Skip to main content

Home/ Politically Minded/ Group items tagged distinction

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Ian Schlom

Pakistan to down American drones, US promises more strikes - 0 views

  •  
    Well. Notice that RT notes that "So far, the only drones making incursions into Pakistani skies have been US Predators used to attack Taliban insurgents." Making this distinction means that UAVs would be flying for a reason distinct from attacking the Taliban, i.e. war with Pakistan. This is in response to the bombing which killed many Pakistani soldiers due to NATO forces fucking up and thinking they were 'terrorists'.
Muslim Academy

Response - A Response to Islamophobia World - 0 views

  •  
    Islam is a balanced religion. It believes in respecting all sects, all cultures and all civilizations. All laws relate to Islam are meant for Muslim benefits . It is true that in the recent years, Islam has become a victim of extremism. The purpose of Islam has never been to spread Islamophobia. Islamic ideas have been exploited to give them the shape of Islamophobia. Islam does not define a mosque and state as distinctive. A mosque is there, to provide a forum to the Muslim to unite and pray. The gesture is to promote congregational prayers, which is also an aspect of Christianity. Islam does not believe in forcing its concepts upon Non-Muslims. Unethical Jehad has never been an Islamic thought. It is just that some extremist groups are trying to manipulate Islam and use the Ideals to their benefit. Islam believes in respecting all religions. That is what the Holy Prophet (PBUH) taught the Muslims. Islam does not preach unkindness to any. May it be your enemy or slave. These are not the aspects of Jihad. A woman can legally have a physical relationship with her husband only. It is definitely no concept of Jihad. Islam believes in respecting a woman, not exploiting her dignity and respect. Islam does not allow illegal confiscation of property during Jihad. Islam does not promote destruction. Taxes does not mean degrading. Taxes are defined to establish a system and maintain a proper division of wealth. If Christian and jews had to pay Jiziah, Muslims had to pay Zakat .Brutality is not a custom of Islam. A Muslim derives so much contentment from Islamic values, that they do not need to run away from the religion. Anything , which drives a person from sanity is not liked in Islam. The reason being that all wrongs can be committed, when a person is drunk and is not in a normal state of mind. This is human nature, that we cannot drive contentment until we avenge someone for the bad they have done to us. However Islam prefers forgiveness. Sometimes a harsh punishment
Ian Schlom

Making Decisions Amongst Assemblies by James Herod - 0 views

  •  
    This is that article that James Herod write. It should be important in the upcoming assembly on the future of NEAN. He makes some weird distinctions between netwroks and federations, and I'm not so sure about his ideas on federation.
Umer Iqbal

iNews 24/7: Rex Ryan's Bad History - 0 views

  •  
    Despite the laughter, the smiles and all the jokes about Peyton Manning's playing time tomorrow, Rex Ryan still can't lock up his doubt for the Jets put their playoff hopes on the craft against an undefeated team also the approaching Hall of distinction quarterback.
Aleena Smith

Anti Inflammatory Diet tips: - 0 views

  •  
    (newsi7)__irritation is distinct as a limited to a small area feedback of hankie to frustration, wound, or disease. Indications of irritation comprise ache,
thinkahol *

LRB · Stephen Holmes · Free-Marketeering - 0 views

  •  
    The anti-globalisation movement suffered a dizzying setback on 9/11. Symbolic gatecrashing into the well-guarded meeting places of the super-rich suddenly seemed a much more sinister activity than before. Busting up branches of Starbucks and other Seattle-style antics became anathema in an atmosphere of injured and vindictive patriotism. But Naomi Klein, the combative theorist and publicist of anti-globalisation, was not about to accept such guilt by association. Her reply, The Shock Doctrine, deals with the corporate acquisitiveness that she sees as ravaging the planet and reformulates the ideas of the anti-globalisation and anti-corporate movements for a post-9/11 world. Klein believes she has found the answer to a question that has perplexed many on the left: if every modern American government has been a tool of powerful business interests, what, if anything, makes the Bush administration uniquely odious? Her answer is that the Bush administration draws its political support not from America's corporate class generally, but rather from a particular part of it: 'the sprawling disaster capitalism complex'. She has in mind the companies that reap huge profits from catastrophes, both man-made and natural. They include defence contractors, arms dealers, high-tech security firms, the oil and gas sectors, construction companies, private healthcare firms and so on. Not exactly ambulance-chasers, they are driving the ambulances themselves - for a profit. For the most part, they capitalise on emergencies rather than deliberately bringing them about. But the distinction is not always so clear: the stock price of Lockheed Martin, the world's largest defence contractor, almost tripled between 2003 and 2007 after a former vice president at the firm chaired a committee agitating for war with Iraq. The Iraq war was also 'the single most profitable event' in the history of Halliburton, whose former CEO, who still retains stock options, is Dick Cheney.
thinkahol *

In Spain's Tahrir Square: A Revolution Struggles to Be Born - 0 views

  •  
    'Spain is justly proud of Paella, a distinctive dish that mixes diverse vegetables or seafood into a tasty fusion of delectability. They have now created a political version in the form of Tahrir Square type encampment in Madrid's Puerta del Sol where a diverse mix of activists - old, young, male, f
Arabica Robusta

West 86th - The Administration of Things: A Genealogy - 0 views

  • “If men never disagreed about the ends of life, if our ancestors had remained undisturbed in the Garden of Eden, the studies to which the Chichele Chair of Social and Political Theory is dedicated could scarcely have been conceived,” Isaiah Berlin told his audience at Oxford when he assumed that position in 1958. Philosophy was at its best when it was being contentious, especially when it was being contentious about the meaning and purpose of our common existence. Too much agreement was an abdication of its ethical responsibility
  • The task of philosophy was not to settle disputes, but to unsettle them, to encourage them, to keep them going. For it was only through disputation that we could resist the rule of experts and machines, the bureaucratic-technocratic society foretold by Saint-Simon and championed by Marx and Engels, a society in which we replace the “government of persons by the administration of things.”
  • Louis de Bonald pointed to the hard choices that the state would have to make. “In the modern state, we have perfected the administration of things at the expense of the administration of men, and we are far more preoccupied with the material than the moral,” he wrote. “Few governments nurture religion or morality with the same attention that they promote commerce, open communications, keep track of accounts, provide the people with pleasures, etc.” 12
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • All history, Comte argued, is a history of class struggle. Not the struggle between master and slave, lord and serf, bourgeois and proletarian—that was still a couple decades away—but the struggle between two classes of phenomena: “critical” phenomena that contributed to moral and political decay and “organic” phenomena that promoted individual and social regeneration.
  • The objective was to protect against arbitrariness in all of its manifestation. Earlier political thinkers had tended to associate arbitrariness mainly with absolutist governments, but for Comte any form of government was susceptible so long as it rested on “metaphysical” rather than “positive” principles.
  • Engels believed that the obsession with detail that had characterized utopian socialism—its compulsion to work out every last aspect of future social organization—is precisely what made it so utopian.
  • When, at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary.
  • “I think it was Trotsky who used a very plain but very telling metaphor,” the historian Isaac Deutscher told graduate students in a seminar on bureaucracy at the London School of Economics in 1960. “The policeman can use his baton either for regulating traffic or for dispersing a demonstration of strikers or unemployed. In this one sentence is summed up the classical distinction between administration of things and administration of men.”
  • Our hasty genealogy of the “administration of things” must conclude with its latest, and quite possibly last, iteration: Bruno Latour’s “Parliament of Things,” or Dingpolitik. Initially proposed in his book We Have Never Been Modern (1991), then extended in a massive exhibition and accompanying catalog, Making Things Public (2005), Latour’s program has attracted a growing number of partisans in the world of political theory
Konstantinos

Democracy versus Republic? - 0 views

We live in a republic (a group of states that are self governing under the umbrella of a centralized or federal government). The type of system we employ is a representative form of democracy (mean...

democracy republic distinction

started by Konstantinos on 30 Jul 12 no follow-up yet
Bakari Chavanu

Robert Reich: David Brooks is Dead Wrong About Inequality | Alternet - 0 views

  • Such is the case with his New York Times  column last Friday, arguing that we should be focusing on the “interrelated social problems of the poor” rather than on inequality, and that the two are fundamentally distinct.
    • Bakari Chavanu
       
      It's the old blame the poor argument.
  • Once the middle class has exhausted all its coping mechanisms – wives and mothers surging into paid work (as they did in the 1970s and 1980s), longer working hours (which characterized the 1990s), and deep indebtedness (2002 to 2008) – the inevitable result is fewer jobs and slow growth, as we continue to experience.
  • Third, America’s shrinking middle class also hobbles upward mobility. Not only is there less money for good schools, job training, and social services, but the poor face a more difficult challenge moving upward because the income ladder is far longer than it used to be, and its middle rungs have disappeared.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • o the contrary, as wealth has accumulated at the top, Washington has reduced taxes on the wealthy, expanded tax loopholes that disproportionately benefit the rich, deregulated Wall Street, and provided ever larger subsidies, bailouts, and tax breaks for large corporations. The only things that have trickled down to the middle and poor besides fewer jobs and smaller paychecks are public services that are increasingly inadequate because they’re starved for money.
Bakari Chavanu

Skepticblog » Capitalism-A Propaganda Story - 0 views

  • When Michael Moore said that capitalism should be replaced by democracy, it didn’t make the most sense, I agree. However, it is well known that the economic system of socialism change how effective a political system works. Captialism, when allowed to go to extremes can also interfere with our political system.
  • Suggestion #1 Shermer should stay out of politics and economics. #2 He and all of you should read this: How the Servant Became a Predator, Finance’s Five Fatal Flaws By William K. Black Assoc. Professor, Univ. of Missouri, Kansas City
  • Michael Moore is a fantastic skeptic. He doesn’t fall for the cultural mythologies of our age. The fervor that some people hold for their favorite economic systems is much akin to that held for religions. People get bent all out of shape when someone is sacrilegious enough to point out the problems and disconnects within their worshipped system. Some people think that there is some kind of magical something or other to their economic system that makes it function automatically. When you go looking for the “man behind the curtain”, you find out how frail the system really is.
  • ...7 more annotations...
  • The microeconomics that drive the lives of ordinary people and businessmen do not necessarily coordinate with the macroeconomic needs of a nation.
  • In this latest installment in his continuing series of what’s wrong with America, Michael Moore takes aim at his biggest target to date, and the result is a disaster. The documentary is not nearly as funny as his previous films, the music selections seem contrived and flat, and the edits and transitions are clumsy, wooden, and not nearly as effective as what we’ve come to expect from the premiere documentarian (Ken Burns notwithstanding) of our time. And, most importantly, the film’s central thesis is so bad that it’s not even wrong.
  • Even if people were more educated individual behavior is determined by the structure of society.
  • I fail to see how businesses only operate without coercion. Businesses only operate without coercion if they have been coerced to do so. There are many examples in history of businesses taking as much control of their employees’ lives as possible. It is only due to government regulation that we do not have more businesses treating employess as property as some coal mines once did.
  • If we ask which economic system produces the greatest human well-being, the overwhelming evidence is already in: we know economic libertarianism doesn’t work. The only serious question, the only question for critical thinkers, is what balance between state and market (assuming we can even make a meaningful distinction between them in some cases) is ideal?
  • Both are idealistic, purist and pseudo-rational systems of belief that were the basis of the greatest ideological divide of the 20th century. I think it’s time we grew up from both and set about the hard task of finding out how to really make an economic system work for us, and not the other way around.
  • In general, libertarians seem to have a blindspot when it comes to noticing the self-serving aspects of their beliefs. They often spout words like “liberty” and “freedom” without even considering that they might be truly wanting “liberty” from responsibility toward others and “freedom” from paying back the society that has often served their interests quite well.
1 - 11 of 11
Showing 20 items per page