|
|
18 Dec 2003 @ 08:42, by charper. Politics
December 2003 - Are Solid Lines Needed in order to birth a New Civilization?
Today the world is a neighborhood like never before. Right now down the street one of our global neighborhoods called North Korea is running things by fear – every person knows this if they even know of this country. To find this neighborhood you simply need to drive out of yours and go west a few blocks of time. Shortly you will arrive there – but be very careful – folks are being killed there everyday.
Its homeowners association dictates what ‘right behavior looks like’ and if you don’t conform to this ‘look’ your life very well may end. So please heed the warning at this neighborhood’s entrance – “enter with caution – for your life is on the line.” It’s the same sign that was posted in the neighborhood of Iraq just a few months ago. More >
|
|
|
|
 30 May 2003 @ 00:09, by ming. Politics
Better than a card deck of wanted Iraqi officials, here's now the War Profiteer Card Deck. It exposes some of the real war criminals in George W's war on terror. Spades: oil, gas, energy. Hearts: US government officials. Clubs: military/defense contractors. Diamonds: heads of industry, media, policy, and hype. Via Karen Marcelo at BoingBoing. More >
|
|
|
|
 21 May 2003 @ 11:45, by raypows. Politics
The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
Free Inquiry
Spring 2003
5-11-3
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of
prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military
service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the
family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposedto the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with
virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes
for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
They Thought They Were Free
By Milton Mayer
"They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-1945",
University of Chicago Press. Reissued in paperback, April, 1981.
As Harpers Magazine noted when the book was published in 1955 (U. of Chicago), Milton Mayerâsextraordinarily far-sighted book on the Germans is more timely today than ever•
This crucial book tells how and why 'decent men' became Nazis through short biographies of 10 law-abiding citizens. An American journalist of German/Jewish descent, Mr. Mayer provides a fascinating window into the lives, thoughts and emotions of a people caught up in the rush of the Nazi movement. It is a book that should make people pause and think -- not only about the Germans, but also about themselves. More >
|
|
|
|
9 Apr 2003 @ 02:56, by waalstraat. Politics
The major reason for the American War on Iraq, is not just control of the oil fields, but that is a major geo-political reason. The real reason is... More >
|
|
|
|
 4 Apr 2003 @ 12:16, by ming. Politics
One thing I appreciate about how Denmark is run, which I didn't see the same way when I lived there, is that people who are in the position to decide big things will talk it over, seemingly endlessly. Well, that's what it used to look like to me. The news is filled with politicians talking and talking; people speaking for many different sides; nobody apparently committed to much of anything. That is drastically different from the U.S. where the news is filled first of all with disasters, and secondly with politicians who seem very sure about everything, but who only seem to have the opinions they're being paid for having by their corporate handlers. And nobody actually *talks* things over. It is more about getting your side to win, through force, persuasion, lies, money, diversion, or whatever it takes.
In Denmark, the politicians actually seem to be there to talk things through, so that the right decisions can be made. And even though everybody still hates most of them, and even though it takes a while to get anywhere, it is quite real. Working things through with everybody who has a stake is a shared value. Most politicians will be very non-committal, and will refer to that things have to be talked through before they can state anything with certainty. And what I realize now is that this is a good thing. A commitment to dialogue and consensus and openness. Most Danes will probably not agree or recognize this, and will probably tell me that the politicians really are a bunch of crooks, and that nothing gets done, and everything is really bad. But, seeing it from the outside, and only visiting once in a while, things are not too bad in Denmark. It is a wealthy country that takes good care of its people. People are friendly, and everything works. It all looks better than it did when I moved from there 18 years ago. Something is working.
Thomas Madsen Mygdal predicts that the next Danish prime minister will have a weblog. He might very well be right. Whereas it wouldn't work for the current style of politicians in the U.S., it would work well for most Danish politicians.
As a matter of fact, the prior Danish prime minister, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, now has a weblog. It is in Danish, so chances are you can't read it. But it is real. He talks about what he does every day and what he feels about it. That is a real big thing, for a politician to be open like that. And I hope the world sees more of that.
|
|
|
|
 26 Mar 2003 @ 23:58, by quidnovi. Politics
Beware.
Beware those who will tell you we must all speak with one voice.
Beware the brush of the wings of the Locust.
More >
|
|
|
|
 19 Mar 2003 @ 21:30, by quidnovi. Politics
THE FIRST TRIUMVIRAT
WHO WAS PONTIFEX MAXIMUS?
1914---WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE?
More >
|
|
|
|
26 Feb 2003 @ 20:45, by gaiatech. Politics
There is a system of voting where X marks the choice and it is used in Britain, Canada and the USA. It is statistically very boring.
You are not going to find out too much about a voter from seeing an X opposite a politicians name, are you? You might find that her or she is a Conservative or left wing a Green,.
But what type of conservative? Did they vote conservative for economic reasons, or for stronger laws or for something else?
You cannot even guess.
There is another system of voting where you vote 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, etc in order of your choice.
It is a statisticians dream!
You can look through the second 3rd and 4th choices to find out much more clearly what the person is voting for. Not only that, but in this voting system, 3,4 or 5 candidates get elected from one area so you get to choose WHICH conservative is preferred! The choice might be between the economically conservative conservative who is socially liberal (and with wife no 4 ) and his opposite. Economically liberal but socially conservative. With this system, you get to see much more clearly what the people want and why they made their choices. And isnt that what politics should be about? Knowing what the people want and why they want it?
This system is actually remarkably stable! It seems to produce 3 to 4 largish partys and the ocasional split off party. New ones do start from time to time but their thunder is usually taken rather quickly by a large party shifting their position a little. (Again, this is not bad). The partys are changing to reflect the views of the voters and that is what is supposed to happen! I see major problems with bipolar politics. Mushroom parties. Here in BC canada the previous government has 2 elected representives in a parliament of over 70 this time! The government party have the rest!
Over 90% of the voters voted for them? NO!
It was a little over 50%. I WAS SHOCKED!
In another situation, a 3 way division on racial or religious lines could lead to a government with an absolute majority in parliament and just over 30% of the vote. That is really scary!
So, what do you think?
Brian White
|
|
|
|
 19 Feb 2003 @ 13:30, by jewel. Politics
According to the crazy right-wing AM radio stations and commentators I listen to as I descend from the Morongo Basin to the Choachella Valley every day, in a recent statement Senator McCain tells Clinton and Carter to 'shut up'. (Not, though I can't find this transcript yet in any news searchs!) ....
For example, far right commentator Glen Beck thinks that it's the Clinton's desire to rule the world by 2008. Which won't be too bad in my view. I see Clinton a lot like JFK. Obviously both men sold their souls to the devil to get into office. Clinton I am sure was some instrument with the Iran-Contra funds when he was governor of Arkansas; and it is well documented about JFK's daddy's mob and Hoffa buddies buying votes (see 'Double Cross' by the Gioccana bros). But there is an energy for lack of a better word that both men took on and almost embodied. They 'rose to the occasion' in a symbolic and thus important sense. I was lucky to experience the European view of Clinton in his last year in office whilst I was in the UK. An incredible statesman. Could talk beyond rhetoric without notes for an hour at a time. Yes, I know my conspiracy and liberal friends would say he was just as bad in policy as present King George---and, yes, just like Blair, both men represent a 'labour' and 'democratic' platform that is far more to the right and sold out to corrupt corporate interests. No longer seeming to care about the eroding working/ middle class common folks.... and, I agree.
Yet, there is something inherently cool and smartly hip about Clinton... some Light with a capital L--that one can almost sense or detect in his very presence and in the invisible forces behind what he symbolizes whenever he takes the podium or has a lucid moment captured on camera... That's where I draw my analogy with Kennedy. Also the very atmosphere of business and the culture in the country. Where the money was hot. The idea that information, knowledge and virtual realities possessed an inherent value beyond what the current profit margin was. Of course the dot com bubble needed to burst to some extent. But the money although still corporate and thus still corrupt---was a step in the right direction, not the same power as the old money of tobacco and oil that seems to be behind the Bush camp.
So, Beck says that Clinton is jockeying for UN Secretary-General. Here's a few negative ideas on the matter; ... Sure he is still looking out for his own grandeur and political career. But no matter, I feel he could be well 'used' in these situations. And here Laura Ingraham warns: "As conservatives long suspected, Bill Clinton's loyalty, as evidenced in this speech, is not primarily to this country. His loyalty is to the liberal European elites who adore both him and the prospect of the world where America is no longer the world's sole super power. (Clinton also warned against US efforts to "dominate and run the world.")
For Clinton, a new UN resolution on Iraq is merely a means to a larger goal-"the chance to integrate the world, to make the United Nations a more meaningful, more powerful, more effective institution." The crowd went nuts.
Bill Clinton is still the biggest figure on the Democratic stage. He still raises the most money. He still exerts influence through Hillary and pal DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe. He is still beloved by Hollywood. Republicans should call upon all Democrats to either embrace or distance themselves from this World According to Clinton. Do they agree with Clinton that the US shouldn't try to be a dominant world force? Do they agree that our main goal should be an "integrated world." Do they agree that we're ripping off the UN by not sending more money Kofi's way?
Meanwhile, if Bill Clinton wants, sometime in the future, to be named Secretary General of a super-sized UN, he already has the campaign theme down pat: America Last." Similarly, Beck 'warns', what if in 2008 the then UN Secretary-General Clinton is hosting a party for his wife the eve of the election---who will run the world then?
None of these 'warnings' frighten me. Rather a deliver a strange surreal hope and even a promise amist all the current mayhem... if we could make it to 2008.
Maybe the fall of Rome won't hurt so bad if a former Casesar--having been matured, humbled and even more enlightened--is involved with it's empiricism's punishment and potential reform on the global stage... and if Hillary keeps her spine up! More >
|
|
|
|
 13 Feb 2003 @ 23:59, by ming. Politics
It is a widely held value that people can hold different opinions, and it is sort of good to agree to disagree. Particularly if it is political opinions. It is considered noble to respect people one disagrees with.
But there are some qualities of opinions that most people don't notice. It is sometimes like comparing apples and oranges. Two opinions might be of a totally different order from each other, even though they are compared equally.
Let's take a politically and religiously very controversial issue like abortion. The typical way of presenting it is that there are two sides. For or against, basically. The people who think abortion should be legal and those who think it should be illegal. Those are not at the same logical level at all. Comparable choices would be to force all pregnant women to have abortions versus to allow no pregnant women to have abortions. Yes, that is ridiculous, but those would be logical opposites on the same playing field.
Or let's take opinions about whether it should be legal to smoke in public places or not. One side says that one should never be allowed to do so, or one would be fined or arrested. The opposite of that would be that one HAS to smoke in public places, or one would be fined or arrested. Ridiculous? Yes, indeed.
The point is that the choice of forcing everybody to always do something, or to never do something, that's a huge responsibility, and not just a matter of making a good point. You have to be responsible for it always, always, forever being the right choice. That's a real big thing. And it is fairly impossible, because you don't really know if it is always the right thing, because you probably can't imagine all the people and all the situations it applies it. So you probably just make the choice based on your own personal inclination right now, or your religious beliefs, or your idealistic political views, and you might vote for having that choice imposed on everybody all the time. And you sort of ignore the details, hoping that as a member of a government, you probably never have to be faced with those circumstances where that choice wouldn't be the right one.
So, in summary, the option that people are free to make their own reasonable choices based on the situations they find themselves in, that is not on equal footing with the option that they always have to do things the same one way, or that they never can do it a certain way.
People who believe in abortion rights do not necessarily plan on getting pregnant and getting an abortion. People who think there should be somewhere they can smoke, do not necessarily plan on smoking in all the very places that would be the most bothersome for non-smokers. They would maybe just like to be free to make some reasonable choices about it, based on the actual circumstances.
So, they're not equal opinions to have. If your option involves that I will be forbidden by force from exercising my option, but my option only is my personal choice, then our options are certainly not equal. Your option is clearly hostile to mine, but the reverse probably isn't true, even if you have trained yourself to think about it as if it is.
Most politicians don't realize the enormity of a decision to force something to be a certain way for everybody, particularly when we're talking about some sort of personal behavior or lifestyle choice.
To go to war and or not to go to war aren't equal either. They aren't just different opinions, different choices based on personal preferences. One will involve taking away the right to choose from hundreds of thousands or millions of people, because they will probably be killed. Sometimes that might make sense, if even bigger killing is avoided, but it is a very, vary hard decision, based on careful analysis of the facts. It isn't just some opinion to have.
Certain global choices don't really take anything away from anybody. Forcing all of us to drive in the right or the left side of the street, or to use 110V or 220V electricity, that is a matter of organization, and doesn't make any of us lose anything.
But a choice is a choice. Something an individual makes, or something that the people involved make in concert.
True bottom-up grassroots democracy consists of people making choices, and being quite likely to get what they're choosing. Many people will choose different things, and they will get different things. Enforcing the same choices on everybody should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. More >
|
|
<< Newer entries Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Older entries >> |
|
