When he's not managing the free world, Kim Jong Un tells people how to trim their hair. Grooming, the Guardian reported, has to be proper and socialist. "The five-part series, entitled "Let's trim our hair in accordance with the socialist lifestyle", exhorted them to opt for one of several officially sanctioned haircuts, including the crew cut and the "high, middle and low" styles. Hair should be kept between 1cm and 5cm in length and should be trimmed every 15 days, it said," the Guardian reported.
But don't think he's inflexible. If you're old and balding then your age needs to be covered using your scalp. "...Even the world's most conformist state is prepared to allow a little flair in special cases: men over 50 may grow their hair to the positively bohemian length of 7cm (2.75in) on top to hide the effects of balding,"
What do you think William?
Mick,I wonder if you will allow me to write that which William would be too shy to say.
ReplyDeleteThe sybject of the article is the very same that William and his bretherin are fighting against.They want the FREEDOM to wear their hats sideways and to allow curls to peep invitingly around their ears.If that was the sum total of the aims of the Tea Party people,they could be ignored.It is apparant from reading as much as I can that the effect the Tea Party is having on the Republican party in your country is changing the direction of American Politics.Gone forever I believe is the honorouble art of compromise and we can all see the results of that situation.
Cheers from Aussie
Yeah... things like double jeopardy, trial by jury, due process and letter of the law all deserve to be met in the middle so that we can have all of those things... sometimes. Is there anything in your life that you would refuse to compromise on or all of your values nebulous?
DeleteTS asks if there is anything on which I would not compromise. The short answer is that there are many such things; the first is to fight any move which prevents TS from publishing his opinion. S. G. Tallentyre in discussing Voltaire early last century had an important message as did Oliver Wendell Holmes one of the great jurists in American history.
DeleteIn defense of compromise I must ask TS and others to consider whether having your head in your backside allows you to see anything at all other than a narrow political window in a system of dogma, demonstrably broken. I used to consider the three part government of your country to be the best and fairest in the western world. The Westminster model, from which many of your components are drawn, has served its constituents well for centuries. In Britain the system functions only when there is some give and take between the parties. In the Commonwealth, particularly in Australia and New Zealand, the system needs a complete overhaul. In all our countries the legislatures appear to have lost the wise heads that can reach across and offer a compromise position in order to get the government for the people that the people deserve.
Can you honestly state that the past six years of government in the US has been beneficial to the citizens of your country? I know that here in Australia neither right nor left are in any way satisfied with the crash through or crash methods of our government.
So yes TS, I will not compromise on personal honor, truth and assistance to those in more distress than myself. I will never compromise on my right to earn a living as best I can and to dispose of whatever I earn according to my own personal beliefs. I shall also come to your aid if your government tries to deprive you of the choices you make every day of your life. In return, perhaps you can remove your head from your fundamental orifice and try to see both sides of an argument.
Cheers from Aussie
Name a specific argument... Too many of these discussions about compromise are over general platitudes. Certainly compromise can be made on various things in various ways but much of what some want to call compromise today has already had a fair measure of compromise in the past... The second sentence in your last paragraph sums up much of the friction between those who seek to control both your means of production as well as the fruits of that labor and those who are tired of compromising that point.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe comment above was deleted because of a typo when using spell check.my apologies and the post should read as follows:
DeleteTS you ask for a specific argument concerning compromise .At least that is what I assume you are asking. I shall give you two factual arguments where compromise was sought and I shall rely on my somewhat deficient knowledge to cite the first two which come to mind. The compromise of 1850 and the Kansas Nebraska act also of 1850. Here was the art of compromise prosecuted in all its beauty. I have long been interested in the Slavery question, both its effect under English laws and its effects on American society. It is perhaps for this reason I can cite these arguments.
Perhaps however you are asking me to offer an argument for compromise in the present time and political climate. Should this be the case then look to both parties in Congress and the NRA. Here are three entities which could get together and resolve at least in part the vexatious issue of firearm law in America. Negotiations in good faith could lead to a compromise whereby certain types of guns or certain calibres or barrel lengths were prohibited. Here then is your argument in support of compromise. I trust you will at least use two eyes before you condemn the proposal, even as a hypothetical argument.
Cheers from Aussie
Having left myself open to this singular, persistent issue I may state, though I love target shooting and have over the course of my life, owned several firearms of various type and caliber, it is not sport utility that interests me. In that respect, you don’t get to change or define the starting point of my position or the reasons for it when deciding where compromise begins. Using personal recreational possession as a starting point, much like licensing a speed boat makes compromise a relatively simple process but you know that is not the situation here. Of course you also raise the issue of ‘good faith’ in bringing up the compromise of 1850.
DeleteI know that you believe that stability and surety of democratic nations is all but guaranteed but I am a bit more of a cynic. While faith in the righteousness of human intent is admirable, faith alone is of little value when it is betrayed by the power of the state. You actually have no idea how much time I have spent contemplating this question. I would dearly love to have some sort of effective screening that ends senseless killing with firearms but who are we to trust in this compromise? The second amendment is the ONLY ‘right’ with teeth. Who will be the adjudicator of who is and isn’t acceptable? Will it be the same people who used government power via the IRS to sideline the voice of political opponents.... what will the effective criteria be tomorrow when all we see today is government agencies changing the rules for just about everything without any democratically elected representation at all.
Do I see an absolute need for the 2nd amendment TODAY.... no, but that says nothing of tomorrow or 50 years from now. With governmental checks and balances all but nonexistent, the Supreme Court deciding that police are under no obligation to protect the life and property of a citizen and with the militarization and increased aggressiveness of police at all levels of government... one has to wonder just what side of that ‘protect and serve’ slogan the common citizen is on.
With respect to the compromise of 1850, I would suggest that it was but a brief period of appeasement. The abolitionist had no intention (rightfully or not) of letting the compromise stand. No different than Obamacare today... an interim position on the way to the ultimate goal of a single payer system but without all the discussion as to why the system got messed up in the first place. Compromise in good faith is a win/win arrangement, not a tactic from the Art of War.
I get a distinct feeling in discussions with regard to many issues facing America and indeed other western nations, that we have shifted our view from the idea that people are independent individuals who naturally coalesce into agreeable societies to a sentiment that, once born, we become some sort of preordained chattel in a power structure of someone else’s making and a mere servant to their goals. Making that change in perception changes the narrative from one of individual freedom and rights to one with absolutely no rights what so ever.
Leading us to an irreconcilable difference between you and I. I certainly can’t trust the government not to use its power and knowledge against me.... Without this enumerated right, all others are mere gifts of a less than benevolent state. So how are you, in this compromise, going to guarantee to me, the one bargaining chip given to me in the concessions called the ‘Bill of Rights’ that actually gives me some hope in defence of all those other rights against a government that, after a long train of abuses and usurpations, enables me the right and responsibility to throw off that government?
Regards to any ‘compromise’ you may be amiable to... for some it is but an interim point in the quest to remove every firearm of every type from the hands of civilians everywhere. And those people (many governmental) thank you for your support.
TS Thank you for the considered response. I wonder if these discussions are going anywhere towards prompting more than superficial thinking! Better perhaps to consider them and other comments on sites such as these as being vent points to relieve a build up of pressure.
DeleteNow to some of your points: “I know that you believe that stability and surety of democratic nations is all but guaranteed but I am a bit more of a cynic” I wonder if this attitude is a throw back to the late 1700s? By its very definition a democratic nation vests the power of government in its people. I am aware of exceptions when power has been seized by internal forces but under what circumstances could such a thing happen in America. The more I read about US history and latterly US politics, the more I find references to the founders and the quotes of Jefferson, Madison and others of the founders. Without exception they proclaim the right of freedom of the individual with government being subservient to the rights of the people. It is for larger intellects than mine to explain why a Bill of Rights was not included in the Constitution as originally submitted.
“Do I see an absolute need for the 2nd amendment TODAY.... no”. In fairness you leave open the question of the future. I must ask again, what can an armed group of citizens hope to achieve against the entrenched armament, skill and discipline of the military. Of what use is a handgun against a semi automatic rifle. Given the rise of a Tyrant (a favorite Republican word) among you, a campaign of civil disobedience would have more effect than a rag tag army holding sling shots and personal arms.
Your penultimate paragraph is interesting and I find a solution to your question difficult to formulate. This in part because I agree almost entirely with the views you espouse in the two paragraphs preceding it. Somehow, I think there needs to be a realisation that the second was sorely needed when the BOR was drafted; not only was the nation finding its feet as an independent nation but the population was so scattered that any form of defence against invasion of the settlements was not only justified, it was imperative. Looking at the second in the way enumerated here surely leads to a realisation that your “Rights” are no longer part of your national responsibility. You see TS, rights and responsibility are natural companions; rights without responsibility is the bedrock upon which anarchy can grow.
Cheers from Aussie
You are no doubt right King. Most of these discussions produce few shifts in views but of course what passes for superficial from one point of view is another’s studied opinion based on the facts held as relevant.’ Emotional arguments are compelling, seeking genuine understanding or look past emotion to see the reasoning of others not so much.
DeleteIt would appear that all of the delegates were likeminded with respect to the individual… so much so that detailed verbiage was omitted as being superfluous. Hamilton and Madison both were against any attempt to list the ‘rights’ of the individual because any attempt would diminish the many that were not stated. Their feeling was that the constitution clearly gave the government no power to infringe on those rights. Of course sceptics like Jefferson were steadfast from the beginning that they should be included. The breadth of which is given in this comment by Jefferson to Madison:
"I do not like... the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of nations." (I particularly like the use of the word ‘sophisms’, a new word for me when I first read it… clearly lawyers and politicians today are no more devious and conniving than they were then)
Madison of course changed his mind and during the first congress wrote his original draft of 20 amendments of which 12 were sent to the states for ratification in which 10 passed. But in doing so stated that the preamble to the constitution should have a preamble not unlike the one given to the declaration of independence clearly stating the sovereignty of the individual but it was objected to as overshadowing the importance of the words “We The People” … not cynical enough I’d say.
The value of the bill of rights in Madison's view was in part educational, in part as a vehicle that might be used to rally people against a future oppressive government, and finally--in an argument borrowed from Thomas Jefferson--Madison argued that a declaration of rights would help install the judiciary as "guardians" of individual rights against the other branches.
Oh how far we have strayed…
I am sure that many of your studies have already led you to these points if not their relevance but sometimes their importance needs to be publically stated.
With respect to responsibility… I whole heartedly agree.
They say that the US, because of its grid system of road construction, design, signage and lighting, is one of the easiest countries in the world to drive in but if you would require experienced American drivers to pass the standard driving tests of most other western countries, a large percentage would fail… If you spend a century producing policy that removes responsibility from personal conduct, destroying the value of parents and family and in general minimizing the value of human life, eventually you lose the understanding of personal responsibility. This train of thought also applies to pre-emptive laws that insure that people don’t even have to consider right and wrong. Too much government, too much spoil the child, too little ‘golden rule’.
When considering an armed citizenry…
Of the government’s 2 mil armed, uniformed troopers, how many would refuse to fire on their own citizens or how many actually have more allegiance to the constitution and citizens then to the government? Both are unknown but we know from groups like OathKeepers that they are serving as police and soldiers right now. Because the government, by design, has no idea where and who has these 300 million firearms, the only way to overcome the 150:1 odds is a scorched earth policy whereupon you garner more enemies than you started with. P.S. You give way too much credit to the expertise of the large percentage of these police and soldiers…
Well, I measured my hair and I average about 4 cm. Since I'm well over 50 I guess it would be safe to wait a little longer before going to my barber. We should all take a moment and appreciate that we don't have a government that dictates how we cut our hair and what TV stations and movies we watch.
ReplyDeleteYet.............
DeleteI'm still waiting for the results from ric's pooch and his magnetic directional defecation study.
DeleteAs a group of politicians huddled around a table, stop what they are doing, look up and in unison say... "We're working on it!"... immediately after which they again go heads down to a buzz of whispered secrets...
ReplyDelete