myata

A major open war, an unprovoked full scale aggression is in its third year in Europe and yet the defense minister of the aggressor state is not charged with any of the uncounted crimes including razing to the ground of numerous settlements and several cities. "Selective justice" cannot be allowed he (the prosecutor Karim Khan) said. Ohoh. How far is it from solemn to outright ridiculous? He also choose to ignore (select) that totalitarian states of our time have learned how to weaponize, through incessant propaganda of hatred and selective violence, almost entire populations. Is it not incredibly "selective" to just ignore this obvious fact and pretend that some abstract holy paper demands the victim fighting for her very survival to fight with hands tied and "experts" watching her every step, having done nothing to prevent or stop the aggression? What would the reaction be if he came up with this idea in 1943 and 1944? The take: with decisions like this, ICC is driving itself out of relevance and no external help is needed.

Note how there are no intelligible answers? Let's try again: "Inevitable", what? A complete and final dismantling of the peaceful world order? The end (de facto already) of the Charter and with it, the whole concept of the United Nations? No means or foundations of security other then groups and alliances armed to the throat including nukes? This is "inevitable", that future? Great job: you've only proven who you are. Or brainless, brainlessly repeating obvious lies. Pick one or both. What other options?

And the buzzwave goes on and on and on. Only two harmonics: "Adore Him!!!" and "Anathema!!"

Deadbrain buzzwave has only two harmonics.

I'm not going to repeat again: there's no point in having an argument with a dead board. This was addressed (only) to those who can think (for themselves) and decide based on their reason, for themselves.

In a struggling and wounded system, one candidate is clearly unfit. The noise is trying to distract from this obviousness, but it changes nothing of the essence. The leader of a world-level democracy has to be an individual of highest moral standard and integrity, not just about any crook. This is essential, quite possibly, deciding distinction.

"Inevitable", what? The end of law-based international order? The beginning of the era where anyone can invade anybody, yes with nukes? Return to the era where might means right, this time with nukes? One cannot be that naive to not get how much more this is about than just "Ukraine". So only two options, logically: 1) brainless 2) liar. Pick one or both.

Much as I dislike Isreal's policies in the occupied territories (sic), the decision is nuts; and down this path ICC will rule itself out of relevance and quite possibly, existence in no time at all. Two glaring problems with the ruling: 1. Disproportionality: there's no arrest warrant for Putin's defense minister and top generals. 2. Misassociation: organizers of war crimes and genocidal acts are judged on equal terms with those who were responsible, by the national law to defend the country against them. And as a cherry, is that the same South Africa that initiated this ruling, that for so long agonized if it's going to arrest Putin under the same international law? Can we have it - the law, both ways? Is that how they understand and interpret the word?

Indeed. That goes to the capacity to see, recognize change and adapt to the challenges. Western democracies may have become the victims of their own success. While the model created unparalleled prosperity and wealth, it also suppressed, through laziness and indifference the ability to change and the will to undergo it when needed. Anything can be ordered through this magical machine called "elections". Nothing bad can happen no matter what we do (or don't). That idea has never worked, in the evolution.

This is only a part of the story. Between the easy way, and the right one the elites routinely pick which? Then, a self-fulfilling prophecy. No one to point fingers to. Yes we can. Yes, we did it again. The objective, going back all those decades was not to win at all cost. It was to find and show the way. Winning was only the consequence. In all the muzak, we forgot. And then, why bother if we can win anyways (we think).

Both parties are complicit in that the populace now sees the democracy not as the utmost responsibility but some kind of an entertainment, show. Both built it and contributed to it hoping to gain from it. And that condition usually signals that its end can be not too far around. No dark prophesies, only the fact of logic and history. If in a critical choice you laugh and throw a coin that's fine it's a choice. But then you've got to be ready for big surprises. Latin America and countless times and places since Rome know.

That is a consolation they like to float. And the reality is, they tried to not notice the society's desire for change; maybe they don't even know anymore what a real, meaningful change is?; and that attitude backfired on them. "Look, you can only have us" vs "just push here and all your problems are solved, magically": is there really much of a difference?

Of course you will. You're living proof of the points, how could you not live up to the calculation? Impossible.

As far as I can see, maybe it's not so much about egalitarianism but how, in what plane the question of power is set: which of these XYZ political groups, with their respective programs, will address the highest priorities of the society at this time most effectively? as opposed to: which (of the two shows and presenters) you like better? The question democratic power is nothing like a show. The responsibility and consequences, no match. But the binary setting of the politics inevitably drives it all the way down to the latter. The contract between the elites and the populace is not one way: we rule you clap and feel happy. The elites have to identify the directions of meaningful positive change, show and prove them to the people. The people have to exercise their reason and responsibility when choosing who will lead them. Both are necessary for the democracy to persist into the next generation. We are living at the time of a simultaneous failure of both.

1. Populists are always there, and were. The idea that a solution to a complex problem can be possible through a secret, but simple act is as old as humanity itself. And it's quite easy to sell because this is exactly what folks are looking for at the times of uncertainty and change. Humans are famous, probably the unmatched champions in their ability to accept desired for the reality, and even force it on the reality, as much and to the last drop where it can last. 2. The populace as a whole does not have sophisticated intelligence. It's attitude can be described by only a few grades: "that's great let's get more of that!"; "meh, but OK"; and, "we've had enough of it, let's try something else". 3. In the latter case, the populace can take one of the available choices, presenting a disconnect and a change; or create new ones (upset; revolution). 4. The elites often, very often or almost always fail to see the moment when the population had enough and a real change, disconnect is needed. Can write many words but here: Gore; Clinton; Biden: as simple and terse as it gets. Nope, they just don't see it. All is going great and you just need to stick with us. Forever. No change. So, that ingrained desire of the elites to bathe in the status quo and avoid meaningful change as much as at all possible eventually comes face to face with the wish of the populace to see the change. If real, genuine one isn't possible OK give us some, even just words and entirely superficial. In the proportional system the problem is at least in part mitigated by recording a real, accurate representation of voters attitudes and forcing them to come to at least some consistent direction, often a compromise. But the binary one can offer nothing of the kind: either, the goodness of benevolent elites extended into infinity, "we take good care of you"; or all-out populism. This is the core, the essence. No good words can change anything in this picture. Ohoh.

"That's different!". Cult psychology 101.

That would be two in a row. Ohoh.

That would be a different topic.

XYZ I'll make a rare exception in this case. People have justified to themselves insanity and worse in uncounted examples through the centuries. There's just too many to mention. There's nothing new in this but eternal, lightless boredom. This thought was addressed to those who can still think for themselves and decide for themselves. Otherwise, there's no point obviously.

That would be one option. One does not have to part with their reason, sanity and integrity. There's no obligation. No such cause exists. So, it is a choice.

The choice this time around does not look great. I think so, sincerely. I think that many may think the same way regardless of their chosen, or not yet chosen side. And I'm not even going to vote in this election. Still by the privilege of having a working mind one can always exercise their right to think and inform others. Something is broken in the system: regardless of the side. It has to produce better options for the country. The candidates have to be the best the country has to offer, and this is not the best and by far. This problem will not go away with this election. It will need honesty and courage to acknowledge, and much thinking, talking and creating together to fix. It is important and it cannot be ignored and pushed away any longer. But one of the candidate this time around is plainly, unfit. He is unfit by the reason of debilitating, near-absolute failure of honesty and integrity. He is unfit to lead the most powerful democracy of the world, it is plain and clear to anyone with an objective mind, regardless of the stripe. This fact will not go away or be covered by any talking and any volume of talking. It is not that they aren't the best; but that one is unfit. Putting this option forward, failing to find other, more fitting ones was a collective failure: of vision; of responsibility; of courage and conviction. But the time has moved on. By supporting a clear, obvious wrong, it will be you who would lose your, individual honest and integrity. There would be nobody to blame. It was only a choice: your choice. You don't have to oppose it openly: it can be risky and almost certainly will have consequences, as others have learned. But you don't have to give your reason and your integrity to the insane either. You can stand aside and let it pass. That works: no you don't have to lose your own, individual integrity and sanity. No such cause exists and will be found, as long as we remain on the side of the reason. By preserving reason and integrity, you will come back and win again and many times. But by going down this path, there may be no coming back. There may not be much left, to come back to the normality, from that end. Remember: there was no obligation, nor the cause. It was a choice.

A cult needs no reason: "just believe". How many times did it happen yawn yawn ...... Why would we be astounded by meeting dancing aliens in a glade but not a major democratic political establishment suddenly jumping off the track of sanity and heading the way of mindless guru cults? Beats me. But true.

"I don't think as a country we should be prosecuting former presidents". Let's translate it: we nominated a patented pathological liar; and possibly soon, a convicted felon for the country's highest and most demanding position, that asks for ultimate responsibility and integrity. We failed to present our people better options and convince them what they are better ones. Yes obviously: we did it all. But now, somehow, it's your problem. Oops we had nothing to do with it. Democracies routinely prosecute former leaders if they end up on the wrong side of the law. In a democracy, all citizens are equal before the law: it is one of the cornerstone, foundation principles. No no. We wish it worked out somehow. And you have to make it happen. No matter what we do. A double failure: of the reality; and of responsibility. No, can't make right.

Or it'll destroy itself? Only two options?

because it replaces the question of effectiveness and efficiency of the governance of public matters: what is rational; important and necessary for the society, today with: what do we/ would you like it to be? What do you like? In everyday life we know very well that what we would like to happen in our reality would not necessarily, and often by far, be the reality. In the entertainment, the dreamscape the difference is erased, smoothly, in a blink. The wish can become and becomes, the reality. Just believe! A natural human trait to imagine a better reality exploited for buck in any number of ways, becomes the American obsession with the dream where everything has to be entertainment and does not need to have connections, and eventually, any connection to the reality. This is fine in the theater. But imaginary realities cannot produce good, effective decisions and policies in the real world. So this is a path to inevitable demise of the dream-based, entertainment democracy. No, one cannot force the need to be reasonable and intelligent in making certain decisions. No, it's not possible to lock out the wish to dream. But what could be the solutions?