The following is an opinion/editorial piece.
As I peruse (a commonly misunderstood, actually meaning "examine in great depth") the two campaign messages sitting before me, I am rather forcefully reminded that there is nothing new under the sun. Much in the way that the ancient Greeks invented everything first (except when the ancient Chinese did), the Presidential campaign messages smack of "lather, rinse, repeat" more than they smack of "eureka!"
Perhaps this is a strength. Ogastein and McEntire seem to think so. "Europeia does not need a revolution, we need a rejuvenation"; Ogastein's closing comments include. In Foreign Affairs, he offers fluidity, which is perhaps a kind of strength. He offers more for Ambassadors to do in their host regions, like weekly updates (an idea I know I've seen before, if not suggested), and more entertaining updates (an idea carried out to great effect by the great Skizzy Grey).
There is little in the campaign of note, apart from the assertion (constantly repeated) that the status quo will not be acceptable. It says we must surge into greatness, but gives no indication of what greatness means; another all-too-common Europeian vice.
Swakistek and Abbey Anumia, on the other hand, ask "Why?" Why do we do what we do? Beyond this, the campaign is safe, and it's all things I've heard before. When I hear that, "We're going to work out exactly what we want from our foreign policy, and then we're going to use all available channels to achieve that," I find myself much more interested in exactly what Swakistek and Abbey want from their foreign policy, and then we can use that decide whether we want them; or not.
The rest of the campaign remains eerily familiar. I've seen similar suggestions about the World Assembly in the past. I've given similar suggestions for Interior. The suggestions for Welfare are little more than common sense, and the suggestions for Culture are as mind-bogglingly varied as I'm sure working in the ministry itself is. In fairness, though, this campaign does inspire me to ask why.
Why is it that in the past two years of Presidential elections, and I count myself among them, I am not innocent, why is it that there is nothing new under the sun?
As I peruse (a commonly misunderstood, actually meaning "examine in great depth") the two campaign messages sitting before me, I am rather forcefully reminded that there is nothing new under the sun. Much in the way that the ancient Greeks invented everything first (except when the ancient Chinese did), the Presidential campaign messages smack of "lather, rinse, repeat" more than they smack of "eureka!"
Perhaps this is a strength. Ogastein and McEntire seem to think so. "Europeia does not need a revolution, we need a rejuvenation"; Ogastein's closing comments include. In Foreign Affairs, he offers fluidity, which is perhaps a kind of strength. He offers more for Ambassadors to do in their host regions, like weekly updates (an idea I know I've seen before, if not suggested), and more entertaining updates (an idea carried out to great effect by the great Skizzy Grey).
There is little in the campaign of note, apart from the assertion (constantly repeated) that the status quo will not be acceptable. It says we must surge into greatness, but gives no indication of what greatness means; another all-too-common Europeian vice.
Swakistek and Abbey Anumia, on the other hand, ask "Why?" Why do we do what we do? Beyond this, the campaign is safe, and it's all things I've heard before. When I hear that, "We're going to work out exactly what we want from our foreign policy, and then we're going to use all available channels to achieve that," I find myself much more interested in exactly what Swakistek and Abbey want from their foreign policy, and then we can use that decide whether we want them; or not.
The rest of the campaign remains eerily familiar. I've seen similar suggestions about the World Assembly in the past. I've given similar suggestions for Interior. The suggestions for Welfare are little more than common sense, and the suggestions for Culture are as mind-bogglingly varied as I'm sure working in the ministry itself is. In fairness, though, this campaign does inspire me to ask why.
Why is it that in the past two years of Presidential elections, and I count myself among them, I am not innocent, why is it that there is nothing new under the sun?
