My goodness, it can't be Friday already can it? Indeed, the first working week of 2009 is almost just a distant memory, which means that it's time for the Friday Forum.
You know the rules - come on in, vent your spleen, rant and rave, and take out your frustrations on (or from) your keyboard before the weekend - you'll feel better for it!
6 comments:
A few days ago I had a long conversation with an American couple. They are Republicans from California, where the husband is a Judge. Both expressed a fervent hope that Obama will make a real difference in the USA, although neither knew how that might occur.
I suggested that Obama will have some chance because many people feel they are represented for the first time ever, and will support him no matter what.
Socialists, always vocal, will be positive rather than stridently negative as when the Republicans are in power.
Hollywood will fete him, providing him with important "feel good" publicity that only the likes of Oprah can take to the masses, enhancing his Messiah status.
In the light of having no better ideas themselves, Republicans will give a level of compliance to whatever measures he wishes to impose.
As everybody in the USA is in the same boat that "hope" is pretty much universal.
Socialists, in good times and bad, raise the level of taxes as their primary tool. Is this economy in such bad shape that this is not an option?
Oratory skills heighten people's expectations, so has Obama's ability to deliver been magnified beyond the possible?
As these two Americans said, "We really hope he is successful".
Interesting comment anon - Obama certainly has a lot to live up to, in terms of the reality of the Presidency matching the hype of the campaign. Probably the best thing that he has going for him in that regard is that he is succeeding George W Bush! I guess the bottom line is that it is in pretty much everyone's best interests for Obama to succeed.
On a different tack, I have posted a fun blogpoll inviting readers to vote on the Political Attributes of Keith Locke
http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/12394/
Take a few moments to vote and make a comment
Inv2 has done so, why don't you
I have indeed, and Adam has provided an abundance of choices in the poll
I was interested in the TV1 coverage of the deaths at Fox Glacier. From what I have read and saw on the news there were plenty of signs warning of the dangers of going too close. That the two young men killed chose to ignore the signs (and it seems they were highly intelligent) means that sole responsibility rests with them.
Yet I got the clear impression from the TV1 news bullletin that it is someone elses fault - no mention of personal responsiblity.
pdm - I think that this quote from Tim Groser (from the Herald website) sums it up pretty well:
Conservation Minister Tim Groser said it was a "tragedy of almost unimaginable proportions (for the parents) to lose both sons in one tragedy".
Mr Groser was at Fox Glacier but was staying out of the way of the operational staff conducting the search.
"There are extensive safety procedures in place, these are reviewed annually, there's also been independent assessment of these procedures.
"We're dealing with a situation that is a highly dangerous and dynamic natural environment involving rock, ice and rivers."
The procedures were last reviewed in August last year.
He said the facts of the latest incident would be reviewed by the Department of Conservation (DOC), police and probably the coroner.
There will always be risk, but also "some responsibility on the part of these individuals who go into these areas".
If the young men did go into a no-go area, then they were the authors of their own misfortune.
Post a Comment