Revolution is not an AOL Keyword*

pdw writes "Revolution is not an AOL Keyword* is an entertaining piece of prose, which has been floating around the blogspace for the past month. In reinterpreting Gil Scott-Heron's The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, Eddan Katz has given us quick worldview, common to most Slashdoters, and of course reminds us of what is most important to all, to go out and enjoy life!"

Comments

Groovy...

[TopShelf]

So am I supposed to smoke clove cigarettes and snap my fingers to this???

The Revolution will be moderated up.

[rdewald]

The one thing that seemed off about the langauge in the homage to GSH's insightful song about the ultimate irreverence of mass media was the attempt to address "geeks" via a reference to AOL keywords.

I don't know any geeks that use AOL.

Besides, the revolution, if there is one, will probably have a web site, but it will run on Apache and Perl Scripts. There won't be an AOL keyword....

The web isn't mass media, it just has mass distribution.

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[Qender]

uh, he's not making a geek refrence, what he's saying is pretty much what you say in your last sentence

"Besides, the revolution, if there is one, will probably have a web site, but it will run on Apache and Perl Scripts. There won't be an AOL keyword...."

hence his line

"revolution is not an aol keyword."

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[stephanruby]

I guess you're a geek with no TV. The tag line "AOL keyword blahblah" was created for the television market. It's just like Tampax tampons, most of us will never use them and yet most of us know about them.

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[therevolution]

Besides, the revolution, if there is one, will probably have a web site, but it will run on Apache and Perl Scripts. There won't be an AOL keyword....

No, I don't have a web site... no Apache or Perl scripts either. Sorry.

But feel free to mod me up anyway!

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[miu]

I don't know anyone who has ever used, is using or ever will use AOL.

Uh huh. And uncle Steve is bringing his friend Bruce to Thanksgiving dinner. Bruce seems nice, maybe he can help uncle Steve find a nice girl to marry.

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[BlowChunx]

It can't be that good if they have had to come out with 9 versions of their software.

Tell RedHat and Mandrake that.....

Re:Let me get this straight...

[mr_bungle2110]

Dude, relax. I'm sure George Washington stopped to have a beer at least once during the American Revolution. I'm sure Abraham Lincoln read a nice book, just for fun, during the Civil War, and I'm sure that FDR spent a night with his mistress not thinking about the Depression or World War I. I'm sure he spent a hundred.

Revolution

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

Has a revolution ever happened in a true democracy (or at least as true as you find in North America)?

Considering up here in Canada we've held referendums to determine if we should divide the country (first Quebec, and now Alberta is talking about it too) I find it hard to believe we would ever see such an event take place.

Even with Bush going a bit nuts with the whole "You must give up your rights to be safe, citizen." power grab in the US, he can easily be voted out at the next election. No revolution (violent or otherwise) necessary.

You need the support of the majority to have a revolution, otherwise it's called other things.

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that depends. Would you consider the United States Civil War a revolution by the southern states?

Re:Revolution

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

Yes, against colonial powers, though I admit I know little of the US Civil War so feel free to enlighten me if I am wrong...

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

he can easily be voted out at the next election

That was written on the assumption that he was voted in fair and square the first time... ... which is debatable.

Re:Revolution

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

Yes, I'm beginning to think maybe my definition of revolution may be a bit too narrow...

Perhaps we should include the peace movement, feminism, civil rights, etc... I guess it all depends on how you look at revolution.

I typically think of it as a power change initiated by an oppressed majority, but I guess it could also be initiated by an oppressed minority that gains popularity with the silent majority...

Re:Revolution

[moonbender]

Perhabs Hitler's takeover of the Weimar Republic, which was a modern democracy, converting into an absolutist fascist regime in 1933 could be called a revolution. It was very much inside the system, though, it was not a violent public uprise.

Apart from that, the couple of modern democracies - including first and foremost the USA, the right to bear arms nonwithstanding - have taken great care to keep up a large enough and well-equipped military to prevent a public, violent revolution from happening. And of course, in a working democracy, a revolution is made unlikely since the majority gets what it wants anyway.

Re:Revolution

[rdewald]

The word revolution in this context refers to the overthrow of a government, or form of government, or social system by those governed, usually by forceful means, with another government or social system taking its place.

In recent history, this has happened because of, or has been attempted by, people seeking a democracy is the new form of government. Maybe this is why a revolution in this sense will not happen in a democracy. It's not that it is impossible, it's that it has already happened.

The word can also mean a radical change of any kind. This is sometimes necessary in any social system. Democracy allows for a non-violent method to achieve this kind of revolution every election. While the change from Carter to Reagan in 1981 was not a revolution in the former sense of the word, it was in the latter sense. So, the answer depends in some measure on just what one means by revolution.

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

The Soviet Communist revolution happened shortly after their democratic revolution, although that was short lived and unstable.

Re:Revolution

[Silent_E]

Well, given that Bush wasn't elected by the majority, one could argue that the electorial college system actually promotes a kind of revolution. Once you have Texas and Florida, plus the middle states you can ignore the majority opinion for President. Maybe bloodless coup is a better word.

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Has a revolution ever happened in a true democracy (or at least as true as you find in North America)?

Chile was a democracy prior to Sept 11, 1973 when it was overthrown by a US-supported military coup and became a brutal dictatorship. A new leader wasn't elected until 1989.

Re:Revolution

[bsartist]

The primary issue of the civil war wasn't slavery - it was the balance of power between the federal government and individual states.

Lincoln didn't abolish slavery until late in the war, and not for the reason that many believe. The war was going badly for the north. General Lee, a graduate of West Point, and before the war one of the best commanders the US Army had, had won victory after victory. Many northerners were calling on Lincoln to recognize the secession of the south and sign a treaty with the Confederate States.

Putting an end to slavery was, for Lincoln, a means of gaining support for continuing the war from the abolitionist movement. If the north and south were to remain separate, it would have been largely symbolic, as slavery was not widely practiced in the north at that point anyway. The new law would only have teeth if the war continued, and the south was brought back into the union and subjected to its laws.

An interesting bit of history: Before the civil war, the US was referred to using the plural form - i.e. "these United States are..." It wasn't until after the civil war, and the post-war rise in the power of the federal government, that the singular form began to be used - i.e. "this United States is..."

This post brought to you by Ken Burns - and viewers like you. ;-)

Re:Revolution

[Associate]

And of course, in a working democracy, a revolution is made unlikely since the majority gets what it wants anyway.

Which is oh so convienent since it seems like we are being told more and more what it is we want instead of thinking for ourselves, which is of course part of the message of The Revolution will not be Televised.

Re:Revolution

[Associate]

Keep in mind what Tommy Lee Jones said in Under Siege.

If this is about reliving the 60s, you can forget it, buddy. The movement is dead. Yes, of course. Hence the name: movement. It moves a certain distance, then it stops. A revolution gets its name by always coming back around in your face. You tried to kill me you son of a bitch... so welcome to the revolution.

Re:Revolution

[Samari711]

except then you get candidates effectively ignoring entire states and just focusing on the major population centers, which is a bad thing. it basically robs voters who live in areas with low population desities of a say in presidential policy, because if no candidate cares about them it doesn't matter who they vote for. i'm not saying the electoral college is great, but it does have some redeming qualities and shouldn't just be thrown out without careful consideration.

Re:Revolution

[Archie Steel]

Nice rewriting of history here...in other words, you're saying that it's okay to have a military coup if a government has unpopular policies...

Well, I'm sorry to break it to you, but there was only one acceptable way to get rid of Allende if you didn't agree with him: vote him out. Now if Allende had given himself dictatorial powers, like Pinochet did, then maybe you would have a point. The fact is, despite what you think of Allende's politics (which were a lot more popular with the majority of Chileans than with the rich landowners, I'll give you that), Chile was still a democracy, because there were still going to be elections.

But you've touched on the inherent risk of democracy, that it contains the seed of its own destruction: the people can put an anti-democratic party in power if they vote so. Even in the States, with sufficient votes, it would theoretically be possible to amend the constitution in very undemocratic ways - though I doubt this would ever happen, thanks to the numerous checks and balances of the american system).

In other words, despite Dubya's warning, Iraqis could very well vote en masse for an Islamic party. That is their right. What you have to do in democratic societies is to educate the masses enough so that they don't vote for fascist/non-democratic/extremist parties. To oppose restrictions on what people can vote for is contrary to the democratic ideal, even though it does carry the risk of less democracy.

Re:Revolution

[Silent_E]

Well, in the case of the 2000 election, what the "majority opinion" meant was literally more than half of the voters. It isn't whim, but objective, countable (ahem--not counted) votes. Voting makes our system legitimate.

We can bicker about the how legitimate our voting numbers are (my memory is that it was actually about 40% of the registered voters, which was half? (perhaps less) of the eligible voters). But if you are going to call voting a "whim," then you are dumping the premise of democratic government. I don't want to do that.

Your point is valid if we are talking about "political cultures" or "affiliations" within the US, but unless we are going to say that we no longer wish to support the idea that we have a majority system based on representative democracy in which majority vote wins, then the electoral college has become a campaign manipulation tool, not a check on majority passion. Check out this article on find law for a discussion of the college.

Re:Revolution

[sedna]

Well, it's clear that history and politics easily creates debates depending on your context and background. If you want to read some descripitions about what happened in Nicaraguar you can try these links:

http://www.countryreports.org/history/nicarhist. ht m

http://www.jorian.com/san.html

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/central _a merica/nicaragua/history.htm

http://www.iexplore.com/dmap/Nicaragua/History

The truth is that the actual politics by the Sandinistas was less soicialistic the in Sweden. Their landreforms was very needed considering the social inequalities in the country. Nationalizing of the industry is something both France, Germany, Sweden, Norway etc etc have done, often to save jobs. Up until the 80's Import substitution politics was alse the most common economical paradigm in Latin America. Spending money on education and healthcare shouldn't be too marxisic i hope...

The most interesting fact with the Sandinistas was that they actually won the polpular vote 1984 with 67% of the voters. International observers considered the election to be fair and reperesenting the will of the people. Reagan, however, didn't accept it because the Sandinistas still were in power. He didn't care about democaracy, only to get rid of the socialists...

Re:Revolution

[WegianWarrior]

I'm about to open my mouth wide enought to stick my foot in here, but yes. The United States of America would take a great political leap towards what democracy means (peoples rule) if they ditched the electoral college and just appointed the one who most citizens voted for as president.

Or you could look into parlamentism; where the head of state has to answer not only to God and the voters, but to the national assembly. Works a treat in a lot of nations y'know... And how about trying more than two parites? Or putting a cap on how much cash various cooperations can 'help' the politicans with? Just suggestions off course, the people of the US must make up their own minds on what sort of goverment they want.

Re:Revolution

[luzrek]

Having grown up in Florida, which was a Slave state, now populated by Northerners, I think that I've gotten a fiarly good education on both sides of the topic. While the US Civil war was not entirely about slavery, slavery was certainly the motivating factor. As the west was settled there was an agreement made to admit one slave and one free state each time any state was created, thus maintaining a balance in the Senate and preventing either side from mandating or abolishing slavery. Shortly before Lincoln was elected it began to become clear that the number of "free" states was going to out pace the number of slave states so the slave states wanted to pass legislation changing the location of the Masson-Dixon line (the line above which the US was "free" and below which it was "slave"). To do this they needed their canadate to be elected (Jefferson Davis). He was not elected despite the 3/5ths of the unrepersented slave population of the south counting towards its electoral tally (which was an even older source of bad-blood). The south then tried to break off and form its own country. From 150 years later (almost) this looks like the south was simply a sore looser. At the time this was a violation of everything that Lincoln beleived in (basically he was a true patriot, very much beleiving in the USofA) and Lincoln acted to prevent the disentigration of the Union. Thus the civil war. In short, the American civil war wasn't about slavery for the North, but it was for the South.

Looking back at it, the military "victories" the South won were phiric. In no battle was there a clear winner in terms of causualties, and from the beginning it was clear that the North's greater population (why Lincoln won to begin with) and industrialization (the South couldn't even manufacture the bullets for many of the Northern guns they captured) was going to eventually lead to its victory. The Southern politicians assumed that since the cotton for the world's textile mills came from their states that France and/or Britian would come to their aide. This was bad reasoning since Egypt was already producing higher grade cotton and European and Industrial warehouses were full at the beginning of the war. Of course we all know that the war turned at Gettysberg where Lee (despite what you may have gotten from the Ken Burns specials) basically killed 15000 of his own men by ordering Picket's charge over the strong objections of the other southern generals (Longstreet included).

Also, remember that the American Civil war was much more costly for the South than for the North. A greater portion of their 18-40 year old men were killed, what industry the south had was destroyed by Sherman, and the way the social and economic elites lived was fundamentally altered. No Southerner should attempt to glorify the civil war. What the Confederacy stood for, and the war planning of its politicians is an embarassment to all true Americans.

Re:Revolution

[dipipanone]

Keep in mind what Tommy Lee Jones said in Under Siege.

Oh absolutely. Whenever I need astute political analysis, Hollywood is always the first place I turn.

If you want your political insights to be pithy, easily consumed with no intellectual effort, and absolutely content free and lacking any reference to complex reality, Hollywood will deliver.

Which actually explains a lot about US political life, if you think about it.

Re:Revolution

[NeoRete]

Lincoln was a smarter man than most people give him credit for. The war was going badly for the north, and it looked worse because the British were going to intervene.

The southern cotton crops which the British depended on had been halted as a result of many Southern men going off to fight the war, and a quick Southern sucession was determined to be the easiest answer to the problem. At this time, the British were anti-slavery, but they were willing to look the other way if it meant the much-needed cotton shipments would resume and they were willing to use their navy to prove the point.

Licoln, ever the adept manuverer, recognized this and changed the direction of the war, from state's rights to the basic freedom of slaves. The English were then kept out of the war, they did need the cotton, but did not want others to have the impression that they were pro-slavery once Lincoln changed what the war was about.

This post brought to you from Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" - a very good read if you haven't read it yet, and also if you have

Re:Revolution

[CashCarSTAR]

And in order to arm the Contras to fight against the Sandistas, money was funneled through Iran, to repay the Iranians for helping with that little election thing in '80. As well, arms were funneled to the freedom fighters in Afghanastan, arms that which funneled down to the Taliban. As well, in order to be a foil for Iran, military support was given to Iraq.

Some of the parties involved in this whole affair are in the current administration, (Poindexter especially). Finally, back on topic, It will remain to be seen if Iraq is going to be Chile pt. 2, the second great libertarian experiement.

Re:Revolution

[nat5an]

In other words, despite Dubya's warning, Iraqis could very well vote en masse for an Islamic party. That is their right.

Hey, the Algerians tried this, but the French said their election wasn't valid. ;-)

Re:Revolution

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Looking back at it, the military "victories" the South won were phiric. In no battle was there a clear winner in terms of causualties, and from the beginning it was clear that the North's greater population (why Lincoln won to begin with) and industrialization (the South couldn't even manufacture the bullets for many of the Northern guns they captured) was going to eventually lead to its victory.

Wars aren't about guns. Nor are they about casualties, or slogans, or tech, or logistics. Wars are contests of wills: Can I push the price of victory higher than the other side is willing to pay? Can I force a negotiated ending? Unlike RTS games, real war isn't about two sides slugging it out for all eternity, pouring men and materiel into a cauldron until one side is eliminated. Real war is about morale and popular spirit.

That's how little powers can sometimes (Vietname) force to retreat of great powers. It was the fundamental miscalculation of Japan in WWII -- that the US would fold rather than respond in wrath. It was the hope of the Confederacy -- that the Union would rather accept secession than spend the treasure and blood needed to end it. Of course in any "fair", drawn-out, blow-for-blow reckoning, the North (with its industries and its population) would win. The South simply didn't expect the North to have the stomach for it.

And despite the rumblings of preodination that you get from textbooks today, the South came very close to being proven right. The North was never entirely united behind the war until the very end.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[DrVital]

So your solution is to live in a constant state of fear, obsessing over the dead, and the horrible state of the planet?

I'll take the middle ground.

Cowboy Bebop is worthwhile.
Cowboy Bebop has taught me far more about how to deal with this life then you have.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[fussman]

I agree with the parent. There are too many trolls on here that are trying to get a reaction out of people, for the sole purpose of arguing, and try to hard. The result is what looks like a caffeine-fried 14 year old, but really is just a libral troll trying to get people to pay attention like a two year old does when it gets a new sibling.

Oh, and Mr. Bungle, RIGHT ON!

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Qender]

Here's a bigger hint to the clueless moron: If everyone sat around and ate "shreddies" while watching TV, there would be much less violence in this world, the problem is that people put down their toys and picked up guns. Just because some people in this world fight each other doesn't mean I will destroy my life. My life is made of many things, my life is made of the people I know, My life is made by a consumer culture and it's governing systems. My life is made of the plants in my yards and the shows on my TV. Whether or not I choose to watch TV is a different matter, it's a choice I make in my life. Personally, I don't have time for TV, I've not watched it in a long while. But if I did have time, I would watch all the cartoons I wanted.

YOU WANT SOME DAMN PRIORITIES? How can you solve your problems?!, in your life?!, right now?! If you are so concerned over the deaths in this world, why don't you go do something about it. Don't sit in front of a computer and tell everyong else not to talk about anything but the wars. Go solve the damn problem. Fight against the war, fight against the iraqis, fight with the iraqis, whatever you want. If I want to sit at home and play diablo, I will. If I want to go down to the store and buy a sandwich, I will. And nothing you can say, about any other part of the world, will make me feel guilty about eating my sandwich.

I don't like death, I agree with you, death is bad. But life includes "shreddies" and "cowboy bebop", so get over it.

Whitey's on the Moon

[waldoj]

For any newfound Gil Scott-Heron fans, my favorite GSH piece:

Whitey's on the Moon

A rat done bit my sister Nell
With whitey on the moon
Her face and arms began to swell
And whitey's on the moon
I can't pay no doctor bills
And whitey's on the moon
Ten years from now, I'll be payin' still
While whitey's on the moon
You know, the man just upped my rent last night
'Cos whitey's on the moon
No hot water, no toilets, no lights
But whitey's on the moon
I wonder why he's uppin' me
'Cos whitey's on the moon?
Well, I was already givin' him fifty a week
And now whitey's on the moon
Taxes takin' my whole damn check
The junkies make me a nervous wreck
The price of food is goin' up
And as if all that crap wasn't enough
A rat done bit my sister Nell
With whitey on the moon...

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[balthan]

A moose once bit my sister...

Make a Bonfire of Your Reputations

[MichaelCrawford]

A little over a hundred years ago, John J. Chapman gave a commencement address that I found so inspiring that I copied it to my website after I first came across it:

• Make a Bonfire of Your Reputations

I found it in the dead-tree edition of The Cluetrain Manifesto, which I think makes the case that the revolution will be networked. However I agree that it won't be taking place on a sanitized, controlled system like AOL, but on the wilds of the real Internet.

And to show that I walk the walk, I invite you to read my recent article, "Living with Schizoaffective Disorder" parts I, II and III.

The trolls right

[Treeluvinhippy]

here's a hint: watching Cowboy Bebop in your jammies and eating a bowl of Shreddies is *not* "getting on with your life

You know he's right, that really isn't getting on with life. You should see that our time here is very finite with so much out there to see and do it's a shame to waste it, enjoy and cultivate life for it really is a precious commodity that can not be sold our bought only given.

Enjoying life can be a walk in the park, dinner with some one you love, or watching Cowboy Bebop in your jammies and eating a bowl of Shreddies.

Wasting life can be letting a addcition get out of control, intentional harming someone and spending a long ass time in prison or being an unoriginal /. troll. Sorry dude I've heard the bebop/cereal statement by other trolls. Maybe it's time for you to get away from the computer and find a girl.

Re:The trolls right

[dpt]

So *you're* the half-wit who keeps posting this *over* and *over* again?

You are clearly an idiot. This has been refuted many times, yet you *still* post it!

No one is impressed by your nonsense. Your statements are moronic, ill-conceived and lame. No-one's souls are "looking down in horror". If you believe that, you are a fuckwit.

And, finally, these are *not* "unprecedented events". For all you annoying whiners out there, here's the news: September 11th was *not* the worst thing to happen in history, ever. Not even close. Cut it out. Bad things happen to good people all the time. Especially when fighting wars. We had better all get used to the people that don't like us using non-traditional means of striking at us wherever they can. It's fundamentally war between cultures and ideology, and the whole civilian/soldier dichotomy is merely a comfortable illusion that our enemies may or may not buy into. If it took 9/11 to make you aware of this basic reality, then it's *way* past time to wake up to yourself!

Please, get a life if you really *are* spending all of your time moaning and wailing over something you have zero control over. We aren't buying into your transferred guilt, sorry, and there's no point constantly whining about it here.

Hope that helps.

Re:What was the asterisk for?

[Samari711]

if you had RTFA you would have seen at the end of the poem:
*See generally Gil Scott-Heron, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.

What is Revolution?

[huphtur]

answer...

"common to most Slashdoters"

[Daniel Quinlan]

Speak for yourself.

I'm not a citizen of the net. I'm a citizen of my country. Most of the people on the net could really care less about me and my well-being. Many -- I don't know if it is "most" or "some" -- of them are downright hostile to me and the things I believe in. There's no need to go into a full list. Actually, I'd love to go into a full list, but I'd probably just be moderated down by the people who are hostile to my views.

There is nothing magical about the net. People are still people. Some of them are out for power, some are not. Some agree with me, some do not. Some people will be able to manipulate net media just like some people can manipulate mass media now.

What obvious to me is that many bloggers have just as overinflated ego about their importance that many talking heads in the media have right now. For the moment, I'm avoiding the blog popularity contest. While I do read a few interesting blogs, I try to avoid ones run by people with big heads who think (right or wrong) that the internet will be the vehicle that will make them powerful. I'd rather vote in an election (even with limited realistic choices) than let pagerank decide what I believe.

Daniel

Re:"common to most Slashdoters"

[lysurgon]

Dan,

There are a lot of people who don't think the interet will make them powerful per se, but believe that the internet will make the world a better place and help them lead a happy and fulfilled life at the same time. That's where I and my blog stand. I think if there's one thing that the internet can do, it's to increase the prevalence and vitality of communty/personal-level networks and culture (e.g. things that only 100 - 1000 or so people pay attention to and tend to be responsive and lively) in response to the overwhelming preponderance of political-level networks (things that 10,000+ people pay attention to and tend to be one-way and bombastic).

I'm not articulating very well, so I'll just refer you to this link. It's not about personal agendas, it's about changing the framework in which everyone (regardless of agenda/ideology) operates.

What's most important of all

[Anonymous Coward]

and of course reminds us of what is most important to all, to go out and enjoy life!

If you're reminded of how important this is, why the hell are you sitting on your can posting on /.?

Economic Democracy?

[composer777]

If I were to devise a system of government where Bill Gate's got 40 billion votes and the rest of us got 1 vote, we wouldn't even laugh. Calling capitalism democracy is absurd.

Fascist Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

The late 20th Century has seen a global fascist revolution, pushing the world towards an "Orwellian State". The concentration of wealth into the hands of a few has seen "the masses" being herded like sheep as never seen before. With Television promoting the mythes of the two-faced so called democracies the world over, people are duped into a life of consumerism and apathy, leaving the gate right open for the rulers to wage war on weaker nations, and tighten their grip on their own populations in name of "security".....ahhh fuck it, who is listening, this is slashdot....

Re:Fascist Revolution

[beakburke]

"The concentration of wealth into the hands of a few has seen "the masses" being herded like sheep as never seen before."

Do you realize that on balance that income equality became much greater over the last century? Yes, it really sorta peaked during the 50s in the US, but on the whole, the industrial revolution and the end of the Guilded Age created and cemented the concept and notion of the middle class. Before that, you had subsistance farming (everyone was poor) with a very few well to do people in the ruling class and the later robber-barrons of the 19th century. You will never achive perfect income equality, and even if you could, the costs of doing so would be far greater than whatever benefits it would provide. At some point, the redistribution of wealth ceases to be productive to the overall well being of the people.

In Revolutions

[Nikkos]

In Revolutions people die.

How many slashdotters would truly be willing to die in order to see their beliefs come to light? How many would be willing to kill friends/neighbors because they don't agree?

It's too late for first-world countries to have a revolution that would help them more than hurt them. The intelligent use of democracy is the only way - and that would take getting off one's ass, turning off the computer, writing letters, actually _voting_, and being active in society. Things _I_ can say truthfully I've done.

If you don't have a solution, stop screaming about the problem.

Nikkos

Re:In Revolutions

[Beautyon]

That definition of revolution is way too narrow.

A revolution happened in South Africa, and not a shot was fired. No one has to die or even suffer for a revolution to take place. It is in no way too late for first world countries to have revolutions.

There is a revolution going on right now in the first world; everyone is switching to the Euro as their currency of choice for all transactions.

The effect of this will be felt world wide. The face of everything will be changed.

That is revolution.

Question

[visvogel]

and of course reminds us of what is most important to all, to go out and enjoy life!

Have you been watching Oprah again?

how does that go again?

[Hecubas]

full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...

C'mon people, you have free will. Especially if this is America, you have a choice.

--
hecubas

Lies!

[Tuxinatorium]

"Revolution is not an AOL keyword"

Yes it is!

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Tailhook]

followed by a WAR against Islam

Such a war would involve the destruction of Islamic holy artifacts, such as mosques and holy cities. It would also involve the slaughter of Islamic leaders (and dictators don't count.) Finally, it would witness the enforced adoption of something other than Islam.

All of this is within our power. Nassiria can be erased from existence with a few hours effort. Every mosque in the Middle East could be precision bombed to dust. We could hunt down and execute every Moslem leader of consequence anywhere we care to.

None of the above has, is or will occur. Rational people know this. That's why the vision of multitudes of enraged Moslems descending on the western forces remains a vision. They know, as you do, that calling recent events a "war against Islam" is a hysterical stretch.

Keep stretching. The world is better off with you marginalizing yourself as much as you possibly can. The only damage that may attributed to you is the degree to which real atrocities against Islam are discounted as you fill the air with your noise. Rest assured, however, that ultimately the rational amongst us will still be able to tell the difference.

Orwell's Animal Farm

[NigelJohnstone]

"Maybe this is why a revolution in this sense will not happen in a democracy"

If democracy is the base state of a country, then we would long ago have all become democracies. Clearly that is not the case, since many dictatorships exist throughout the world.

George Orwell's Animal Farm is a very insightful piece of work you might like to read:

http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/animf.htm

Its basically the story of how Russian went from Tzars to Democracy to Dictatorship, transposed into Animals on a farm.

The pigs SLOWLY amass power and control, the rest of the Animals SLOWLY lose power and control, and the balance shifts until the pigs attack the Farmer and depose him.
A SLOW bypassing of Judicial review, a SLOW move to gain more control is how the US democracy will die, but its still a revolution, just in slow-mo.

Re:Excuse me?

[10Ghz]

I also believe that the USSR helped Finland building roads etc which later could be used in an attack on Sweden, but I'm not sure.

Part of the peace-treaty with Soviet Union (for those who do not know history: we fought two wars against them during WW2) was that Finland was required to build a railroad from the eastern-border to the Swedish border. Soviets wanted that in case there was a war with Sweden so they could use it as a supply-line.

As to the Soviet "aid". Well, we didn't really get any aid from them, quite the contrary: we had to pay huge war-repatations to them (not to mention cede large amounts of the country to them). Yes, later we did have big trade-agreements with them, and they did benefit Finnish economy. It was transito-trade, as in Finland provided Soviet Union with goods, and SU paid back with their own goods (usually oil).

Reference

[tastydarb]

This reference sounds more like Mao's quote:

"A revolution is not a dinner party."

While it is close in idea to "the revolution will not be televised," this also got its base from Mao; "... is not an AOL keyword" is closer to the original germ.

Incorrect. The war was about slavery....

[lysium]

...because you had two essentially different societies sharing the same country. Slavery enabled a social order and economic system that would completely collapse if slavery was ever outlawed. So saying the war "wasn't about slavery" is missing the root-level big picture -- were you referring to the use of the slavery issue as a military/politcal expident during the war? Different topic altogether.

As long as slavery existed, Southern civilization would have drifted further apart from the North, failing to industrialize and sinking into an aristocractic fantasy where all the labor was done by non-people. If the first war had not settled the issue, there would have been more wars, until it was.

-----------