Well, for starters, you don't live in a country where there is no meaningful sense of civil liberties. At least you have a democratically elected government that won an election that was vigorously contested. You are a Republic, you elect the people who make the laws, if you're not happy with the laws, then there's actually a chance that you can elect people who can change them, or persuade those people, or people who have influence upon them, to change their minds.
Personal disagreement does not abdicate your responsibility in upholding the rule of law, so you can apologise up your own ass. I can't be the only one to find people apologising for things they're enforcing but don't disagree with annoying, can I? In all likelihood, the people who are most likely to get the law changed are not going to be you. You have no vested self-interest in the thing itself. Spunk. There are however, people for whom this means money - it means money because fewer people are applying, fewer qualified applicants are bothering, and fewer outstanding graduates are entering the markets that require them.
It’s a problem for me that satire is effective through being distancing, but that it seems to be evinced by anything but. And also that to be effective, satire necessarily relieves itself of a certain level of sincerity, or inquiry, or intelligence.
The will towards democratic empowerment does not divorce you from the requirements of access - the baseline of which is validation. Flash, and Frames, are a bane upon the Interweb.
Leave a comment