h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Followers of this journal will know that my flatmate is rarely to be considered a source of wisdom.

Yesterday, however, he happened to catch part of the news on his way through the living area, and said as he dissppeared;

'Is it me, or is the world getting sh*tt**r and sh*tt**r and the shouldn't the people in charge know better?'

Pretty hard to argue with really.

I wouldn't say the world is getting worse, as such, just people in the western world as a whole are more aware of it. I don't suppose tehre's any more wars and random killings going on now than there were 50, a 100 or a 1000 years ago, it's just that thanks to 24 news services and war correspondents, we can be kept more informed of them, should we wish to be.

Not true. The war in the Congo has now claimed more lives than WWII, which was the biggest nuber of casualties in any wat up to that point. Ansd awareness of that little fact runs at almost zero, in my experience.

Our ability to kill each other, and our hypocrisy in being able to sell cluster bombs to repressive regimes whilst mouthing platitudes about 'The war on Terror' is a pretty new one, to be honest.

That doesn't mean human nature, i.e. "I don't agree with you so I'm going to kill you" has changed, we've simply found better ways of killing people. Hypocrisy? Since Roman times (and probably before), leaders have said one thing while they're busy doing something totally at odds with that. Again, we *notice* more, because our leders activities are reported more. The intrigues of court haven't changed- shagging each other other and stabbing each other in back, both literally and figuratively can again be seen even in Roman times, it's just the general was less likely to know about it.

I think it is the extra efficiency we can now bring to the job which depresses so much, to be honest. Human nature *hasn't* changed, you're right, but our ability to destroy more and more of the people we disagree with in shorter and shorter time spans is appalling.

And it wasn't a question of 'Didn't they used to know better'. It was '*Shouldn't* they know better'. The answer to which really has to be a pretty uneqivocal 'Yes'. In fact, most of them do know better, they just refuse to do anything about it for the sake of expediency.

Should they know better? Yes. What's their incentive to *do* better, though? Humans are selfish creatures. The osrt of human that becomes a politician, doubly so.

Scrap the PM, let's have the Prince of Wales in charge. I like the idea of a leader who talks to plants and gets smashed on cherry brandy.

Hmm, not sure about that. He's blind (look at his choice of girlfriend) and not overly endowed in the 'common experience of life' thing, is he?

That would be interesting...A Royal effecting the greatest turnaround in our grossly socially stratified world, which was brought about in much part courtesy of American country bumpkins.

Morning sweetie. How are you/

Grossly socially startified? You think?

He hasn't chosen his girlfriend for her looks, which shows foresight, since every blooming flower wilts. 'Common experience of life', well, he spends a great deal of time trying to understand the problems facing rural communties, so if he can apply that experience and approach to other communities in the world, he'd havea head start on the current leaders straight away.

Pity he's not too hot on the industrial communities and life in the inner cities, then, eh?

Sorry, I can't see his blinkered upbringing would make him ay better or less qualified to lead us than any other public school educated berk with no chin and big ears.

And flowers may wilt but at least you can enjoy while they are blooming. He choose this woman long ago, and she has always looked like a horse. Which says more about the Royals than we probably need to know, in my opinion.

I didn't misspell stratified....did I?

I'm ok.

How are you?

Actually, I wonder who would be the better politician; old-money royalty type, or aggressive new-money capitalist type. Maybe the former type would be bored enough to read something once in a while .

>Pity he's not too hot on the industrial communities and life in the inner cities, then, eh?
At least he shows some interest in the disadvantaged, which is more than can be said for our supposedly Labour Government. We believe people from grotty inner cities can overcome any disadvantages of their origins, why not believe the same of someone from the other end of the scale?

>He choose this woman long ago, and she has always looked like a horse
Tastes differ. I've always thought you was quite pleasing on the eye in her youth, in a handsome sort of way.

If he could take time out from the huntin shootin and fishin, maybe he would, eh?

I'm fine. A little tried. Having fallen asleep during Englands rather shabby and dull footie game yesterday, I of course woke up at 5 am and was forced to watcgh the beginning of 'Nikita'.

I have nothing against Chrles, you know. I just don't think he's that interesting or well informed, either.

Oh? Someone bring a lawsuit against you? You haven't been feeding on Tube passengers again, have you? Haha ha...ha.

Nah, I just shove them on with a broom. Tube passengers, that is...

Sowy...

Well, I suppose I will put myself to bed. If you see me again in an hour or two you'll know how successful the endeavor was

Nighty night

Nothing wrong with hunting shooting and fishing. In fact, with the possible exception the first, they're also working-class hobbies, which probably give Charlie boy more links to said class than half of the people in the House of Commons.

Oh and, who exactly 'forced' you to watch Nikita? Tied to the chiar were you?

You want I should come and do that, Nyssa? If you're not sure how succesful you're going to be...