I had a conversation with someone who was a member of the package on my last trip.
He was believed to have retired from high office, and he was quite eloquent.
When we talk about generations these days, I talk about you, you know, about you.
The times have changed, the methods of obtaining information are different, so if kids are doing something on their cell phones these days, it's not wasting time, it's learning the world.
Then he asked me what I was learning from the wired student.
I was a little shy, but I was mostly learning humanities.
When he said that, he said,
He said, "The old man is already studying humanities."
I think it's a compliment, and I think it's a good thing to say.
And that's why I couldn't feel good.
But the sad thing was that there was a universal social culture in which humanities was perceived to be the exclusive possession of older people.
Is the study of humanities, or human understanding, unique to older people?
In today's society, there's an age where there's a lot of emphasis on liberal arts in the workplace, and there aren't many people around me who say they're studying humanities.
Of course, studying humanities is not only about reading a good book or taking a lecture from a good lecturer.
I think it is humanities to talk to others in real life and to watch novels, to watch movies, to watch dramas and cartoons and to feel various characters of human beings is humanities.
But I think knowing a word that can define a human body in a certain term can help me remember a little bit more.
To understand that vocabulary, reading humanities books is not easy for me to afford, so my next best option, Cho Sun-su, was to see students.
I listened to Park Han-yong's lecture during the office hours today.
What a different person to look at, saying that he is not criticizing a particular political party or faction. I thought about it, but I agreed that at least I need to distinguish between conservatives and progressives, and that I need to understand and define my political orientation.
Of course, some expressed partiality, saying only moderate progressives and not defining moderate pay.
It's not bad. It's a poison for those who blindly follow his story, but it's a little helpful for those who admit to diversity.
It's a flying review, but I'm not going to rate it as an asterisk. If you're interested in it, you'd better evaluate it.
지나가다보니 저런 현수막이 있네요..
아직까지 연동형 비례제에 대한 구체적인 안을 각 당에서 정리한 것은 없는 것으로 아는데.
일단 현재 지역구의원들이 불안해하니 국회의원 수를 늘리는 것도 하나의 안으로 논의되고 있는 것으로 알고 있습니다.
하지만, 국민들은 그걸 바라지 않으니 부담스럽겠죠. (어찌됐던 각 당에서는 제도에 대한 안을 정확히 발표하고 있지는 않습니다.
뭐가됐던 여당과 제1야당은 의석수가 조금씩은 줄어들거 같으니..
세금만 축내는 XX라고 욕을 하는 마당에.. 늘리면 안 될거 같다는 심리를 이용해서 연동형 비례제를 반대하라고 선동을 하는군요.
다 떠나서. 국회의원 욕 먹는 상황을 당에서도 알고 있고, 인정을 하는거겠죠? 그러니.. 아마도 이런 꼼수를..
연동형 비례제와는 별개로 결론은 국회의원 줄이자는 이야기로 받아들이면 되는거지? 꼭 찬성해라~
It may be somewhat absurd, but it is argued that lawmakers elected under the current election system should be converted into a lottery system.
He has been constantly looking at the evils of party politics and wondering how it would be possible to form a National Assembly that would accurately reflect the public's will.
Although there is a constituency system to reduce regional color, I think there are limitations in collecting the opinions of the members of society from the ground up due to the limitations of party politics.
Wouldn't this country's politics be more like a mix of iron-fisted and aristocratic politics, at least given the ingredients of the current assemblyman?
Most of the members of the National Assembly of a party who are in the name of remuneration are people who are connected to businesses and people of financial resources.
The reality is that the opinions of the powerless and weak grasshoppers are used as slogans only during elections, as the ingredients of those who have come from those who value progress are closer to scholars and financiers, and forgotten all after elections.
The practice of setting up a puppet of proportional representation in order to silence criticism of the composition of alcohol is nothing but a fierce one.
Can we say that the Republic of Korea in this situation is a real democracy?
Under the party political system, in order to become a lawmaker, they must first join a political party (of course there are independents but eventually end up joining a political party) and work within the party to win the nomination (whether it involves money or not), and then they must race to prepare for the election after winning the nomination (at least with uncertain election).
Therefore, if elected, it is an honor to work as a lawmaker and read it as an investment recovery.There is a good chance that if they fall, their lives will fall into the abyss.
It is only natural that a lawmaker, even if he or she becomes a lawmaker, will not do anything for the nation or for the people, but it is a matter of the current electoral system.
Lawmakers should be selected through a lottery based on the resident registration numbers of people who have not committed rational and reasonable reasons for disqualification, such as anti-humanitarian criminals, gold diggers and tax evaders.
There must be a mix of uneducated and educated, powerless, prejudiced and objective among those who have been elected to the National Assembly by lottery.
Obviously, most of them lack experience, knowledge, and discipline in moving the largest organization of nations.
But I am confident that I will make policies and laws for the real people rather than the current National Assembly.
Do you think they're going to ruin the country because they don't learn and eat? Did not the separation of administrative and judicial powers be achieved to compensate for such problems?
The current lawmakers are spokesmen for the top 1 percent. Because they are the top 1 percent of this society.
It is only occasionally a few bills that will appease the grasslands for the next election. It is also true that they are buried in the subject of attention according to the current trend. (That is not to say that all like that. But I think that's the case for the absolute majority.)
However, I think the election of lawmakers through a lottery will be a National Assembly consisting of the top 1 percent of the vote and the bottom 99 percent of the vote.
Only then is it confident that the National Assembly will enact legislation that reflects the will of the bottom 99 percent.
Also, a lawmaker elected by lottery is unlikely to win reelection, so I'm sure he will try really for the country without showing any plot or cowardice for the next election.
Therefore, the National Assembly will truly establish itself as a powerful power institution for people, and I am sure that each lawmaker will exist as a true volunteer who cannot use his or her power.
It's an idea that comes from Russo's social contract theory. If I interpret it in a modern way, I think I can make a better country, so I post my thoughts and thoughts.
- I'm not good at statistics, but I think theoretically, if the ns are over 30, they can reflect their opinions as representatives of the population (all over the country). I believe that if we elect more than 200 lawmakers through a lottery, we can statistically reflect the true will of the people.
- I believe that just the amount of money they spend on campaign government subsidies and election processes will be sufficient to keep their salaries in office.
ps2. Since we are still in the process of organizing our thoughts, please give us a variety of opinions/discussions. I think we can make a difference when we think together and think bigger.
Thank you for reading such a rambling.