Thursday, December 27, 2012

Swing The Gavel. Bang The Gong. The Forces of Commercial Freedom Will Relieve Us?

Parliament Sends Adoption Ban to Putin

Was yesterday's succinct New York Times explanation of how the American adoption of Russian children controversy is a problem over balance of trade. The only issue real enough to politically matter. 


Today's Times prints Putin Says He Will Sign Law Barring Adpotion,  and Reuters' Russia's Putin signals he will sign U.S. adoption ban, so the Russian president is still expected to sign but announced he will tomorrow. A show perhaps? Maybe trot out some kids and auction them on the spot?

As cynical as that sounds, you just know the kids need any opportunity. Unfortunately, up to and including walking away from the party with a few stray bottles. Though its extremely debatable whether, or not, enough free liquor could ever trickle down to make a difference in the orphans' already numbed lives.

So nation-states fight over documents that settle discrepancies once and for all? Yeah right. Not a chance. The unsettling thing is the announcement of overwhelming majority votes for banning the adoptions. As if no one in power is really able to stand up for anything.


Sometimes it looks easy being a politician? Whatever is said, generally has to mean different things to different people so everyone is eventually culpable for misunderstanding the politician's intent for everyone to accept and understand. No?

The truth is in countries' quests for leverage, the innocent are often disregarded in conflict, by any means necessary, up to, and including, apparently, victimization by eccentrically territorial laws. 


Also yesterday, December 26, 1893, Mao Tse-tung was born in Shaoshan, Hunan, China.
Of course everyone hopes China's dreams come through once political hubris can take a rest. However naive that sounds, the world over, people under pressure seem too high-strung and susceptible to things getting out of hand because power can corrupt absolutely. But what a noble idea of Mao's faction to preserve the true peasant, that without the obvious connotation of living as virtual slaves there might have been a way for establishing political humility beyond just performances. 
Oh well. I was wondering. Was Mao like other established rich men who never carried pocket change once they had the power to no longer require personal financial resources? The shrewdest are known to die owing their little people money. Not that Mao would be expected to have problems with neglecting petty bourgeois matters. It's just, at some point, he had to realize he was just getting over as Stalin had making ruthlessly sure they remained politically in charge. As it was and probably still is impossible, no matter what, to eliminate politics. So theoretically eliminating politicians was the easiest way to maintain political control. Except that's not a whole country we're hoping modern politicians  are striving for everywhere, now


And now, however unreal 
this might sound
IMAGINE
SOAPBOX VIEWC@ST 
December 27, 2012

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for your participation.