Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Fighting for "Democracy": watching the Daily Show isn't enough)

Here's the thing, democracies have to have something that we lack. An active public that participates. In recent elections the United States has had around 1/3 of its population show up to decide who will decide how to execute all of the largest government, economy, and military in the history of the world is used.

Divide the government however you like, but the thing that disiguishes democracy as an idea from other governments is that radical notion that people have the say in how their affairs are carried out on a routine basis. Essential to living in a democracy is consistant engagement by the people in the governing authority.

That point exactly, that this government was "of, by and for the people" was the great acheivement of the US Constitution. And now we mock the efforts to produce such a breakthrough (and think not now of the "sacrifices" made by the indigenous Americans and abused Africans) centuries ago by initiating violence and commiting a war on people who meant you and I no harm.

One of the intellectual pillars of neoconservative thought is that democracies do not attack other democracies. Presumably, part of the reason for this conclusion is that when people decide the fate of their nation; consistantly, they find that starting a war -especially a war with people of like mind - is not in their national interest. Yet, we were all sold on the idea that this was somehow in our interest. And since we are "us" then our interest is moral. (Romans 13:1-3)

But, this makes me wonder about what exactly democracy is. I mean we as a 'democracy' did start a fight with another nation that had never attacked us before. Look it up.

I found the following in Crystal Reference Encyclopedia online:

The word "democracy" from the Greek ~ demos (‘people’) and kratia (‘authority’)
(the fact that 'people' only came to mean all adult citizens is something new, happening only as the 20th century progressed, such a discussion of the in/ex-clusions of such democracies please show enough interest in this so as to continue [prequel] this discussion.)

The 2nd half of the reference article I found states:
Today it is widely accepted that because the people are too numerous and scattered to come together in assemblies, decision-making has to be handed over to a small group of representatives. Elections, including the right to choose among different groups of representatives offering different doctrines and party programmes, have therefore become seen as essential to democracy. Further necessary conditions are the legal equality of citizens, and the free flow of information to ensure that citizens are in an equal and informed position to choose and hold accountable their rulers. Some radicals argue that economic equality is also necessary, but moves towards economic democracy have been limited.


The first sentence is probably true of the United States. Mostly, we concern ourselves with "nuclear" matters effecting only a small bubble of contact and give a temendous amount of imperial lattitude to the elected officials and the public servants they appoint.





Further options:
  1. Expanding Elections- more candidates/run-offs, voting for cabinet level positions, more ballot initiatives.
  2. Effective Demonstrations (they exist/they are possible)
  3. Go back to your favorite church, bar/club/pub, or couch to tune back in Family Guy and forget about the whole thing.



Saturday, March 25, 2006

3/27 things one should know...


The guilt of the media in reporting how badly things are going in Iraq has in the last 10 days or so made much of the mainstream news appologize for saying things that do not make the current administration happy/cast them and their action in a positive light.
He are a few stories that are still not crossing over to the 'mainstream media'; thusly not effecting the mass-american conscience:

something new to pay attention too?
Do you care about Iran, yet?

Bush defends war, I guess, does anyone buy this?
read the quotes and ask yourself, "isnt there something we can do to get rid of this cat?"

US forces kill people in a mosque (video)

US base bombed; killing 30... is this a civil war or sectarian violence, while we debate this on Sunday morning talk shows people keep on dying. Some of those people are American, but most are not.

Pentagon ready, "Just in case" there is a civil war.

or
in your mind, does all this pale in comparison to this headline:
Big Unit's Love Child Cries


Somewhat unrelated...
Today just before the 130 news on the Rush Limbaugh program there was a 30 second ad, paid for by the department of Health and Human services.
Public money that was allocated for the assumed purpose of aiding in the service of human health went to pay for ads on the Rush Limbaugh program.
1 billion a day on the war.

Monday, March 13, 2006

hippo crassy


On Friday from midday on, the newswire banner below the NBC/Panasonic screen the following headline scrolled:
"Bush says Dubai ports controversy sends bad message to our allies"

First of all, what allies?

Second, what about lying to start wars and ignoring the first line of the UN charter?
or lying about torture and ignoring the Geneva accords?
or easing environmental restrictions on big polluters and perpetuating american arrogance regaurding the Kyoto protocall?


Then on Saturday, at around the same time on the same screen the following was posted:
"Bush upset over Syria and Iran intereference in Iraq"

wow.

I really didnt know so i looked it up....

dis·in·gen·u·ous adj
1 Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating:
“an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who... exemplified... the most disagreeable traits of his time” (David Cannadine).
2 Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3 Usage Problem. Unaware or uninformed; naive.

found @ dictionary.com

Blips (updated 4/06)

april 5 2006
Katie Couric: she is probably my most favorite UVA alum, (which does not really say much for her) but it really does not matter. No matter who sat in the Viacom anchor seat a corporate shill would hide the truth from the people at the request of the executive branch. It would be unfair for this blog to now criticize Couric while letting alone the other broadcasts of over-edited government/corporate releases.
Yet again information and substance lose out the entertainment and style.


March 13, 2006
"...an overwhelming majority of citizens voted ''no'' in a referendum on a government plan to relocate U.S. naval aircraft to a local U.S. base." (Kyodo)