PLAYPEN: Covid-19 Everything Political

[Alan Klein]

This thread is reserved for all political commentary regarding the medical, economic and other issues of this crisis throughout the world.  Points regarding medical or economic issues may be posted to expand on political points and vice versa.  This is a broad thread so that all concerns can be incorporated and brought together in a coherent discussion.   In keeping with this forum, no cursing or personal attacks.  Thank you.  Alan.   

[Peter McLennan]

Hydra.

[armand]

Hail

[BernardLanguillier]

As some of you may know, I am very worried about the lack of pro-active actions by the Japanese gov to prevent the spread of the covid19, even if facts demonstrate that today the level of severity is much lower than in other countries.

We have no way of knowing whether this is a stable situation of just the beginning of an exponential curve similar to the one we have seen in other countries. As a result the principle of precaution should be applied in my view.

I would like to get your views about the concept of personal responsibility in this context.

My view is that all the people in Japan who voted in Abe as a leader (about 80% of the 35% of Japanese people who did vote among the 75% who are allowed to vote) will share a degree of responsibility in the possible death of Japanese citizens that may occur as the result of his lack of pro-active actions. This awareness should drive them to push their leader to take the right actions to limit the risk of unneeded casualties.

Or, as we saying that voters have no responsibility whatsoever about the actions of the leaders they vote for?

As one input to this discussion, this article about an admittedly very different situation: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jan/26/germany.secondworldwar

At least a former head of state in Germany seems to think that the support to a political cause can be considered as engaging personal responsibility.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Bernard

[LesPalenik]

Or, as we saying that voters have no responsibility whatsoever about the actions of the leaders they vote for?

Cheers, Bernard

Most definitely, voters bear responsibility for the candidates they elect. The problem is that most voters are ill-informed, look only at the short-term horizon, and act impulsively or out of fear.

[kamma1]

Yes, the point of a democracy is that voters select leaders to represent their interests and to act on their behalf. 

If the leaders act more or less according to what would have been expected, the voters share responsibility for the results of those actions, good and bad.

Of course it becomes more complicated if the elected officials behave differently from what would have been expected, but I don't think that's the case in any of the liberal democracies (as far as I understand the different governments).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The fastest discussion in the Internet history to hit the Godwin button!

[Rob C]

As some of you may know, I am very worried about the lack of pro-active actions by the Japanese gov to prevent the spread of the covid19, even if facts demonstrate that today the level of severity is much lower than in other countries.

We have no way of knowing whether this is a stable situation of just the beginning of an exponential curve similar to the one we have seen in other countries. As a result the principle of precaution should be applied in my view.

I would like to get your views about the concept of personal responsibility in this context.

My view is that all the people in Japan who voted in Abe as a leader (about 80% of the 35% of Japanese people who did vote among the 75% who are allowed to vote) will share a degree of responsibility in the possible death of Japanese citizens that may occur as the result of his lack of pro-active actions. This awareness should drive them to push their leader to take the right actions to limit the risk of unneeded casualties.

Or, as we saying that voters have no responsibility whatsoever about the actions of the leaders they vote for?

As one input to this discussion, this article about an admittedly very different situation: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jan/26/germany.secondworldwar

At least a former head of state in Germany seems to think that the support to a political cause can be considered as engaging personal responsibility.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Bernard

I think there is absolutely no difference between the actions of leaders who follow their manifesto and those who, knowing the manifesto beforehand, vote them into power. Being the cheering mob behind the lynching makes you just a guilty as the mother with the rope.

Pathetic, illogical, argumentative defence in an earlier, but closed thead, from those who are guilty of exactly that complicity with politicians who have contributed to rising deaths and unpreparedness, not just in terms of disease but also of gun crime, proves yet again that political cant is all-consuming in some minds, to the level of becoming a fixation, a religion even. Few things on Earth are more repellant than the person so empty of personality that he/she stitches his image to that of a "leader" the majority of whom are but charlatans of one stripe or another.

That such people latch onto ancient documents formulated and drawn up to suit the realities of a long past age does nothing to justify their actions at all; if anything, I'd suggest that the reality is that a long, hard look should be cast upon such outdated and presently counterproductive "rights". Those bits of writing have been turned into a licence to kill.

[Rob C]

The fastest discussion in the Internet history to hit the Godwin button!

Slobodan, photography is dead.

The vacuum requires filling: it's a law of physics.

If we don't waste our time here, doing this, what else can we do? It's the same quandry as faced Lucy Jordan lo those years ago.

Rob

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Rob, your reply #7 is yet another proof that, due to Brexit, you’ve become a card-carrying commie

[rabanito]

Slobodan, photography is dead.

The vacuum requires filling: it's a law of physics.

If we don't waste our time here, doing this, what else can we do? It's the same quandry as faced Lucy Jordan lo those years ago.

Rob

"...All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”  (Gandalf) ―

Life is short. One can fill the vacuum with things other than rubbish

[KLaban]

Slobodan, photography is dead.

The vacuum requires filling: it's a law of physics.

If we don't waste our time here, doing this, what else can we do? It's the same quandry as faced Lucy Jordan lo those years ago.

Rob

And that, my friend, is perhaps more an indication of your state of mind than it is fact.

I wish you better times.

[Rob C]

Rob, your reply #7 is yet another proof that, due to Brexit, you’ve become a card-carrying commie

I see that Corrie hasn't dampened you sense of humour; but neither has it sharpened it.

;-)

[Rob C]

And that, my friend, is perhaps more an indication of your state of mind than it is fact.

I wish you better times.

Indeed, it is a true refelction of my state of mind. I'd go further, though, and say that I really do believe that it has lost its place in the world.

Was a time that it took some applied learning, a modicum of skill and, to shine, talent. Being an accepted photographer, as compared with somebody who owned a box Brownie and was perfectly satisfied with the little prints from the chemist's, was something slightly special - it allowed one to stand a half-step ahead of the crowd, or at least, if not ahead, to one side. Today that no longer exists. There is no level of glory in making a photograph anymore because even the village idiot - armed with a primitive smart phone, can make a photograph. I'd go further, and state that from the stuff that I see around me, others from the same village makes better snaps with their cellphones than when they buy an expensive camera and climbs aboard their newly-minted pretensions. 

As I have mentioned before, the great imaginations and eyes that once walked the darkrooms, studios and locations are now behind cameras and in editing suites in the filming industry. That's the final depository of great photographic imagination. All else is cliché - done well - or crap.

And to make it all worse, I do believe that I can smell that I have burned the friggin' soup taking time out of the kitchen to write this.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Indeed, it is a true refelction of my state of mind. I'd go further, though, and say that I really do believe that it has lost its place in the world...

Pardon my poor English language comprehension, but are you talking about your state of mind or photography?

[Robert Roaldi]

As some of you may know, I am very worried about the lack of pro-active actions by the Japanese gov to prevent the spread of the covid19, even if facts demonstrate that today the level of severity is much lower than in other countries.

We have no way of knowing whether this is a stable situation of just the beginning of an exponential curve similar to the one we have seen in other countries. As a result the principle of precaution should be applied in my view.

I would like to get your views about the concept of personal responsibility in this context.

My view is that all the people in Japan who voted in Abe as a leader (about 80% of the 35% of Japanese people who did vote among the 75% who are allowed to vote) will share a degree of responsibility in the possible death of Japanese citizens that may occur as the result of his lack of pro-active actions. This awareness should drive them to push their leader to take the right actions to limit the risk of unneeded casualties.

Or, as we saying that voters have no responsibility whatsoever about the actions of the leaders they vote for?

As one input to this discussion, this article about an admittedly very different situation: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jan/26/germany.secondworldwar

At least a former head of state in Germany seems to think that the support to a political cause can be considered as engaging personal responsibility.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Bernard

Responsibility in the wider sense maybe. But it's not obvious how voters could possibly know what actions a politician would take in a specific circumstance, especially if the issue in question was never even contemplated during the previous election.

But it's a murky grey area. A lot of people feel that when it comes to environmental pollution, for example, it's a case of the economy vs environment. I find this bizarre, in the long run if there is no environment there won't be an economy. The narrow-minded zero-sum game being played is only semi-true in the short term. So if a government relaxes environmental standards and people in an industry get sick and die, does that government have blood on its hands, do the people who voted for it or agreed with the policy have blood on their hands? It's not clear, I don't think. What if the people who got sick voted for those policies that made them sick and did they have all the facts? And sometimes, people just make mistakes.

What I would find less easy to excuse are policies that prohibit collection of epidemiological data, which would make it much more difficult to determine if an environmental policy was a mistake and would also make law suits more difficult. There are such cases. When power tries to hide data, people should automatically be suspicious of the motivation.

[Alan Klein]

I disagree about the death of creative photography.  Who here doesn't secretly believe that one day their "artistic skill" will be singled out and help them earn fame and fortune?  Or at a minimum, appreciation from family and friends?  We all need a pat on the back. 

[Alan Klein]

Responsibility in the wider sense maybe. But it's not obvious how voters could possibly know what actions a politician would take in a specific circumstance, especially if the issue in question was never even contemplated during the previous election.

But it's a murky grey area. A lot of people feel that when it comes to environmental pollution, for example, it's a case of the economy vs environment. I find this bizarre, in the long run if there is no environment there won't be an economy. The narrow-minded zero-sum game being played is only semi-true in the short term. So if a government relaxes environmental standards and people in an industry get sick and die, does that government have blood on its hands, do the people who voted for it or agreed with the policy have blood on their hands? It's not clear, I don't think. What if the people who got sick voted for those policies that made them sick and did they have all the facts? And sometimes, people just make mistakes.

What I would find less easy to excuse are policies that prohibit collection of epidemiological data, which would make it much more difficult to determine if an environmental policy was a mistake and would also make law suits more difficult. There are such cases. When power tries to hide data, people should automatically be suspicious of the motivation.

Everyone thinks their viewpoint is the "correct" one. Anyone reading our forum would quickly come to that conclusion.  But it's dangerous to ascribe criminal thinking and behavior on those who desire different outcomes.  Unfortunately, we've moved to that situation here in America, I'm afraid, maybe in other countries as well.  We've lost the ability to get along with fellow citizens we disagree with. 

We all have different experiences, childhoods, needs, and desires.  Most things are not an either/or situation.  Legislation and policy are mainly compromises in thinking and action, especially in a democracy.  In America, it's why we have different branches of government.  To keep a check on power.  In the end, in politics, like life, we don;t get or lose everything we want, all the time.  It's a mix.

Maybe the universal threat to our health and wealth will help us get along better.  So far, it still seems to divide us along political lines.

[Rob C]

Pardon my poor English language comprehension, but are you talking about your state of mind or photography?
Woukd be entitled to

In isolation, and thus removed from its context (relevance of photography today), you could be forgiven - nay, understood - for your doubt.

:-)

P.S.

Yes, the damned soup did burn: as with all of the ones I make, it's not coloured, flavoured water: I throw in chopped peppers, diced potato, sliced carrot, chopped onion, hot chorizo (at least two), garlic, olive oil, tomatoes, tomato purée and a touch of all the various herbs (that Ann would use for her cooking) that I keep replenishing, just like an E6 line. There are either lentils, chickpeas or red beans and always a handful or three of those tiny rice-like pasta things that add thickness. Usually, I make a point of not surfing during the cooking of the master brew in the large Le Creuset pot (orange/red, although it has an officially more glam name) and thus manage a couple of pleasant bowls for lunch that first day of brewing it up. Today saw the use of a frozen container of said mix; it went in as a frozen lump when I started, and by the time the arome hit the office, the stuff was welded to the base of the pot. There's a moral there somewhere about cooking and LuLa.

[LesPalenik]

I disagree about the death of creative photography.  Who here doesn't secretly believe that one day their "artistic skill" will be singled out and help them earn fame and fortune?  Or at a minimum, appreciation from family and friends?  We all need a pat on the back.

When it comes to conventional photography by old farts, that segment is pretty much saturated. But there are some young photographers who create new and unique images.