Anyone here read Foucault at all? This thread made me think of his idea that as you tear down a power structure a new one is created because we cannot exist in a vaccume where there is no power structure and that this leads to a "hyper- and pessimistic-activisim " where even if you realise that you will never acheive the perfect power structure you still try to change it because it is worse to do nothing. (I use the word you to mean society in general, not a specific person)

So, some people like Bush, some people don't. Eventually he will no longer be in power and someone who is just as liked/hated will be in power, but we still have to have threads like this or we would all rot away in stagnation...

(note: this is a very basic interpertaion of Foucault so don't take my word for it -- read him yourself. Although, he is terribly borring...)

Also, I prefer a demoractic system where there are many parties -- I think that two (or even the 4 or 5 that we have in Canada) is not enough "sides" to represent everyone in a country. India, for example, has around 100 parties and it takes something like 6 weeks to count all the votes, but that way a larger percentage of the population is represented even if only through alliances in parliment... (I mean they could even have a party that represents the goatherder's union who probalby has different concerns than the sheepherders union...)

anyways, my two cents

---|---|-O <- My Kitten (Grey and White) Also, accepting donations for the MX-700