If you had read Hannah Arendt’s work on totalitarian regimes (Origins of Totalitarianism) - focusing specifically on Nazi Germany and the USSR under Stalin - you would never think this. As she says, and I am paraphrasing here, the consequence of people always lying to you isn’t that you stop believing everything but rather that you end up capable of believing anything.
And I’m pretty sure that effect is on full display already.
Israel doesn’t give two shits about the hostages beyond their propaganda value. That much has been obvious since before day one to anyone willing to actually believe their eyes and ears.
Think these might be creationist penguins.
Yeah one of my more… tech adventurous friends had the most insane series of security breaches (to out it mildly) potentially related to this and some other recent ridiculousness.
Thing about social democratic bureaucracy is that it tends to end up being extremely rigid with politicians who are particularly entrenched in this rigid system of rules. So in these states, things like ‘not hyrting long term goals too much’ matters because going at cross purposes with legally stated aims in any way is more than good enough reason to not do it at all. You don’t get to interpret your way around the law in states like Norway.
Add to this that the same politicians also have entirely forgotten what social demkcracy is supposed to be - maintaining a capitalistic market economy while leveraging state power to counteract its negative social effects and ensure the social security of the people - in favour of some idea that it’s actually just a set of basic institutions that were invented one to two hundred years ago that don’t need any kind of updating outside of just the bare minimum of maintenance, and… well, you end up with states that run relatively well but increasingly keep creaking at the seams, everything increasingly underfunded, with politicians who seem convinced they can’t actually do anything apart from tinkering at the edges.
This breeds discontent and political distrust. And in such conditions, it doesn’t really matter if the vast majority would want us to support good causes abroad, people will still be angry about it because it feels like they are getting stepped on in favour of someone else. They couldn’t tell you exactly why they feel that way, so they grab on to the nearest idea - cognitively speaking - that they can spin an understandable narrative about. Immigrants is the obvious one. Political elites playing their games the obvious next one. Then comes the common misunderstandings about economics, especially where inflation is relevant.
Basically our politicians have put themselves in a corner they are unequipped to get themselves out of, and everything they do ends up producing backlash one way or another.
Yes, the rule is up to 4% of annual proceeds can go into the national budget for covering spending. That rule, however, is arbitrary nonsense and only serves to limit the size and scale of investments on the budget.
The actual limiting factor is that the law states that the purpose of the fund is to save for the benefit of future generations. That’s something they will have to navigate. Personally I would like for there to be a mechanism that basically requires a ‘business case’ outlining how any proposed investment/spending will align with that stated aim of the fund. Making such a case here should be pretty straightforward, as allowing one of our neighbouring countries to militarily invade and conquer their neighbours wouldn’t be good for said ‘future generations’.
I think one of the more important things you can get across to him is this:
Porn is fine, but it’s fiction. It’s no more real or realistic than the latest superhero blockbuster, and should be thought of that way. It’s entertainment, not education.
There are sex ed channels on Youtube. Good ones. Sexplanations is one, but there are also others. Seek those out.
I know this is going to be a very awkward conversation, but you have to understand this: he will be finding and watching porn, and most likely already is at 14. Don’t shame him for that. In any way. Let him know that you know, and that it’s normal, but that it’s important to think of it like it’s just the movies. Cos that’s what it is.
Honestly, if we’re going to insist on this representative stuff that maintains a persistent hierarchy of power, it needs to be divorced from these kinds of influence channels. Becoming an MP should be an exclusive commitment. Once an MO, you should be barred from all other employment for a long time after leaving office.
We should all be more than happy to guarantee former MPs wages for that entire period, it would be a drop in the bucket of any national budget and would be a significant filter both to becoming an MP in the first place and to engaging in this kind of influence peddling as well.