Crisis
While I'm normally quite partial to a bit of socialist/communist rallying, right now, all I can think of is that huge order I've put in for spray-paints, stanley knives and canvasses from Schleiper. They're not likely to arrive any time soon now, what with the humongous backlog at the postal distribution center.
My workhours overlap with the store's opening hours, so there's no other option for me but to order them online and await their arrival patiently. But it's a bit of a dud having 10 stencils cut out and ready to go, when you've run out of spray-paint and canvasses. I desperately need white-spray paint to finish off some of the multi-coloured stencils I've started, and it pains me to see them unfinished. It's like an itch you can't scratch.
The real bitch of it is that while the government can't seem to be arsed to mediate in the postal crisis, it still managed to get its own electoral cards delivered to our mailboxes exactly as planned, because I received mine today.
It would be marginally less annoying if I had a clue who to vote for this time around. I assumed my ideals hadn't changed all that much since the last elections, but when I took the online survey it told me: "your answers most closely match the political pamphlet of the christian democrats (read: conservatives)". I almost cried. Either I have gotten really old, in which case I'm going to have to go back into therapy, OR, the whole political arena suddenly made a staggering shift towards libertarianism, in which case I'd say we're just about done saving the world.
To check whether my ideals had indeed changed significantly, I decided to re-take the political compass questionnaire. It appears I have changed very little since I took it two years ago:
The hilarious thing is that this result points me to be ever so slightly more leftist and libertarian than the Dalai Lama appears to be. In my opinion, the Lama is a right authoritarion rightwing b@*%@rd ;-)
To be honest, I think the questionnaire is ever so slightly contrived. It may be my autistic inclinations but when someone asks me to rate the statement:
"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system."
I feel slightly ill at ease with the phrasing. Am I to judge this statement on pure logic? Because if that's the case, then of course this is a significant advantage in favor of a one-party state. But if I am to interpret this question to mean: "Is this advantage enough to warrant a one-party state", then my answer is of course completely different.
Another example:
"Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers."
Now this is a tricky one. If this statement had said: "Women" instead of "Mothers" then I would have instantly replied "Strongly disagree". But here it says "Mothers". I very strongly believe that if a woman decides to pop out a few childeren, then it is her first duty to provide a "home" for them in every meaning of the word. But this statement is highly likely meant to be probative of underlying sexist ideals, and as such, my answer will be entirely misinterpreted.
This last statement, however, had me tangled up the longest:
"Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified."
First of all, I feel that laws should continuously be challenged and re-appraised. If a law fails to hit the mark or is inadequate in one way or other, then it needs to either be revised or ignored. There's nothing more stupid than blind faith in or docile obedience to set laws. But... and this is a big "but"... if the sentence is meant to mean the current international law on military intervention, and surreptitiously hints at US infringement of international law by invading Iraq, then my answer is "strongly disagree". Because this political compass was designed in 2001, it's highly likely that this question was set up with Iraq in mind and that its answers are judged in this light.
Anyway, I'm rambling, and I've forgotten what my point was. At any rate, I won't be voting Christian Democrat. I'm a libertarian lesbian scientist for chrissakes... who in their right mind.... ?!?!
Labels: conservative, democracy, Opinion, politics, question, stencils
posted by Dr.Pew @ 7:19 pm
2 comments
Found this stencil while off out on Saturday night. I absolutely love this one. It's such a simple visual representation of mankind's evolution into a military power that has turned on itself. Very powerful visual in my opinion.
I'm sure most of you have at one time or other been witness to one of my infamous pigeon rants. You know the one: That I have a sneaky paranoid suspicion that pigeons are secretly plotting world domination. Because if you think about it, it all adds up. They have strategically positioned themselves in all our open spaces (easy mass-attack positions), they persistently shit on all our important landmarks and monuments (acts of rebellion), they embody breeding grounds for all sort of nasties and evil germs to which our own immune systems have yet to build resistance (mass production of biological weapons) and well, they look downright shifty what with their beady eyes snapping back and forth constantly on those freakishly dislocated heads of theirs. So I'm convinced pigeons are evil creatures plotting world domination.
