doubts in the minds of the people. Though I think having too many spouses wouldn’t have mattered much if he had clearly stated his position as to how he intends to solve the problems facing the nation.
When the political columnists say ‘Every thinking man’ they mean themselves, and when candidates appeal to ‘Every intelligent voter’ they mean everybody who is going to vote for them.
~~ Franklin P. Adams ~~ (1881 - 1960)
Good one! It’s amazing how political columnists and candidates appoint themselves to speak on behalf of the people. How does a political columnist know what every thinking man or woman has in his or her mind? The fact is that they don’t know; they have no special super-natural power to know what every thinking person may be thinking about. They just assume that just because they themselves think that way, every other thinking person also thinks that way - that’s what I call the height of egoism. They need to learn to speak for themselves rather than speaking for ‘every thinking person’.
Another annoying thing that the press indulges in is the label ‘community leader’. Whenever an incident occurs in an ethnic group, the press pick up somebody from that ethnic group, may be because that person was making a lot of noise, and then start quoting or interviewing that person on the incident referring to him or her as the ‘community leader.’ My question is: Who appointed or elected that person as the community leader? The answer is: Nobody except perhaps the reporter who desperately needed a story to publish!
Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.
~~ Charles De Gaulle ~~ (1890 - 1970)
This, in my view, is a true and classic definition of the difference between patriotism and nationalism. The line between the two becomes very fuzzy because those who espouse the feelings of nationalism almost never openly admit their hatred towards others.
There is nothing wrong in being a patriot and to love your people or country and apply your efforts to improve their lot in life. While doing that, a patriot harbors no feelings of ill will or hatred towards other peoples or nations.
Nationalism, on the other hand, has less to do with improving the lot of one’s own people or nation and more to do with the hatred of others. It essentially conceives others as evil who can do nothing right or useful. Nationalism is a very negative and dangerous concept.
We believe democracy cannot be imposed from outside in any society. Democracy is the expression of a sovereign people. To impose it from outside is inherently undemocratic. Each sovereign nation has to make its own decisions and have its own criteria as to how they govern themselves.
~~ Meles Zenawi ~~
It’s very true. Every reasonable person knows that while democracy is not even close to being perfect, it’s still the best of all the known methods of governance. A very basic requirement of democracy is that the governed people must participate and use their best judgment to elect those who will govern. Any democracy in any country will become totally meaningless if a huge majority of people refuse to participate in it.
Similarly if you try to impose a democracy on a nation, it’ll most likely fail because it’ll lack the essential ingredient of a successful democracy - the willing participation of general masses of that nation. It is human nature to resent and resist anything that is imposed on them so imposing a democracy on a people is doomed to fail.
The best way to promote democracy in any country is to convince the masses of the benefits of democracy. That, however, is easier said than done! Moreover, I don’t believe that those who make a lot of noise saying that they want to promote democracy in the world are really serious or sincere about it; it’s just politics - the politics of self interest. International politics is extremely dirty business.
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
~~ Thomas Jefferson ~~ (1743–1826)
Some people wrongly assume that, in a democracy, the party that wins the majority and forms the government can change or repeal old laws and make any new laws that it wishes to carry out its agenda. That is not exactly true. I think that is precisely what Thomas Jefferson is alluding to in this quote. Of course, when a political party wins majority and forms a government in a democracy, it has the right to pass new laws and change older laws to carry out its political agenda so long as its actions are reasonable and do not oppress the minority.
In true democracies, this is a very important and sacred principle. It is protected by the presence of a Constitution and an independent Judiciary. The Constitution guarantees certain rights to individuals and if the government encroaches upon such rights, the individuals can challenge the government in the court and the Court may declare the law unconstitutional.
It is also possible that a government with huge majority may try to amend the Constitution. Again, such an amendment can be challenged in the Court and the Court may declare the amendment invalid or unlawful if, in the opinion of the Court, such an amendment will lead to oppression of the minority. Independent judiciary in all true democracies is, therefore, extremely important in insuring that no majority party can become autocratic.
Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation.
~~ Henry Kissinger ~~
I think Henry Kissinger is being very liberal - no pun intended! Probably a more accurate quote would be that that 99% of politicians give the other one percent a bad reputation. :-)
Why is it that so many politicians have such a bad reputation? Is it because they are inherently dishonest? I don’t think so. I think there is more to it than meets the eye. Politicians are just like other people - actually smarter than most of us as, afterall, they end up ruling over us!
We, as people, bear some responsibility for making the politicians behave the way they do. We willingly vote for those who make tall promises; the promises we know in our heart of hearts cannot possibly be kept. And we generally don’t vote for those politicians who try to stick to the facts and don’t make tall promises. Thus those politicians who try to stick to facts, being humans, quickly learn that to get elected they need to learn the ‘art’ of making tall promises. So we end up with the sort of policians we have.
Some people have tried to sue some politicians for breach of promises but courts take the view that politicians are not obligated to keep their election promises. May be we should try to force politicians to make promises under oath at election time and see if that will hold in court. Somehow I think that courts will still hold that politicians are not obligated to keep their election promises even if those promises were made under oath. :-)
If you had seen one day of war, you would pray to God that you would never see another.
~~ Napoleon Bonaparte ~~ (1769 - 1821)
Coming from Napoleon Bonaparte, a master soldier who conquered much of Europe and rose to be the Emperor of France, this quote speaks volumes about the stupidity and horrors of war. Obviously, those who have seen wars and, Napoleon not only saw but fought many wars in his lifetime, know that peace is way better than any war even when you win the war.
But to attain peace requires hardwork, foresight, courage and exemplary skills on the part of people in power while declaring war is easy because once the war is underway it’s the soldiers who pay for it with their blood, limbs and even lives. It’s not a surprise then that even today whever there is a conflict, the warmongers with the loudest drumbeat are those who have never been in a war and those people who have actually been in a war usually advise patience and negotiations.
History, a distillation of rumour.
~~ Thomas Carlyle ~~ (1795 – 1881)
Funny and true! I think history is just rumour designed to appease the powerful rulers of the day. It has got to be totally inaccurate. Just look at what is happening right now. Do we ever know the truth? In spite of great communications means and freedom of press at least in some countries, we almost never know the truth; everybody has his or her own spin on every issue with usually total disregard for the facts.
And in ancient times when there were scant means of communications and many autocratic rulers, one can hardly expect unbiased recording of events. So history is basically agreed upon guesses by historians.
In the long-run every Government is the exact symbol of its People, with their wisdom and unwisdom; we have to say, Like People like Government.
~~ Thomas Carlyle ~~ (1795 – 1881)
I don’t agree with this quote. First of all in autocratic countries people have no choice as to what sort government they have. And these autocratic rulers have powerful police machinery to suppress any opposition they may face from the people and they frequently use this machinery ruthlessly to repress any opposition.
Even in democracies people frequently find themselves stuck with governments they would rather not have. That happens because in most democracies people have a limited choice and sometimes they find themselves having to choose between the devil and the deep sea. That is amply illustrated by the fact that the voter turnout is very low and declining.
That doesn’t mean that people don’t deserve or want a better government. It simply means that the system has flaws and needs imrovements. The beauty of democratic system is that it can be peacefully changed and is frequently changed; hopefully for the better. :-)
Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.
~~ Franklin D. Roosevelt ~~ (1882 - 1945)
That is exactly true. An educated public willing to engage itself with the issues of the day and not leave it just to the elitists or politicians will ensure a successful democracy.
In a democracy people are, in fact, the employer. They elect their representatives to run the affairs of the state for a certain period of time after which they get to decide if they want to elect the same or different representative(s). It’s akin to an employer conducting a review of the employee after a certain period of time.
Therefore, an educated and well informed public where vast majority of people never commit themselves to just one political party but objectively assess the performance of the contenders just like an employer and then vote accordingly, will ensure a real successful democracy.
You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.
~~ Abraham Lincoln ~~ (1809 - 1865)
This quote has proven itself to be very true over the ages. You can fool all the people for some of the time especially if you are in a position of trust or power because basically people tend to believe you or, in some cases, people may not have a choice but to believe you.
If you mis-use that position of trust or power to fool people then after some time the facts will start to appear that will unmask you and you’ll lose confidence and respect of most of the people. And once the people lose confidence in you, they won’t believe you after that even when you may be stating true facts; it’s like the shepherd boy who cried wolf too many times.
Unfortunately, the fooling of the people is not limited to just individuals in positions of power and trust, it can be a corporation or a whole industry. A good example of an industry that kept fooling the people for decades is the tobacco industry which kept insisting, in spite of the facts to contrary, that cigarette smoking causes no ill health effects!
So, yes, you can fool all the people for some of the time but you will eventually be unmasked.
Once and for all the idea of glorious victories won by the glorious army must be wiped out. Neither side is glorious. On either side they’re just frightened men messing their pants and they all want the same thing - not to lie under the earth, but to walk upon it - without crutches.
~~ Peter Weiss ~~
Peter Weiss has hit the nail on its head with this quote. It’s not surprising that in any confrontation, poeple who have actually been in a war before usually advise against going to war but those who have never been in a war are usually very gung-ho about going to war; possibly because never having been in an actual war they have these dreams of glorious victories. But there is nothing glorious about war; it’s all ugly.
Have you ever wondered why many war veterans just refuse to talk about their experience in the war? Could it be that they have witnessed the ugliest side of humans and found it so ugly that they don’t even want to talk about it?
Sometimes the war may be the only option because, unfortunately, in this World, there have been, there are, and possibly there will be, people who will not listen to reason and will only understand the language of force. But we all will do well to remember that war is not glorious but very ugly and it should be the last, the very last resort.
