What to do with ex-PMs and all that pent-up bile?

Is there anything wrong with ex-PMs fading away and leading normal lives after their political reign? I see no reason for this to be a problem...when the rest of us lose our jobs, we don’t get special privileges. When someone applies for the job of prime minister, they know what it entails, and it’s not leading a celebrity lifestyle for the rest of their lives. Throughout their reign, a prime minister's main concern is imaging -the exercise of creating a public self. Apparently, as soon as their reign is over, this facework imaging drops, and their whining and complaining true selves kick in. The fact that, like ex-American presidents, the prime ministers don’t get smothered in security and attention is a good thing. Our tax dollars can go to more useful things than protecting “their fragile egos.”

To watch a short video of President Bill Clinton being treated like a celebrity, click here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5weah80IMa4

Sex and Marriage with Robots? It Could Happen.

When I first read this article that stated, “robots will become so human-like in appearance, function and personality that many people will fall in love with them, have sex with them and even marry them,” I was a little surprised, to say the least. Despite the remarkable technology that is out now, a robot will never be able to satisfy a person in the way another human can. Is it really love if one half is only being programmed to feel it? We wouldn't want our friends or family to be robots, so why would it be different with romantic relationships? We discussed some of the basic needs we satisfy by communicating: the need for pleasure, the need for affection, and the need for inclusion. But interaction with a robot could never satisfy these needs. We need a thinking, communicating person to talk to and love. Once the initial novelty wears off, the robot is no more than metal and wires.

That being said, if in forty years I'm alone and desperate, I may take a different approach.

Voters Roundly Reject MMP

The mixed-member proportional voting system could be very beneficial to Ontario, and hopefully will be used in the following years to come. The fact that 37 percent, a significant number, voted for the MMP shows that it could change in further elections and win the majority. This article stated that “many voters simply didn’t get the information they needed to decide.” I found this to be true through personal experience, as I had to actively research the MMP to figure out what it was all about, and several people I spoke to were voting for the current system simply because it was familiar and therefore made sense to them. The MMP gives individual voters a more significant voice, and with it, certain parties would be more accurately represented.

To watch a short clip promoting the MMP system, click here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEs9ZZS3O2U

Whither Marriage

The decrease in percentage of married people and significant "less than half of adults are married" mark is certainly an indication of changing times, something that Barbara Kay does not seem to remotely grasp. She states that we are “drying up as a society based on these statistics.” We fortunately do not live in a Stepford Wife society where a woman’s only place is in the home, but in a society that has come to value higher education and learning for both men and women. Yet, when asked how young women are supposed to support themselves “if they give up their career to have a baby so young,” Kay responds, “their husbands should be supporting them.” She goes on to state that “true happiness is taking responsibility... [and] starting your own family...that is something that young people...don’t seem to grasp.” Who is she to say what true happiness is? Though raising a family might be it for some people, what about education, careers, the single life? She is completely ignorant in saying “By not wanting to have more children, by concentrating on the privileges and pleasure of one’s own adult life and choices, one isn’t really thinking about the future at all, only the present.” This has in reality become the exact opposite in today’s world, where overpopulation and dwindling resources are primary problems. A recent article from the Globe and Mail (April 21, 2007) stressed the importance of this point, and was printed with the attention grabbing headline “Don’t Have Children, Save the World.” Kay is clearly a “selective listener” to topics such as these, choosing to live in an old fashioned world and blocking out the new standards our society has come to ideal.

To read the article "Don't Have Children, Save the World," click here:

http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070421/CHILDLESS21/Headlines/headdex/headdexComment/3/3/19/