[clipped - lack of response to the questions posed
Disagree. Politics is no dirtier than ever? Like what you just did, I can ask this: Is there any comparative examples to proof that? While we are living in an era with talented people and robust information technology, there is no evidence that the politics can become more transparent. Most dirty acts like corruption are covered up, and even if it were exposed, it came too late and the court will just rule that there's not enough evidence. The politicians that hold the power can make sure themselves are safe, put blame on the others that serve under them and how do you say it's amended when the culprit can't be judged as he hold so much power that anyone who opposes eventually suffer?
Sure. Despite your non-answer, and reiteration of what might be valid points (if you'd care to expand on them), I'll try to answer.
First: existential proofs of the internet's power to expose (and, more importantly, proliferate information about) corruption:
a) Arab Spring
b) the current Syrian civil war
c) Wikileaks
d) any number of political candidates' records of actions/votes/speeches being spread and dissected via YouTube, etc
e) the current battles between copyleft advocates and the MPAA, worldwide
f) fast, efficient dissemination of knowledge from various charitible/NGO groups (Amnesty Int'l, Medicins sans Frontiers, etc)
g) is that enough, or need I go on?
Second: logical inconsistancies in your position:
a) if, as you say, 'Most dirty acts like corruption are covered up,' then either a) the coverup is unsuccessful, hence your knowing about it (perhaps via teh webz?); or b) the coverup is successful, in which case you wouldn't know about it. You seem to be choosing b) - the argument from ignorance. Basically, 'I *know* there's something, but I don't know what, therefore....'
Third: defeatism:
'The politicians that hold the power can make sure themselves are safe, put blame on the others that serve under them and how do you say it's amended when the culprit can't be judged as he hold so much power that anyone who opposes eventually suffer?'
So, you've given up, before even demonstrating knowledge of the systems you claim to dislike? Okay, fine - but then don't bother being angry about it, either - the culprits *can't* be judged, right?
...which, in one sentance, pretty much tries to negate the entirety of civilized human endeavour, since politics rose up beyond the stature of tribal elder.
Listen: I agree that corruption exists; I'd have to be a right fool not to. Where I take issue is with the assumption that things are somehow getting worse, despite the rising standard of living for *all* humans, worldwide - despite the corruption in the world. We're getting better, as a species, of identifying and weeding out problematic leaders. Giving up on that noble purpose, just because it sometimes seems difficult, is a direct '[expletive removed] YOU!' to all of those who dedicate their lives to making the world a better place.
For things to get 'better,' you must first act as though it's a possibility. Even if what you think is 'better' disagrees with what I think.
TL;DR: Things aren't getting worse in the world; there was no perfect past, there will be no perfect future - but we can make things better, if we're careful to identify problems as clearly and distictly as possible. I suspect that, were you to do so, much of the frustration you're exhibiting would melt away, in direct relation to the number of specific, soluble, problems you identify.
Poll
