Nationalism is dead.
January 27th, 2010Or it should be.
Nationalism, as a “people with shared values” is a stupid and outdated idea in 2010. Becasue we live in the same region we must have shared values?
Rubbish.
I had much, much more in common with my English online friend Ian Fuller, who shockingly just died in Bangkok of a heart attack at age 53, leaving his blog up, than I will ever have with anyone religious (meaning 75% of Canada and 90% of America). I had much more in common with Ian than with any socialist, or than with anyone who has never read a book.
And so did Ian’s other friends, from Florida to Bangkok to Manila and beyond.
In 2010, basing anything on geographic proximity is just plain stupid. Hearing Mr Obama and his populist rhetoric, all based on geographic proximity is dumb.
Why should I want to share anything AT ALL with someone whose values I despise, just because he lives 5 miles away from me? In this age of the Internet this is an anachronism.
Young people get it - Mr Obama does not, and it seems to me that very few of our old gray politicians do. Well, their time is over and young people will change the world, thank God.
January 28th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Yes,young people will indeed change the world!…
I find that too many “young”people seem to think that old people are stupid, have dumb values, and that everything that they did, was inferior and obsolete!
Too many “young” people hold in disgust, what their parents did and what values they had!
Young people feel that the world belongs exclusively to them, and that “old” people should just get out of the way!
Young people worship rock stars and cocaine sniffing undereducated sports stars and have contempt for anyone that might make a breakthrough in science.
Young people think that the internet should be free, unlimited cellphone use should be free, there should be no speed limits on highways….well they can have the world to destroy, but not until us old gray haired folk are through with it!
January 29th, 2010 at 12:22 am
I may be able to weigh in as a “young” person.
Young people are important because it is very hard to change peoples’ opinions. If you are brought up a certain way you will likely be resistant to change. The same way I may be when I’m older. And we depend upon new ideas. I’m sure - despite our differences - we can all relate more to the social views of 2010 than 1800 and we’re glad for the changes since then.
Personally I think all drugs should be legalised. Not because they are good, or don’t destroy lives, but because I think the net negative impact of them would be lesser if they weren’t illegal (spending the money used for policing on rehabilitation). Young people are more willing to listen to this argument and less likely to immediately reject it. That is why young people are important, they’re able to think outside of the constraints older people have developed for themselves.
Lets remember, it took “young” people to make the notion of a male having long hair something acceptable. That was as riveting then as the proposition of a road without a speed limit might be today.
Old people have the advantage of experience, but that does not mean they’ve taken the opportunities. Although they might be correct when they tell young people “someday you’ll like wearing collared shirts” or “you’ll think your hair is ridiculous.”
I think an open mind is far more valuable than anything else… and it should be independent of age, but it tends to, I feel, belong more to young people.
January 29th, 2010 at 12:25 am
Well, I was about to make that point: I think we can clearly distinguish “old people” from “old thinking”. Being up there myself, I try to never criticize the former, but will keep criticizing the latter.
January 29th, 2010 at 12:27 am
Also - we need progress. If we let “old thinking people” run things, we would still live in 1491. Thank our non-existent God that young-thinking people stir things up.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Jason, do you propose that the use of all drugs should be legal and unrestricted too?
It would soon eliminate the misfits, sort of a natural selection process! Some collateral damage might result though..!
January 29th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Well yes I do. The wrong means maybe, but for what I believe to be the right reason.
I understand that people who get into drugs do so on their own accord and are ultimately responsible for the consequences. With that said, drug users are bad for society on a whole and I think we have a moral obligation to offer them help. If they can be productive members of society again, it’s a worthy investment. Jail does not address their specific issues - and can potentially have them come out worse with what they are exposed to.
Also drugs fund many gangs - the government controlling them is a safer alternative because the money does not fall into the wrong hands, people are not encouraged to purchase harder drugs and at they will get what is advertised.
In Portugal and the Czech Republic drugs have already been downgraded from a criminal issue to a health issue to help address the problem.
Drug use is often very independent of the severity of laws regarding them. Even countries with similar cultures like Norway and Sweden, but vastly different prosecutions, have nearly identical use.
Drugs seem like something society cannot possibly support. But if the net effect is positive for society, would it be a bad idea? And can we say with absolute certainty it is not?
January 29th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Ah, young people and no self-imposed limitations!
Well, again it’s not about age per sé, since I also agree with this - and so does a journal as influential as The Economist. Seems a silly idea? Well abolishing Prohibition seems a bad idea to Saudis, but one day that will happen, too. I believe a rational weighing of the pros and cons, the costs and benefits of drug prohibition, will show clearly that the costs vastly outweigh the benefits.
It’s just a shame that social developments I think are inevitable, such as this one today, or the death of communism as seen by someone in 1950, or the abolition of The Spanish Inquisition a few centuries ago, or the introduction of proportional representation in the Canadian electoral systems, take so long to happen. They happen inevitably, but an awful lot of misery happens before they do.
January 31st, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Which mind altering drugs are you two on? Maybe I should try them out!
February 4th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Along the same lines, I think we should not enforce so called assault (a “crime” that gives the assaulter a criminal record). We can spend the money that goes to enforcing domestic crimes (many of which result in officers being harmed or killed) into re-rehabilitating those that abuse and patching up the ones that have been hurt by them.
Same goes for property damage - why subsidize law enforcement for rich folks not to have their stuff scuffed up? You torch someone’s house or ding their car and there is not only the high cost of detering this behaviour with punishment but there is the high cost of carrying insurance all of which just goes up everytime there is an incident as a cash grab.
February 4th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Down with Religion, Down with Nationalism, Down with……oh what the hell, EVERYTHING!
Every Man (and woman ) for themselves!
February 4th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
Ah! I agree with the “down with the -isms”. Entirely. “Isms” tell you what to think, and you have to suspend your own judgment. That is never good.
Where I do not quite agree is that this would mean “every man/woman for themselves”. Ayn Rand may sound extreme when you read her, but in fact when you work for yourself, that does not preclude helping others. “The rising tide raises all ships”, you know that expression I am sure.
-M