"Even alcohol";
Smoking marijuana will certainly affect perception, but it does not cause permanent brain damage, researchers from the University of California at San Diego said on Friday in a study.
"The findings were kind of a surprise. One might have expected to see more impairment of higher mental function," said Dr. Igor Grant, a UCSD professor of psychiatry and the study's lead author. Other illegal drugs, or even alcohol, can cause brain damage.
30.6.03
More on dossier-gate;
Donald Anderson, chair of the foreign affairs select committee, demanded that he be allowed to question the chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), who oversaw the production of the government's reports.
Mr Straw refused, saying that it would be more appropriate for the JIC chairman to appear before the Commons intelligence and security committee, the proceedings of which are confidential.
Mr Anderson told Mr Straw: "In effect you are using this jurisdictional point to stop the committee having what could be absolutely decisive evidence."
Donald Anderson, chair of the foreign affairs select committee, demanded that he be allowed to question the chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), who oversaw the production of the government's reports.
Mr Straw refused, saying that it would be more appropriate for the JIC chairman to appear before the Commons intelligence and security committee, the proceedings of which are confidential.
Mr Anderson told Mr Straw: "In effect you are using this jurisdictional point to stop the committee having what could be absolutely decisive evidence."
27.6.03
26.6.03
Irony watch>;
"Politicians and corporate leaders are often forced to respond to the NGO media machine, and the resources of taxpayers and shareholders are used in support of ends they did not sanction. The extraordinary growth of advocacy NGOs in liberal democracies has the potential to undermine the sovereignty of constitutional democracies, as well as the effectiveness of credible NGOs"
Fine, but who says?
"Politicians and corporate leaders are often forced to respond to the NGO media machine, and the resources of taxpayers and shareholders are used in support of ends they did not sanction. The extraordinary growth of advocacy NGOs in liberal democracies has the potential to undermine the sovereignty of constitutional democracies, as well as the effectiveness of credible NGOs"
Fine, but who says?
"There were hundreds of reporters. People had spent huge amounts of money getting there and we were getting nothing."
[....]
"He claimed the decision to allow embedding had been a "moment of sheer brilliance" on the part of the Bush administration and suggested the move had turned reporters in such positions into little more than public relations people."
[....]
"He claimed the decision to allow embedding had been a "moment of sheer brilliance" on the part of the Bush administration and suggested the move had turned reporters in such positions into little more than public relations people."
From Pravda;
Oliver Stone Castro Documentary Prohibited in USA Now Showing in Russia
Sensation: Hamas Recognizes Israel
It has been discovered, nerves of aged people are stronger and their emotions are mostly positive
Oliver Stone Castro Documentary Prohibited in USA Now Showing in Russia
Sensation: Hamas Recognizes Israel
It has been discovered, nerves of aged people are stronger and their emotions are mostly positive
Today is doomed to die, because yesterday has died and because tomorrow shall be born. Such is the cruel and wise law. Cruel, because it dooms to eternal dissatisfaction those who today already see the distant heights of tomorrow; wise, because only eternal dissatisfaction is the guarantee of unending movement forward, of unending creativity. He who has found his ideal today, has already been turned into a pillar of salt as was Lot's wife, has already grown into the earth and moves no further. The world lives only by heretics: Christ the heretic, Copernicus the heretic, Tolstoj the heretic. Our creed is heresy: tomorrow is infallibly heresy for the today which has been turned into a pillar of salt, for the yesterday which has crumbled into dust. Today negates yesterday, but tomorrow is the negation of negation: always the same dialectical path, which carries the world into infinity along a grandiose parabola. Thesis yesterday, antithesis today, and synthesis tomorrow.
Between the old and the new, between tomorrow and today, there exists an eternal struggle. This struggle exists in all walks of human life -- including science, and science too has its own tomorrow and today. Today consists of everything that has already been mastered, determined, generally recognized, and is considered to be incontestable and infallible. And this belief in their own infallibility sometimes makes the representatives of "today's" science a conservative element, retarding the never-ending movement of science forward. . . Even now, when science has adopted the correct view that everything which seems infallible is infallible only relatively, is infallible only today -- even now traces of former reverence before dogma occasionally crop up. So recently. in our time, the miraculous properties of radium were discovered, which upset the seemingly most infallible scientific laws -- and in our time more than one orthodox scientist skeptically mocked the heretics who had encroached upon these still recently sacred foundations. And the world lives only through its heretics, through those who reject the seemingly unshakeable and infallible today. Only the heretics discover new horizons in science, in art, in social life: only the heretics, rejecting today in the name of tomorrow, are the eternal ferment of life and ensure life's unending movement forward.
Revolution is everywhere, in everything; it is infinite, there is no final revolution, no final number. The social revolution is only one of innumerable numbers; the law of revolution is not social, but immeasurably greater -- a cosmic, universal law -- like the law of the conservation of energy, of the dissipation of energy (entropy). Someday the exact formula for the law of revolution will be established, and in this formula nations, classes, stars, and books will be numerical quantities.
When the flaming, boiling sphere (in science, religion, social life, art) cools, the fiery magma becomes covered with dogma -- a hard, ossified, immovable crust. Dogmatization in science, religion, social life, in the arts, is the entropy of thought. That which has become dogma no longer burns, it only warms; it is warm, it is cool. Instead of the Sermon on the Mount under a blazing sun, above uplifted arms and groans, a drowsy prayer in a splendid abbey; instead of Galileo's tragic "But nonetheless it revolves," calm calculations in the warm office of an observatory. On the Galileos epigones slowly, polyp-like, as corals, build their own edifice: this is the path of evolution, until a new heresy explodes the crust of dogma and all the most solid stone structures that have been raised on it.
------------------
All extracts are cited in and taken from The Life and Works of Evgenij Zamjatin by Alex M. Shane (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), pp. 23, 46, 47, 48
Between the old and the new, between tomorrow and today, there exists an eternal struggle. This struggle exists in all walks of human life -- including science, and science too has its own tomorrow and today. Today consists of everything that has already been mastered, determined, generally recognized, and is considered to be incontestable and infallible. And this belief in their own infallibility sometimes makes the representatives of "today's" science a conservative element, retarding the never-ending movement of science forward. . . Even now, when science has adopted the correct view that everything which seems infallible is infallible only relatively, is infallible only today -- even now traces of former reverence before dogma occasionally crop up. So recently. in our time, the miraculous properties of radium were discovered, which upset the seemingly most infallible scientific laws -- and in our time more than one orthodox scientist skeptically mocked the heretics who had encroached upon these still recently sacred foundations. And the world lives only through its heretics, through those who reject the seemingly unshakeable and infallible today. Only the heretics discover new horizons in science, in art, in social life: only the heretics, rejecting today in the name of tomorrow, are the eternal ferment of life and ensure life's unending movement forward.
Revolution is everywhere, in everything; it is infinite, there is no final revolution, no final number. The social revolution is only one of innumerable numbers; the law of revolution is not social, but immeasurably greater -- a cosmic, universal law -- like the law of the conservation of energy, of the dissipation of energy (entropy). Someday the exact formula for the law of revolution will be established, and in this formula nations, classes, stars, and books will be numerical quantities.
When the flaming, boiling sphere (in science, religion, social life, art) cools, the fiery magma becomes covered with dogma -- a hard, ossified, immovable crust. Dogmatization in science, religion, social life, in the arts, is the entropy of thought. That which has become dogma no longer burns, it only warms; it is warm, it is cool. Instead of the Sermon on the Mount under a blazing sun, above uplifted arms and groans, a drowsy prayer in a splendid abbey; instead of Galileo's tragic "But nonetheless it revolves," calm calculations in the warm office of an observatory. On the Galileos epigones slowly, polyp-like, as corals, build their own edifice: this is the path of evolution, until a new heresy explodes the crust of dogma and all the most solid stone structures that have been raised on it.
------------------
All extracts are cited in and taken from The Life and Works of Evgenij Zamjatin by Alex M. Shane (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), pp. 23, 46, 47, 48
25.6.03
The author goes on to assess the prospects for achieving a natural order of liberty. Informed by his analysis of the radical deficiencies of social democracy, and armed with the social theory of legitimation, he forsees secession as the likely future of the US and Europe, resulting in a multitude of region and city-states. Democracy-The God that Failed (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2001) is a brilliant and unflinching work that will be of intense interest to scholars and students of history, political economy, and political philosophy. READ THE INTRODUCTION.
Democracy -- The God That Failed
erm. dark?
Democracy -- The God That Failed
erm. dark?
Both reportorially and philosophically, Gitlin helps the reader understand once-familiar political strategies like "sit-in" and "teach-in," and why "activist" is not just another "ist" (like "feminist"), because "it's not your beliefs that make you one but your beliefs hooking up to your activities."
Unlike some other authors in the "Mentoring" series who've stressed Do's and Don'ts with insufficient history and context, Gitlin rightly praises activism's wins over time: "The Confederacy would not have abolished slavery. The eight-hour day, the minimum wage, Social Security, public funding for medical care and higher education, clean water... were not dreamed up by corporations or status quo governments."
He describes political movements that now seem clear successes, like the divestiture battle against South Africa and Larry Kramer's fight for the distribution of cheap AIDS drugs; the semi-successes, such as Gandhi's campaign to free India from Britain (Result: a free India, but a two-country solution, India and Pakistan, founded on hatred and intolerance); and the failures, in which he lumps the Black Panther Party with the Symbionese Liberation Army. Gitlin's activism looks a lot like classic, American, problem-solving pragmatism, but directed to altruistic social good rather than selfish personal goals or merely scientific accomplishment. [fuck pragmatism]
At bottom, Gitlin's a realist who urges progressive victories in social struggle, not the utopian, all-or-nothing attitude that tempts some idealists into thinking they're "ushering in a worldly paradise." The wise activist will keep the "rapture of purism" under control. ["dreaming? get with it! we're from/on mars" - tosser]
Among tools, the veteran of many protests recommends "a sense of irony" and "playfulness" instead of sarcasm or rage. Among motives, he names the three great ones as "duty, love and adventure," which exclude irresponsibility, hate and timidity. Among commitments, he cites the importance of "connecting to the public," citing Bertolt Brecht's acerbic warning to the East German government that you're not permitted to dissolve the people and elect a new one.
Unlike some other authors in the "Mentoring" series who've stressed Do's and Don'ts with insufficient history and context, Gitlin rightly praises activism's wins over time: "The Confederacy would not have abolished slavery. The eight-hour day, the minimum wage, Social Security, public funding for medical care and higher education, clean water... were not dreamed up by corporations or status quo governments."
He describes political movements that now seem clear successes, like the divestiture battle against South Africa and Larry Kramer's fight for the distribution of cheap AIDS drugs; the semi-successes, such as Gandhi's campaign to free India from Britain (Result: a free India, but a two-country solution, India and Pakistan, founded on hatred and intolerance); and the failures, in which he lumps the Black Panther Party with the Symbionese Liberation Army. Gitlin's activism looks a lot like classic, American, problem-solving pragmatism, but directed to altruistic social good rather than selfish personal goals or merely scientific accomplishment. [fuck pragmatism]
At bottom, Gitlin's a realist who urges progressive victories in social struggle, not the utopian, all-or-nothing attitude that tempts some idealists into thinking they're "ushering in a worldly paradise." The wise activist will keep the "rapture of purism" under control. ["dreaming? get with it! we're from/on mars" - tosser]
Among tools, the veteran of many protests recommends "a sense of irony" and "playfulness" instead of sarcasm or rage. Among motives, he names the three great ones as "duty, love and adventure," which exclude irresponsibility, hate and timidity. Among commitments, he cites the importance of "connecting to the public," citing Bertolt Brecht's acerbic warning to the East German government that you're not permitted to dissolve the people and elect a new one.
Religious conservatives have tended ever since to view the Enlightenment and its books with suspicion. They are hardly alone. When the upheavals of the French Revolution revealed the perils of unraveling established authority, many wondered if the Enlightenment injunction to ''Dare to know''-to think for oneself-was really such a good thing.
To 19th-century socialists or 20th-century Marxists, on the other hand, the Enlightenment seemed a rather tepid affair. Its vaunted liberal freedoms and individual rights, they argued, were really the false freedoms of the few, merely used to promote the rising bourgeoisie's ascent to power. By contrast, in the aftermath of World War II, critics of a variety of political persuasions came to see the influence of the Enlightenment as all too vast.
In an infamous case for the prosecution, the left-leaning German philosophers Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno argued that the Enlightenment was responsible for the Holocaust. Incapable of defining absolute moral ends, the Enlightenment's ''instrumental reason'' could define only means. A tool of power, it encouraged human beings to see their fellows as objects to be exploited like the natural resources of the earth. ''Enlightenment behaves towards things,'' Horkheimer and Adorno affirmed, ''as a dictator toward men.'' In a grim pun, they added, ''The fully enlightened earth radiates the triumph of destruction.''
Looking on from a quite different perspective, leading defenders of the West during the Cold War, such as the Oxford political theorist Isaiah Berlin, leveled similar charges regarding the allegedly totalitarian tendencies lurking in the Enlightenment. In their view, however, the end product was not the Holocaust but the Gulag. The Enlightenment's will to intellectual mastery, they charged, and its attempt to link all values-moral, political, and aesthetic-to a uniform rational system was akin to the perverted force that drove communist tyranny, stamping out genuine pluralism and difference in the name of reason.
More recently, a number of postmodern scholars have given their own spin to such interpretations. Frequently drawing on the work of the late French philosopher Michel Foucault, they tend to be suspicious, even contemptuous, of the Enlightenment's claims on behalf of reason. Such critics point out, for example, that so-called ''enlightened'' scientists developed dubious and ultimately insidious ways to classify gender difference and racial inferiority in the 18th century, basing their conclusions on the alleged authority of reason. And they press the uncomfortable fact that good enlightenment figures like Jefferson, Kant, and Hume had what by today's standards are extremely distasteful views on ''inferior'' (e.g. nonwhite) peoples. Far from being a movement of freedom, enlightenment was a tool of hegemony and social control.
enlightenment? terrible discussion- review in itself is so p-m confused, everybody except pre-revolution french feudals seem anti-foundational in outlook. including frankf school. standard = a-level geography..
To 19th-century socialists or 20th-century Marxists, on the other hand, the Enlightenment seemed a rather tepid affair. Its vaunted liberal freedoms and individual rights, they argued, were really the false freedoms of the few, merely used to promote the rising bourgeoisie's ascent to power. By contrast, in the aftermath of World War II, critics of a variety of political persuasions came to see the influence of the Enlightenment as all too vast.
In an infamous case for the prosecution, the left-leaning German philosophers Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno argued that the Enlightenment was responsible for the Holocaust. Incapable of defining absolute moral ends, the Enlightenment's ''instrumental reason'' could define only means. A tool of power, it encouraged human beings to see their fellows as objects to be exploited like the natural resources of the earth. ''Enlightenment behaves towards things,'' Horkheimer and Adorno affirmed, ''as a dictator toward men.'' In a grim pun, they added, ''The fully enlightened earth radiates the triumph of destruction.''
Looking on from a quite different perspective, leading defenders of the West during the Cold War, such as the Oxford political theorist Isaiah Berlin, leveled similar charges regarding the allegedly totalitarian tendencies lurking in the Enlightenment. In their view, however, the end product was not the Holocaust but the Gulag. The Enlightenment's will to intellectual mastery, they charged, and its attempt to link all values-moral, political, and aesthetic-to a uniform rational system was akin to the perverted force that drove communist tyranny, stamping out genuine pluralism and difference in the name of reason.
More recently, a number of postmodern scholars have given their own spin to such interpretations. Frequently drawing on the work of the late French philosopher Michel Foucault, they tend to be suspicious, even contemptuous, of the Enlightenment's claims on behalf of reason. Such critics point out, for example, that so-called ''enlightened'' scientists developed dubious and ultimately insidious ways to classify gender difference and racial inferiority in the 18th century, basing their conclusions on the alleged authority of reason. And they press the uncomfortable fact that good enlightenment figures like Jefferson, Kant, and Hume had what by today's standards are extremely distasteful views on ''inferior'' (e.g. nonwhite) peoples. Far from being a movement of freedom, enlightenment was a tool of hegemony and social control.
enlightenment? terrible discussion- review in itself is so p-m confused, everybody except pre-revolution french feudals seem anti-foundational in outlook. including frankf school. standard = a-level geography..
Guarding Liberty from Democracy
Ancient writers on political themes would seldom recommend a purely democratic constitution on the grounds that, unless checked by powerful countervailing forces, democracy could at any moment degenerate into mob rule. The argument was refined by later thinkers, and notably in the 19th century by Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill, both of whom warned against the “tyranny of the majority.” Unless the constitution protects the rights and freedoms of individuals and minorities, they argued, democratic choice could threaten anyone at any time—as it did in Hitler’s Germany. Put another way, the argument tells us that there is nothing inherently liberal in popular choice and that individual freedom might be better protected under an aristocracy than when exposed to the whims of democratic resentment. Indeed, that is what Edmund Burke thought and what he showed to be the case in his great study of the French Revolution.
Although the argument is familiar—and indeed no more than plain common sense—it is constantly forgotten by modern people, who seize on popular choice as the one criterion of legitimacy, for fear of otherwise endorsing the rule of elites and offending the official doctrine of human equality.
the american conservative presents us with this shameless anti-democratic polemic.. contempt for democracy- don't be misled: "minority", in this context, has nothing to do with black/gay rights. terrible arguments!
In this well-argued and far-ranging survey, Newsweek International editor Fareed Zakaria shows the damage that is being done by this un-nuanced pursuit of the democratic idea and argues once again for a society in which elites are accorded their proper place and esteemed for what they are—the true guardians of individual freedom and the ones who have the greatest stake in maintaining law, order, and accountability in the public realm. His argument is particularly pertinent now, when allied forces are attempting to bring freedom to Iraq by imposing democratic procedures on its people. As Zakaria points out, democracy could as well lead to an elected dictatorship of mullahs as to a modern civil society. For democracy without the rule of law is mob rule, and the rule of law is not built by democratic means.
Ancient writers on political themes would seldom recommend a purely democratic constitution on the grounds that, unless checked by powerful countervailing forces, democracy could at any moment degenerate into mob rule. The argument was refined by later thinkers, and notably in the 19th century by Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill, both of whom warned against the “tyranny of the majority.” Unless the constitution protects the rights and freedoms of individuals and minorities, they argued, democratic choice could threaten anyone at any time—as it did in Hitler’s Germany. Put another way, the argument tells us that there is nothing inherently liberal in popular choice and that individual freedom might be better protected under an aristocracy than when exposed to the whims of democratic resentment. Indeed, that is what Edmund Burke thought and what he showed to be the case in his great study of the French Revolution.
Although the argument is familiar—and indeed no more than plain common sense—it is constantly forgotten by modern people, who seize on popular choice as the one criterion of legitimacy, for fear of otherwise endorsing the rule of elites and offending the official doctrine of human equality.
the american conservative presents us with this shameless anti-democratic polemic.. contempt for democracy- don't be misled: "minority", in this context, has nothing to do with black/gay rights. terrible arguments!
In this well-argued and far-ranging survey, Newsweek International editor Fareed Zakaria shows the damage that is being done by this un-nuanced pursuit of the democratic idea and argues once again for a society in which elites are accorded their proper place and esteemed for what they are—the true guardians of individual freedom and the ones who have the greatest stake in maintaining law, order, and accountability in the public realm. His argument is particularly pertinent now, when allied forces are attempting to bring freedom to Iraq by imposing democratic procedures on its people. As Zakaria points out, democracy could as well lead to an elected dictatorship of mullahs as to a modern civil society. For democracy without the rule of law is mob rule, and the rule of law is not built by democratic means.
Five days before the war began in Iraq, as President Bush prepared to raise the terrorism threat level to orange, a top White House counterterrorism adviser unlocked the steel door to his office, an intelligence vault secured by an electronic keypad, a combination lock and an alarm. He sat down and turned to his inbox.
"Things were dicey," said Rand Beers, recalling the stack of classified reports about plots to shoot, bomb, burn and poison Americans. He stared at the color-coded threats for five minutes. Then he called his wife: I'm quitting.
Beers's resignation surprised Washington, but what he did next was even more astounding. Eight weeks after leaving the Bush White House, he volunteered as national security adviser for Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), a Democratic candidate for president, in a campaign to oust his former boss. All of which points to a question: What does this intelligence insider know?
"The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure," said Beers, who until now has remained largely silent about leaving his National Security Council job as special assistant to the president for combating terrorism. "As an insider, I saw the things that weren't being done. And the longer I sat and watched, the more concerned I became, until I got up and walked out."
re: below
83 year old confronting israeli police- even jesus h. would love this don
"As the Jewish leader of the Communist party of Israel (CPI), 95% of whose members are Arabs, he rejected Zionism, publicised his country's nuclear weapons programme in 1963, opposed the imposition of martial rule on Israeli Arabs (it was lifed in 1966), and, in 1969, was the only member of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, to protest at the official wining and dining of the then governor of the West German central bank, a convicted ex-Nazi.
Devotion to principle proved injurious to Vilner's health. In the wake of the 1967 six-day war, he was stabbed by a member of Herut (the precursor of today's Likud party) after insisting that Israel vacate the newly conquered West Bank. He was called a traitor for meeting Yasser Arafat during the 1970s, and, as recently as April last year, he needed hospital treatment after tussling with police outside the US embassy in Tel Aviv."
83 year old confronting israeli police- even jesus h. would love this don
"As the Jewish leader of the Communist party of Israel (CPI), 95% of whose members are Arabs, he rejected Zionism, publicised his country's nuclear weapons programme in 1963, opposed the imposition of martial rule on Israeli Arabs (it was lifed in 1966), and, in 1969, was the only member of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, to protest at the official wining and dining of the then governor of the West German central bank, a convicted ex-Nazi.
Devotion to principle proved injurious to Vilner's health. In the wake of the 1967 six-day war, he was stabbed by a member of Herut (the precursor of today's Likud party) after insisting that Israel vacate the newly conquered West Bank. He was called a traitor for meeting Yasser Arafat during the 1970s, and, as recently as April last year, he needed hospital treatment after tussling with police outside the US embassy in Tel Aviv."
american traveler international apology shirt from aufrecht.org. domestic version (minus english) available
perpetual war portfolio on rational enquirer- getting your (family's) capital through the post-dot-com world
wonderful onion "what do you think?" re: mayem in the mid-east.. enjoy
"It was like the fall of Rome," said historian and presidential biographer David Halberstam, who attended the party on the arm of former Clinton press secretary DeeDee Myers. "At one point, while everybody was circling the solid gold Party Globe in the Grand Newsroom in a conga line, poor Kissinger wiped out on a huge pile of AP-wire printouts that had collected in the sunken-fireplace pit by the gold statue of [U.S. News & World Report founder] David Lawrence. We thought he'd broken his neck, but in a flash, he was back on his feet and calling for 'more wine, more wine' in his unmistakable, German-accented, basso profundo voice. Then he shouted that he was 'more bombed than Cambodia in '73.'"
nb: kissinger was actually voted "sexiest man" for a 70s playboy issue
perpetual war portfolio on rational enquirer- getting your (family's) capital through the post-dot-com world
wonderful onion "what do you think?" re: mayem in the mid-east.. enjoy
"It was like the fall of Rome," said historian and presidential biographer David Halberstam, who attended the party on the arm of former Clinton press secretary DeeDee Myers. "At one point, while everybody was circling the solid gold Party Globe in the Grand Newsroom in a conga line, poor Kissinger wiped out on a huge pile of AP-wire printouts that had collected in the sunken-fireplace pit by the gold statue of [U.S. News & World Report founder] David Lawrence. We thought he'd broken his neck, but in a flash, he was back on his feet and calling for 'more wine, more wine' in his unmistakable, German-accented, basso profundo voice. Then he shouted that he was 'more bombed than Cambodia in '73.'"
nb: kissinger was actually voted "sexiest man" for a 70s playboy issue
The author Leo Rosten defines chutzpah as follows: a man kills both his parents and then throws himself at the court's mercy on the grounds that he is an orphan.
The political activist Peter Tatchell also employs chutzpah as a means to an end. For example, earlier this year he stopped Tony Blair's motorcade by running out, suffragette-style, in front of his limousine, ending up under the wheels. It was a way of drawing attention to his protest against the invasion of Iraq. Last year, he twice attempted a citizen's arrest on Robert Mugabe, and got himself beaten up into the bargain.
I ring him to tell him he's been voted a top chutzperian in the Guardian's (admittedly unofficial) survey. For once, he's speechless. But I think he's pleased. Why does he think that we think he's got chutzpah? "Well, I guess I'm rather reluctant to show deference where many people think it is due, especially if there's an issue of injustice involved."
Does he have any chutzpah role models? "Oh yes. Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Sylvia Pankhurst. They didn't play politics by orthodox rules. They were fearless in confronting the forces of oppression. I've tried to adapt their methods of non-violent direct action to the contemporary campaign for human rights."
activist chutzpah?
The political activist Peter Tatchell also employs chutzpah as a means to an end. For example, earlier this year he stopped Tony Blair's motorcade by running out, suffragette-style, in front of his limousine, ending up under the wheels. It was a way of drawing attention to his protest against the invasion of Iraq. Last year, he twice attempted a citizen's arrest on Robert Mugabe, and got himself beaten up into the bargain.
I ring him to tell him he's been voted a top chutzperian in the Guardian's (admittedly unofficial) survey. For once, he's speechless. But I think he's pleased. Why does he think that we think he's got chutzpah? "Well, I guess I'm rather reluctant to show deference where many people think it is due, especially if there's an issue of injustice involved."
Does he have any chutzpah role models? "Oh yes. Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Sylvia Pankhurst. They didn't play politics by orthodox rules. They were fearless in confronting the forces of oppression. I've tried to adapt their methods of non-violent direct action to the contemporary campaign for human rights."
activist chutzpah?
His announcement came as an Iraqi police officer said the six dead British soldiers had been attacked by local people in retaliation for civilian deaths at the hands of British troops.
Police officer Abbas Faddhel said the British troops shot dead four civilian protesters yesterday during a demonstration in the south-eastern town of Majar al-Kabir.
Armed civilians killed two of the British soldiers at the scene of the protest - in front of the mayor's office - then chased four others to a police station where they killed them after a two-hour gun battle, he said. According to reports, witnesses in Majar said the deaths followed days of tension due to methods used by British forces who were searching for weapons.
Abu Zahraa, a 30-year-old local market trader, said Iraqi civilians were killed by British soldiers during the demonstration against the presence of UK forces in the town. He said the British troops had formally agreed a day earlier to let local police patrol Majar.
Mr Zahraa and another witness, who was not named, said the British soldiers came under attack and retreated to the local police station. Angry townspeople went to their homes to fetch assault rifles, returned to the station and attacked the besieged British soldiers, all of whom died, the witnesses said.
i say: fair play! who would call the frenchies bad names for their armed struggle against the similarly illegal german occupation?
Police officer Abbas Faddhel said the British troops shot dead four civilian protesters yesterday during a demonstration in the south-eastern town of Majar al-Kabir.
Armed civilians killed two of the British soldiers at the scene of the protest - in front of the mayor's office - then chased four others to a police station where they killed them after a two-hour gun battle, he said. According to reports, witnesses in Majar said the deaths followed days of tension due to methods used by British forces who were searching for weapons.
Abu Zahraa, a 30-year-old local market trader, said Iraqi civilians were killed by British soldiers during the demonstration against the presence of UK forces in the town. He said the British troops had formally agreed a day earlier to let local police patrol Majar.
Mr Zahraa and another witness, who was not named, said the British soldiers came under attack and retreated to the local police station. Angry townspeople went to their homes to fetch assault rifles, returned to the station and attacked the besieged British soldiers, all of whom died, the witnesses said.
i say: fair play! who would call the frenchies bad names for their armed struggle against the similarly illegal german occupation?
24.6.03
Here is a pretty good run-down of the two best candidates from the Democrat's side (I think, there still are a few candidates I haven't done much research on yet). The author of this table, Bob Harris (Tom Tomorrow's bud), declares himself to be a Kucinich sympathizer and I think he does give Dean short shrift a coupla times. One example; he says Dean will only cut 1/8 of Star Wars funding, when in truth the quote was something more along the lines of 1/8 of the Star Wars budget could pay for x... I forget x, I think it was an elderly prescription bill, but don't quote me. I think I like Kucinich's positions a good bit more, but at the same time... I trust him a little less. Dean has come across as a straight-shooter, while Kucinich has sounded more like a classic politician at times.
A very active internet movement is growing at Move On, which is in the thick of many political issues. Sign up for their newsletters - often very useful stuff. Like recently, they offered all the Dem candidates a chance to write a letter to their membership, and sent the letters from the 3 most popular candidates amongst their membership to our inboxes (Kerrey, Dean, and Kucinich). Read all the letters at Move On (they have letters from Braun, Gephardt, Sharpton, Graham, Edwards, and Lieberman, in addition to the top 3 mentioned above). If you read the Dean v. Kucinich letters, you'll see what I mean about the trust issue... although in interviews, Kucinich comes off very well, while Dean occasionally ducks... and of course, aside from the electability issue, there is the issue of workability. While ya gotta love Kucinich's vision of universal healthcare, a taste of drug legalization, and stand against the death penalty, there is a question as to whether any of it would ever be successful. If Clinton couldn't get anything done on healthcare back when the dems controlled both houses, I have slim hopes for Kucinich, while Dean does have incremental ideas that would be more likely to show gain...
A very active internet movement is growing at Move On, which is in the thick of many political issues. Sign up for their newsletters - often very useful stuff. Like recently, they offered all the Dem candidates a chance to write a letter to their membership, and sent the letters from the 3 most popular candidates amongst their membership to our inboxes (Kerrey, Dean, and Kucinich). Read all the letters at Move On (they have letters from Braun, Gephardt, Sharpton, Graham, Edwards, and Lieberman, in addition to the top 3 mentioned above). If you read the Dean v. Kucinich letters, you'll see what I mean about the trust issue... although in interviews, Kucinich comes off very well, while Dean occasionally ducks... and of course, aside from the electability issue, there is the issue of workability. While ya gotta love Kucinich's vision of universal healthcare, a taste of drug legalization, and stand against the death penalty, there is a question as to whether any of it would ever be successful. If Clinton couldn't get anything done on healthcare back when the dems controlled both houses, I have slim hopes for Kucinich, while Dean does have incremental ideas that would be more likely to show gain...
Defending the lies - hilarious considering public ignorance.
"The Bush statement about supply of uranium to Iraq came in the most important speech an American president can make, apart from a declaration of war : the annual State of the Union Address in January. ... If Bush's definitive speech was not triple-checked for accuracy, then the White House is grossly incompetent. If it was checked and the several untrue items were detected and allowed to remain in the speech, the White House is contemptuous of the truth and of all of us out here. If it was checked and the untrue items were not identified (which is what Rice is claiming), the intelligence process of the United States is a shambles - not just "in the bowels of the agency", as Rice condescendingly has it, but throughout the entire intelligence system. ... The most notably mendacious statement was that by vice-president Cheney who said on 16 March that "we believe [Iraq] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think [the UN nuclear expert] Mr. El Baradei, frankly, is wrong". But it was Cheney who was wrong, because there were no nuclear weapons. Cheney and the rest of them lied to us."
"The Bush statement about supply of uranium to Iraq came in the most important speech an American president can make, apart from a declaration of war : the annual State of the Union Address in January. ... If Bush's definitive speech was not triple-checked for accuracy, then the White House is grossly incompetent. If it was checked and the several untrue items were detected and allowed to remain in the speech, the White House is contemptuous of the truth and of all of us out here. If it was checked and the untrue items were not identified (which is what Rice is claiming), the intelligence process of the United States is a shambles - not just "in the bowels of the agency", as Rice condescendingly has it, but throughout the entire intelligence system. ... The most notably mendacious statement was that by vice-president Cheney who said on 16 March that "we believe [Iraq] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think [the UN nuclear expert] Mr. El Baradei, frankly, is wrong". But it was Cheney who was wrong, because there were no nuclear weapons. Cheney and the rest of them lied to us."
Recent polls have revealed the shocking extent of misinformation about Iraq and 9/11. The apostropher also points to various statistics at thismodernworld.com, exhibiting a rather sad state of affairs.
Yes, 22% of the American public believe that Saddam actually used WMD's in this conflict. See for yourself.
More worrying stats:
27% believe divorce is "morally wrong"
26% think grade-school teachers should be allowed to spank their kids
21% say justice was served in the O.J. Simpson case
20% approve of the how the Catholic Church handles pedophilia
20% believe that the killing of civilians in Vietnam was "relatively rare"
wsws.org reveals that US soldiers seem to be pretty unenlightened about their presence in Iraq themselves:
"According to press reports, some US soldiers in Iraq carry pictures of the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers inside their Kevlar vests to convince themselves that the killing of Iraqi civilians and the continued military occupation the country are justified by the slaughter of thousands of civilians in New York City on September 11, 2001.
Opinion polls indicate that fully half the American population believe that Iraqi citizens participated in the hijacking of the four aircraft utilized in the September 11 attacks, while 40 percent think that Saddam Hussein was behind the terrorist actions of that day.
Both these phenomena are the product of a systematic disinformation campaign waged by the Bush administration with the complicity of the mass media." full article
Yes, 22% of the American public believe that Saddam actually used WMD's in this conflict. See for yourself.
More worrying stats:
27% believe divorce is "morally wrong"
26% think grade-school teachers should be allowed to spank their kids
21% say justice was served in the O.J. Simpson case
20% approve of the how the Catholic Church handles pedophilia
20% believe that the killing of civilians in Vietnam was "relatively rare"
wsws.org reveals that US soldiers seem to be pretty unenlightened about their presence in Iraq themselves:
"According to press reports, some US soldiers in Iraq carry pictures of the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers inside their Kevlar vests to convince themselves that the killing of Iraqi civilians and the continued military occupation the country are justified by the slaughter of thousands of civilians in New York City on September 11, 2001.
Opinion polls indicate that fully half the American population believe that Iraqi citizens participated in the hijacking of the four aircraft utilized in the September 11 attacks, while 40 percent think that Saddam Hussein was behind the terrorist actions of that day.
Both these phenomena are the product of a systematic disinformation campaign waged by the Bush administration with the complicity of the mass media." full article
23.6.03
But just because a particular image or campaign is, at its origin, associated with a particular group or message does not by any means justify a connection in its present depiction. “Obey the Giant” would be the most recognizable example. Begun by a student at the very prestigious Rhode Island School of Design in Providence, “Obey the Giant” was originally conceived of and carried out as a counter-campaign to the billboards of Providence Mayor John Brown and his administration. “JOHN BROWN HAS A POSSE” would be stenciled onto the billboards at night, along with the very recognizable, “OBEY THE GIANT.” Apparently an attack on the Mayor’s policies, “Obey the Giant” quickly became something else entirely, as it inspired a nationwide flyering, stickering, and graffiti campaign aimed, not at Brown in particular, but at power structures in general. Somehow the image of Andre the Giant became associated with the phrase, which was even attached to images of President Bush and Vice President Gore during the recent electoral process. The creator of “Obey the Giant” now hosts a website, which calls the project, “an experiment in phenomenology.” Even Hegel is invoked in the defense and rationalization of this, dare we say, artistic movement. [this essay]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)