Correct, but they were starving the people until they got fed up and where forced to back a democracy so mugabe would loose.
Were the people starving before, after, or during Monsanto's benevolent aid? And, hey, don't get me wrong, there is absolutely no parallels between Monsanto and United Fruit except that both companies are warriors for democracy.
Either you're lying or nobody is listening. I've mentioned this on the ISSA forums, on linkedin lists and on Slashdot multiple times. Wikileaks has an agenda. Cryptome, read it, learn it, love it. And for the hate of Cthulu if I see a stereotypical "Cryptome is a lying pack of liars" I'll scream.
This is exactly the sort of thing they want to happen, it's not an accident. To put on the WL hat: It's a horrific display of global politics, built on lies. To look at it from the outside in, it's a terrible setback to a slow development of what might someday have been a democratic upheaval. Now bloodshed may be the only option. See: the Ivory Coast.
Huh - the cryptome stuff is consistant with the original "agenda" published on iq.org long before Wikileaks was formed - or do you have some sort of problem with making large scale conspiracies difficult? Is it the money angle? Are you suggesting Wikileaks should be self-funding? I read the ISSA forums and I'm too polite to try and guess which posts there are yours. As for your multiple posts about the subject on Slashdot... which pseudonym did you use for those?
I ask seriously because you point is unclear. I expect you can summarize it for me. Cheers (without sarcasm)
Why exactly some decent Western power has had that vile repugnant monster Mugabe filled so full of holes you could use him as a soup strainer is beyond me. That incompetent tyrant has turned Africa's breadbasket into a ill-run starving madhouse.
Because in sub-Saharan Africa, there are no 'decent Western powers'. Mugabe rose to prominence fighting for the independence of his country against the racist, white British-backed regime in Rhodesia. He managed to consolidate and justify his power because he was the only credible opposition to a concerted military and, yes, terrorist campaign managed by white South Africa and backed by several important resource extraction corporations. South Africa was itself backed by the US and the UK in numerous attempts to destabilise several southern African countries, including Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Angola. All of these countries suffered terribly, with literally millions dead.
The people of Zimbabwe may hate Mugabe now, but a lot of them hate the West a great deal more.
The plain fact is that Mugabe has become a nut-job and an embarrassment to his neighbours. But the reason Thabo Mbeki and other leaders were loth to turn on him is that they remember him as one of the only southern African leaders who actually kept his country in one piece in the face of the overwhelming power of the SADF. It's tragic that he's fallen so far, and more tragic that his people are being made to suffer for his delusions. But the plain fact is that Western countries have virtually no credibility in this region, having supported the repression of the people for generations.
Once again, the West has made a bed that others are forced to lie in.
Mod up as informative (finally) please.
Hopefully will post something about how Rhodesia came to be...
The spin and manipulation seem so blatant to me, so orchestrated, that it amazes me how few people seem to notice the man behind the curtain.
At least here on Slashdot, the spin and manipulation is aimed at diverting notice from the man behind the curtain - Julian Assange.
I think you'll find there's spin and manipulation on both sides.
Trying to paint Julian Assange as Wikileaks is spin, trying to defend the outcome of every leaked document is spin, trying to oversimplify history is stupid, trying to pin all the blame on teh USA is stupid - the most honest and informative posts in the entire thread/s are where posters wonder why their petrol isn't cheaper.
Regardless of how well intentioned the US goberment is they can do nothing without the backing of the corporations upon which the US economy is based - and without the support of the US people. There is no "best" scenario, only a least worst one.
It also "appears" that some of the manipulation is not coming from the posters comments - unless there's some sort of magical New Year's Eve mechanism in place that is modifying and deleting posts...
They have every right to support and empower a bloodthirsty dictator
LOLFR, wow... fail.
Hint: in general, "bloodthirsty dictators" aren't "[supported]" or "[empowered]" by the people they rule over.
As an aside, while I'm often the first to support some degree of moral relativism, your post is just ridiculous. Values may vary from culture to culture, but some things are absolute... murder and rape are the first that come to mind, but I'm sure (well, I hope) you can come up with a few more.
I was agreeing with you until you got to the bit about murder and rape. Agreed that it's wrong. Disagree that people don't support it, or invent reasons to justify it. Rightly or wrongly Mugabe does have some support, and the people doing the raping and murdering aren't being made to do so at gunpoint - any more than the LRA do, despite the stories to the contrary.
Some of the most progressive regimes in history were dictatorships. No I don't support Mugabe and his backers - only a fool would suggest that what a minority in Zimbabwe support is "good" for the entire country - and that would be ignoring what is "good" for the neighboring countries. Not trying to muddy the waters but "rights" is a furphy.
Maybe this is one of those occasions when the UN *should* do it's job, and though I can't think of a suggestion (other than lobbying my government to provide places for refugees, and a base for a rebel government)- surely there is something we, as consumers, can do. Sanctions inevitably hurt the people they're designed to help - so sanctions are only part of the solution (note I don't oppose sanctions).
Sigh - suddenly this champagne seems a little flat, the price I guess for knowing much of the world will not be celebrating this evening.
May the New Year be a better one, for one and all.
"if the only voice of reform is painted as a western puppet and a traitor"
If the shoe fits. Are you saying it was wrong of wikileaks to expose a western attempt to manipulate a people into overthrowing their leader?
The people of Zimbabwe are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves if they want to live under a dictator there is no need for western govs to manipulate them.
No the poster is saying that the USA is the only voice of reform. (just in case you were having questions about the credibility of the opinion). News at 11, US invades [insert country name here] to liberate the, um, you know, important stuff, from rigged elections. Next week Biafra. (not that the US is different to any other country in that respect)
Actually they fared really badly until they got mukets that could pierce a knight's armour. Before that, send a few knights and they could disperse a lot of peasants. Mounted knights were the assault tanks of today. Their expensive and superior equipment is a force multiplier. 18th and 19th revolutions owe more to the cheap manufacture of powerful guns than to a sudden realization that tyranny is unbearable.
Those cunning and resourceful peasants making their own muskets and gunpowder - did they make their own tents as well?
And if you feel some of what *was* published should not have been, maybe you should take it up with the newspaper that made the decision to publish it.
Good god, put that logic and clear thinking away man! Can't you see there is an angry mob here brandishing pitchforks and flaming brands?
*Sips coffee*
An angry mob who need Slashdot to tell them things that Mugabe's wife sued about months ago? Or one that looks to Hollywood for moral guidance? (Jim Intellectual Carey).
Sod the coffee - I'm logging off and grabbing a cold beer.
Mugabe doesn't NEED ammo. Do you think he's survived all these years because of legal niceties and the ability to prosecute people on facts? He don't need no stinkin' facts! He's a dictator and dictators have never needed facts to support their case. The fact that this ONE time the facts give him some support is irrelevant. The implication of your comment is that its Wikileaks' fault (specifically "Lord High Julian") that Zimbabwe will now continue to be under dictatorial rule. Bullshit.
He will continue to rule for as long as the people of Zimbabwe do not rise up and thrown the bum out. If the people of Zimbabwe are more concerned at Tsvangirai's connections to Western powers than Mugabe's rape of the nation then that tells you what their priorities are. The western powers are even less interested in Mugabe than they are Kim Jong Il and even if they were - it ain't their job to tell other peoples how to run their states.
Good points.
Questions should be asked as to why Britain supported the Mugabe crew in the first place, and who also profits from the blood diamond trade.
To assume Mugabe is an island is criminally naive - clearly he has support both locally and internationally.
Anything that brings the spotlight on the Mugabe crew's atrocities is good - this is not going to be pretty and it has long been ugly.
I'd be happier if those using this as a platform to attack Wikileaks with the continuing slander that Wikileaks "wants nothing to be secret" diverted just a small portion of their moral outrage towards sanctions against a despotic government. Starving the existing government is only part of the solution otherwise the people will simply suffer more. Do I have a better suggestion? Regrettably no.
Useful actions should include starting the cleaning in our own backyards.
My only complaint about Wikileaks is that they *are* necessary. I suspect that much of their opposition is fueled by people who assume that what leaks are published in their media is an accurate version of what Wikileaks published. No one has to agree with me, I might no like it, but I don't propose killing or imprisoning you for holding an different opinion - nor have I ever suggested my government impose sanctions against the US for the Florida elections, or the abuses of my fellow citizens in Guantanamo(?) Bay. Those that disagree are not only entitled to their opinions - they thoroughly deserve them.
Small minds talk about people, larger minds discuss things.
So charge the defamers with defamation... leave the 3rd party website host alone.
Agreed. If those being defamed (which is really something that should be decided by a court) were not allowed to post their version - then I'd drop my support.
Essentially it's a case of - there will always be misinformation, deliberate or other wise, and an equitable balance is difficult if not impossible. Ultimately people need to make their own minds up - which they can't do unless they have access to the various points view. That it's difficult, and that many are unable, or unwilling, to form their own opinions is no excuse for censorship.
maybe you should talk to some alcohol-addicts and try to convince them alcohol is not a -very addictive- drug.
Why? Re-read my posts and see where I *don't* say the alcohol *isn't* dangerous (toxic). In case that's still not clear - alcohol, whilst not a drug, causes enormous social damage. Alcohol is addictive. You have a knack for pointing out the obvious and an inability to distinguish between your points and points made by others. Look through some of my earlier posts in this thread and note that early on I declared that I *am* being semantically pedantic about "alcohol not being a drug" - and that at no point have I ever suggested that alcohol is *not* harmful. I'm finding it hard to believe you don't have some sort of serious brain damage. Fetal alcohol syndrome perhaps, or are you just profoundly stupid?
If reading more than one hundred words a day makes your lips bleed, try Vaseline. Dumbing the world down to suit your comprehension level is, just dumb.
Your input is 'fascinating', be assured I'll get back to you for more of your elucidating insights.
but have a look at where your bullies are now... do you really want to be like them? Chances are they now want to be like you.
I've been studying bullying recently [snip] is unlikely to want to be like another person.
We'll have to agree to differ there. To bully requires a degree of sociopathology - I strongly suspect they (sic) not only try to con other people (that they can't bully) but they also try and con themselves. That is not to say that bullies want to stop being bullies. Many times I've seen bullies bully for reasons that bring them no advantages - the only reason I can see being that they seem to constantly compare themselves to others, and anger/hate is their reaction to coming up short. Notice how many boast of bullying and believe it patriotism...
Specifically bullies are broken people with mindsets that range from simply dictatorial all the way to sociopaths.
I "suspect" the difference between dictatorial/authoritarian and "sociopath" is just a matter of degree. Different dog, same leg action. I've read and heard much about bullies which smacks of ivory-tower and I'm-ok-you're-ok crap - watch out for "all bullies are cowards" it's one I've often found untrue, and possibly a reason why "treatement" fails. Cue Hunter S. Thompsons' story of the old lady and the snake. My pseudonym is wearing thin - so I won't explain why I *know* Hunter was a "bit of" a bully, albeit an interesting and entertaining one (from a suitable distance).
I have no regrets or bitterness about those early years - I often give work to some of my former bullies.
Then you are doing your company a great dis-service.
Good advise. "My" companies though. It's been my experience that "forgiveness" is just an "enabler". Every new starter is a potential risk, I take a keen interest in who has been hired - in a couple of cases I recognised bullies from school and let them remain. Assuredly there are bullies in my (ultimate) employ I don't know about. Certainly some have been discovered and dismissed. When that happens I try and consider the effects on their family and the local economy - it's a complex subject. I'd like to not employ the incompetent or the lazy either - but there are only so many applicants.
The evidence suggests unless a bully has received counseling and in some cases psychiatric care, it is more than likely that they are continuing to bully the people around them without your knowledge.
Here again we disagree. The only cure is a bullet. (disclaimer: I am not a social worker) I've seen "reformed" and found it to be just "re-educated". A case in point is a former stand-over man reformed as a cop. Currently on 6 month suspended sentence for tear-gassing handcuffed "suspects" in a watch-house.
They may even be undermining you and the real issue to you is what hiring a bully says about you.
Limited time (sorry) and mod points to burn.
I *am* an arsehole and I work at it. Selectively and unrepentantly. My family and friends appreciate that.
These are not the type of people you want around any form of creative environment as it is shown to severely reduce the productivity of professionals such as these (programmers, graphic artists, scientists etc).
Agreed.
Make no mistake bullies are toxic individual that can drive a company to bankruptcy, kill moral and productivity and drive people into depressive states. I am just thankful that I live in a country where this is recognised and there is a legal framework to deal with it. If you live in the U.S though you have no such protections. A bully does not want to be like anyone, there are only two types of people to a bully those who are targets and those who are not. Do not hire them, bullies should be avoided at all costs.
The first article claims more crimes solved because of cctv cameras and that there are more cameras.
Yet a quick google shows the actual number of reported crimes has increased, and the number of *convictions* for criminal offenses this year is only slightly higher than the previous year. Based on that cursory research the clear-up rate is roughly the same - and raises the possibility that traditional techniques (investigation and patrol) have been replaced by armchairs occupied by civilians. I was unable to quickly find figures on the number and deployment of police for comparison.
Note: I saw the story about the MET figure fiddling for "clear-ups" - so disregarded those figures and used convictions instead.
How many of those camera's produce footage that is usable in court? I suspect this might be the sort of big-brother-loves-you media spin that's deniable - it can always claimed that cctv footage was used as a basis for further investigations. Sometimes I suspect it's not even Big Brother, just a case of "there, there, I know it hurts, but in a couple of years you'll get over it, and look! Daddies bought you a camera!"
Haven't you noticed that no one will ever admit fault or error, nor even change their opinion in the slightest when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary? The only reason Wikipedia is slammed so hard here is that it's a great resource to exposing lazy (because they won't look it up) idiots who have incomprehensible opinions.
Or then, it could just be that people are hard-wired to not change opinions. And whether by genetics coupled with the greater fuckwad theory or Asperger's/OCD, the result is the same.
It happens occasionally. Though I can't think of a time when a poster actually admitted they'd changed there opinion.
Slashdot posts have changed my opinion many times. Why only this morning I was forced to reconsider my former opposition to retroactive abortion...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug
'A drug, broadly speaking, is any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function'
how does alcohol not fall into that definition? Do you have a better definition ?
Scroll further down - see the pharmacological definition. Sophists believe it's a moot point - that language is flexible and that meaning changes over time. Others (linguists) posit that words are loose fences around concepts - broaden them too far and the words become meaningless.
The popular press has defined alcohol as a drug - as a student of pharmacology (and organic chem) I was often corrected for lumping ethanol in with drugs and told it was a "toxic carbohydrate" with "drug-like effects in low doses". That's not the same as "drugs" that can have toxic effects. "Drugs" work on receptors - alcohol has no receptor - it's "drug-like" effects are the result of our bodies being flooded with toxins. (which is why I'm dubious about the health benefits of alcohol - as opposed to rest, distraction, and relaxation). Ephidrine has a receptor - part of amphetamine molecules fit that same receptor (that's why they work). Cannabis fits a(n) (endocannabinoid) receptor. If we expand the term "drug" (without meaning "having dragged") to include all things that when ingested affect the body and/or mind - then the list includes a lot of things (dizzyness, and anything that'll kill you).
Already things that are not ingested (normally) are called "drugs" (sex, computer games, attention etc). Sex doesn't have drug-like effects - it stimulates the release of drugs that have, drug-like effects. But I acknowledge that some will read that as a spurious assertion - likewise a distinction between whether a cart pushes a horse, or whether the horse pulls the cart.
So my position is that glue, petrol vapours (like used by the Delphic Oracles) etc are not drugs either - they are toxins. The use of the word drug to describe alcohol is fairly recent. Did you ever wonder why alcohol "intoxicates" and cannabis and ephedrine don't?
At the risk of being called a "grammar nazi" I don't hold that "specific" is a "pacific" ocean either - and that "cracking" and "hacking" are not the same thing.
Note: the first recorded instance of the use of "hacker" was a derogatory description of furniture craftsmen by the first mass-produced furniture manufacturers.
Language grows through new words, not by adding new meaning to existing words (generally).
As one of the Buddhas is alleged to have said when asked what one should do to make the world a better place - "the first thing we must do is change back the names" - I'm paraphrasing Michael Pollan there.
Hope that explains my reasoning for the insistence and definition.
It was trialled, and it did work, it failed a peer review in which the therapy component was left out and the reviewers just tested the effects of LSD on addicts in isolation. This was felt to be grounds for stopping research. I should have said that in my first post as well, that there was a therapy component to the treatment. If you are an alcoholic and just take LSD it WILL NOT CURE YOU. I don't want people to go out and start self medicating. The research was picked up decades later on another drug Ibogaine and is now considered to be a real treatment but the fact is it works for most hallucinogens and Ibogaine is only used because it has less of a stigma.
No dispute there. I'd read that a long time ago and couldn't remember the title ("Confessions of a hope addict"?). I never put a lot of stock in what Dr I-work-for-the-CIA-and-sell-out-Black Panthers-Leary had to say. I "think" the another person involved in that work might have been Yogi Bera - but that could be just an old hallucination;-p
I do believe that LSD-25 is a powerful took for "reprogramming" people though... so did Charles Manson.
What a God-damn whiner. It's always someone else's fault. If you had kept your dick in your pants, would you be in this situation? I think not. But go ahead and blame the women. It makes you look like the pathetic whiny crybaby you really are.
But you've spent you're whole short life following your own advice. And you still sound like a whiny crybaby who pisses in their pants...
What next - an Anonymous Coward whining about disclosures and ?
I suspect it's a matter of time tradeoffs. People who like to bully devote a certain amount of time developing those skills - time others devote to developing other skills.
Most of the plus 140 IQ (Stanford Binet) people I know had poor social skills until their thirties - they studied in class, and did homework while their classmates didn't.
I've an idea that things might have been different if they hadn't been alienated in their early schooling years.
Yes - I was one of them. By Form 4 (Year something these days) most of the people I spent my time around had more common ground with me and things changed. Though Slashdot posters will disagree - these days my social skills exceed those of my former school mates. I still bump into them - they don't travel much, they still associate with the same small group of people, most have divorced, and all of them speak only one language.
I have no regrets or bitterness about those early years - I often give work to some of my former bullies. I long since developed the skills to be happy and comfortable in any social situation (and learnt to fight). Unlike those that developed their social skills early - my social group includes a large range of different people, age groups, ethnicity, income, opinions. From bikers to bankers. From adversity comes flexibility and strength.
So Psycotria, our schooling was fucked - but have a look at where your bullies are now... do you really want to be like them? Chances are they now want to be like you.
All recreational drugs being psychoactive is debatable (and still being debated) - Wikipedia is not the final arbitrator in that debate.
In Pharmacology it's generally accepted that xanthines and the classic amphetamines are not. For reference I'd refer you to my old lecturer Dr. Greg Cheshire, and the writer of PIKAL (which is about psychoactive drugs). That's not to say they don't have any psycoactive properties - just that they are fairly subliminal (ditto nicotine).
Oh - and plus 1 on the psychedelic point. There's a hell of a difference between imaginary (but realistic) bats in the desert and imagery behind closed eyes.
When it comes to visual hallucinations (psychedelics) - LSD-25 mixes senses (feel sound when peaking), Mescaline and Pscilocybin (?) have similar effects, DMT not so much so - but none of it was convincingly real (to me). Datura hallucinations on the other hand were extremely convincing (it's not a common recreational drug - keep it that way).
Interesting article - the finding of which I don't dispute. Nor have I ever stated (or believed) that alchohol, or tobacco (or other drugs) do not cause harm. I simply pointed out that alcohol is not a drug.
Clearly you missed that point - though you seem to have English comprehension skills.
The point of your post is lost on me - if linking that article is supposed to prove alcohol is a "drug". You failed. It's just another misuse of the word.
If I refute the claims of flat-earthers, and you point to blogs by flat-earthers - and the blogs have no arguments supporting the proposition that the earth is flat... it's not an argument, not even a debate. It is just pointless. To try and use that tactic as an argument just demonstrates a lack of basic comprehension. Which is stupid..
So, I say again, in the hope you will understand the point, alcohol is not a drug. That's all - it's not an opinion as to whether it does not harm, or a denial it alters perception and affects the body. Asphyxiation, dizziness, CO, glue, solvents also affect the body and mind. And like alcohol - they are not drugs.
If 15 million people believe a stupid thing - it is still stupid.
Nope, neither. I am neither religious nor do I wish to separate humans from animals. My point is that it is not a scientific article, and thus is pointless unless backed by scientific data. Citation might be a good start.
I mean, I can theorize that
clowns do more harm than good because children develop a phobia of people who mask themselves in makeup causing them to not like women and thus cause domestic violence.
Plausable,
No.
but where is the proof?
My apologies if you interpreted my comments to accuse you of religious beliefs. Advancing an "opinion" to refute a substantially supported fact is usually the act of a "one-bookian" and/or a self-righteous fool.
This is not Wikipedia - I didn't post the original story (which is very, very old news). Your demand for a citation is just stupid. If a child tells you that an apple falls due to gravity - do you dismiss that because the child isn't a scientist? Do you demand a citation?
Love to see you try that with a police officer.
The world, and I, owe you nothing. Acting like a damaged child and "demanding" others provide "evidence" to oppose your unsubstantiated views robs you of any right to credibility and respect. You should be used to that by now.
I propose that if you can write - then you can read. Demanding proof on this subject is like demanding proof of gravity - it is neither an obscure, nor recent, area of research. But if literary comprehension is a failing - try asking at your local pet shop "got anything that'll get my cat off".
(yawn) Having spent the last half hour reading your posts - your only point is the fleshy growth on top of your neck. I've bolded the citation for that. Happy?
Probably twenty or thirty years ago I saw a documentary about all kinds of animals who came to eat the half-fermented fruit lying under some kind of tree, and consequently getting very much drunk off their collective arses.
Nothing funnier than a drunk rhino falling over, I can tell you. If anyone knows what documentary that was - I was just a geekling at the time - I'd love to find it again.
The fruit is durian. Don't remember the name of the doco. It's also the reason you don't (ever) allow elephants access to large amounts of fruit or sugar cane - it ferments in their warm, slow digestive system. Having seen it first hand I wouldn't call it funny.
In fact there was a clinical study in the 1960s that showed that hallucinogenic drugs could be used to cure junkies of their addictions, especially alcohol.
Try searching for Timothy Leary, d-lyseric acid diethylamide, prisoner, beginning/forerunner of AA (you are correct that it was trialled, don't know if it actually worked)
I have "heard" that LSD-25, surprisingly, (in minute doses) is an extremely effective treatment for chronic pain that doesn't respond to traditional pain killers....
Slashdot Mirror
Correct, but they were starving the people until they got fed up and where forced to back a democracy so mugabe would loose.
Were the people starving before, after, or during Monsanto's benevolent aid? And, hey, don't get me wrong, there is absolutely no parallels between Monsanto and United Fruit except that both companies are warriors for democracy.
Either you're lying or nobody is listening. I've mentioned this on the ISSA forums, on linkedin lists and on Slashdot multiple times. Wikileaks has an agenda. Cryptome, read it, learn it, love it. And for the hate of Cthulu if I see a stereotypical "Cryptome is a lying pack of liars" I'll scream.
This is exactly the sort of thing they want to happen, it's not an accident. To put on the WL hat: It's a horrific display of global politics, built on lies. To look at it from the outside in, it's a terrible setback to a slow development of what might someday have been a democratic upheaval. Now bloodshed may be the only option. See: the Ivory Coast.
Huh - the cryptome stuff is consistant with the original "agenda" published on iq.org long before Wikileaks was formed - or do you have some sort of problem with making large scale conspiracies difficult? Is it the money angle? Are you suggesting Wikileaks should be self-funding? I read the ISSA forums and I'm too polite to try and guess which posts there are yours. As for your multiple posts about the subject on Slashdot... which pseudonym did you use for those?
I ask seriously because you point is unclear. I expect you can summarize it for me. Cheers (without sarcasm)
Why exactly some decent Western power has had that vile repugnant monster Mugabe filled so full of holes you could use him as a soup strainer is beyond me. That incompetent tyrant has turned Africa's breadbasket into a ill-run starving madhouse.
Because in sub-Saharan Africa, there are no 'decent Western powers'. Mugabe rose to prominence fighting for the independence of his country against the racist, white British-backed regime in Rhodesia. He managed to consolidate and justify his power because he was the only credible opposition to a concerted military and, yes, terrorist campaign managed by white South Africa and backed by several important resource extraction corporations. South Africa was itself backed by the US and the UK in numerous attempts to destabilise several southern African countries, including Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Angola. All of these countries suffered terribly, with literally millions dead.
The people of Zimbabwe may hate Mugabe now, but a lot of them hate the West a great deal more.
The plain fact is that Mugabe has become a nut-job and an embarrassment to his neighbours. But the reason Thabo Mbeki and other leaders were loth to turn on him is that they remember him as one of the only southern African leaders who actually kept his country in one piece in the face of the overwhelming power of the SADF. It's tragic that he's fallen so far, and more tragic that his people are being made to suffer for his delusions. But the plain fact is that Western countries have virtually no credibility in this region, having supported the repression of the people for generations.
Once again, the West has made a bed that others are forced to lie in.
Mod up as informative (finally) please.
Hopefully will post something about how Rhodesia came to be...
At least here on Slashdot, the spin and manipulation is aimed at diverting notice from the man behind the curtain - Julian Assange.
I think you'll find there's spin and manipulation on both sides.
Trying to paint Julian Assange as Wikileaks is spin, trying to defend the outcome of every leaked document is spin, trying to oversimplify history is stupid, trying to pin all the blame on teh USA is stupid - the most honest and informative posts in the entire thread/s are where posters wonder why their petrol isn't cheaper.
Regardless of how well intentioned the US goberment is they can do nothing without the backing of the corporations upon which the US economy is based - and without the support of the US people. There is no "best" scenario, only a least worst one.
It also "appears" that some of the manipulation is not coming from the posters comments - unless there's some sort of magical New Year's Eve mechanism in place that is modifying and deleting posts...
They have every right to support and empower a bloodthirsty dictator
LOLFR, wow... fail.
Hint: in general, "bloodthirsty dictators" aren't "[supported]" or "[empowered]" by the people they rule over.
As an aside, while I'm often the first to support some degree of moral relativism, your post is just ridiculous. Values may vary from culture to culture, but some things are absolute... murder and rape are the first that come to mind, but I'm sure (well, I hope) you can come up with a few more.
I was agreeing with you until you got to the bit about murder and rape. Agreed that it's wrong. Disagree that people don't support it, or invent reasons to justify it. Rightly or wrongly Mugabe does have some support, and the people doing the raping and murdering aren't being made to do so at gunpoint - any more than the LRA do, despite the stories to the contrary.
Some of the most progressive regimes in history were dictatorships. No I don't support Mugabe and his backers - only a fool would suggest that what a minority in Zimbabwe support is "good" for the entire country - and that would be ignoring what is "good" for the neighboring countries. Not trying to muddy the waters but "rights" is a furphy.
Maybe this is one of those occasions when the UN *should* do it's job, and though I can't think of a suggestion (other than lobbying my government to provide places for refugees, and a base for a rebel government)- surely there is something we, as consumers, can do. Sanctions inevitably hurt the people they're designed to help - so sanctions are only part of the solution (note I don't oppose sanctions).
Sigh - suddenly this champagne seems a little flat, the price I guess for knowing much of the world will not be celebrating this evening.
May the New Year be a better one, for one and all.
"if the only voice of reform is painted as a western puppet and a traitor"
If the shoe fits. Are you saying it was wrong of wikileaks to expose a western attempt to manipulate a people into overthrowing their leader?
The people of Zimbabwe are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves if they want to live under a dictator there is no need for western govs to manipulate them.
No the poster is saying that the USA is the only voice of reform. (just in case you were having questions about the credibility of the opinion). News at 11, US invades [insert country name here] to liberate the, um, you know, important stuff, from rigged elections. Next week Biafra. (not that the US is different to any other country in that respect)
Actually they fared really badly until they got mukets that could pierce a knight's armour. Before that, send a few knights and they could disperse a lot of peasants. Mounted knights were the assault tanks of today. Their expensive and superior equipment is a force multiplier. 18th and 19th revolutions owe more to the cheap manufacture of powerful guns than to a sudden realization that tyranny is unbearable.
Those cunning and resourceful peasants making their own muskets and gunpowder - did they make their own tents as well?
And if you feel some of what *was* published should not have been, maybe you should take it up with the newspaper that made the decision to publish it.
Good god, put that logic and clear thinking away man! Can't you see there is an angry mob here brandishing pitchforks and flaming brands? *Sips coffee*
An angry mob who need Slashdot to tell them things that Mugabe's wife sued about months ago? Or one that looks to Hollywood for moral guidance? (Jim Intellectual Carey).
Sod the coffee - I'm logging off and grabbing a cold beer.
When a country drives many thousands of refugees into surrounding countries, then it's no longer a purely internal matter.
When your neighbour's fence catches fire, it *is* your problem.
Mugabe doesn't NEED ammo. Do you think he's survived all these years because of legal niceties and the ability to prosecute people on facts? He don't need no stinkin' facts! He's a dictator and dictators have never needed facts to support their case. The fact that this ONE time the facts give him some support is irrelevant. The implication of your comment is that its Wikileaks' fault (specifically "Lord High Julian") that Zimbabwe will now continue to be under dictatorial rule. Bullshit.
He will continue to rule for as long as the people of Zimbabwe do not rise up and thrown the bum out. If the people of Zimbabwe are more concerned at Tsvangirai's connections to Western powers than Mugabe's rape of the nation then that tells you what their priorities are. The western powers are even less interested in Mugabe than they are Kim Jong Il and even if they were - it ain't their job to tell other peoples how to run their states.
Good points.
Questions should be asked as to why Britain supported the Mugabe crew in the first place, and who also profits from the blood diamond trade.
To assume Mugabe is an island is criminally naive - clearly he has support both locally and internationally.
Anything that brings the spotlight on the Mugabe crew's atrocities is good - this is not going to be pretty and it has long been ugly.
I'd be happier if those using this as a platform to attack Wikileaks with the continuing slander that Wikileaks "wants nothing to be secret" diverted just a small portion of their moral outrage towards sanctions against a despotic government. Starving the existing government is only part of the solution otherwise the people will simply suffer more. Do I have a better suggestion? Regrettably no.
Useful actions should include starting the cleaning in our own backyards.
My only complaint about Wikileaks is that they *are* necessary. I suspect that much of their opposition is fueled by people who assume that what leaks are published in their media is an accurate version of what Wikileaks published. No one has to agree with me, I might no like it, but I don't propose killing or imprisoning you for holding an different opinion - nor have I ever suggested my government impose sanctions against the US for the Florida elections, or the abuses of my fellow citizens in Guantanamo(?) Bay. Those that disagree are not only entitled to their opinions - they thoroughly deserve them.
Small minds talk about people, larger minds discuss things.
So charge the defamers with defamation... leave the 3rd party website host alone.
Agreed. If those being defamed (which is really something that should be decided by a court) were not allowed to post their version - then I'd drop my support.
Essentially it's a case of - there will always be misinformation, deliberate or other wise, and an equitable balance is difficult if not impossible. Ultimately people need to make their own minds up - which they can't do unless they have access to the various points view. That it's difficult, and that many are unable, or unwilling, to form their own opinions is no excuse for censorship.
Life is not simple. People often are.
maybe you should talk to some alcohol-addicts and try to convince them alcohol is not a -very addictive- drug.
Why? Re-read my posts and see where I *don't* say the alcohol *isn't* dangerous (toxic). In case that's still not clear - alcohol, whilst not a drug, causes enormous social damage. Alcohol is addictive. You have a knack for pointing out the obvious and an inability to distinguish between your points and points made by others. Look through some of my earlier posts in this thread and note that early on I declared that I *am* being semantically pedantic about "alcohol not being a drug" - and that at no point have I ever suggested that alcohol is *not* harmful. I'm finding it hard to believe you don't have some sort of serious brain damage. Fetal alcohol syndrome perhaps, or are you just profoundly stupid?
If reading more than one hundred words a day makes your lips bleed, try Vaseline. Dumbing the world down to suit your comprehension level is, just dumb.
Your input is 'fascinating', be assured I'll get back to you for more of your elucidating insights.
for 99.99% of the worlds population considers alcohol a drug; and THAT makes alcohol a drug.
No - I AM being semantically pendantic - the amount of words doesn't make it so.
99.99% percent of the worlds' population huh? Too much emotional content.
Unless you claim a background in pharmacology or medicine, then you are not only a Sophist, but a desperate whacko. (yawn)
I've been studying bullying recently [snip] is unlikely to want to be like another person.
We'll have to agree to differ there. To bully requires a degree of sociopathology - I strongly suspect they (sic) not only try to con other people (that they can't bully) but they also try and con themselves. That is not to say that bullies want to stop being bullies. Many times I've seen bullies bully for reasons that bring them no advantages - the only reason I can see being that they seem to constantly compare themselves to others, and anger/hate is their reaction to coming up short. Notice how many boast of bullying and believe it patriotism...
Specifically bullies are broken people with mindsets that range from simply dictatorial all the way to sociopaths.
I "suspect" the difference between dictatorial/authoritarian and "sociopath" is just a matter of degree. Different dog, same leg action. I've read and heard much about bullies which smacks of ivory-tower and I'm-ok-you're-ok crap - watch out for "all bullies are cowards" it's one I've often found untrue, and possibly a reason why "treatement" fails. Cue Hunter S. Thompsons' story of the old lady and the snake. My pseudonym is wearing thin - so I won't explain why I *know* Hunter was a "bit of" a bully, albeit an interesting and entertaining one (from a suitable distance).
Then you are doing your company a great dis-service.
Good advise. "My" companies though. It's been my experience that "forgiveness" is just an "enabler". Every new starter is a potential risk, I take a keen interest in who has been hired - in a couple of cases I recognised bullies from school and let them remain. Assuredly there are bullies in my (ultimate) employ I don't know about. Certainly some have been discovered and dismissed. When that happens I try and consider the effects on their family and the local economy - it's a complex subject. I'd like to not employ the incompetent or the lazy either - but there are only so many applicants.
The evidence suggests unless a bully has received counseling and in some cases psychiatric care, it is more than likely that they are continuing to bully the people around them without your knowledge.
Here again we disagree. The only cure is a bullet. (disclaimer: I am not a social worker) I've seen "reformed" and found it to be just "re-educated". A case in point is a former stand-over man reformed as a cop. Currently on 6 month suspended sentence for tear-gassing handcuffed "suspects" in a watch-house.
They may even be undermining you and the real issue to you is what hiring a bully says about you.
Limited time (sorry) and mod points to burn.
I *am* an arsehole and I work at it. Selectively and unrepentantly. My family and friends appreciate that.
These are not the type of people you want around any form of creative environment as it is shown to severely reduce the productivity of professionals such as these (programmers, graphic artists, scientists etc).
Agreed.
Make no mistake bullies are toxic individual that can drive a company to bankruptcy, kill moral and productivity and drive people into depressive states. I am just thankful that I live in a country where this is recognised and there is a legal framework to deal with it. If you live in the U.S though you have no such protections. A bully does not want to be like anyone, there are only two types of people to a bully those who are targets and those who are not. Do not hire them, bullies should be avoided at all costs.
The first article claims more crimes solved because of cctv cameras and that there are more cameras.
Yet a quick google shows the actual number of reported crimes has increased, and the number of *convictions* for criminal offenses this year is only slightly higher than the previous year. Based on that cursory research the clear-up rate is roughly the same - and raises the possibility that traditional techniques (investigation and patrol) have been replaced by armchairs occupied by civilians. I was unable to quickly find figures on the number and deployment of police for comparison.
Note: I saw the story about the MET figure fiddling for "clear-ups" - so disregarded those figures and used convictions instead.
How many of those camera's produce footage that is usable in court? I suspect this might be the sort of big-brother-loves-you media spin that's deniable - it can always claimed that cctv footage was used as a basis for further investigations. Sometimes I suspect it's not even Big Brother, just a case of "there, there, I know it hurts, but in a couple of years you'll get over it, and look! Daddies bought you a camera!"
In Aus
Haven't you noticed that no one will ever admit fault or error, nor even change their opinion in the slightest when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary? The only reason Wikipedia is slammed so hard here is that it's a great resource to exposing lazy (because they won't look it up) idiots who have incomprehensible opinions. Or then, it could just be that people are hard-wired to not change opinions. And whether by genetics coupled with the greater fuckwad theory or Asperger's/OCD, the result is the same.
It happens occasionally. Though I can't think of a time when a poster actually admitted they'd changed there opinion.
Slashdot posts have changed my opinion many times. Why only this morning I was forced to reconsider my former opposition to retroactive abortion...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug 'A drug, broadly speaking, is any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function' how does alcohol not fall into that definition? Do you have a better definition ?
Scroll further down - see the pharmacological definition. Sophists believe it's a moot point - that language is flexible and that meaning changes over time. Others (linguists) posit that words are loose fences around concepts - broaden them too far and the words become meaningless.
The popular press has defined alcohol as a drug - as a student of pharmacology (and organic chem) I was often corrected for lumping ethanol in with drugs and told it was a "toxic carbohydrate" with "drug-like effects in low doses". That's not the same as "drugs" that can have toxic effects. "Drugs" work on receptors - alcohol has no receptor - it's "drug-like" effects are the result of our bodies being flooded with toxins. (which is why I'm dubious about the health benefits of alcohol - as opposed to rest, distraction, and relaxation). Ephidrine has a receptor - part of amphetamine molecules fit that same receptor (that's why they work). Cannabis fits a(n) (endocannabinoid) receptor. If we expand the term "drug" (without meaning "having dragged") to include all things that when ingested affect the body and/or mind - then the list includes a lot of things (dizzyness, and anything that'll kill you).
Already things that are not ingested (normally) are called "drugs" (sex, computer games, attention etc). Sex doesn't have drug-like effects - it stimulates the release of drugs that have, drug-like effects. But I acknowledge that some will read that as a spurious assertion - likewise a distinction between whether a cart pushes a horse, or whether the horse pulls the cart.
So my position is that glue, petrol vapours (like used by the Delphic Oracles) etc are not drugs either - they are toxins. The use of the word drug to describe alcohol is fairly recent. Did you ever wonder why alcohol "intoxicates" and cannabis and ephedrine don't?
At the risk of being called a "grammar nazi" I don't hold that "specific" is a "pacific" ocean either - and that "cracking" and "hacking" are not the same thing.
Note: the first recorded instance of the use of "hacker" was a derogatory description of furniture craftsmen by the first mass-produced furniture manufacturers.
Language grows through new words, not by adding new meaning to existing words (generally).
As one of the Buddhas is alleged to have said when asked what one should do to make the world a better place - "the first thing we must do is change back the names" - I'm paraphrasing Michael Pollan there.
Hope that explains my reasoning for the insistence and definition.
It was trialled, and it did work, it failed a peer review in which the therapy component was left out and the reviewers just tested the effects of LSD on addicts in isolation. This was felt to be grounds for stopping research. I should have said that in my first post as well, that there was a therapy component to the treatment. If you are an alcoholic and just take LSD it WILL NOT CURE YOU. I don't want people to go out and start self medicating. The research was picked up decades later on another drug Ibogaine and is now considered to be a real treatment but the fact is it works for most hallucinogens and Ibogaine is only used because it has less of a stigma.
No dispute there. I'd read that a long time ago and couldn't remember the title ("Confessions of a hope addict"?). I never put a lot of stock in what Dr I-work-for-the-CIA-and-sell-out-Black Panthers-Leary had to say. I "think" the another person involved in that work might have been Yogi Bera - but that could be just an old hallucination ;-p
I do believe that LSD-25 is a powerful took for "reprogramming" people though... so did Charles Manson.
What a God-damn whiner. It's always someone else's fault. If you had kept your dick in your pants, would you be in this situation? I think not. But go ahead and blame the women. It makes you look like the pathetic whiny crybaby you really are.
But you've spent you're whole short life following your own advice. And you still sound like a whiny crybaby who pisses in their pants...
What next - an Anonymous Coward whining about disclosures and ?
blame the women
Slime and slander - the weapons of toads.
I suspect it's a matter of time tradeoffs. People who like to bully devote a certain amount of time developing those skills - time others devote to developing other skills.
Most of the plus 140 IQ (Stanford Binet) people I know had poor social skills until their thirties - they studied in class, and did homework while their classmates didn't.
I've an idea that things might have been different if they hadn't been alienated in their early schooling years.
Yes - I was one of them. By Form 4 (Year something these days) most of the people I spent my time around had more common ground with me and things changed. Though Slashdot posters will disagree - these days my social skills exceed those of my former school mates. I still bump into them - they don't travel much, they still associate with the same small group of people, most have divorced, and all of them speak only one language.
I have no regrets or bitterness about those early years - I often give work to some of my former bullies. I long since developed the skills to be happy and comfortable in any social situation (and learnt to fight). Unlike those that developed their social skills early - my social group includes a large range of different people, age groups, ethnicity, income, opinions. From bikers to bankers. From adversity comes flexibility and strength.
So Psycotria, our schooling was fucked - but have a look at where your bullies are now... do you really want to be like them? Chances are they now want to be like you.
I think you were looking for the word psychedelic . All drugs are psychoactive .
Your second link goes nowhere.
All recreational drugs being psychoactive is debatable (and still being debated) - Wikipedia is not the final arbitrator in that debate.
In Pharmacology it's generally accepted that xanthines and the classic amphetamines are not. For reference I'd refer you to my old lecturer Dr. Greg Cheshire, and the writer of PIKAL (which is about psychoactive drugs). That's not to say they don't have any psycoactive properties - just that they are fairly subliminal (ditto nicotine).
Oh - and plus 1 on the psychedelic point. There's a hell of a difference between imaginary (but realistic) bats in the desert and imagery behind closed eyes.
When it comes to visual hallucinations (psychedelics) - LSD-25 mixes senses (feel sound when peaking), Mescaline and Pscilocybin (?) have similar effects, DMT not so much so - but none of it was convincingly real (to me). Datura hallucinations on the other hand were extremely convincing (it's not a common recreational drug - keep it that way).
alcohol is not a drug.
WRONG. it's just legal, that's the only difference from cocaine, crack, heroine ...
http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/2010/11/29/alcohol-is-the-most-damaging-drug/
It also came fourth in terms of damage to users
behind only heroin, crack cocaine and crystal meth.
Interesting article - the finding of which I don't dispute. Nor have I ever stated (or believed) that alchohol, or tobacco (or other drugs) do not cause harm. I simply pointed out that alcohol is not a drug.
Clearly you missed that point - though you seem to have English comprehension skills.
The point of your post is lost on me - if linking that article is supposed to prove alcohol is a "drug". You failed. It's just another misuse of the word.
If I refute the claims of flat-earthers, and you point to blogs by flat-earthers - and the blogs have no arguments supporting the proposition that the earth is flat... it's not an argument, not even a debate. It is just pointless. To try and use that tactic as an argument just demonstrates a lack of basic comprehension. Which is stupid..
So, I say again, in the hope you will understand the point, alcohol is not a drug. That's all - it's not an opinion as to whether it does not harm, or a denial it alters perception and affects the body. Asphyxiation, dizziness, CO, glue, solvents also affect the body and mind. And like alcohol - they are not drugs.
If 15 million people believe a stupid thing - it is still stupid.
Nope, neither. I am neither religious nor do I wish to separate humans from animals. My point is that it is not a scientific article, and thus is pointless unless backed by scientific data. Citation might be a good start. I mean, I can theorize that
clowns do more harm than good because children develop a phobia of people who mask themselves in makeup causing them to not like women and thus cause domestic violence. Plausable,
No.
but where is the proof?
My apologies if you interpreted my comments to accuse you of religious beliefs. Advancing an "opinion" to refute a substantially supported fact is usually the act of a "one-bookian" and/or a self-righteous fool.
This is not Wikipedia - I didn't post the original story (which is very, very old news). Your demand for a citation is just stupid. If a child tells you that an apple falls due to gravity - do you dismiss that because the child isn't a scientist? Do you demand a citation?
Love to see you try that with a police officer.
The world, and I, owe you nothing. Acting like a damaged child and "demanding" others provide "evidence" to oppose your unsubstantiated views robs you of any right to credibility and respect. You should be used to that by now.
I propose that if you can write - then you can read. Demanding proof on this subject is like demanding proof of gravity - it is neither an obscure, nor recent, area of research. But if literary comprehension is a failing - try asking at your local pet shop "got anything that'll get my cat off".
(yawn) Having spent the last half hour reading your posts - your only point is the fleshy growth on top of your neck. I've bolded the citation for that. Happy?
Probably twenty or thirty years ago I saw a documentary about all kinds of animals who came to eat the half-fermented fruit lying under some kind of tree, and consequently getting very much drunk off their collective arses.
Nothing funnier than a drunk rhino falling over, I can tell you. If anyone knows what documentary that was - I was just a geekling at the time - I'd love to find it again.
The fruit is durian. Don't remember the name of the doco. It's also the reason you don't (ever) allow elephants access to large amounts of fruit or sugar cane - it ferments in their warm, slow digestive system. Having seen it first hand I wouldn't call it funny.
In fact there was a clinical study in the 1960s that showed that hallucinogenic drugs could be used to cure junkies of their addictions, especially alcohol.
Try searching for Timothy Leary, d-lyseric acid diethylamide, prisoner, beginning/forerunner of AA (you are correct that it was trialled, don't know if it actually worked)
I have "heard" that LSD-25, surprisingly, (in minute doses) is an extremely effective treatment for chronic pain that doesn't respond to traditional pain killers....