How to stare at GOATS. The talk of the TOWN is what Assange has done. Exposed the powers that be for what they really are. And YET at the same time exposed the PEOPLE as the vulnerable ones. How is this so?
In idea of LIBERAL DEMOCRACY was to give the POWER TO THE PEOPLE by their VOTE. ONE VOTE = ONE VOW of support for whichever POLITICAL PARTY was put into POWER. IT matters not which one you VOTE for. You might think this foolish but it is not if you following my reasoning carefully.
One party gains the most members on the floor or if equal it is a hung Parliament. Whatever party VOTED in becomes the GOVERNMENT. Your one single VOTE in being one of MILLIONS of VOTES is but one OPINION. It is that collective opinion that is so easily manipulated through the MEDIA. If you go down the street today in OZ and buy THE WEEKEND AUSTRALIAN get the WEEKEND MAGAZINE and turn to Page 2.
Read Phillip Adams and get back to me on that one. "And we, the voters, are merely extras in a rapidly shrinking crowd scene." his famous last words after declaring himself DEAD. Putting all that POWER into the hands of a few is like giving a policeman a prisoner AKA A B U G H R A I B.
The point of this exercise is not to JUDGE anyone but to simply say that all men are capable of doing evil deeds simply by way of give a man an inch and he will take a mile. The secrets held in state vaults and the things state leaders say behind the backs of their neighbor nations are just the same as when either one of us makes a snide remark about someone or something that we do not like. If and when men learn that lesson and do good, not evil then no one will have anything ill to comment on about the way his/her neighbor lives his/her existence.
[QUOTE=NWT Titus 1:10-12] For there are many unruly men, profitless talkers, and deceivers of the mind, especially those men who adhere to the circumcision. 11 It is necessary to shut the mouths of these, as these very men keep on subverting entire households by teaching things they ought not for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 A certain one of them, their own prophet, said: "Cre´tans are always liars, injurious wild beasts, unemployed gluttons."[/QUOTE]
It is not strictly science, but rather a very interesting set of mathematical theorems about logic and the philosophy that is definitely relevant to science as a whole. Proven in 1931 by Kurt Gödel, these theories say that with any given set of logical rules, except for the most simple, there will always be statements that are undecidable, meaning that they cannot be proven or disproven due to the inevitable self-referential nature of any logical systems that is even remotely complicated. This is thought to indicate that there is no grand mathematical system capable of proving or disproving all statements. An undecidable statement can be thought of as a mathematical form of a statement like “I always lie.” Because the statement makes reference to the language being used to describe it, it cannot be known whether the statement is true or not. However, an undecidable statement does not need to be explicitly self-referential to be undecidable. The main conclusion of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems is that all logical systems will have statements that cannot be proven or disproven; therefore, all logical systems must be “incomplete.”
The philosophical implications of these theorems are widespread. The set suggests that in physics, a “theory of everything” may be impossible, as no set of rules can explain every possible event or outcome. It also indicates that logically, “proof” is a weaker concept than “true”; such a concept is unsettling for scientists because it means there will always be things that, despite being true, cannot be proven to be true. Since this set of theorems also applies to computers, it also means that our own minds are incomplete and that there are some ideas we can never know, including whether our own minds are consistent (i.e. our reasoning contains no incorrect contradictions). This is because the second of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems states that no consistent system can prove its own consistency, meaning that no sane mind can prove its own sanity. Also, since that same law states that any system able to prove its consistency to itself must be inconsistent, any mind that believes it can prove its own sanity is, therefore, insane.
Art Reform TOURIST