This Hub Is About Something Even More Important Than Men Wearing Panties (But Has A Picture Of A Man Wearing Panties)
Recently a concerned little birdie expressed his (or her) aforementioned concern over the plethora of hubs I have written about men and their lingerie. The comment went thus:
“What is the obsession with putting men in womens underwear? Granted most of these hubs are entertaining, and some even insightful; but still.
If there is anything else in your life this uimportant to you, I'd like to hear about it.
Deftly, I interpreted this question as a request for deep
discussion of an issue which cuts to the very core of our human
condition. Fortunately, I am not without ideas on this subject, and
there is one theme that has been niggling ever stronger as the months
and years go by. It is this:
(Skip to the end for the juicy solution, which will make more sense if you read the whole thing. Articles are funny that way.)
I'm beginning to think democracy doesn't work, and not only does it not work now, its never actually worked. Democracy had its inception in Greece, notably Athens, where it was determined that the people should determine their fates. All men could vote for representatives and on the occasional issue as well. Issues were brought up and debated vigorously in public forums and the assembled men would vote according to their consciences. (It was a little more complicated than this and involved the formation of a senate and whatnot, I'm not going to give a history lesson here, check out Wikipedia: Democracy for further information.)
Even at this time, when public participation was relatively high (unlike today, where over 60% of any given nation is probably apathetic to the point of not knowing the names of all the candidates in any election,) the system was flawed. For starters, only free men could vote, slave males could not and women of any flavor could not. Democracy therefore, was governance by the educated patriarchy.
Today, although a great deal is made out of democracy, in many countries a two party system, or a system where two parties are dominant, results in a situation in which the public can vote for one of two puppets. The real powers that be are now, as they were in ancient times, a bunch of predominantly rich, predominantly old and predominantly white men. Democracy is an illusion which keeps the masses quiet because it gives them the illusion of control. If you look at what is occurring in Iran, the public is rioting because they feel their votes were taken from them, the fact that the guy they actually voted for is alleged to have presided over genocide in the past is irrelevant. I admire, respect and support their right to vote and their refusal to accept the travesty which clearly occurred, but I also mourn due to the fact that either way, it doesn't look like they have much of a chance of achieving what it is they truly want.
Iran and other countries where they're not afraid to burn a few buses to make their point aside, (no, I'm not condoning violence, simply noting it,) the enemy the West faces is our complacency, our laziness, our
herd mentality. We're easily distracted by shiny things and we're
easily put off by the work involved in discovering the truth about
our leaders. How much do any of us ever know about those we vote in
to positions of power? My guess is most of us vote along party lines
at best, if we vote at all. (I spent the last election in bed,
because the shiny American election made ours seem boring. Yes. I
suck at this too.)
So what's the solution? Well, its a sticky wicket. Humans take the
path of least resistance, so unless we are actively caused pain by
our politicians, we don't tend to do much about them. On the other
side of that coin is the fact that by the time they start to cause
any real pain, we're generally already stuck with them. You're not
allowed to vote out a President or a Prime Minister in any country
mid term, but perhaps that should change. Perhaps the power of the
vote should truly belong to the public, and a vote should be able to
be called at any time, not every three or four years. I don't think
Bush would have invaded Iraq if he would have been voted out the next
week for doing so. He took that action against public opinion because
he knew he had time to make them forget. And if the American public
had voted for the action, then they would be implicit in the criminal
act, instead of blaming a crazy yokel from Texas for the tax
payer backed war crimes which were perpetrated over the past five years, and continue to be
Every democratic nation should have an independent authority,
separate from the government, which when approached with a sufficient
amount of signatures, should have the authority to call a snap
Why should we be left to suffer for years under the tyranny of
fools and evil doers simply because they managed to con a vote?
That's not democracy, that's Russian roulette played with the lives
and livelihoods of every man woman and child in a nation.
Your thoughts chaps and chappetes?