Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Archiving diatribes and the likes

The following is one of quite literally over a hundred rambles, half of which are diatribes, the other being the antipodal accolade, of which I have written either tired, stoned or drunk. Many of them deal with political or sociological digest, also there are a lot on football and scientific panorama. Being that I seldom get stoned or drunk right now, it has been hilarious to go over these, and they are all from quite a while ago. This, however, is from 2010 I believe. I intend no seriousness for the following, or anything else that may follow. However, if you're reading this blog, you're one of a handful of people, all of which that know me well enough to know how I can be provocative by the creation of non-sense, and riddle...

Jackie Ashley, so called voice of progressive reason for the Guardian, wrote an article titled, 'Do women leaders have to be childless forty-somethings?' on Monday. It's definitely the most provocative mentioning of the "Coalition of Chaps" I've read so far, and with that I have entitled myself with the privilege of writing one of my first political diatribes in quite a while. Yes, Etonities bother me, as do nearly all Conservative party members and the party itself. I don't think I could recall a moment in which I could really have considered such a man my brother, but their continued popularity, and inherent inability to pride the 'positive' conservative values, are a 'blessing' on our nation. A nation held up by immensely ridiculous traditions, one of which provides a lack of an ATV system.

I'm aggravated by the quarrel over gender and race in politics right now, both most profound in the duality of cabinet ministers, and the Labour leadership race. Beginning with the former, the what race is their face question is hollow. Jackie talks of a government mirroring society, well, with the current first past the post in your constituency system, we'll find that most constituencies are represented by Whites, being that they're the prominent ethnicity in that in the United Kingdom (92.1%). In constituencies without such a larger majority of Whites, we see examples of minorities representing the demographic.
Now, of course I don't support voting based on the colour of your skin, or your gender. This attitude that she is discussing has only semblance with the draconian practices in politics that so long denied non-Whites and women votes in the first place. To exceed the expectations of our times, in regards to racial and gender equality, surely those that are pragmatically involved in politics -- critics, politicians -- need to be talking about principles for now, and disregarding the regurgitation of the history of a lack of principles altogether.
Therefore, in a society that had the testes (enjoy that, those that cry), we'd be voting and supporting on our beliefs and principles, on the contrary to voting on our judgement of the past. Whilst Jackie briefly touches on her apparent non-belief in the symbolism of the vote, but the experiences of the people as necessary, I don't think she can make a clear distinction between the two.
She bemoans the lack of representation in both cabinet and leadership race, but where is the drive of these people she desires to fulfil the United Colours of Britainetton? In her world, that is apparently so attentive to fairness as opposed to virtue (a world of correctness that blankets the UK so much), is the cabinet representative of the nation's demographic? Do we have to be so naive? I believe that the power of the minority-elect, based on the case of their very election being on their basis, is not as vigorous enough as a progressive society voting on liberty, and confidently forgetting such inequalities in political history, due to major strides way further away from a savage history -- much grander leaps than an inertial obsession with the 'fairness paradox'. 'King Lamus' once said that it is paradoxically absurd that to forget something, it is quite ironic that repeating what that it is to yourself may do the very trick. Whilst I find that notion quite actually true, in this case I think it's not quite the truth.

Jackie, I need to hear voices on immigration and education that represent my beliefs, and whomever does that gets my vote. Of course, there aren't many politicians in this business that do. On education, for example, I am however quite intrigued by the academies, as I am strongly against a Whitehall operated curriculum or anything that is reminiscent of an education system of the past, and not of now. On standardised curriculum in general: can't we all learn from Montessori? Only those Labour morons who consider themselves 'progressive', 'liberal' and for the better of society would write such nonsense. As much as it's been said elsewhere and everywhere: these partisans are all as ridiculous as each other.

No comments:

Post a Comment