Forum Replies Created
Thank you Salina. Elaborate though their wording is, they seem to be saying much the same thing as I.
Truth 1, Bias 0.
A few further thoughts. I have many.
I really must stop taking those ‘dynamite’ pills.
Someone wants me to believe that bringing a person to australia for urgent medical treatment always involves matters of national security?
In that case I have something I would like to tell you.
It might surprise you.
This is it.
I went to school!
It is true that education back then was well below par.
Writing with charcoal, adding up with fingers and sticks, and sometimes toes, was not conducive to good learning.
But we did learn a modicum about how to reason.
So, many of my peers will be asking a similar question?
Why help repeal the medevac law?
My impression at the time was that the new law had the general approval of the people.
They thought it better to trust doctors, rather than bureaucrats, to make decisions related to medical imperatives.
On the (very) rare occasion that national security could be an issue, I am quite certain there are already adequate laws to cover such an eventuality.
Surely these would not be contingent on the repeal of the medevac law?
So there was no need to repeal that law.
Such is my opinion, based on all I have read.
Now, is someone going to pull my other leg?
I could have added:
Fast forward to the 2000’s…
Shoulders, elbows, knees; anything needed to push others aside and get there first.
It is a sign mild panic is spreading in the community.
Settling slowly as a mantle over society.
People are confused, causing this panic to set in?
I have noticed particularly that a group of mid-teens girls, with ‘distant’ faces, will walk straight at you in a shopping centre, and expect you to get out of their way.
My strategy it to stop, so they must either barge right in to me, or change course to go around me.
They do the latter.
I wonder if they will remember their thoughtless behaviour when they are older?
Fast forward to the 1950s…
Ladies first is a good old rule
But no wise girl will fuss
When a gentleman steps ahead of her
To help her off a bus.
Thank you Betty for that glimpse of times gone by.
I remember those guidelines, so they must have been ‘the way of the day’ for a long time afterwards.
Thinking about Mr Trump inspired this.
(Mr Trump is inspiring? Wow! That’s a new one!)
Think of the first leadership team we encountered.
That was our parents.
We needed them to be protective, nurturing, careful, caring.
We relied on them for food, shelter, and protection.
As we grew, our parents taught us about life, and demonstrated good principles to follow.
In a sense, we were their apprentices, and they guided us until we were able to do most things for ourselves.
Leaders in a democracy should follow much the same principles.
We need to remind ourselves they are not rulers, as in a dictatorship.
Instead, they must be ‘top of the class’ ‘ex-apprentices’.
They need to be very smart, with a wealth of experience to give them understanding.
The welfare of the population should always be their prime concern.
With others, they plan and arrange, so the society will ‘run smoothly’, and provide for all.
They need to initiate paths towards viable long term goals of benefit to their community.
The leadership team should inspire all to go forward, to undertake and be successful with these great endeavours.
They must communicate with those they govern, so all know what is happening and what is expected of them.
The leadership team must always be well informed about, and keep a careful finger on, the ‘pulse’ of society.
It is convenient to have one spokesperson, to communicate all they decide to the people.
Hopefully the one with the greatest imagination and dedication to people.
It goes almost without saying that no leader should indulge in tactics which seek any form of revenge, or display ill-temper or poor manners.
They must serve the people, and be accountable to them at all times.
Quite a hard job really.
I have a serious question or two.
Why get angry or upset if another person disagrees with your view about something?
I am sure none of us have exactly the same ideas about everything.
So if difference is to be a cause for anger, we will all be in ‘a right old state’ almost non-stop?
If you are sure of yourself, others might cause ‘ripples’ around you, but not enough to ‘rock your boat’?
If you are the one who disagrees, why not give a reason or two, so they understand your point of view?
Would that be so difficult?
I am entranced by the ‘three sentence’ rule too. Thank you Tiv.
If we apply that to all which is written, newspapers will be down to a single page or less?
Books the same?
I would hazard a guess it really means that a reader’s interest must be caught in the first few sentences, otherwise he won’t read on.
Personally, I read ALL the greypath posts with great interest.
They are real ideas, from real people, living real lives.
Why would they not be interesting?
I try to read between the lines of each post too, to get a sense of who each person is.
I try to make each post ‘come alive’, so it is not just a disembodied utterance from a distance.
When I write about something here, I try to make it topical, give reasons where possible, and generally make it entertaining as well as informative.
I try to write almost as if I am speaking to you in person.
Whether I succeed or not is another matter. ^_^
Thank you Tiv for your comment about this.
I don’t see that any difference we have here needs to lead to heated argument or extreme anger.
Life is too full of interest to waste time on pointless outcomes?
We still have a lot of serious living to do.
We should look for humour in life too, and keep a twinkle in each eye?
Doing so might unexpectedly brighten the day for us?
What sayest thou?
Salina, I have done some more thinking overnight.
Yes, I do notice what you write, and pay it careful attention.
I have learned something new from your words.
Thank you for your ‘rant’.
I cannot see it as such.
That would make it a bit harsh.
I will treat it as your well reasoned view of the situation.
May I respond with the following.
Votes were cast; a tally taken; Trump won.
All quite legal.
So he is the President.
If what I read is correct, he falls far short of the ideal.
To a point where the parliament saw fit to impeach him!
Nancy is a saint by comparison?
But she shouldn’t have had a fit of ‘pique’, and publicly torn those papers.
However, she is human, and the American Public can overlook one burst of odd behaviour from her?
Politicians of all kinds are our employees.
We pay them to represent their electorate in the parliament.
To keep tabs on what is happening in their electorate, make decisions by taking in to account the attitude of their electorate, and to keep their electorate informed on any relevant matter.
My feeling is we shouldn’t ‘worship’ them, or treat them as ‘super’ persons.
We need to have more of a ‘business’ kind of relationship with them.
In business there are no friends and no enemies. Just lawful trade.
So exchanges with politicians should always be polite and businesslike.
If they fall short of our reasonable expectations, they can be replaced.
We shouldn’t need to go to war with them.
Should their behaviour be so erratic that they cross a line, and enter in to ‘illegal’ territory, the law can deal with that.
I think these are reasonable views, and I express them with the hope they will trigger a thoughtful response in someone, somewhere, somehow.
As always, I like to hear other views. I learn from them.
An interesting bit of comedy.
It reminds me of a meat sandwich with very little meat.
There are serious matters to be considered, and these should not be treated flippantly.
But I suppose, that even in our darkest hour, we need a little bit of humour.
Thank you for the link.