It amazes just how far young people will go in their drive to acheive higher social status and improve their reproductive prospects.
Cutting open your eyes just to improve your chances of mating? Well, hell, I wore contacts when I was younger. Guess I was just as stupid...
And it is not just Americans. The same drives for social status, etc., is universal throughout humanity. I was watching a documentary on African women and their status in their societies. It showed a couple sitting in their front yard discussing their living situation. The man was telling the interviewer about his small plot of real estate from which he made his living and on which his house sat.
THe woman responded saying that "No, this is not real estate, this is not property. YOu could not call it that at all". Meaning that the land was so small that it was of no real significance. You could see from the man's reaction that she had said this before, many times.
Of course, that interaction, that dynamic is just so universal in man-wife interaction. The woman pushes the man to obtain more and more wealth, much as a female animal will go through some instinctual routine that will in turn induce a certain behavior in her mate.
It amazes me how we fail to see how much of our behavior is really unconcious and is meant to enhance our social status and reproductive prospects and/or our prospects for having our children survive or enhance their mating prospects.
"But the book is no thoughtless, radical polemic; it seeks a moderate, well-articulated and researched middle ground."
Looks someone has been eating up those top-down memes with a spoon! And a big spoon, too!
Look, radicals are just about the only humans who actually DO think; everyone else just outputs a program. Well, that may be a little overbroad, but that is the gist of it.....
Mass media (TV and radio) are what made America move to the right over the last few decades. Mass media in America has been a vehicle for top-down political memes. These are memes that favor the top of socoety (e.g., ideas that the rich are just like us, that the rich should not pay more tax percentagewise than us, that the rich worked hard to get their money, that commies are dirty pinkos, etc). While NW Europe has moved steadily to the left, America continues to the right, thanks to a neverending stream of top-down memes.
However, when Internet TV starts to take over, when the costs of broadband comes down to $20 or so, then there will be thousands of TV stations to watch, and you will start to see a lot more bottom-up memes (e.g., the rich should pay a much higher percent of taxes, the working poor should not pay any taxes at all, healthcare is a basic right and should be funded totally from taxation, from each according to his abilities, to each acccording to his need, etc.).
I am really looking forward to Internet TV! How about you?
And isn't it funny that somehow all the news outlets are talking about the latest movie. I have news for you--only a small percent of people go to see new movies at the theater. But the way the TV news people talk about it, every new big budget movie is some kind of cultural phenomenon. Gee, maybe the movie people pay the TV news people to talk about their movie? Naw, that's impossible....
Looks like my post above was AGAIN modded into oblivion by moderator as offtopic. But of course, it was NOT.
For your edificatiom I have reproduced it below:-)
>>>>>>>>>>
Wireless broadband could be the killer of neoliberalism. I am no networking expert, but it seems to me that with widely available wireless broadband, it could cause broadband to drop sharply in price, or at least more price pressure downward on broadband in general, as it would eliminate the "last mile" costs.
For those not "in the know," neoliberalism might be roughly defined as American-style capitalism, complete with globalization, lack of universal healtcare, and with a weak social safety net. Some European countries have a weaker form of neoliberalism. The Scandanavian social democracies are farther away from neoliberalism. Socialism is even farther away.
I propose that Neoliberalism has been, and can only be, maintained through the use of mass media propaganda, and virtually one sided propaganda at that. It depends on high-barrier-to-entry mass media (TV, radio and urban newspapers). I would say that neoliberalism rise tracked the growth of such mass media, and the ownership consolidation of such.
The internet could kill neoliberalism, just as it is, IF more Americans were into in-depth reading. But they are not. THerefore, the leftist propaganda that would be needed to kill neoliberalism needs to be audiovisual, either talk radio, or video in the form of movies, dramas, TV sitcoms, documentaries, which could be used to propagate anti-neoliberal, leftist memes. For example, movies that highlighted the differences between European social democracies and America, in terms of political economy.
With ever-decreasing prices in digital movie cameras and video editing software being virtually free, such movies, documentaries etc, could be made cheaply.
But how do you distribute them?
In the near future, we will have ever-cheaper computers. And if broadband gets cheap, then P2P networks could be used to distribute freely leftist movies propagating leftist memes. I realize this is already possible, but the problem is that not enough people have broadband and computers.
Once Americans are turned away from neoliberalim, it will die, as it is the military might of America that is the protector of neoliberalism.
I write a long post on the social and political ramifications of the type of wireless that is being discussed in this thread, and you have the balls to even hint that it might be offtopic?
The parent post I am replying to was modded as flamebait, but it is not! You judge; here it is:
Municipal Wi-Fi network is the way to go. Municipal Wi-Fi network is the way to go. (Score:0, Flamebait) by zymano (581466) on Saturday June 05, @08:49PM (#9347513) Not private companies that want to use OUR airwaves to GOUGE people that don't have a choice.
Have any of you ever wondered why the government has not been more active in fiber to the curb or support a public Wi-fi network? It's because the present president is owned by $pecial $$ interest (oil companies included,haliburton).
The government is the only entity that can get costs down for LARGE projects such as this and keep prices down.
Kerry campaign people need to get more knowledgable on wireless broadband and include it with their fiber to the curb plans.
Broadband by government is the only way we will ever get the 100 megabit lines to our homes and businesses.
It sickens me to see private companies doing what the government should be doing . But the government can't since Bush is firmly against any government projects unless it is to make himself and cronies $$$$$.
My post above was modded into oblivion by moderator as offtopic and a troll. How was my post above a troll or offtopic? For your edificatiom I have reproduced it below:-)
>>>>>>>>>>
Wireless broadband could be the killer of neoliberalism. I am no networking expert, but it seems to me that with widely available wireless broadband, it could cause broadband to drop sharply in price, or at least more price pressure downward on broadband in general, as it would eliminate the "last mile" costs.
For those not "in the know," neoliberalism might be roughly defined as American-style capitalism, complete with globalization, lack of universal healtcare, and with a weak social safety net. Some European countries have a weaker form of neoliberalism. The Scandanavian social democracies are farther away from neoliberalism. Socialism is even farther away.
I propose that Neoliberalism has been, and can only be, maintained through the use of mass media propaganda, and virtually one sided propaganda at that. It depends on high-barrier-to-entry mass media (TV, radio and urban newspapers). I would say that neoliberalism rise tracked the growth of such mass media, and the ownership consolidation of such.
The internet could kill neoliberalism, just as it is, IF more Americans were into in-depth reading. But they are not. THerefore, the leftist propaganda that would be needed to kill neoliberalism needs to be audiovisual, either talk radio, or video in the form of movies, dramas, TV sitcoms, documentaries, which could be used to propagate anti-neoliberal, leftist memes. For example, movies that highlighted the differences between European social democracies and America, in terms of political economy.
With ever-decreasing prices in digital movie cameras and video editing software being virtually free, such movies, documentaries etc, could be made cheaply.
But how do you distribute them?
In the near future, we will have ever-cheaper computers. And if broadband gets cheap, then P2P networks could be used to distribute freely leftist movies propagating leftist memes. I realize this is already possible, but the problem is that not enough people have broadband and computers.
Once Americans are turned away from neoliberalim, it will die, as it is the military might of America that is the protector of neoliberalism.
In order to get ANYTHING from such a network, you need to be able to have a ready made aggregation of clients already built in. But no one will buy into it if they are the first.
Wireless broadband could be the killer of neoliberalism. I am no networking expert, but it seems to me that with widely available wireless broadband, it could cause broadband to drop sharply in price, or at least more price pressure downward on broadband in general, as it would eliminate the "last mile" costs.
For those not "in the know," neoliberalism might be roughly defined as American-style capitalism, complete with globalization, lack of universal healtcare, and with a weak social safety net. Some European countries have a weaker form of neoliberalism. The Scandanavian social democracies are farther away from neoliberalism. Socialism is even farther away.
I propose that Neoliberalism has been, and can only be, maintained through the use of mass media propaganda, and virtually one sided propaganda at that. It depends on high-barrier-to-entry mass media (TV, radio and urban newspapers). I would say that neoliberalism rise tracked the growth of such mass media, and the ownership consolidation of such.
The internet could kill neoliberalism, just as it is, IF more Americans were into in-depth reading. But they are not. THerefore, the leftist propaganda that would be needed to kill neoliberalism needs to be audiovisual, either talk radio, or video in the form of movies, dramas, TV sitcoms, documentaries, which could be used to propagate anti-neoliberal, leftist memes. For example, movies that highlighted the differences between European social democracies and America, in terms of political economy.
With ever-decreasing prices in digital movie cameras and video editing software being virtually free, such movies, documentaries etc, could be made cheaply.
But how do you distribute them?
In the near future, we will have ever-cheaper computers. And if broadband gets cheap, then P2P networks could be used to distribute freely leftist movies propagating leftist memes. I realize this is already possible, but the problem is that not enough people have broadband and computers.
Once Americans are turned away from neoliberalim, it will die, as it is the military might of America that is the protector of neoliberalism.
The problem is the ant-aging tech will not help those of us today, most likely. So how do we oldsters get our memories and our consciousness to the future that does have such tech? Try cryonics....
people like you are all about property rights. What people like you are more likely to do is put people like me in jail for my ideas or for behavior that does not fit your moral code, even when it only affects me.
We are moving toward a Soviet style authoritarian state, but without the social safety net, as the neoliberals are taking away the social safety net, they are also taking away personal liberties.
Revolution, anyone? (and when I say that I mean "revolution" at the ballot box, by rule of law).
nope; it is about governmental disregard for constitutionally guaranteed due process rights.
But I guess conformists/authority-lovers (like you) fail to grasp such distinctions. And I feel quite comfortable airing my sentiments online like this, whereas a bumper sticker would afford people like you the opportunity to vandalize my car.
Once they get into office, they can betrayal us with out fear of punuishment or retribution. Yes, if the betrayal is egregious (as in this case), future political candidates can use it against them in negative political ads. And that may lead to their defeat. But so what? Once they have served their corporate masters well in Congress, they know that they can go right to feeding at the trough when they are no longer in office.
So how do we stop this betrayal? We have to institute a structure for PUNISHING politicians who betray us. And how do we decide if they have betrayed us? By letting the people vote on whether they have or not. And if the people vote a politician out as a Betrayer, then that politician should be punished suitably. For example, by hanging them publicly, or placing them in the stocks, etc., depending on the severity of the betrayal.
We have to show the politicians that we are the boss, and not them.
We need a whole slew of political reforms, include national initiative referenda, proportional representation, etc. Obviously, the Democrats and Republicans will never institute such reforms, so therefore I recommend you vote NADER!
Neoliberalism is a political philosophy and movement beginning in the 1960s that de-emphasizes traditional liberal doctrines to achieve progress and social justice by more pragmatic methods, especially an emphasis on economic growth. Because of close association between this philosophy and neoclassical economics, and confusion with the overloaded term "liberal", the term neoclassical philosophy is advocated by some.
Either term is primarily used by critics of neoliberalism rather than proponents, thus most discussion and description of neoliberalism is written from a critical point of view. Supporters of concepts found in neoliberalism, such as free trade and capitalism, view many of the descriptions of neoliberalism as straw man arguments.
As described by Berkeley economic historian Bradford DeLong, neoliberalism has two main tenets:
"The first is that close economic contact between the industrial core and the developing periphery is the best way to accelerate the transfer of technology which is the sine qua non for making poor economies rich (hence all barriers to international trade should be eliminated as fast as possible). The second is that governments in general lack the capacity to run large industrial and commercial enterprises. Hence, [except] for core missions of income distribution, public-good infrastructure, administration of justice, and a few others, governments should shrink and privatize)."
Neoliberalism is often identified with a number of global organizations, including the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The concept of neoliberalism arose as economists at the World Bank and IMF found that post-World War II development strategies for poor countries were not having the intended effects. In particular, funding for mega-projects left poor countries with high debts but little growth to show for it.
The neoliberal doctrine is also a subset of the so-called "Washington consensus": a set of specific policy goals designed for Latin American countries to help them recover from the "lost decade" of the 1980s. This period not only saw a rise in dictatorships in the region, but also disastrous financial mismanagement resulting in rapidly rising prices for basic products, which inevitably caused an increase in poverty. In addition to the tenets of neoliberalism, the Washington consensus stipulated that a country should have stable exchange rates and a government budget in balance.
Neoliberalism has drawn its share of critics due, in part, to some catastrophic failures. In particular, Nobel prize winner and former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz argues that the IMF is guilty of forcing neoliberal and Washington consensus policy goals on countries at times when it was not appropriate (i.e., the Asian Economic Crisis), with devastating results. Neoliberalism has also been criticised by the anti-capitalist movement, who argue that market forces inevitably increase inequality in wealth and hence power.
While some use the terms neoliberal and libertarian or classical liberalism interchangeably there is a difference between the two philosophies. While both share a belief in market economics and free trade, neoliberal economics theory shares with neoliberal international relations theory (and liberal internationalism) a belief in international regimes and a degree of global governance as a means of negotiating and administering international agreements. Neoliberals believe that greater economic and political interdependence will lead to progress and a reduction of international tensions or at least divert states from utilizing military means to resolve conflict. Libertarians reject the neoliberal belief that global governance bodies or state negotiated treaty regimes that bind the individual are desirable.
The term derives, not from the "Liberalism" of the modern period - that is Dewey, Woodrow Wilson and the
Where neoliberal propaganda urges us to push ourselves ever harder, even to the point where we are supposed to be concerned about how alert we are at every waking moment.
Clinton was a neoliberal whose neoliberal policies, along with Bush, another even more conservative neoliberal, have laid waste to America's job market. I say try them both for treason in a recognized court of law.
In fact, the democratic party of America is in NO WAY a leftist organization. THere is no Left in America.
If we want to build a great country with a great standard of living, like Denmark, where everyone has 5 or more weeks of vacation, and having surgery won't bankrupt, and where you don't have to worry about homelessness, then ALL workers should strike periodically, i.e., SHUT DOWN the country. Show the neoliberal puppetmasters who is really the boss.
Learn more about what I am talking about here: http://www.american-pictures.com/english/ra cism/ar ticles/welfare.htm
more here: http://www.geocities.com/cryofan/socialdem. html
I don't know much about networking (so much for my CS degree...), but wouldn't wireless broadband mean much cheaper broadband?
And if so wouldn't that mean that many more people be exposed to the egalitarian influence of the internet? I mean, tell me which has a greater range of political expression--the Internet, or broadcast TV? I say if we can get cheap broadband, then KILL broadcast TV. Broadcast TV is the most elite media of all, in many ways; meaning that it represents Big Money and so therefore propagates status quo memes....
With cheap broadband and cheap LCD computing devices, radical activists would be able to distribute their movies far more easily and widely. Visual media is the best way to propagate memes...
I guess it comes down to whether taking over the TV spectrum for broadband would insure cheaper broadband. Would it?
So good to hear some posters here on Slashdot who know what is going on with neoliberalism. THe vast majority of Americans do not even know what that word is, even though the USA is the center of neoliberalism. I think some of the posters who are speaking out against neoliberal policies here are from countries other than America.
One that explicitly spells out the fact that the govt works for the people. We need a Constitution that explicitly restricts the power of the govt in areas political, and one that empowers the people in the areas political. For example, the Constitution should give the people far more voting power and power in intiating and shaping laws. The Constitution give us proportional representation.
The Constitution should spell out severe punishments (e.g., death penalty) for elected and appointed officials who violate political rights of the people (such as we have in this case).
Slashdot Mirror
It amazes just how far young people will go in their drive to acheive higher social status and improve their reproductive prospects.
Cutting open your eyes just to improve your chances of mating? Well, hell, I wore contacts when I was younger. Guess I was just as stupid...
And it is not just Americans. The same drives for social status, etc., is universal throughout humanity. I was watching a documentary on African women and their status in their societies. It showed a couple sitting in their front yard discussing their living situation. The man was telling the interviewer about his small plot of real estate from which he made his living and on which his house sat.
THe woman responded saying that "No, this is not real estate, this is not property. YOu could not call it that at all". Meaning that the land was so small that it was of no real significance. You could see from the man's reaction that she had said this before, many times.
Of course, that interaction, that dynamic is just so universal in man-wife interaction. The woman pushes the man to obtain more and more wealth, much as a female animal will go through some instinctual routine that will in turn induce a certain behavior in her mate.
It amazes me how we fail to see how much of our behavior is really unconcious and is meant to enhance our social status and reproductive prospects and/or our prospects for having our children survive or enhance their mating prospects.
"But the book is no thoughtless, radical polemic; it seeks a moderate, well-articulated and researched middle ground."
Looks someone has been eating up those top-down memes with a spoon! And a big spoon, too!
Look, radicals are just about the only humans who actually DO think; everyone else just outputs a program. Well, that may be a little overbroad, but that is the gist of it.....
I would rather have a slave master who only whips me half the time than one who whips me fulltime.
Mass media (TV and radio) are what made America move to the right over the last few decades. Mass media in America has been a vehicle for top-down political memes. These are memes that favor the top of socoety (e.g., ideas that the rich are just like us, that the rich should not pay more tax percentagewise than us, that the rich worked hard to get their money, that commies are dirty pinkos, etc). While NW Europe has moved steadily to the left, America continues to the right, thanks to a neverending stream of top-down memes.
However, when Internet TV starts to take over, when the costs of broadband comes down to $20 or so, then there will be thousands of TV stations to watch, and you will start to see a lot more bottom-up memes (e.g., the rich should pay a much higher percent of taxes, the working poor should not pay any taxes at all, healthcare is a basic right and should be funded totally from taxation, from each according to his abilities, to each acccording to his need, etc.).
I am really looking forward to Internet TV! How about you?
Or is it just "Free advertising"?
THis is not really tech news....
And isn't it funny that somehow all the news outlets are talking about the latest movie. I have news for you--only a small percent of people go to see new movies at the theater. But the way the TV news people talk about it, every new big budget movie is some kind of cultural phenomenon. Gee, maybe the movie people pay the TV news people to talk about their movie? Naw, that's impossible....
And now the movie people are paying slashdot....
Looks like my post above was AGAIN modded into oblivion by moderator as offtopic. But of course, it was NOT.
For your edificatiom I have reproduced it below
>>>>>>>>>>
Wireless broadband could be the killer of neoliberalism. I am no networking expert, but it seems to me that with widely available wireless broadband, it could cause broadband to drop sharply in price, or at least more price pressure downward on broadband in general, as it would eliminate the "last mile" costs.
For those not "in the know," neoliberalism might be roughly defined as American-style capitalism, complete with globalization, lack of universal healtcare, and with a weak social safety net. Some European countries have a weaker form of neoliberalism. The Scandanavian social democracies are farther away from neoliberalism. Socialism is even farther away.
I propose that Neoliberalism has been, and can only be, maintained through the use of mass media propaganda, and virtually one sided propaganda at that. It depends on high-barrier-to-entry mass media (TV, radio and urban newspapers). I would say that neoliberalism rise tracked the growth of such mass media, and the ownership consolidation of such.
The internet could kill neoliberalism, just as it is, IF more Americans were into in-depth reading. But they are not. THerefore, the leftist propaganda that would be needed to kill neoliberalism needs to be audiovisual, either talk radio, or video in the form of movies, dramas, TV sitcoms, documentaries, which could be used to propagate anti-neoliberal, leftist memes. For example, movies that highlighted the differences between European social democracies and America, in terms of political economy.
With ever-decreasing prices in digital movie cameras and video editing software being virtually free, such movies, documentaries etc, could be made cheaply.
But how do you distribute them?
In the near future, we will have ever-cheaper computers. And if broadband gets cheap, then P2P networks could be used to distribute freely leftist movies propagating leftist memes. I realize this is already possible, but the problem is that not enough people have broadband and computers.
Once Americans are turned away from neoliberalim, it will die, as it is the military might of America that is the protector of neoliberalism.
I write a long post on the social and political ramifications of the type of wireless that is being discussed in this thread, and you have the balls to even hint that it might be offtopic?
And just how the hell is it stupid?
FUCK YOU, TROLL!
The parent post I am replying to was modded as flamebait, but it is not! You judge; here it is:
.
Municipal Wi-Fi network is the way to go.
Municipal Wi-Fi network is the way to go. (Score:0, Flamebait)
by zymano (581466) on Saturday June 05, @08:49PM (#9347513)
Not private companies that want to use OUR airwaves to GOUGE people that don't have a choice.
Have any of you ever wondered why the government has not been more active in fiber to the curb or support a public Wi-fi network? It's because the present president is owned by $pecial $$ interest (oil companies included,haliburton)
The government is the only entity that can get costs down for LARGE projects such as this and keep prices down.
Kerry campaign people need to get more knowledgable on wireless broadband and include it with their fiber to the curb plans.
Broadband by government is the only way we will ever get the 100 megabit lines to our homes and businesses.
It sickens me to see private companies doing what the government should be doing . But the government can't since Bush is firmly against any government projects unless it is to make himself and cronies $$$$$.
My post above was modded into oblivion by moderator as offtopic and a troll. How was my post above a troll or offtopic? For your edificatiom I have reproduced it below :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
Wireless broadband could be the killer of neoliberalism. I am no networking expert, but it seems to me that with widely available wireless broadband, it could cause broadband to drop sharply in price, or at least more price pressure downward on broadband in general, as it would eliminate the "last mile" costs.
For those not "in the know," neoliberalism might be roughly defined as American-style capitalism, complete with globalization, lack of universal healtcare, and with a weak social safety net. Some European countries have a weaker form of neoliberalism. The Scandanavian social democracies are farther away from neoliberalism. Socialism is even farther away.
I propose that Neoliberalism has been, and can only be, maintained through the use of mass media propaganda, and virtually one sided propaganda at that. It depends on high-barrier-to-entry mass media (TV, radio and urban newspapers). I would say that neoliberalism rise tracked the growth of such mass media, and the ownership consolidation of such.
The internet could kill neoliberalism, just as it is, IF more Americans were into in-depth reading. But they are not. THerefore, the leftist propaganda that would be needed to kill neoliberalism needs to be audiovisual, either talk radio, or video in the form of movies, dramas, TV sitcoms, documentaries, which could be used to propagate anti-neoliberal, leftist memes. For example, movies that highlighted the differences between European social democracies and America, in terms of political economy.
With ever-decreasing prices in digital movie cameras and video editing software being virtually free, such movies, documentaries etc, could be made cheaply.
But how do you distribute them?
In the near future, we will have ever-cheaper computers. And if broadband gets cheap, then P2P networks could be used to distribute freely leftist movies propagating leftist memes. I realize this is already possible, but the problem is that not enough people have broadband and computers.
Once Americans are turned away from neoliberalim, it will die, as it is the military might of America that is the protector of neoliberalism.
THat post of mine above is NOT offtopic and is NOT a troll.
Whoever modded my post down is the troll...
In order to get ANYTHING from such a network, you need to be able to have a ready made aggregation of clients already built in. But no one will buy into it if they are the first.
I dunno....how does that happen?
Wireless broadband could be the killer of neoliberalism. I am no networking expert, but it seems to me that with widely available wireless broadband, it could cause broadband to drop sharply in price, or at least more price pressure downward on broadband in general, as it would eliminate the "last mile" costs.
For those not "in the know," neoliberalism might be roughly defined as American-style capitalism, complete with globalization, lack of universal healtcare, and with a weak social safety net. Some European countries have a weaker form of neoliberalism. The Scandanavian social democracies are farther away from neoliberalism. Socialism is even farther away.
I propose that Neoliberalism has been, and can only be, maintained through the use of mass media propaganda, and virtually one sided propaganda at that. It depends on high-barrier-to-entry mass media (TV, radio and urban newspapers). I would say that neoliberalism rise tracked the growth of such mass media, and the ownership consolidation of such.
The internet could kill neoliberalism, just as it is, IF more Americans were into in-depth reading. But they are not. THerefore, the leftist propaganda that would be needed to kill neoliberalism needs to be audiovisual, either talk radio, or video in the form of movies, dramas, TV sitcoms, documentaries, which could be used to propagate anti-neoliberal, leftist memes. For example, movies that highlighted the differences between European social democracies and America, in terms of political economy.
With ever-decreasing prices in digital movie cameras and video editing software being virtually free, such movies, documentaries etc, could be made cheaply.
But how do you distribute them?
In the near future, we will have ever-cheaper computers. And if broadband gets cheap, then P2P networks could be used to distribute freely leftist movies propagating leftist memes. I realize this is already possible, but the problem is that not enough people have broadband and computers.
Once Americans are turned away from neoliberalim, it will die, as it is the military might of America that is the protector of neoliberalism.
The problem is the ant-aging tech will not help those of us today, most likely. So how do we oldsters get our memories and our consciousness to the future that does have such tech? Try cryonics....
people like you are all about property rights. What people like you are more likely to do is put people like me in jail for my ideas or for behavior that does not fit your moral code, even when it only affects me.
We are moving toward a Soviet style authoritarian state, but without the social safety net, as the neoliberals are taking away the social safety net, they are also taking away personal liberties.
Revolution, anyone? (and when I say that I mean "revolution" at the ballot box, by rule of law).
nope; it is about governmental disregard for constitutionally guaranteed due process rights.
But I guess conformists/authority-lovers (like you) fail to grasp such distinctions. And I feel quite comfortable airing my sentiments online like this, whereas a bumper sticker would afford people like you the opportunity to vandalize my car.
Once they get into office, they can betrayal us with out fear of punuishment or retribution. Yes, if the betrayal is egregious (as in this case), future political candidates can use it against them in negative political ads. And that may lead to their defeat. But so what? Once they have served their corporate masters well in Congress, they know that they can go right to feeding at the trough when they are no longer in office.
So how do we stop this betrayal? We have to institute a structure for PUNISHING politicians who betray us. And how do we decide if they have betrayed us? By letting the people vote on whether they have or not. And if the people vote a politician out as a Betrayer, then that politician should be punished suitably. For example, by hanging them publicly, or placing them in the stocks, etc., depending on the severity of the betrayal.
We have to show the politicians that we are the boss, and not them.
We need a whole slew of political reforms, include national initiative referenda, proportional representation, etc.
Obviously, the Democrats and Republicans will never institute such reforms, so therefore I recommend you vote NADER!
...you post:
Neoliberalism is a political philosophy and movement beginning in the 1960s that de-emphasizes traditional liberal doctrines to achieve progress and social justice by more pragmatic methods, especially an emphasis on economic growth. Because of close association between this philosophy and neoclassical economics, and confusion with the overloaded term "liberal", the term neoclassical philosophy is advocated by some.
Either term is primarily used by critics of neoliberalism rather than proponents, thus most discussion and description of neoliberalism is written from a critical point of view. Supporters of concepts found in neoliberalism, such as free trade and capitalism, view many of the descriptions of neoliberalism as straw man arguments.
As described by Berkeley economic historian Bradford DeLong, neoliberalism has two main tenets:
"The first is that close economic contact between the industrial core and the developing periphery is the best way to accelerate the transfer of technology which is the sine qua non for making poor economies rich (hence all barriers to international trade should be eliminated as fast as possible). The second is that governments in general lack the capacity to run large industrial and commercial enterprises. Hence, [except] for core missions of income distribution, public-good infrastructure, administration of justice, and a few others, governments should shrink and privatize)."
Neoliberalism is often identified with a number of global organizations, including the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The concept of neoliberalism arose as economists at the World Bank and IMF found that post-World War II development strategies for poor countries were not having the intended effects. In particular, funding for mega-projects left poor countries with high debts but little growth to show for it.
The neoliberal doctrine is also a subset of the so-called "Washington consensus": a set of specific policy goals designed for Latin American countries to help them recover from the "lost decade" of the 1980s. This period not only saw a rise in dictatorships in the region, but also disastrous financial mismanagement resulting in rapidly rising prices for basic products, which inevitably caused an increase in poverty. In addition to the tenets of neoliberalism, the Washington consensus stipulated that a country should have stable exchange rates and a government budget in balance.
Neoliberalism has drawn its share of critics due, in part, to some catastrophic failures. In particular, Nobel prize winner and former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz argues that the IMF is guilty of forcing neoliberal and Washington consensus policy goals on countries at times when it was not appropriate (i.e., the Asian Economic Crisis), with devastating results. Neoliberalism has also been criticised by the anti-capitalist movement, who argue that market forces inevitably increase inequality in wealth and hence power.
While some use the terms neoliberal and libertarian or classical liberalism interchangeably there is a difference between the two philosophies. While both share a belief in market economics and free trade, neoliberal economics theory shares with neoliberal international relations theory (and liberal internationalism) a belief in international regimes and a degree of global governance as a means of negotiating and administering international agreements. Neoliberals believe that greater economic and political interdependence will lead to progress and a reduction of international tensions or at least divert states from utilizing military means to resolve conflict. Libertarians reject the neoliberal belief that global governance bodies or state negotiated treaty regimes that bind the individual are desirable.
The term derives, not from the "Liberalism" of the modern period - that is Dewey, Woodrow Wilson and the
Thanks be to Milton Friedman, Presidents Clinton and Bush and free trade!
Where neoliberal propaganda urges us to push ourselves ever harder, even to the point where we are supposed to be concerned about how alert we are at every waking moment.
Clinton was a neoliberal whose neoliberal policies, along with Bush, another even more conservative neoliberal, have laid waste to America's job market. I say try them both for treason in a recognized court of law.
In fact, the democratic party of America is in NO WAY a leftist organization. THere is no Left in America.
You want leftism? Go to Europe, South America.
If we want to build a great country with a great standard of living, like Denmark, where everyone has 5 or more weeks of vacation, and having surgery won't bankrupt, and where you don't have to worry about homelessness, then ALL workers should strike periodically, i.e., SHUT DOWN the country. Show the neoliberal puppetmasters who is really the boss.
Learn more about what I am talking about here:
http://www.american-pictures.com/english/r
more here:
http://www.geocities.com/cryofan/socialdem
I don't know much about networking (so much for my CS degree...), but wouldn't wireless broadband mean much cheaper broadband?
And if so wouldn't that mean that many more people be exposed to the egalitarian influence of the internet? I mean, tell me which has a greater range of political expression--the Internet, or broadcast TV? I say if we can get cheap broadband, then KILL broadcast TV. Broadcast TV is the most elite media of all, in many ways; meaning that it represents Big Money and so therefore propagates status quo memes....
With cheap broadband and cheap LCD computing devices, radical activists would be able to distribute their movies far more easily and widely. Visual media is the best way to propagate memes...
I guess it comes down to whether taking over the TV spectrum for broadband would insure cheaper broadband. Would it?
So good to hear some posters here on Slashdot who know what is going on with neoliberalism. THe vast majority of Americans do not even know what that word is, even though the USA is the center of neoliberalism. I think some of the posters who are speaking out against neoliberal policies here are from countries other than America.
Am I right?
One that explicitly spells out the fact that the govt works for the people. We need a Constitution that explicitly restricts the power of the govt in areas political, and one that empowers the people in the areas political. For example, the Constitution should give the people far more voting power and power in intiating and shaping laws. The Constitution give us proportional representation.
The Constitution should spell out severe punishments (e.g., death penalty) for elected and appointed officials who violate political rights of the people (such as we have in this case).
Are you with me?