Inspect. - Historically Oh-So Important
So is the process of socialization: when the child observes the fact, that adults never keep their promises, he or she'll be just the same when growing up. This is a minor reflection on my promise made approximately a month ago.
Of course I did watch this "historically oh-so important" and unique debate of the current and the former PM's. I don't have the abilities to judge whether they were right or not, I can only add my personal opinion.
The first remark: both of the extraordinary gentlemen did use terms as "righteousness", "righteous", "justice", "to justify", terms of morality to summarize them. But. As a religious person I believe, morals are not given to humans by humans. Morals are given to humans by G~d. One is not supposed to elect a certain party, certain politcians to receive moral standards from them. It contradicts the basic principles of democracy, which is said to exist in today's Hungarian political system. Members of society give away their political rights according to their interests to those who are held wiser and more intelligent, being capable of managing these interests and protecting society - with political tools. Politics don't equal morals, I guess. Which idea doesn't mean that politicians shouldn't be moral.
[Did G~d want people to elect a king? What do you read in Shmuel I-II.?]
The second remark deals with PR and image: while Orbán (former PM, member of the conservative, right-wing party Fidesz MPP) was playing the role of the common man meeting the oh-so royal PM, asking simple questions the real commoners can easily understand and identify with, Gyurcsány (current PM, member of the said-to-be social democrat, left-wing party MSZP) remained true to his slightly paternalistic, laid back intellectual attitude. But he often got really "angry"; he's just too impetuous to be truly genuine - he rather seems to be the type of politician who's always showing a highly moral (but often hypocritical at the same time) face, having ideals among the great Hungarian politicians of the 1848-49 revolution's period. This latter strategy seemed to be more succesful this time; while Orbán tried to confuse him/appeal to the audience with his usual jokes and almost constant giggly uncertainness, which only made Gyurcsány angrier and stronger, but Orbán simply fooled himself.
And because of this stylistic chaos and usage of anachronistic terms, the debate didn't really turn out to be productive/constructive. For me, it wasn't the matter of whom to cheer to, because I oppose both of them, though I second prezzey's fears of Fidesz to be elected in May, 2006.
Gut Shabbes to everyone.
Of course I did watch this "historically oh-so important" and unique debate of the current and the former PM's. I don't have the abilities to judge whether they were right or not, I can only add my personal opinion.
The first remark: both of the extraordinary gentlemen did use terms as "righteousness", "righteous", "justice", "to justify", terms of morality to summarize them. But. As a religious person I believe, morals are not given to humans by humans. Morals are given to humans by G~d. One is not supposed to elect a certain party, certain politcians to receive moral standards from them. It contradicts the basic principles of democracy, which is said to exist in today's Hungarian political system. Members of society give away their political rights according to their interests to those who are held wiser and more intelligent, being capable of managing these interests and protecting society - with political tools. Politics don't equal morals, I guess. Which idea doesn't mean that politicians shouldn't be moral.
[Did G~d want people to elect a king? What do you read in Shmuel I-II.?]
The second remark deals with PR and image: while Orbán (former PM, member of the conservative, right-wing party Fidesz MPP) was playing the role of the common man meeting the oh-so royal PM, asking simple questions the real commoners can easily understand and identify with, Gyurcsány (current PM, member of the said-to-be social democrat, left-wing party MSZP) remained true to his slightly paternalistic, laid back intellectual attitude. But he often got really "angry"; he's just too impetuous to be truly genuine - he rather seems to be the type of politician who's always showing a highly moral (but often hypocritical at the same time) face, having ideals among the great Hungarian politicians of the 1848-49 revolution's period. This latter strategy seemed to be more succesful this time; while Orbán tried to confuse him/appeal to the audience with his usual jokes and almost constant giggly uncertainness, which only made Gyurcsány angrier and stronger, but Orbán simply fooled himself.
And because of this stylistic chaos and usage of anachronistic terms, the debate didn't really turn out to be productive/constructive. For me, it wasn't the matter of whom to cheer to, because I oppose both of them, though I second prezzey's fears of Fidesz to be elected in May, 2006.
Gut Shabbes to everyone.