For Inequality, disunity and lies
Or how the master of socialist double talk has decided to make up for his mistakes.
How can Josephus, author of the recent
article which attacks Glasser for FREE take that stand? Was not Josephus a member of the Cabinet, and the government? Didn't the ESRP spearhead the CPR, a coalition which included every major political party and nearly all the members of Glasser's cabinet (myself excluded)?
The answer is, Josephus and his party took a stand, which became unpopular with people they wanted to court votes from. And now that we can see what he did, he wants to turn the blame on someone else. Now that we have seen one side of the issue, I am here to present you with the other side. You know, the one with the truth?
Josephus was not as sure of what he believed back then. In fact, when Josephus left he did not mention any concern for the coming disaster. Instead he said that we, the proponents of FREE, were responsible for breaking up Eutopia. He said, in his farewell letter, and I quote “I absolutely refuse to work with a government that has as its main interest the dissolution of the Eutopian state.”
That is an interesting thing to say from a man who in his article stated that before he resigned he was worried about the disaster approaching the country. Josephus did all he could to lighten the hurricane’s impact. But man can only do so much to stop mother nature. Josephus, it now appears, blames the rest of the cabinet for what happened. Interesting, but I do not see what Tilly as MILE, or Talbott as MDIA could have done to lessen the impact of a hurricane. Shooting our guns at storm clouds isn’t the way to go. Sorry.
Josephus was the man who promised FREE. He said to the striking workers that the government cared, and then stabbed them in the back. If Josephus and his party was always against “federalism and provincial/ state/ ethnic autonomy.” Then why didn’t he make some statement of this BEFORE FREE came to vote? And guess what, it wasn’t the first time. His party also stood by and watched other bills fail. Did they bring up some sort of opposition? No. Did they argue and debate and get things changed? No.
Josephus and his lackeys were interested only in ignoring democratic practices and destroying our country. Isn’t it easier to bribe a nation with false promises of utopia when they feel betrayed? And since Josephus wasn’t top dog it would be easy for him to distance himself from the rest of the cabinet.
But that is beside the point. Josephus claims that we voted for FREE because it would make us more popular. But, if I may quote to you all from the RPE party platform, “he government does not need to interfere in the lives of average Eutopians.” Or, in regular terms, smaller central government. Josephus claims that the bill contradicts itself as well. But the very passage he uses does not!
From his article:
“ He said, “However, a less noticed change is the ability for provinces to enact tougher environmental and labor standards. This means that a liberal state could enforce a living wage or other pro-worker legislation that could never be enacted at the federal level. And states are prohibited from weakening federal rules. If for this reason alone I would urge for you to support the amendment”
This is in fact a lie. The enacted Bill prohibits states from such activity.
“States may pass additional laws regulating the areas of Domestic Transport, Public Works, Public Utilities and Energy, Environment and Labor provided that they meet minimums established by the Federal Government and are not in contradiction of any regulations by the Federal Government." “
So, if a state wanted to increase the minimums, they could. Sorry Joe, but you don’t make any sense. Your pulling arguments out of thin air to cover your mistakes. And Eutopia wont buy it. Josephus has been for too long proclaiming himself as a representative of the workers, but not even this hero to the labouring classes could end the strike, when that was his job. So, why do we still listen to him?
Glasser’s statement in the cabinet, “We are giving them optional control over education” is something Josephus ignores. The fact is, this bill would re-iterate the control the people in the “latin” provinces already had, but perhaps was not clear enough. The rest of Glasser’s statement is simply stating that if the provinces wanted to return to more central control, something I am sure Josephus would love, they could.
Josephus, in his article, constantly attacks the old administration, which he was a part of. He argues that we wanted to centralize more power, something he wanted, and he blasts us for ignoring the problems with the hurricanes, something we relied on him to do. So, it seems that these vague attacks on the previous administration are really just a cunning shift of blame away from those really responsible for what occurred to those who are trying to make things better.
Good Job Josephus, you are a doctor of spin. Too bad we aren’t going to buy it this time.
-Konstantin Vilms, political editor