Monday, June 04, 2007

Dicks (or is that Richards) who govern.

.

Okay fine, yes it happens. Targo, thanks for bringing me back to my senses. I think there are times when I go off into limbo. I am learning, slowly, that you have to be using the kiss principle when writing these things.

So let’s start slowly. ( Stops. Pauses. Takes a swig of courage. Resumes. )

In this world there are goodies and there are baddies, left versus right, people who take the high road and those who venture taking the road not taken. I choose to look at some baddies today. I think, in the present state of today’s politically correct world one cannot criticize even the biggest of boofheads unless they have a huge big bad lawyer sitting beside them. In the old days the little guy would have a gunslinger but I don’t have that, and I don’t have any big lawyers… I do have my opinion so yeah, enjoy.

The last few weeks I have gone on the Afrika tangent again. Noticing there are oodles of Diktators here has prompted a list. Who are the worst? I don’t have any interest in the hall of fame idiots, like Stalin, Hitler, Mao and the like because they are dead. While they will have their place in hall of fame dictator guys, we will focus on those who are alive today. To make this list, you have to have persecuted your people, killed them, violated rights, took away freedom of expression, fought against change of leadership, and really have been a pompous, self absorbed, inconsiderate, vicious jerk. I have taken my data from the sites below, but this is my own. Please feel free to question it.

The worst.

1. Omar al-Bashir. Sudan. Wanton killing of any who oppose.
2. Kim Jong-il. North Korea. Very cunning and now with Nuclear power.
3. Than Shwe. Burma. Highest use of child soldiers in the World.
4. Robert Mugabe. Zimbabwe. Hanging onto power. Using starvation as a tactic.
5. Sayyid Ali KhamEnei. Iran. Highest use of suicide bombers for influence.
6. King Mswati III. Swaziland. Highest AIDS rate in world. 40% of people
7. Islam Karimove. Uzbekistan. Ruthless. Massacred 10000 who were protesting.
8. King Abdullah. Saudi Arabia. Contoller. Even phone calls are recorded.
9. Teodoro obiang Nguema. Equatorial Guinea. High Torture rates.
10. Hu Jintao. China. Power through enforced poverty. Human rights abuse.

Honourable mention. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan otherwise known here as the Poodle. Hugo Chavez will probably move up the list if he continues ransacking the media to put it under his control.

http://authoritarianism.blogspot.com/

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

I wrote several pages recently about why people's belief that they need to have a leader is self-defeating. It seems that simply by expressing this notion, I invite people to dismiss me as a whacko and stop bothering to read. A civilization that empowers themselves predominantly instead of everybody trying to find a leader to look towards is a stronger one. It would be harder for a dictator to maintain control if the populace they lead would challenge the dictator under their own force of will. Democracy is a pitifully bandaid-esque solution. It still leaves people stuck in the following-a-leader mentality.
America: be nice to us, or we'll bring democracy to your country.

Anonymous said...

I guess we all have our own opinions.....so I am going to say....Vladimir Putin should be in the top ten. Just thought I would throw that in.

Oh yeah....what is the kiss principle?? And where are you getting those swigs of courage from?

AV

Anonymous said...

psam you may have a point and your opinion is always valid. however instead of telling us what should be and what would be good in the future, i ask you if you have anything to add or subtract from the list of dicks.

AV. putin. he is rated by some in the top 20. i ask you why he should be put in the top 10. because he is a controlling character? because he jails his rivals like that guy who owns chelsea soccer club?

kiss. a.k.a. keep it simple stupid. lol.

some guy

Psam said...

some guy,
Sorry my initial comment was not to your liking. Here are some thoughts I've had that are more along the line of what you're asking for.
I believe that it is easier for a dictator to be ruthless and cruel when they live in a nation that is experiencing violent unrest and poor communication between citizens. Therefore in a nation that has a beautiful and balanced existence, it is easy for someone who has power-hungry interests to come across as a good guy while subversively perpetrating some pretty terrible acts. With due apologies for possibly ill-conceived logic and possibly harmful (although necessary) suspicion, I have to say I believe Stephen Harper is one such person. I think that he wants to increase Canada's involvement in warfare. I believe from what I have seen of him that he wishes to take a peaceful nation and turn it into a fighting force, and I think he has gone a long ways to accomplish this. It saddens me.
Until such time as an election is called by the calculatedly invisible forces that be in Canada, Harper has as much of a dictatorial role in Canadian politics as he has been capable of securing for himself, which is significant. I don't want to try to guess whether he would fit into the top ten list or the top hundred list of harmful dictatorial figures in the world, but I do believe that he certainly has some qualities that would give him a place in that list somewhere.
Sorry I didn't manage to keep it simple and short as was requested, but I believe that if you're not willing to put some time into understanding the potentially selfish greedy exploits of the people in your own government, then you should realize that your own desire to cast a vote in the functioning of your nation may end up doing more harm than good.
The more peaceful you deem a person to be, the more likely you should be to cast a vote for them.

Anonymous said...

Psam, referring to the Harper government in Canada...WELL SAID!

Maybe I am wrong but I think that having the power of a government leader might go to ones head.

I wonder how these leaders become so powerful that they convince thousand of people to just cower?

Don't get it.

Anonymous said...

I guess I don't have an answer for you Chanks, just a feeling. I am so thankful I live in Canada.

AV

Psam said...

Someone,
You asked the very poignant question: "how (do) these leaders become so powerful that they convince thousands of people to just cower?"
It's easy.
When you live in a country where everybody thinks they cannot exist without a leader, then the guy who claws his way to the top has complete control of everybody, and he doesn't have to be a nice guy to do it.
When you live in a country where people believe their "leaders" are doing as much harm as they are good, then it's pretty tough for a leader to get that kind of control.
That's all there is to it. As easy as apple pie.

Anonymous said...

I'm curious to know if anybody disagrees with the statement: "cancer is to the human body what suicide bombers are to the human race".

Anonymous said...

well Psam, there are cancer survivors, are there suicide bomber survivors?

AV

Anonymous said...

Apparently a little more than you do.

targo....lost? said...

leaders and politicians... regardless of their type and who they are the world needs them. When was the last time you saw someone actually think for themselves, or better yet someone who could do that and still care for those around them?


Looking at life for me today, or this past week was interesting as I was celebrating the fact that my 7yr old daughter in NOT a lemming, she is an individual!

It was sports day (or field day for you americans) this past Friday. And the kids were divided into their grade and gender groups and instructed to run to the yellow line and turn around and run back. My daughter did this and won... she is the slowest and least athletic in her class, but she's an individual. She won! I watched in amazement at the grade levels and genders all run past the yellow line and to the fence. (she's in grade 2) it wasn't until grade 4 and 5 that the kids comprehended the rules.

But take that and apply it to the world we are all looking for someone to follow we are all looking for a leader, regardless of how good or bad they are. Yes leader is what this world needs.

I am also reminded of the time I was in the bank with my kids and they wondered why their was ropes to shuffle us all into the line. I replied b/c even adults have trouble taking turns and sharing.

We are afterall predisposed to be selfish and look out for ourselves only. (i'm generalizing of course!)

Governments have the potential to be many things, but really they are no better than those that allow them to be in power....

Psam said...

Targo,
Congratulations. In my opinion that is one of the best comments I have read on this site yet. And that's after some pretty amazingly heavyweight comments from folks such as dost, and of course chankslee himself.
I think that your comment and my preceding one have some opposite conclusions drawn, but in different context. We both had valid ideas to support opposite sides in the same argument, without having contradicted each other in any precise way.
I'd like to take the thoughts you expressed and add to them. I'd like to know if you agree with my additions.
First of all, you put together a convincing argument that leaders are a necessary part of our world, while at the same time showing that the very fact that we need them is indicative that we as individuals in our society (you, me, and everybody else) are not adequately learning to be the intelligent, participatory, caring people we need to be to have a harmoniously functioning world.
I want to add to this that based on your assumption that we must accept the necessity for positions of leadership in our society, we need to remember that we must never give too much of a universal position of leadership to any one person. The less overall responsibility there is in the realm of leadership given to any one person, the better they will function in that position. If you follow someone as a leader, it should be because you know that their knowledge of the situation at hand has more experience than your own, and you want them to use that knowledge to everybody's advantage. That means that they should be grateful when you question their judgements, because it's an indication that you are trying to learn from them.
I would like to add that based on everything I have seen posted when you have expressed your opinion, I think the world would be a lot better off with you in a position of power and leadership than most of the people that are in those positions right now. You have a better sense of priorities. You have a better focus on the responsibilities of individuals. You have more tolerance and patience.
Leadership should be seen as a bandaid to cover an insufficiency in a society that has sustained a difference of opinion that has made it difficult for people to happily share their world. Based on this fact, a good leader will clearly see that if they do their job well, then eventually their society will have less need for someone in their position of "leadership". You embody that quality rather well.
Thanks again for teaching me something that has permanently added to my way of looking at the world.

targo....lost? said...

Thank You Psam!

I do agree with what you have added, it does make perfect sense and really does elaborate my points better. :)

Anonymous said...

Interesting line psam comparing cancer to the bombers. Even better AV for your rebuttal. Targo that was one piece of good writing which I think was the catalyst for psam to actually tone his rhetoric down a bit, and compliment, tho in an different direction the masterpiece by targo.

I like to see thought process and reasoning like this THANK YOU.

I still agree with targo's first comment and have to say that a leader is the better way, however the Canadian way is not as good when a PM holds so much power like Chretien did and threatened his own party if they voted against him. Harper it appears, has to work with everyone if he wants to get ahead. Is that so bad? I ask you all if you feel that the Canadian Presse is slanted to support the Liberal party? At least the Tories didn't "lose" 1 billion dollars....... they did bring in GST tho... didn't Harper say he would get rid of it?

Anonymous said...

Some newspapers are biased in favour of the Liberals, some are biased in favour of the Conservatives. Some TV stations are biased in favour of the Liberals, some are biased in favour of the Conservatives. In general, performers are more in touch with what changes need to be made to a society for it to exist more smoothly, because they have taken the time to ask themselves why different people have the different morals and ideals that they do. They have accepted all those different people's values and beliefs from the ground level up, giving them all equal credibility. From that perspective, it's easier to see which people's beliefs are more compatible with everybody else's, and which ones are not open to compromise. That gives them a perspective on which traditions most need to be changed due to changing needs of population.
It is easier for performers to assess these values than politicians, because performers are not subject to the same stresses and expectations, so they are able to take a step back and observe everything in perspective. This is especially true of actors, but also musicians and graphic artists. Most media have much involvement by these sorts of people, which may be why you observe liberalism there.
Another profession worthy of note is botanists. They are extremely wise, but because they never want to be pushy, they don't offer their wisdom unless it is sought out. Harmonious, respectful existence with vegetation is something that the human race will learn of necessity as the population explosion levels off and we evolve towards a peaceful co-existence on Earth over the next millenium. Our perspective will change so dramatically that we will no longer have any of the same traditions that have been with our history for the last few millenia.