They say no news is good news, and the world hasn't gotten profoundly worse in the last 24 hours. Of course, warmongers will warmonger, just as pigs oink. Venezuela has siezed some oil fields of companies that didn't want to share more revenues, and wants Exxon to be gone, which will put it even more in the cross hairs of Washington. But this is really nothing new. Nothing even that readers at Weazl's Revenge don't already know. So let's have a bit of levity and readers can feel free to talk about whatever you want. As has been said earlier, things can't be always hot and heavy. So hopefully you'll each have something to add, however frivolous, however poor your English, however much you feel like you're not up to speed on all the issues. Who cares? Have fun.
Wealz may direct readers to consider an excerpt from the newest book of the man many love to hate, Noam Chomsky, entitled Failed States. Weazl will offer that while he thinks Noam is great to bring many issues of great importance to the attention of a broad American and international community, his recent works have been decidedly lacking in the type of critical analysis present in the works of some lesser known authors. Weazl feels that this excerpt referenced at the above link reflects this similar trend. Opinions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
That's quite a nice story. Thanks for sharing it.
We are becoming more and more aware of what the problems are in America... or hmmm ar we? Perhaps a good summary of the key concepts would be in order for example the concentration of financial, political, judicial and economic power in a political elite, and their projection of that power at the clear cost of the majority. Any ideas or fuller blown theories on this?
Most importantly though, does da Weaz have a programme on how to improve democracy in the States?
-Iceboy
Well, you raise some tremendous questions, and I will try to answer some of them piece by piece.
The shortest answer is that weaz thinks that there are many, many things that people can do both inside of the US and outside of the US to effectuate change and promote democracy in the US and change the direction of things. Unfortunately, however, it will be a race against the clock, because this particular criminal cabal is so quickly headed for great calamity that it is tough to imagine any other way for this train wreck to stop, other than by wrecking, in such case it will be difficult for all of us in the global community.
I very much appreciate the question, and will do my best to offer my opinion about the wide range of issues that you raise, most of which I think I can offer something at least worth considering. But I do feel that information is key, revealing the true issues that are shaping the news cycle and what we listen to and absorb about the world around us. I think the internet offers a way to break out of that passive role that we have played. It is mission critical that we use the internet as a mobilizing force to transmit information, share ideas, and more people in their daily lives. This website in a very small way, is attempting to engage in that discourse. And your question gives hope that it is possible. This is the very beginning, less than two weeks old. But I think that together, and with others, we can try to do something meaningful. And that will begin with deepening our understanding of the forces that are preventing us from creating a better, brighter world and United States (which affects the world). And those forces of resistence are formidable, almost overwhelmingly so, but understanding how and why this is so, is the key to change: an issue that you have obviously well recognized, hence the question.
As I mentioned, I will keep these things in mind when posting articles. And I will return to this open thread when I have the time to pay your question the requisite response that it deserves. Thanx.
Well I definately appreciate your take on the news! You have a consistency in the way you traverse the web, and although at some points I see an over interpretation of the content of the news, together the pages nevertheless point to the direction that you are heading with your arguments. This is a blog of course, and not academic research, so it's perfectly acceptable to me, that in one post everything is not fully explained. And most importantly of all, readers are able to piece their way to their own interpretation. I therefore share your optimism with the internet as a medium to increase knowledge of the issues.
Of course the problem is that the majority doesn't have the time, the access and the education needed to evaluate the evidence. And even the educated can sophisticatedly differ in argumentation and evaluation of the plausibility of the evidence etc. Perhaps overall it doesn't even matter how right one is, but who wins in the end! It would of course be better if those, whom at least try to take other people's interests into consideration, gain the upper hand (no matter how wrong the details). What we need to do is win time by pinpointing the main problems, support this with good evidence (as is being done here), form a community around these issues and then work to build a strategy to eradicate these problems.
I agree that this is a good basis for a community. What I would like to see is a network being formed, where all of the like minded people could meet and organise for social and political change. But before such a network is formed, the foundational basis, that all can agree upon has to be pinpointed. If the problem is the two party system, then an umbrella organisation should be formed whose only purpose would be to change the system into something different: i.e. a multiparty democracy. This is rash simplification but this idea could be built upon. For example have all the upcoming parties work under this umbrella organisation until the multiparty system is established.
The constitution probably contains other problems, which from a modern perspective (given over 200 years of experience) might require changes. Perhaps the balance of power rests too strongly on the judicial system... I'm not sure about this, but I would be interested on perspectives on this.
Anyway I'm really happy that you liked my question. I will be glad to hear more viewpoints on these issues, and elaborate these fledgling ideas further.
-Iceboy
Once again I think you raise great questions and thanks for the support. I think that we'll be addressing these issues for a while.
Just a quick response about sources and support. I completely agree that some of the links do not support what may be larger statements on my part. Several reasons for this. First off, the nature of links are unlike footnotes: pretty much you are limited to one. So it's a question of choosing which single source most closely approximates the point being made. Second, because it is a blog and not an academic journal, I am pretty much limited to articles posted on the web, and my ability to make use of book references is quite limited,because so few (for copyright reasons) are posted on the web. Certainly books are perhaps the major source of my material, but, as mentioned, it's hard to give that support here. Lastly, once again, because it is a blog, I try to link to things that support my point in fairly short fashion. So I may not link to really complicated articles that might bog down the reader, the few who might take the time to search for support. So the links are really kind of reminders, that no, the weaz isn't making stuff up out of whole cloth. But I'd be the first to agree that those links are far from comprehensive.
But if you (or anyone else reading this), feel that the support on any particular issue is lacking, simply raise it. I will then be more than willing to share the materials that give me comfort on the veracity of the point I am asserting. Looking forward towards continuing this little odyssey. And thanx for sharing.
Post a Comment