A tolerance of criticism and of dissenting opinions
is fundamental to democracy. Governing parties must
resist the temptation to equate their own policies
with the national good, or they will tend to regard
opposition as disloyal or even treasonable - as
totalitarian regimes do.

Similarly, democracies must avoid the danger of the
"tyranny of the majority." In some cases the
democratic process may work in such a way that a small
minority - for example Sikhs in India - are rendered
permanently powerless. For groups in this position
democracy might as well not exist, and it is important
that government should recognise the grievances of
minorities that have little political clout. If the
losers in the political process do not accept
the legitimacy of the process under which they have
been lost, they may resort to more radical tactics
outside the institutional framework.

We have seen this result in world conflicts that still exist
today.

cont'd ...

Another effect of our distinctive political system
is that it encourages people to try to influence
the way individual legislators vote on specific issues.

We should mention interest groups who use a variety
of tactics to influence those in power. From donating
money to election campaigns to advertising in the
media, to pledging their members'votes to certain
candidates and even resorting to outright bribery in
certain cases.

Many large interest groups including large corporations
maintain highly paid full-time professional staffs of
lobbyists who meet regularly with legislators and
government officials to try to influence policies and
decisions.

Our political system and culture thus encourages an
informal, behind-the-scenes interaction among parties,
elected officials, and private interest groups.

An understanding of this process gives a much fuller
picture of the political order.

So same old, same old, then.
That's 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back after reading, what has many names and descriptions and none worth mentioning.
Nothing new, that required all those words to convey.
Nothing that would justify why minorities get special treatment over that of the majority.
If that is a highlight of democracy, I can see how it is a failure.
There is no justification or excuse as to why we all cannot have our cake and eat it too.
I maintain that many of the minorities, such as SSM, would have had a much bigger backing, if the majority of people also were happy with their demands and requests, but no, we have to be deprived and the queers get their way.
Now do you all get an idea of what some of the realities of life are about?
That's an old one; If I am happy, it's more likely I'm going to want others to be too.
But if I'm always upset, having to watch others get their way and me miss out, well given the opportunity, I'm going to see that they are just as unhappy and repressed as I am.

Dear mhaze,

You quote; “After years of depression, eating disorders, and anxiety attacks, she finally receives a medical diagnosis: Asperger’s syndrome, high-functioning autism, and OCD.” That was her at the age of 11 years old mate. Why are you bringing it up at all?

This was from the same article;
“I am also not questioning Greta’s role as a public speaker, nor the power of hundreds of thousands of protesting school children, nor that climate change is an existential threat to humankind. But adults have a moral obligation to remain adults in relation to children and not be carried away by emotions, icons, selfies, images of mass protests, or messianic or revolutionary dreams.”

Which is a perfectly reasonable position to put and shows a care for Gerta not found in the obscene right wing pundits.

Here is her at a recent interview conducted in her native tongue. While there is some small stiltedness, likely due to her asperger's, it flowed nicely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTxMkFrba44

I think those of us who aren't intent on tearing the lass down like yourself should applaud her efforts

Prejudice and discrimination are found in any
situation of hostility and inequality between
certain people and groups - be they racial,
ethnic, religious, et cetera.

The key feature of prejudice is that it is always
rooted in generalisations and so ignores the differences
among individuals.

Prejudiced people tend to think in terms of general
categories if only to enable them to make sense of the
world by simplifying its complexity.

These people have a psychological make-up that has a
distinctive set of traits, including conformity,
intolerance, and insecurity - typical of many prejudiced
people.

Those who have this personality pattern,
are found to be submissive to superiors
and bullying to inferiors. They tend
to have anti-intellectual and anti- scientific attitude; they
are disturbed by any ambiguity in sexual or religious matters and
they see the world in very rigid and stereotypical terms.

This type of personality sociologists have claimed is
primarily a product of a family environment in which the
parents were cold, aloof, disciplinarian, and themselves
bigoted.

It is generally accepted that some people are psychologically
more prone to prejudiced thinking than others.

Dear Steele,

Once again - well said.