Interesting thought has occurred to me while reading different posts.
Many posters tend to label opposing POV and specifically their authors as Left or Right. I would like someone to explain exactly what that means?

NB Neither Capitalism, Socialism (often confused with communism) actually exist as such. All the example of governments that allegedly practice these philosophies are actually better described by other terms.
North Korea/Cuba are defacto dictatorships. USSR was never communist in the sense of Marx/Engles the creators of the communist philosophy .

Capitalism as practiced is more a perverted oligarchy based on maintaining status quo financial power as opposed to (non existent)level playing field and (limited) competition. Both the latter are foundation pillars to capitalism.

On the day to day level it would be an act of extreme zealotry (blind faith to claim) that people actually practice those philosophies

What do you mean when you use those terms? Define and discuss?
Given that the public is supposedly better informed/educated today is it realistic/meaningful to use those terms any longer

Dear Examinator,

Some people may still believe in myth creation,
cemented by repition. But times are changing
and people are beginning to not buy into
simple slogans like, "The unions have too much
power," anymore.

Demonizing the Opposition however,
worked so well for both sides
of politics for so many years.

Behind many of the labels of Right/Left -
lurked philosophies that with time
became difficult to swallow,
because they had the divisive effect
to cause this country
a great deal of harm, should they be taken
seriously.

We were sold the bill of goods that the Right was the
politics of money and power. An idealogy of greed.
The Left was supposed to be for social equity,
and the idea of an egalitarian society.
The Right supposedly was
pro America, pro nuclear weapons, pro the monarchy,
pro big business and pro development. They supposedly
were anti conservation, anti union, anti peace movement,
anti multiculturalism and anti government...

Would anyone today seriously buy into
any of those scenarios? I very much doubt it.
People today are not that gullible.
They tend to question things more and demand
answers from their Members of Parliament.
Most people today are neither Right or Left but
possibly somewhere in the centre.
Today, people expect more then just
scare mongering from their Leaders - and Governments
are judged on performance and policies rather then
rhetoric and condemnation.

Well, I personally percieve left/right as a spectrum of more/less dispersion of rights, ownership and resources- respectively.

Yet we instead use some crazy warped concept of left/right:
If you are nice and easy going, you are "Left"
But if you're racist, strict or MEAN, you are "right"

Seriously, that very much seems the case.

King Hazza,
Even there the divide falls down because of conflicting reasoning e.g. according to the 'right' the left want to regulate every thing to death yet are defined as libertarians who shouldn't have free speech etc.
Yet the 'right' want unlimited personal rights of speech, right to be offensive insulting, tell it "how it is", to conduct business without controls but control personal sexual orientation, unions, criticism of themselves and keen supporter of organised religions dogma (rules).

Tell me what's wrong with is picture hint... 'stereotyping' one name fits no body.

It's not as simple as slotting people in to left or right.

People 'pigeon hole' others just so they fit nicely in to their ideals of how things work. Some people JUST NEED A + B = C to make sense of everything.

Those are the people that you could sit and talk sense to all day and not make DINT of difference to their little box. They are usually people who have their belief, or understanding, and just won't even consider differing ideas.

Originally the terms came from the french parliament where the toffs sat on the right and the commoners on the left.

Now the right stands for capitalism, god, dictatorship, money, climate change denial, big business, private everything, digging holes, clean coal(LOL) and cruelty to refugees and anyone poor or in prison etc.

The left stands for democracy, people power, renewable energy, cycling, recycling, crystals and other hippy sh!t, saving whales, barter, organics, free education, public transport and compassion.

Very simplified but basically thats how I see it.

Thanks for that definition Mikk! Lol.!
I must admit I was never quite sure what the left-right thing was all about.

The 'left' certainly sounds like the better group to join by your estimations!

Where does the expression 'loony left' come from then?

Do not be too sure it is a joke, or that it lives only in the past.
In just one lifetime, mine, it has held massive power.
The DLP what a group of rats in the Labor wood shed, held Labor out of office.
But they had help, not only from the Catholic church but rabbits within the ALP who thought communism was an answer.
Some unions still embrace the very left, failing to understand it took guts and real unionism in Poland to bring that castle down.
Some today reaching way back to 40,s 50.s 60s for evidence still claim anyone left of center is socialist, good morning Col.
Joke? trying to prove workers are not evil unions not lefty loonies is my nightmare no joke.
Trying to get defectors from Labor to understand no party ever can please every one, that fragmented votes die, have zero effect is hard left vs right has most impact in the minds of folk who do not truly understand issues.

In my experience left represents so-called democratic i.e. social/economic mess. Right epitomizes the adage "you've got to be cruel to be kind".
Whenever economies go pear-shaped people start to think & the next government is always a conservative one.

Examinator- Indeed I would tell you what's wrong with the definitions but I wouldn't know where to start!
But why the media etc keep sticking to them like glue is beyond me...

mikk: "Very simplified but basically thats how I see it."

You underestimate yourself mikk. I think you pretty well nailed it in under 100 words. Very impressive.

Of course it's a Joke
When the Libs have a policy there's usually a gnat's eye lash between the two parties these days apart from spin and the colour of ink used. Howard differentiated and look what happened!

Both parties are about degree not policy differentiation they're both fight over the middle ground 5-10% (swinging voters) Grasping for power as a primary objective has the same effect regardless of which of the big two parties it is.

But on the level I was addressing, I would suggest it is meaningless as everyone is a mixture of both. To suggest otherwise is IMO not sustainable in fact.

Anyone who is All one way is clearly irrational, a bigot, obsessed with Dogma over real thought.Simply because there are always exceptions and difficult to decides.

In short people are people not boxes.

It is sad that some people choose to rely on A+B=C mentalities.

King Hazza
Sensational (conflict) sells. And they write for the lowest common denominator. Hence I don't read daylies.

StG.
IMO so far you win the prize for best post.

mikk is correct when he states: "Originally the terms came from the french parliament where the toffs sat on the right and the commoners on the left."

However, we can see who the toffs and commoners were. The toffs were the nobility and the clergy. The commoners were the rich bourgeoisie who had in most cases much more wealth than the toffs. The initial push for revolution was given by the bourgeoisie who wanted votes in proportion to their numbers in parliament. This is when the identification of revolution with left originated. Generally the bourgeoisie are no longer identified with the left.

Left and right are now both terms of opprobrium depending on who is name calling and often have little use in consideration of issues,

On the extreme left were Lenin and Stalin. On the extreme right was Hitler. Such a scale with scum on both ends can be abandoned as far as I am concerned. Left/Right has passed its 'use by' date.

left and right is easy to understand

the left takes ya oney to give to others
the right takes ya money to feed themselves

its not complicated
the one govt serfves both parties

wake up tho the revuue grab up in qld

blitzing us with cammeras to speed trap/light change/revenue raise///

after whining about the raising road toll
while skiting about the extra population ///and more..tourists

selling the states assets
after trippling the price of energy
deep into default on the clever beatie scam

now carbon tax...loll on top of everything
paid direct to the right
now having perfected their perfect global rule
via direct taxes upon the citisenry of other de facto states

with civil contract mnaritiume juristiction that has accorded the duties of the rich/death dities/tarrifs...etc upon the poor via gst and other immoral taxes on booze and everything...

now the neo tax on carbon

based on economists studies''lol..
any one can claim to be a docterate'

they got docterates for watching tv...for gods sake

lol

and still no anger
its amasing how brain dead people really are

why bother posting...

"Loony left" is a derogatory slur thrown about by the right in reference to the lefts politically correct tendencies.
Its very easy to ridicule and defame some of the more confronting leftist ideals. Like the lefts views on smacking, gender equality/neutral language, crime and punishment, vegetarianism, pollution/climate change etc. Not to mention the real loony ones into all that crystals and incense new age religion stuff.

Contrast that with the "militant left" which is the old trade union and working class left grouping. Hard, tough men and women given to drinkin an fightin and not known for their tolerance of outsiders like immigrants or uppity academics let alone hippies. But their main beef is with the boss and the workplace and the system they beleive screws them of their just rewards for their efforts.

Twenty years ago, you could hear someone's opinion on one issue and fairly accurately predict their opinion on other issues. These days, people tend to either sit on the fence or be "left wing" on one issue and "right wing" on other issues. Therefore, left wing and right wing are becoming less useful terms.

Davidf

Sorry to be a pain but Stalin was no more left that Hilter was a Social Democrat Both were Dictators and as such were extreme right.They both used the system to gain power and manipulated it from there.

Lenin was right of Marx, more moderate in his 'version' of communism

As I said in the opening true Communism never existed except in the minds of their creators, philosophers, zealots and governments have been in name only.

Don't confuse the USSR with true Communism. "genius is thinking of an ideal...being human is the mess we make of it". E.8

Dear examinator,

You wrote: “Both were Dictators and as such were extreme right.” You define right by being a dictator. Where is it laid down that left cannot be dictatorial? Like other people who use the terms left and right you make your own definitions.

Left/right have passed their useby dates. You implicitly define left by how closely Marx's prescription was followed. You have defined something called true communism.

From the Manifesto:

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
The above prescribe tyranny.

I am living in Australia and get my Social Security payments from the US. If 4 were applicable I would not.

6 pretty well eliminates freedom of expression if means of communication is centralised in the hands of the state.

'the bringing into cultivation of waste lands' I doubt that Marx had much of a notion of ecology so I excuse him for that. However, a more equable distribution of the populace over the country can only be realised by coercion.

Industrial armies mean more coercion.

Marx also advocated ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. That stinks as much as any other kind of dictatorship.

Marx was a bigoted antisemite who prescribed tyranny and got tyranny.

There is no such thing as 'true' communism, 'true' Christianity or 'true' any other ideology or religion. They do not exist in the abstract. They exist as humans implement them. However, Stalin implemented it fairly close to Marx’s prescription.

My view would follow David f’s, the notion, which the grand pontificator asserts, that all human benefit comes from the left (including “compassion”) and all evil comes from the right (dictators) is am absolute crock of tish.

Where the Left : Right comparison becomes important is in determining the balance between what could generally be described as “the collective need” versus “the individual need”

I would observe that whilst I have met many individuals who can express their need, the needs of the “collective” are essentially the needs of a group of individuals who have clubbed together and formed a common view, often regardless of the needs or aspirations of those who are not part of their group (it is called political parties).

My belief is the more power attributed to the state (representing the collective) and its paid officials and the less power left in the hands of individuals several things happen

Aspects of personal /individual discretion are (obviously by definition) limited
The dead hand of bureaucracy (the state & its officials) is enhanced
Personal Accountability is relinquished
Government Accountability is covered up
Through l.oss of personal discretion, personal life quality is diminished
Through the natural inertia of government (lack of accountability and lack of that vital “personal motivation”) the theoretical improvement in the life quality of the collective does not compensate for the loss of personal life quality.

Regarding excuses like “Don't confuse the USSR with true Communism” I guess pretending that theory is better than fact is a nice notion, the sort of dross thinking designed to separate the socialists from the consequences of their folly, especially when Lenin accurately observed

“the goal of socialism is communism…
but
Cont….

The USSR was the result of applying Communism and any attempt to apply it in the future will produce the same outcome, for example, Mao Tse Tung and his hiers butchered millions in the name of communism, Pol Pots experiment in restarting the Cambodia social system demanded he destroy the vestiges of the previous system and the term “killing fields” came into the vocabulary.

In fact more people have been murdered, tortured and defiled in the name of “Fraternity, Liberty and Equality” (aka “the common good”) (including those who were guillotined by the “committee of public safety” under Robespierre, than in the name of combined names of capitalism and libertarianism .

So in short

Left versus right - anyone who thinks that giving away personal discretion (freedom) is adequately compensated by those who would seek would to regulate and limit it is a fool.

As Margaret Thatcher (Democratically elected prime minister of UK, right of the centre) said
"To be free is better than to be unfree - always. Any politician who suggests the opposite should be treated as suspect."

And (with the Krudd dimulous package in mind)
“….The muddle arises because once we concede that public spending and taxation are (more) than a necessary evil we have lost sight of the core values of freedom”

Conversely Lenin (Communist Dictator and left of the centre) said
“It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.”

And the classic which is a constant of all the left (socialist/communist.. whoever)

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

So to all of the left I tell you this delude yourselves if you wish, that you are free to do but never try to delude or hoodwink me that your infantile notions of “collective good“ will ever produce the dynamicism and real energy of individuals pursuing their individual goals and individual life aspirations (and the “collective” benefits which from that individual energy will ensue)

I think you may be committing the same error that you ascribe to your political adversaries, Col Rouge.

>>I guess pretending that theory is better than fact is a nice notion, the sort of dross thinking designed to separate the socialists from the consequences of their folly<<

Precisely the same charge may be levelled at your platonic ideal of capitalism - or, more accurately in your case, Thatcherism.

While her ladyship was extraordinarily accurate in her theorising about individual freedoms, the rights and values of the individual, and the tyranny of government intervention, her actual performance fell at the same hurdle of real-life implementation.

In precisely the same way that you cannot "separate the socialists from the consequences of their folly", you need to recognize that there were equally unpleasant consequences arising from the red-braces-on-chavs laissez-faire capitalism that she let loose on the Square Mile.

I have no problem paying tribute to her grasp on theory. I have (far) less respect for her heavy-handed, schoolmarm, devil-take-the-hindmost implementation.

And let's face it, she didn't even reduce government meddling overmuch either.

examinator,
You say "Sorry to be a pain",
but don't stop, because I think you're a barrel of laughs!
In the same post you say "Stalin was...extreme right".
By my reckoning then, you consider yourself extremely left of Stalin.
Keep them coming!

Pericles “I have no problem paying tribute to her grasp on theory. I have (far) less respect for her heavy-handed, schoolmarm, devil-take-the-hindmost implementation.”

You are entitled to criticize the practical limits of Margaret Thatchers achievements.

The point is

she preserved such freedoms as to criticize from being killed under the opposing socialist manifesto of 1970 ( Foot and Wedgewood-Benn & Co, who planned the wholesale nationalization of the finance/Insurance sector and the appointment of political commissars to censor every newspaper and publication in the country (more of Lenin’s communist goals being implemented by “socialists”)),

she was turning the ship of state from one course, doomed to economic failure, national impoverishment and the removal of basic freedoms (which are still taken for granted),

onto a new course.

Turning course creates waves, disruptions and in some areas progress is only be achieved by seeming to be going backward but what is certain is that to steer a ship requires a “steady hand” which, to some might seem to appear as and may well be, a “heavy hand”.

To “school marm”… now you are focusing on personality more than achievement. The Russian called the “Iron Lady” , a title from which she publically endorsed – the Argentineans called her worse but South American Military Despots are hardly in a position to cast dispersions on anyone else.

If “devil-take-the-hind-most” translates to less bad and pointless regulation and inefficient meddling by government… then she would be proud of it.

“And let's face it, she didn't even reduce government meddling overmuch either.”

Privatization of major areas of British industry and removal of “monopoly entitlements”, relied on for decades to prop up inefficient and restrictive practices by parts of the rest, reduced “government meddling” considerably.

Another innovation which the socialists of the 21st century have benefitted from was her re-negotiation of the rules of EEC membership, which the socialists of previous years hand stupidly signed UK up for.

So I reject your assertion, although you are free to elaborate it further if you wish (another freedom MT effectively supported and endorsed).

StG,

You just pigeon holed people who pigeon hole.

All,

Y'all seem pretty confused to me. Especially the pontificator. He doesn't seem to distinguish between social vs economic values, and patronisingly (as usual) thinks people still see the ALP as left and the Libs as right. Or thinks if anyone uses the term left or right, they are saying a person is wholly left or wholly right. Just because nobody is totally left or right doesn't mean the words have no value as descritpions of attitudes.

Do the left-right challenge political compass if you have no understanding of where you stand. Note: It doesn't have Stalin as extreme right.

http://www.politicalcompass.org

PS:
'Define and discuss' , 'Tell me what's wrong with is picture hint..', 'so far you win the prize'

'What do you mean when you use those terms?'

I know exactly what you mean. You mean to say that you're the 'teacher' and 'examinator', and you're attempting to patronise the posters. 'discuss', as in , I know everything, and hopefully as I instruct you all to discuss my lordly pontifications, maybe you will understand. I have spoken, go off and discuss and ponder over my profound brilliance. I'll give you some hints, and I will hand out the prizes to the worthy.

That pretty much sums up what you mean when you use those terms.

Davidf,Col etc.

By definition if you read das Kapital the intention in fact focus of Communism is the People equality etc (Col, I don't say its better or worse I specifically said it didn't/couldn't exist outside of the mind.....)Therefore the topic is moot.

Starlin was interested in Starlin and abused the citizen rights of the people so therefore by definition he was NOT a Communist.
What you are saying is equivalent to saying that The current president is a democrat because nominally Zimbabwe is.
USSR was as much Communist as Zimbabwe is Democratic.

A country person may have aspects of communism/socialism but that doesn't make it that.

When it comes down to it all the aspects you point to are in some degree party of every government. What you're arguing about is a matter of degree.

In reality we all surrender control over our freedoms to belong to a country (society).
There is a lot of hyperbole entered into about "right" in a democracy but they aren't irrevocable nor are they universal to all democracies
The US does cease assets of rebels. So does Aus.
Government resume land.
Many Aust states still own method of transport,
Some democratic countries (Singapore, Malaysia) etc still control the media/press.

Under this mentality people are viewed in two dimensional extremes patently their not.

both parties the parties today have tended to compete for the swinging 5-10 % that forms the middle ground to the point ostensibly there are few differences between the two and those that do are most often about degrees of separation.

Sorry Col if the British Zombie Bitch retrospectives (what-her-name?) is the best your side (what ever it is) can come up with, no wonder the labels are past their used by date.

As I said, Col Rouge, I have no quarrel with the stated objectives of Thatcher. I was simply drawing the parallel with the aims and objectives of Thatcherism and Communism, compared to their practical results.

I accept that the "schoolmarm" description is merely how she came across to me. She may have been the Iron Lady to others - probably so that they felt better about themselves when she bested them - but to me she was simply a one-track didact with a patronising delivery.

But at the same time, you have a conveniently selective memory yourself.

>>she preserved such freedoms as to criticize from being killed under the opposing socialist manifesto of 1970... wholesale nationalization of the finance/Insurance sector... the appointment of political commissars etc etc etc <<

It was the country, not just Thatcher, who rejected Benn-ite socialism in 1970. The proverbial drover's dog would have been a shoo-in.

>>If “devil-take-the-hind-most” translates to less bad and pointless regulation and inefficient meddling by government… then she would be proud of it.<<

Of course she would. Only it doesn't.

It translates to the leaving-behind of the sick and the impoverished, in favour of the able-bodied and comfortable. Who, after all, were in the majority.

The country is only now beginning to recover from Thatcher-ite intervention in the NHS - which process, stupidly, Blair decided to continue. If she had been true to her principles, she would have been the leader who introduced the level of transparency and choice that is beginning to transform the entire system - complete with enforced performance targets and hospital performance tables.

Instead she simply starved it of investment, assuming that "private enterprise" would fill the gap.

As I said, the only point I am making is the difference between promise (and rhetoric, which is cheap) and real-life performance.

Just as she did nothing to retain grammar schools - even from her time as Education Minister - an act of educational vandalism from which the country has never recovered.

Again, there was a massive gulf between her stated - trumpeted, even - principles, and her deeds.

Pontificator “Communism is the People equality etc”

Is the first lie of socialism/communism.

people are not “equal”, either physically or intellectually. The only place equality needs to be applied is in the blind dispensation of law.

The notion “from each according to his means and to each according to his needs” is the underlying basis of the corruption, which is the hallmark of socialism / communism.

Stalin - far from stopping him, it was the communist system, despite what you seem to be claiming as its “perfect” theory, which allowed Stalin to prevail and shoot to fame (before he started shooting everyone else).

“Sorry Col if the British Zombie Bitch retrospectives”

Well that is the sort of observation I would expect from a narcissistic retard who lacks the vocabulary or intellect to make real debating points and simply relies on his own myopic, armchair, pseudo analysis to hurl abuse at a political leader who was returned by the electorate to govern the UK 3 times.

I suppose, the British electorate, who voted her into office, were also “wrong”?

- but it was their choice!

Pontificator, you are just overblown bag of wind.
All rhetorical air and no substance..
a bit like the fairy floss I commented on in a different thread.

Pericles “It was the country, not just Thatcher, who rejected Benn-ite socialism in 1970. The proverbial drover's dog would have been a shoo-in.”

It was Thatcher (distinct from the ultra wet Edward Heath - her predecessor) who presented the alternative for UK electorate to follow.

And it was Thatcher who remained prime Minister for another 15 years, before being ousted in a party coupe – but by that time I was in Australia and well past following the detail of UK politics.

“Thatcher-ite intervention in the NHS - which process, stupidly, Blair decided to continue.”

It sounds like you’re are being a little “myopic” and “precious” about the NHS… if neither of the principle UK political parties can present, for you here on the other side of the world, a viable process for the UK state health system.

Col,
Please take a deep breath, focus, calm down, you'll have a heart attack and newly married too.

What part of "it could never exist" don't you understand. The mistake Marx made are the same as Smith and reminiscences from the crypt they don't factor for people. Most are an amalgam of non linear views.That is except, perhaps you.

Get over it Col, It was 30 years ago it was Britain this is Australia, what the old boiler said or did is irrelevant, She was an imperfect politician and times have changed. And has no bearing on the labels of today in Australia.

BTW your posts to this topic, while colourful, don't qualify as a discussion, more the drone of a dogma chant with the incongruous occasional insult thrown to break the rhythm.

You reach too quickly for the put-down gun, Col Rouge. It is the reason you so often miss the target completely.

>>It sounds like you’re are being a little “myopic” and “precious” about the NHS… if neither of the principle UK political parties can present, for you here on the other side of the world, a viable process for the UK state health system.<<

The changes in the system that I described - "the level of transparency and choice that is beginning to transform the entire system - complete with enforced performance targets and hospital performance tables" - are happening right now. And beginning to have a positive impact. Under a post-Blair Labour government, no less.

I pointed them out because they are the type of changes that Thatcher should have implemented, if she had followed through on her "get tough" words. But she was convinced the health service was a lost cause, and simply starved it of investment.

It has not escaped notice that you made no comment at all on the disappearance of grammar schools. But perhaps you think that comprehensives are really neat - after all, they were introduced by the Conservatives, and helped along by a talented Education Minister in the early seventies.

Rather than use the terms right and left I think it better to specify the policies one favours and opposes.

I reject Marxism. It is a recipe for tyranny, as I have pointed out in a previous post. Stalin, Lenin and Mao were logical consequences of that philosophy. I oppose the all-powerful state with a dictator at its head. Lenin, Castro, Hitler and Pinochet were all tyrants. I also oppose laissez-faire capitalism that promotes the tyranny of wealth.

Top down economies work but not very well. Market economies are productive but result in great misery if uncontrolled. The Scandinavian states seem to have provided the best life styles on the planet.

I favour a system where government sees that everybody has adequate health care and education. I am against governments funding of non-public schools and for adequate funding of public schools. If parents want to send their children to non-public schools they should have the right, but they and their church or whatever entity supports the school should pay the entire cost.

I would restrict free speech to real people not corporate entities that use free speech to mislead in advertising. With their enormous monetary power corporations can lobby, control media, buy politicians and buy political parties. Public utilities, banks and insurance companies should be non-profit or publicly owned. The arms industry should not be privately owned as that is an invitation to create tensions so that military hardware has a market. As advisor to Senator Woodley I wrote legislation that requires impact statements including economic, military, social and environmental consequences and debate with public input before allowing export of military equipment or training of foreign military. Unless Australia is attacked or there is a domestic insurrection the prime minister should not have the power to order Australian forces into action without a parliamentary debate followed by a public referendum.

I favour collective bargaining as the individual worker by himself or herself does not have the power of the corporation. Unions must be democratic with elections by secret ballot determining decisions and office-holders.

continued

continued

I favour representative democracy. That means that the legislator must give consideration to the wishes of the people in his electoral district and only be required to support the party position where it is part of the platform on which the party ran. Every other vote should be a conscience vote.

I am against racism and antivilification legislation. However, actual acts of discrimination should be against the law.

We must stop destroying the environment. We cannot have an ever-increasing population and pollution along with decreasing habitat for the other life-forms with which we share the planet. We should examine our lives and activities to minimize human impact on the environment by zoning to make travel less between work and home, buildings less demanding of energy, banning of such sports as motor racing that waste fossil fuel, reliance on renewable energy sources and other means to minimize our environmental impact. Too much effort is put into ways to continue our wasteful life styles and not enough to make them less wasteful.

I favour legalization of drugs and prostitution. Drug addiction like alcohol addiction should be treated as a medical not a criminal problem. Gambling should not be illegal if it is a voluntary recreational activity. However, casinos and government encouragement and sponsorship of gambling along with tax revenues from that source create social problems. No casinos.

I would not use any tax money to support religion by means such as the chaplaincy program and state sponsored religious education unless it is education in comparative religions. I also oppose government efforts against religion. Religion should not be the business of government.

I prefer not using the terms right and left but state what one is for and what one is against. I have done so.

An address to the golden door
I was strumming on a stone again
Pulling teeth from the pimps of gore when hatched
A tragic opera in my mind...
And it told of a new design
In which every soul is duty bound
To uphold all the statues of boredom therein lies
The fatal flaw of the red age

Because it was nothing like we'd ever dreamt
Our lust for life had gone away with the rent we hated
And because it made no money nobody saved no one's life.

So we burned all our uniforms
And let nature take its course again
And the big ones just eat all the little ones
That sent us back to the drawing board.

In our darkest hours
We have all asked for some
Angel to come
Sprinkle his dust all around
But all our crying voices they can't turn it around
And you've had some crazy conversations of your own.

We've got rules and maps and guns in our backs
But we still can't just behave ourselves
Even if to save our own lives so, says I, WE ARE A BRUTAL KIND.

Cuz this is nothing like we'd ever dreamt
Tell Sir Thomas More we've got another failed attempt
Cuz if it makes them money they might just give you life this time.