Human Rights: "Live together"

- a photo art work by Andreas Klamm

London/3mnewswire.org/October 12, 2008. The journalist, broadcast journalist, host of "3mnewswire.org, Liberty and Peace NOW!, XXL-info." and author of several books, Andreas Klamm, has released a new photo art work in concern of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights by the United Nations, (UN, New York, City) which will be celebrated in December 2008.

Andreas Klamm has said: "With my photo art work I want to express and share my political view that even if we are enemies we have to live together on planet earth as in the entire universe can be not found many planets which are called earth. Therefore I do come to the conclusion that only one planet earth does exist with many people which all have equal rights. Certainly I am a supporter of the idea that all human beings and people no matter where they do live and do come from have equal human rights."

His photo art work about human rights surprisingly has been published even in a German paper this month.

Andreas Klamm, journalist and author, broadcasting host, photo and tv journalist likes to share his political views in photo art works also. The photo art work created by Andreas Klamm is providing in the German language the message: "We have to live together. If anyone is going his own way it will be soon too late..., Human Rights are valid for all people! No chance for the Nazi terror. In memory of the victims of the Nazi terror from 1933 and 1945 and in memory for those which have got killed because of the Nazi Terror after 1945. 1948 - 2008, 60th anniversary of the declaration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 by the United Nations."

3mnewswire.org

Stephen Harper appears to be bunkering down to avoid last-minute mishaps in the final days of the campaign: His staff are warning it's likely that the Conservative Leader won't take any more questions from journalists accompanying his tour until election day.

They handed out a schedule for Sunday that has no time set aside for talking to the approximately 20 reporters who are accompanying Mr. Harper on his campaign. [K: Mr. Harper, the reporters are there on your campaign trail on behalf of us, average Canadians. Are you so sure of winning that you can ignore the reporters who are there on behalf of Canadians?]

[...] Mr. Harper generally only answers questions from the press on his campaign plane once a day – in the morning – and he conducted his last news conference this morning after a whistle-stop in London, Ont.

The Conservative Leader's staff offer several explanations. One official said it's simply a question of schedules and that they don't have enough time to scrum due to the hectic pace of the final two days. Another said that there will be “nothing to react to” over Sunday and Monday. [K: What kind of pathetic answers are these? Scheduling? "Nothing to react"?]

I am so sad and sick of Prime Minister Harper's politics and disrespect of people. Does the concerns of people mean anything to him? Or is the election simply a tool for Mr. Harper to get power and control of the future of our beloved Canada? I would be ashamed of a politician that I support if he/she refuses to answer questions from reporters during an election campaign! Who are these reporters, if they were not there on behalf of Canadians across the land?

Over the past month, I've attended two high level meetings on (new) media development that emphasised time and again the importance of media literacy, even though its importance in strengthening independent media is contested.

As Robin Good notes,

Web 2.0 has revolutionized the panorama of the information society: users have become information producers and the new web platforms have become relationship venues where new knowledge and ideas emerge. Also the new tools of social networking, social tagging, wikis and blogs enable new forms of social interaction, participation and cooperation. But...

• Is this participation really democratic?
• Or is this a democracy paradox, where everyone can interact but the decision making places are all outside the net?
• Is the horizontal leveling of internet communications really an instrument of democracy?
• How would it be possible to transform these emotional and communication-oriented extensions in a real space connected with the physical world of true participation to decision-making?

Howard Rheingold's answers to these questions are the best of the bunch and articulate better than the others a consensus that Web 2.0 tools alone are no guarantee of stronger democracy. Access, participation and the locale of democratic power (which may reside outside the walled gardens of social networks and the web itself) are significant challenges to the citizen participation in democratic governance, particularly in repressive regimes. Howard also notes that these technologies that are seen to empower citizens are equally if not more powerful in the hands of government that seeks to control dissent and produce propaganda in support of a parochial agenda, such as war.

Howard's succint responses I think give us much thought for future debate:

Is this participation really democratic?
"Democratizing" means making access (to information, tools, policy-making discussions, elections, etc.) widely available. This, however, does not guarantee a healthy democracy.
What if more people vote, but their picture of political candidates and their policies are distorted by sophisticated public relations tools and strategies? What if their educations are so poor that voters are unable to think critically about partisan claims? I am wary of projecting hopes onto the tools you mention -- which truly have the potential to inform and involve more people in democratic decision-making -- without paying attention to the less visible parts of the system I mention.

Or is this a democracy paradox, where everyone can interact but the decision making places are all outside the net?
I am also wary of governance by instant voting. This is known as the "plebiscite" and can be very dangerous: a demagogue or a government can propagandize people into starting a war or adopting a policy without a process of deliberation. That's why modern democracies are generally republics -- citizens elect representatives who are expected to deliberate openly and transparently.

Is the horizontal leveling of internet communications really an instrument of democracy?
It CAN be. But more than the technology is required. A healthy public sphere is essential -- most people need to have sufficient education, freedom to criticize, well-trained critical faculties, and ample sources of accurate information.

How would it be possible to transform these emotional and communication-oriented extensions in a real space connected with the physical world of true participation to decision-making?
Education!

In 2008, the ritual brainfarting that ensues each time a drooling authoritarian follower decides to open its mouth is embarrassing the Republican presidential team. Said team, of course, executed the initial shooting of itself in the foot with its desperate attempts to link Obama to terrorism. As this footage of a McCain rally in Ohio demonstrates (and where you'll hear the "bloodlines" soundbite), where authoritarian leaders lead, authoritarian followers follow, with consequences by turns outrageous, racist and stupid:

There's even more in this NBC report, in which political analyst Richard Wolffe advises the Republican team to take a leaf out of the Australian conservatives' playbook and engage in dogwhistle politics rather than foghorn politics which, he suggests, will turn off the swing voters and independents.

As you can see, much has changed since 2004. The fallout from the Obama=terrorist smear campaign now has McCain and Palin at loggerheads.

HT to OK WASSUP and Evolutionary Middleman.

In Palin Rallies Ignite Widespread Talk of 'Fascism', Jeffrey Feldman says that because he published a book recently on the harm done to U.S. democracy by violent rhetoric, he gets called a lot when it's published a book recently on the harm done to U.S. democracy by violent rhetoric, I get lots of calls when people here it. He says that while fascist isn't an accurate description of Sarah Palin, the concern and conditions that her rallies engender is worth noting.

The most common point brought to my attention in this new concern for Palin is that her events remind people of the kind of 'rallies' people have seen in old newsreels and exhibition photographs in history museums about the fascist period.

Many people have said to me, in so many words, 'I went to a Holocaust museum, recently, and the kinds of rallies they had in the 1930s are exactly what we are seeing now at these Palin events.'

...Interestingly, I have heard these observations from Democrats and Republicans. The logic is that it is not just one feature of the Palin events that leads people see them as 'rallies' of the sort they have learned about in history museums, but three elements combining together: claims of Obama's covert terrorist ties and desire to see the military fail, combined with voiced calls for harm to Sen. Obama.

I confess that I was a lot less nervous about Palinmania before I saw this photo titled Put her out of her misery, please from bobster1985. I'm guessing he's not going to be voting for her. These people probably won't either.

And Part 2 is on YouTube.

The democratic idea

Surely there are two central pillars to democracy

• That each individual has a right to choose his own future and decide the future of his society within the context and confines of that society. 
• That an individual can and will, in general,  make the best decisions for himself and his society.

We also need to ask ourselves another question.  When we vote, are we electing administrators or leaders, or even both?  It is a very difficult question to answer.  If we believe we are electing an administrator, the party or candidate manifesto makes sense, we can see what the administrator plans and we are making the decision on the manifesto and our belief or lack of belief that the person or party standing for election can administer their manifesto.  Personally I like this idea better. We are choosing what is best for us!  We are more than likely, and in practice electing leader to both lead and govern us and the manifesto of the leader only allows us to judge the direction they will follow once elected. 

If as it appears we elect a leader, it is not disimilar from having a king or queen of our choice.  They make decisions during the period they are elected for, more or less as a dictator.  Seeing as a huge amount of power is given to a leader during the period of leadership and our countries are in such a mess, we must ask if we have the ability to make sound decisions that are best for us by electing the right leader(s).

Next post I will look in more detail about how we are able to choose are leaders and the failure of us to choose good leaders; what implications does this leave us with.

The other day I wondered how difficult it would be to explain Canadian elections to someone completely unfamiliar with democracy - the absolute monarch, for example, of some newly contacted tribe - without making the whole process sound completely mad. The conversation might go like this:

Absolute Monarch: So, imagine that I were to institute such a system in my kingdom. Then I would have to address the people and convince them to vote for me. How would I do this? Would I present logical but impassioned arguments in favour of my policies?

Me: Policies! Heavens, no. The acceptable methods of persuasion are quite specific. You may appear before the people in a sweater vest-

AM: A what?

Me: A fuzzy garment with mysterious powers of beguilement. You may also depict your opponents being spattered with the excreta of a small seabird, or harp on foolish things they said long ago about topics unrelated to the election. If economic problems befall the country and they say something must be done, accuse them of panicking. If they say little need be done, accuse them of being indifferent to the people's suffering.

AM: My subjects would see through these spurious tricks, and demand rational argument about the direction of the nation.

Me: That is when you must recite platitudinous phrases known as talking points...

It's not just cynical academics like me who are inclined to be scornful. The National Post's Don Martin describes our present campaign as "a snake's belly", which sounds about right. It's not that politicians, journalists, or voters are particularly stupid or ill-intentioned, but somehow their interactions create a small-minded, almost pathological public conversation in which democracy becomes more about manipulative electoral tactics than about ideas. Nor is the problem confined to Canada, as the Circus Maximus south of the border amply demonstrates.

This is not to deny that there are many aspects of our political system that work well. But I'm always amused by the way Canadians often ignore the widely acknowledged pettiness of our actual elections when they look out at the world and preach democracy in the abstract. We happily proclaim that democracy is the best system, perhaps the only legitimate system, and in Afghanistan we colluded with other nations to practically impose it at gunpoint. But when I think of that damned sweater vest, the horrible shallowness of it all, I have trouble taking such notions seriously.

Corwin

This is not about the election. At least not in the way you might think. I said no more. But yes, this is about politics. I won't make any political statements in this blog. I won't commit any name calling. I won't support one person instead of another. I won't climb into the politics of anyone. I will just follow a line of argument. I'll give you reputable links to everything. Ideally from the people I mention themselves. Not left or right wing blogs or main stream media. Where not possible, I will use sources that are politically opposite of my own. I'll just join the dots. Go with the flow. And then just a question.

Let's go...

“The fires of Hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government, and I won’t be buried under their damn flag!”

Now, would you agree that this is anti-American right? I would say so. So who said this?

Just a guy called Joe Vogler. He is the founder of the Alaskan Independent Party. In fairness, he has been dead for a while.

Watch this video of what Joe and other AIP people had to say. Ignore the Sarah Palin parts. That might be biased. But watch the first part where the AIP is talking and the last part where Joe is talking.

So, is the Alaskan Independent Party (AIP) still hanging onto the philosophy of Joe Vogler? Yeah they do. From their own site...

"The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party's founding father, Joe Vogler, which was for Alaskans to achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences."

And they even sell t-shirts and CDs that says "Joe was right" and that shows Alaska being eaten by a snake that is the rest of the United States. The AIP also host a discussion board on their site that is moderated by them, but that still shows clear dislike of everything America stands for and where people call for the end of America. Just go down the posting and see what people have to say.

So, the AIP is a separatist organization calling for the secession of Alaska. And their action for secession is unconstitutional. Their call for separation was rejected when in the case of Kohlhaas v. State (11/17/2006) sp-6072, 147 P3d 714, the State Supreme Court ruled any attempt by Alaska at secession to be unconstitutional.

The AIP also have a very interesting link to the Declaration Of The Causes And Necessity Of Taking Up Arms on their site where they also say that "Be it known by all, that the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP) does not advocate the taking up of arms first". I find it of interest that they have the "first" in this statement at all...

From this we can conclude:

1. The Alaskan Independence Party is a separatist organization.

2. Not only do they believe that they are not part of America but believe that being American is bad for them.

3. They support and believe that their actions are geared towards achieving the goals of an anti-American founder.

Now, we have established that the AIP is a separatist organization that dislikes being American and being part of America. Let's see who they hang out with.

Do you remember the Beslan school hostagestory? When Chechen rebels took the school kids hostage? I won't even go into the bus bombings that they were involved in. Let's just say that the Chechen rebels are not a good group to be associated with. But they are not just a group fighting the Russians. They are also aligned with other terrorist groups. Like Al Qaeda.

In the words of the White House, "The Chechen leadership, like all responsible political leaders around the world, must immediately and unconditionally cut all contact with international terrorist groups such as Osama bin Laden and the Qaeda organization". The link between the Chechen rebels and Al Qaeda is well established and reported. Be warned: Follow this link if you want to see some of their work and their ideology and links in their own words - These are some video's they made. And the US military and the 9/11 Commission found that Al Qaeda funded and trained the Chechen rebels.

So we can safely say that the Chechen separatist rebels are terrorist that do not have the interest of America at heart. They were/are funded and trained by the single biggest enemy of America. The people behind 9/11. The Chechen rebels are the enemy of the United States and every American.

The Chechen seperatists is offered by the AIP as part of a series of links to other seperatist organizations (like themselves?). Apart from a wide range of US separatist organizations, the AIP also include the Communist Flemish and the Ulster Nationalist.

So, th AIP has shown some level of recognition of these terrorist groups. They do not explicitly say they support them, but they do offer links to these groups which at the very least indicates that they have something in common and something to agree on. And they allow in the moderated discussion board sentiments in support of these groups.

1. The AIP indirectly offers understanding to extremist groups, some of these terrorists sponsored by Al Qaeda.

In a way, these links are not that important. The separatism and secessionist extremism of the AIP and their dislike of being part of America or being called American are the most disturbing. But what is the relevancy of this?

Todd and Sarah Palin...

Let's start with Sarah Palin...

She gave the AIP a nice message of support for their convention in 2008. Note that she did not once mention the word America, but did say how proud she is of the work they have done in Alaska. More importantly, why did Sarah Palin even send a video to such an organization? I am not saying she supports them. But we can say that she admires their work through this message and at the very least showed very, very poor judgement.

There was some confusion on whether Sarah Palin was or is a member of the AIP. The AIP at first said that she was a member. But in a new pressrelease stated that she was not a member of the AIP, but that she did attend two previous AIP conventions (one in 2006 when she was running to become Governor). This same press release stated that Todd Palin was a member of the AIP.

So, we know now that...

1. Sarah Palin showed some level of respect for the AIP and even praised the good work they did in her speech for their convention. She also attended 2 AIP conventions. She had never spoken out against the AIP or what they stand for or what they have said.

2. Todd Palin was a member of the AIP. It is unclear whether he is still a member as we just know that he registered and re-registered. But he was a member and has never spoken out against them or their ideals.

To the "Trooper-gate" investigation...

I am not going to make a judgement on whether she was involved or not or whether she was ethical or not. That is not the aim of this piece. This is what we do know from Todd's own submission written by him and his lawyers and by the report itself (careful it is a huge report) - parts that no one is disputing. And the response by Sarah Palin's legal team. Do not read the pieces about what they have to say about the report - we are not dealing with the report and that findings. But from these three sources we can find the following:

1. Todd Palin used his wife's email, phone, office etc to hold meetings and deal with issues that had nothing to do with being the "first dude". (And remember, this Monegan was contacted more than 36 times in 18 months by Todd and Sarah's office on the Wooten issue. That is twice a month. About one trooper.)

2. Todd Palin went against the wishes of Sarah Palin and continued to do this behind her back.

3. If what Todd and Sarah are saying is true then Sarah was never aware of anything Todd was doing about this using the power of her office without telling her or consulting her, and even after she told him to stop doing it.

On this last one - Sarah's legal team said in their written response that "Branchflower makes an incorrect assumption that Governor Palin 'must have known' who Todd Palin was talking with."

Todd Palin used the power of the Office of the Governor for his own interest without the knowledge of the Governor - and against the ethical behavior expected of people in this position. But the investigation can not judge him because he is not employed by the government. But we can freely say that he abused his position as "first dude". We would not expect the spouses of any leader to do this - man or woman.

So what do we have here...

Todd Palin was (is) a member of an extremist secessionist organization that dislikes America and who hates being called American. An organization that has links to extremist organizations elsewhere in the world who uses terrorism to secure their secession and separation. Some of these movements are or have been sponsored by Al Qaeda. Todd Palin share an interest and view with this extremist, secessionist and anti-American organisation.

Todd Palin is willing to go against the wishes of his wife when she tells him to not get politically involved in her office. He will use her office against her will to advance his own agenda out. Even if this is not in the interest of either Sarah Palin or the office she represents.

It will be scary if Todd Palin uses the office of the Vice Presidency in the same way. This will allow him much more power to achieve his own ambitions. One which include (or have included) the secession of Alaska from the United States of America.

What have we learned from all this?

1. The Alaskan Independence Party (AIP) is an extremist secessionist organization.

2. The AIP has some strong anti-American sentiments.

3. The AIPhas some links or potential sympathy with terrorist and other extremist (even communist) groups.

4. Sarah Palin attended 2 AIP conventions.

5. Sarah Palin spoke about her admiration for the good work and ideals of the AIP.

6. Todd Palin was (or is) a member of the AIP.

7. Todd Palin has a history of using his wife's position for his own purposes.

8. Todd Palin has a history of abusing the privileges that comes with his wife's position.

9. Todd Palin has a history of going against the wishes of his wife.

10. Todd Palin has a history of using the communication tools of his wife's political office for his own purposes.

So, my question:

Do you want to give a person who support(ed) extremist secessionist, who has a history of abusing the power of his spouse and who is willing to go behind his wife's back and against her wishes, the power to influence national policy and the opportunity to use that power in favor of secessionist anti-American extremists?

For all her protestations of innocence, Sarah Palin is a pariah. She is a grasping politician with ambitions that are beyond her capabilities and all those rent a mob mavericks who applaud her should be shamed.

John McCain is becoming almost irrelevant. He has prostituted himself to the lies of the Right and to the lies of the Neocons. Where he was once a proud defender of American values, he is now a tired old apology of a presidential candidate.

This is McCain's last chance to show true Leadership: he should instruct Sarah Palin to stand down as potential VP and he in turn should stop inciting crowds to violent racism; he should reclaim his values, he should reclaim his voice and he should let the American People know what the GOP really stands for. At this time of Global Economic Catastrophe, he should talk about the issues that really matter.

Or else, come Election Day, he will see his campaign swept away like dust.

As we hear, now in this time of economic shift and "crisis", that our economy of the West is no longer a manufacture's economy, but rather an "information" economy, or a "service" economy, it comes to the fore that the place America and its homologous European West as taken the place in the world economy is of one huge Affect Pool. That is the highly structured (polyvalent) and affinity-ridden potentiality of feelings and experiences, for their own sake, a veritable living dream-factory, composed of bodily possibles.

It is an interesting shift. The First World regularly had been characterized as using the Third as its industrial base, its ever expanding source of cheaper and cheaper labor, a labor extracted through the restriction of human and civil rights, organized by brutal political forms, feeding "us" what is "needed", something to churn the maelstrom of capital growth at its periphery. Perhaps there is something to this. But the ideology of freedom runs in tensioned parallel to the freedoms of economic, capitalized growth. And in worlds other than the so-called First, the problematic of newly constructed "consumer" cogitos ever tugs at these two strands. Thus as the collapse of speculations, and complex leveragings of debt - debt spread so thin so as to become hopefully like dew to evaporate each morning, only to rise into a unexpected weather-storm of force, to ripple in so many butterfly wing flaps, at a distance - we come to see that the affect-rich West, the West that dreams for its professoin, works at the service of emerging markets. Instead of First, Second and Third worlds, there are emerging markets which feed off of the Affect Pools of the West. And China invests Westward, upon its domesticated flocks.

The study of affect and imagination is perhaps most needed.

Just over a week ago I took part in a series of workshops, discussions and deliberations at the University of Edmonton in the province of Alberta, Canada. I was one of a handful of 'deliberation/participation people' who were there to have input into how the diverse group of Albertans present might best set up a successful, province-wide deliberative process on climate change issues.

The event was participated in by an impressively varied group of individuals - representing a significant range of viewpoints including;  energy industry representatives, radical environmentalists, political activists and government officials. The thing that all parties had in common was a genuine, and strong desire to move forward on the issue of climate change in Alberta. (They even gave up their weekend and worked 12hour days for free to be part of the deliberation - so I can testify to their commitment!)

So, what were we actually doing?

We wanted to put together a basis for how a public discussion on climate change in Alberta might best work - and help to move forward from polarised debate on climate change into more useful dialogue and action across the province.

Alberta is a focal point for climate change discussion as the Canadian economy has greatly benefited from the energy industry located there, including the booming Athabascan oil sands near Fort McMurray. This industry has been strongly criticised by environmental campaigners and scientists for its impact on the environment. Alberta embodies many of the environmental and economic debates taking place globally.

A key part of how myself and others present felt that progress could be made on these tough issues was through using deliberative techniques to bring people together in a more constructive and positive way than through debate and conflict.

How did you go about it?

Two main groups were involved in the design process over about four days:

One was a smaller group of around 15 and consisted  both of Albertans and of visitors interested in assisting with the deliberation and public participation aspects. This group was present throughout the entirety of the process every day.

The second group was a larger group of around 50 Albertans who were present at key points in the design process to act as a 'sounding board' for the ideas that the smaller group had been discussing and formulating together during the day.

This format worked well in that ownership of the process and its aims began to be built from the outset amongst a very varied group of individuals, and the rapid response and interaction between the smaller and larger group helped to refine ideas very quickly over a short period of time.

By the end of the five days we worked together to uncover the bare bones of a process that could work for Albertans, wandered across a suprising amount of common ground and found several leverage points for instigating action. As we walked out of the room on the final day, an interim steering group had been set in place and action points had been established for moving forward... so watch this space.

The experience made me feel very positive about what can be acheived through using more deliberative approach to difficult issues like action on climate change - not a form of consensus building, but rather a way of better understanding one another and identifying areas for beneficial progress.

The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats. There are differences between them. In his study Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age, Larry Bartels shows that during the past six decades "real incomes of middle-class families have grown twice as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans, while the real incomes of working-poor families have grown six times as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans".

Differences can be detected in the current election as well. Voters should consider them, but without illusions about the political parties, and with the recognition that consistently over the centuries, progressive legislation and social welfare have been won by popular struggles, not gifts from above.

Those struggles follow a cycle of success and setback. They must be waged every day, not just once every four years, always with the goal of creating a genuinely responsive democratic society, from the voting booth to the workplace.

Who is Barack Obama?

Well then.

THE SAME QUESTION COULD BE ASKED BACK.

Who are McCain and Palin?

When there is nothing solidly creative to stand on, make mud.

I have seen this same old innuendo trick many times in election campaigns throughout my life. There is often a self serving reason to establishing an attack frame first.  And that is; The need to attack your opponent strategy, often seems to have a connection internally to those making the attack.

Can you imagine that this is the style the McCain and Palin administration would have? Why would we think the decency level would change? "That one." and, "pals around with terrorists," are quite reminiscent of Cheney's distortion/misinformation campaigns against truth in America.

The standard for conservatives are to blame everyone else, while they are not held responsible or accountable for their own actions. Imagine again; McCain and Palin voters are likely those who gave us Bush, with their blinded faith, or hunches.

I have never seen quite the hate and contempt being encouragingly generated (by lack of correction) by other desperate "conservative" fear mongering campaigns, that obviously place ambitions ahead of nation.  We were subject to those f recent history when we were told that somehow terrorist bnefit from Democrats being elected.  While evidence indicates that they actually have thrived under recent Republican lead blunders. This trust in wild allegation, instead of policy discussion, is now widely evident in McCain and Palin's seemingly out of control expression Express. Now they will have to reign in what they have unleashed from the dark netherworld of dysfunctional human psyches, so evident at their rallies.

WHAT OFTEN HAPPENS WHEN WE THROW BLAME; WE THROW OUT HINTS TO OUR MOTIVES

We can see in our own lives, and those around us, how at times we, or they, are very disturbed about someone else's "bad" behavior. Upon deeper reflection, we may see how this finger pointing by those blaming others seems to define a quality within themselves. This kind of psychological balancing act reveals possible inner suppressed suspicions of ourselves. The act achieves an emotional switching, which serves as a mental self medication, by seeing our stimulated inner upset being "caused" by someone "over there" we can blame. And maybe then seem to stand up against about politically, or otherwise socially/morally==by establishing bad to be in those bad kinds of others.

The long known powerful religious and conscious requirements of forgiveness often stem from this admittance that; when we throw stones at others imperfections, we may not be able to admit out own. So in the humility and grace of such deeper understanding, we accept forgiveness within ourselves, potentially having a deep insight into our own human fallibility. But if we have no consciousness of how self deception can persist amidst our own sense of rightness, we in effect, can prevent the real truth from being known and real changes made toward greater understanding. All while taking the prescribed side claiming the cultural narrative of moral right.

That this phenomenon goes on often unchecked, except perhaps in personal arguments, suggest we do not necessarily know enough of others to make a call on possible self deception, or are ourselves blinded to the phenomenon. Here is a link to a definition of projection:

Projection

Projection is attributing your own repressed thoughts to someone else.
changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/projection.htm

THE DAMN WEAKNESS PROMOTING NANNY STATE.

Multibillionaire and philanthropist Warren Buffet, made the observation (and I'll paraphrase), when donating tens of billions to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, that at posh country clubs; 'One can hear the members bemoan the lazy government dependent liberal types. Club members shake their heads over the disgusting give away of tax dollars to the poor for no return of effort.' Mr Buffet then described how; 'These very same men and woman of very wealthy families, have their own children endowed with much greater gifts that can be assumed to cause the same lazy character traits alleged to be providence of the poor and misguided governments "liberalism". The blatant hypocrisy of point of view is not apparently ever acknowledged'.

This may not be a representation of classic projection, for it is an ideological world view that applies different standards to "us and them", often depending on where the us and them's need be conceived at the moment. This internal contradiction may involve an element of institutionalized projection that privileged people's often have assumed defined factual reality.

Corporations have essentially infused this whole one way street paradigm into societal consciousness to the extent that we do not even notice the psychological and sociological bias embedded in our societal conceptions.  Quality of character traits, and the role of government to address issues of the Commons---that whole interrelationship of life and being on one Whole Earth, have been "framed" mostly through a corporate lens.

I am bringing up the differences that exist in point of view, but can be assumed by one on one side or another to represent exact and irrevocable truths, unknowingly believed in for questionable reasons.

Here are some alternatives to the current all negative narrative campaign being projected upon the citizenry by one ideologies self delusions likely at war within themselves. They seem necessary to counter the Fear mongering rally's seeming to be the mental outworking happening around the McCain/Palin campaign. They are attempting to create doubt over who Obama is for issues that apply to themselves as well, if not more importantly..

Well you can see the same questions below; Who really are McCain and Palin?

.

Here is an interview on the Rachael Maddow show about Sarah Palin's connections to the radical right and secessionist.

.

Dan Balz’s corrupted journalistic “balance”

(updated below)

.

Sarah Palin and AIP’S TERRORIST FRIENDS - Care2 News Network

Oct 9, 2008 ... Photo of Palin speaking in front of a flag with only 49 stars (Alaska is the 49th state. So she either doesn't recognize Hawaii or she's ...
www.care2.com/news/member/434996229/904621

.

.

.

[caption id="attachment_5238" align="alignright" width="150" caption="photo courtesy of Canterbury City Council"][/caption]

On Thursday last week, there was a by election in the County division of Herne Bay, occasioned by the untimely death of County Councillor John Law just a few weeks ago ("The poorer for his passing", August 3).  The Conservative candidate was Jean Law, John's widow - herself a Canterbury City Councillor and currently Deputy Leader.

Jean worked tirelessly on her campaign, and the results speak for themselves:

• UKIP polled 399;
• BNP fielded a candidate who scored 399;
• Labour came in at at 537
• the Liberal Democrats closed at 1524
• But Jean Law was triumphant with a Conservative vote of 2470

A stunning majority of 946 and a testament not only to Jean's hard-fought campaign, but a mark of the respect in which her late husband John is still held by the Herne Bay community.  Well done Jean - we look forward to seeing you take your place in the Council Chamber.

To visit Canterbury City Council's website, go to www.canterbury.gov.uk

It's sick how a bunch of liars can look away from truth and so nonchalantly pass off issues that matter just to maintain the glow of their pretending messiah to save West Papua.

It's sad how Richard Samuelson and friends claim my blog is so negative and isn't talking issues whence those ignorant people are just skating and avoiding offering any plan themselves, but creating further conflict among Papuan.

It's sick that Richard Samuelson and friends can want a win by creating more conflict so bad that they don't care about what the full outcome is going to be.

It's sad that important people in the House of Parliament in this day and age can be so blind and gobble up the verbal cum of an ignorant liar like Richard Samuelson in the heart of United Kingdom.

It's sad that in West Papua case, United Kingdom Democracy is so driven by false information from Richard Samuelson and friends about West Papua.

It's sick and sad that the International Parliamentarians for West Papua will responsible for the perpetuate conflict between the Papuan separatist and Indonesian military, while ordinary Papuan will suffer even more.

It's sick how arrogant Richard Samuelson is, pushing me to stop writing in my own blog.

It's sad someone will undoubtedly comment that it is sad and sick I feel this way.

For those unaware of terminology (which would be anyone who has not taken a systems course), a system is an entity with certain inputs and outputs, and which converts inputs to outputs through a certain mechanism. It can be completely defined by its inputs, outputs, external limits and feedback systems. Limits determine the boundaries within which the system must operate, like the size of our parliament is limited by the number of rich and powerful idiots in the country. Feedback systems determine the response of the system to changes in its output or environment, like the elections are a feedback in a democracy.

Another factor which determines the performance of the system is delay in the feedback systems. Scientists have been telling economists to change developmental objectives to include climate change issues for many decades and yet it has come into focus only very recently. Even today, development does not include many environmental issues like deforestation and toxic dumps and species extinction. This can be called as a large delay between output changes and the attendant change in system performance.

Why is systems thinking important ? From a business perspective, it can help analyse the people and objects that determine how a system (company) behaves, and how certain kinds of behavior of these 'components' can affect overall system output. For example, car manufacturers should change the specifications of their car according to general consumer tastes. Therefore, there must be some system feature that links car specification with consumer taste. If the person who is in charge of implementing this feature in this system fails to do her job well, system output (which is cars) will fail to make the desired impact.

Therefore, most social systems - religion, corporation, state - come up with a set of desired behaviors that the components that make up the system should have, and this is inculcated by various mechanisms - schools, corporate orientation, religious instruction and so on.

One can, if one has considerable amount of time to burn, apply systems principles to the present situation in India. First, a look at the state. The state is a glorified watchman of sorts, taking money from us taxpayers and giving political, social and economic protection. The recent spate of terrorist attacks have underlined the fact that it is unable to deal with the phenomenon of terrorism which is structurally very different from the normal antisocial elements that it is used to dealing with. Highly motivated individuals, working in small groups, from varied backgrounds, with no monetary motivation causing mayhem is something no state can cope with: it was simply not designed for such a task. And there goes physical safety that we were supposed to have.

Next thing to go was religious tolerance. Talking to random people on the train shows that the average Hindu looks at his Christian neighbor with suspicion and will be more hesitant than before to attend religious festivals. This is due to the sensationalist feedback systems which have been set in place called the media and no doubt supported by a political party that wants to expel Pakistani and Bangladeshi nationals (only those with expired visas, of course, preferably Muslims) since they might be terrorists. Never mind the fact that terrorists will go to great lengths to see that their papers are in order, and are not stupid enough to be in a place where checks are taking place. A system is only as good as the people that make it up, and this is shown well in Karnataka now and Gujarat before.

Before these was, of course, financial security. A global economic system needs global  regulatory agencies, a role which the IMF and World Bank ostensibly play. The present crisis shows that a system designed around rational ordering and behavior of individuals completely fails when greed, fear and panic are the inputs. The subprime crisis surfaced around this time last year and its effects are showing now, a huge delay between input and output. This kind of behavior can only mean worse things in the coming year. IMF and the World Bank probably should stick to bullying third world nations.

All these developments are having interesting effects - terrorism has made grassroot level spying a noble duty in service of the state (Orwellian nightmare!), people belonging to different religious groups are eyeing each other with suspicion, and people with money to lose are running around like headless chickens. If people are taken as a system, and if insecurity is an input, the system moves towards whatever promises stability. Therefore, unfortunately, the State and religious organizations are going to be more powerful than before when the dust settles. The last bastion of reliable information feedback, the internet, is now becoming more prone to State intervention. Wonder what the status of the people will be after this - are we going to be sociable components of sociopathic systems ?

At the time, I was infuriated by the accusation.  It galls me to no end for neoconservatives to accuse anybody who disagrees with them of trying to destroy our country.  I'm still mad about it, as you might imagine if you've been called one of the worst things in the world.

The last couple of weeks of presidential campaigning have put the nastiness of last summer into some perspective.  For one, I've realized that neocons toss around the word "traitor" willy-nilly.  They know perfectly well that I do not actively work to destroy or undercut the Constitution or our country.  They also know perfectly well that Barack Obama isn't trying to destroy our country.  I guess the short version is that I've become innoculated against the charge because they apply it to everything and everybody they don't like.

Second, although some of the folks who were fighting with me on the blog got pretty nasty, it's nothing compared to the threats that are emerging from (and being stoked by) the McPalin campaign.  Even Republicans are getting nervous about the simmering violence and hate being aroused, especially by Sarah Palin, on the campaign trail.  The Secret Service, it seems, have decided that the freak who yelled "Kill him!" at a Palin rally last weekend probably wasn't talking about Obama.  Huh?  Who else would he have been talking about?  And with the increasingly violent and frequent shouts of "Off with his head!" and "Traitor!" and "Treason!" and others, why would anybody believe that Obama wasn't the target?

I, like many, are afraid of what might happen as a result of this increasingly vicious tone.  However, having been the object of a (very minor because I'm not very important, but still...) smear campaign, and having faced death threats because of an editorial I wrote for the Philly Inquirer some years ago, more than fear I feel deep, tragic sadness that the very-far right-wing has come to this.  It wasn't enough to slaughter innocent Iraqis and Afghans in wars they weren't even fighting.  It wasn't enough to see a ruling cabal installed in the White House without even winning an election, and hand over the reins of our government to a small group of people who serve their own interests only.  It wasn't enough to label anybody who disagreed with them unpatriotic or treasonous.

Now they have to attack a presidential election ticket that couldn't be less traitorous, less "Socialist," less dangerous to the core values of the US Constitution, and they have to incite levels of hate and fear to do it.  It's humiliating, as a citizen not just of the country but of the world, to know that others all over the planet believe these snakes speak for our nation.

So, here's a plea to all you McPalin supporters who are so angry about Barack Obama's success that you advocate violence towards him and his supporters--

SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!  You're hurting your candidates.  You're hurting your party.  You're hurting our nation. You're much more dangerous that Obama/Biden could ever be.  I don't believe you're "traitors" any more than I believe I'm a traitor, but your hatred and violence are bad and wrong.

Enough.

The first two measures (scale and nature) are least important, in my view, so I will merely summarize them. On one side you have a few thousand fake voter registrations, on the other side you have potentially hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans eliminated from the election process through a combination of threats and intimidation, illegal voter purges, embezzled votes, phone-jamming, and misinformation campaigns.

Sometimes the lesser of two evils is so much "lesser" that it hardly qualifies to be in the same category of evil.

Far more important than the vast disparities in scale and nature, however, is the intent of the crimes. These fake registrations were submitted often by temporary workers who had been unemployed and simply looking for some income. Do not mistake this for sympathy on my part, because what these people did was not only an attack on the integrity of our election system but also a failure to do the work they were getting paid for. In my opinion they deserve serious jail time.

However, it is clear from the types of fake registrations they submitted that their intent was not to defraud the elections, but to defraud ACORN. In many cases fake names or fake addresses were used, but often the same names were simply repeated to drive up the count.  In many cases, celebrity or joke names were used. Despite self-exculpatory theatrical outrage from the election-stealing right, it is clear that these workers did not actually intended these registrations to translate into a shift in the outcome on election day.

ACORN's prosecutor in a registration fraud case in King County, Washington, put it best when he said that these faked registrations were submitted as an "easy way to get paid, not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections."

In short, the election crimes of ACORN represent workplace fraud, a crime against ACORN, the leadership of which has pledged to go door-to-door to clean up the confusion caused by their temporary workers.

The sorts of election crimes that typify the Right represent attempts to change the outcome of elections, thereby driving out the legitimate government of the United States in favor of an usurper, and therefore represent acts of sedition and treason against the Republic.

Considering intent, this is not merely a case of ACORN's crimes being the lesser of two evils. This is comparing merely lazy and criminal apples to traitorous and anti-American oranges.  ACORN's registration-faking fraudsters should go to prison, but the Right's election-stealing fraudsters should suffer the punishment due traitors to their country: execution.

This current obsession with ACORN is typical of a collapsing Right that moans about Obama's "relationship " with a reformed insurgent* from half a century ago who once hosted a party for his campaign, while ignoring Palin's ties to a currently-active anti-American secessionist movement with violent leadership;

...a foundering GOP that criticizes the experience of an accomplished Constitutional lawyer and scholar elected to the US Senate, while cheering a college-hopping beauty queen who stumbled her way into an obscure state governorship;

...a morally bankrupt Republican party that tries to tie their opponents to the Freddie Mac crisis through a single phone conversation to an Obama staffer, while their candidate's chief of staff is a former Freddie Mac lobbyist;

...a divided and shamed party who demand their opponent tell the truth about a planetarium projector while their own campaign is so awash in lies that it is nearly impossible to find a single truthful statement among the deluge of deception and falsehood.

America's conservatives need to send this current batch of snake-oil salesman home and build a new generation of genuinely conservative leadership from scratch.

* Terrorism is a tactic of attacking civilians in order to terrorize them into changing their government's policies. Attacking government facilities with the intent of disrupting operations may be treasonous when the attack are against your own government, but this is insurgent activity, not terrorism. Terrorism is too real and dangerous a threat to America to be throwing the word around like a bunch of grade school snot-noses playing the dozens.

The week in fundie:

1. For an example of how it is possible for Catholics to be as demented as the fundiest fundagelicals, look no further than Matt C. Abbott's column on the RenewAmerica* website, "As the 'Obama-nation' nears, priests sound alarm". There you'll hear from Father James Farfaglia, who is unhappy with the recent US bishops' statement, Faithful Citizenship, which counsels "the Church’s leaders [. . .] to avoid endorsing or opposing candidates or telling people how to vote." Farfaglia wants the Church to tell people to vote against Obama and for McCain, because, among other reasons, "McCain will appoint a pro-life Supreme Court justice; Obama will appoint a pro-abortion one." He also speaks highly of Catholic convert, long-time anti-abortion activist and theocrat Randall Terry, who in 1993 said: "I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."You'll also hear a goodly dose of Christian persecution mania from Father Richard Perozich. Jumping at the shadows of government spooks waiting around the corner to clap him in irons for being an ultraconservative Catholic ("we may not be in jail (at least at the moment)"), Perozich accuses the state of "encroaching on our religious beliefs, our freedom by passing laws which indoctrinate us, penalize us for non conformity, and take away our liberty." The chief agents of this anti-Catholic persecution , in his view, are (self-hating?) Catholic politicians who, by not always voting in strict accordance with Catholic dogma, have become "slaves to people with evil ideas" . . . those ideas being "abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual activity." TEH EVIL, you see, infects the souls of individuals who then force teh evil onto everyone else. How, you may ask? Perozich reaches under his cassock and pulls the following theory out of his wrinkled arse: "First evil forms people into groups to organize and express itself. [. . .] Evil then beings to take over in 4 ways: infiltration, indoctrination, intimidation, and imposition." The examples he provides are just priceless:
   

   When we know persons with same sex attractions who have not learned to master chastity, we feel sorry for them. We want them to feel better. They infiltrate by asking for tolerance. They reinvent themselves saying that this is who they are. They indoctrinate with false ideas that they are genetically created this way, that they cannot change, that their sex is just as good as, or even better than, normal people because they don't create overpopulation. They intimidate, calling us bigots, hate-filled people, intolerant. Finally they impose laws forcing us to learn about their sinful lifestyle, to accept it, to take away our freedoms if we don't accept it, to teach this as normal in schools, nursing programs, to celebrate it publicly in parades, schools, and the work place as 'diversity' when in fact it is perversity. [Emphasis added]

   Read the full article to learn more about the INFLITRATE-->INDOCTRINATE-->INTIMIDATE-->IMPOSE strategy is deployed against unsuspecting hard-right Catholics by "unrepetant" woman abortionists and "famous people with diseases" calling for embryonic stem cell research funding.

2. A cursory glance at the headlines reveals that over 26,500 children died around the world today. Climate change may be happening faster than predicted. The global financial crisis has sent stock markets plummeting from Europe to Japan. Meanwhile, the Pope has commenced a marathon Bible reading, in which 1200 people in Rome will take turns "take turns reading from the Bible until all 73 books of the Catholic edition are finished." Religion: the quintessential filler. (Norwich Bulletin)
3. Sherry Jones, author of the historical romance novel The Jewel of Medina, a first-person narrative of Mohammed's favourite wife Aisha, has decided to postpone the UK release of her book and has cancelled a book tour there. Last weekend, the home and premises of the book's UK publisher was the target of a firebomb. (CBC)
4. In the Russian city of Tamboz, officials have banned two gay rights demonstrations, deeming them an "offence to the city's traditions." (TVNZ)
5. Oklahoma State Congresswoman Sally Kern, proof that being a drool-cup fundamentalist is no barrier to high public office in the United States, has declared gay people the biggest threat to the nation. "'While terrorism has killed more than 3,000 people in the continental United States in the last 15 years, homosexual behavior has killed more than 100,000,” the Republican representative said. “It's a danger to life. It is a danger to health.'" (On Top Magazine)
6. A C Grayling and Steve Fuller duke it out over the latter's latest book, a defence of the teaching of ID creationism in the science classroom. (New Humanist)
7. After an argument over Arthur Miller's The Crucible, an adult education student poured what he called "holy water" over his teacher, holding a lighter close to her while chanting religious verses, because he thought she was a witch. (UPI)
8. In Jaipur, India, a woman accused of witchcraft was severely bashed and then forced to pick up a silver coin from a vessel filled with boiling oil. According to one villager, there are ways of telling if a woman is a witch. "Women, whosoever, labelled as a 'witch' by the villagers has to pick a silver coin from a tank filled with boiling oil, with both her hands. If her hands are burnt, her witchhood is confirmed, otherwise she is declared innocent." You think I'm joking, don't you? (The Times of India)

*RenewAmerica a Christian Right organisation founded as a support group for former Republican Presidential Candidate Alan Keyes.