249 replies to this topic

[revolucionar]

Indy:

FBI/CIA/NSA jedva su docekali mogucnost da podignu svoja ovlascenja, a da li ce to pomoci protiv terora, ostaje da se vidi. Ono sto je sigurno je da se dugovi MMF ne reprogramiraju, da stotine miliona i dalje tavore na rubu smrti od gladi, da se odredjene zemlje iscrpljuju sadistickim sankcijama do smrti stotina hiljada najranjivijih... dakle, uzroci koji omogucavaju Osami i slicnima da nadju hiljade voljnih regruta za smrt za dzihad, slobodu, ili bilo sta (po potrebi vec) i dalje su tu i sve ih je vise.

Ne samo FBI, CIA, NSA, vec i vojni aparat koji nije zanemarljiv. Pitanje je samo kakva je buducnost sveta ako te vojne formacije i institucije imaju velika ovlascenja ? Da li je moguce da te institucije jednog dana izgube sva ta ovlascenja ? Sada je na meti Irak, sutra ce biti neko drugi itd. Kad neko ima veliku moc i ovlascenja, on ce uvek zeleti da zadrzi te privilegije. Niko se bez borbe nije odrekao privilegija. Komunisti su promenili sistem ali su zadrzali svoje privilegije u kapitalizmu. Privilegovani slojevi i klase sigurno nece na miran nacin da se odreknu svojih privilegija. Oni uvek imaju objasnjenja i legitimnost da terorisu narode, a kad neko njih terorise to je protiv zakona. Americka vojska i institucije koje idu uz nju su direktna opasnost i pretnja za svet. Vec sad imaju tolika ovlascenja da je lako predvideti njihovu ulogu u buducnosti.

[milovan]

Moje misljenje, da drzava koja ima jedan od najkracih ustava i iskustvo od 250 godina, sa odvojenim institucijama sudcke, izvrsne i zakonodavne vlasti, koje kontrolisu jedna drugu, tesko mose neka od tih vlasti prigrabiti sve za sebe.
Da je postojala mogucnost za tako nesto valjda bi se Nikson odbranio od dva novinara.
Mi sve mjerimo Balkanskim arsinom, druge ptice tamo pjevaju, vec su pocele demostracije, sta bi se desilo da pogine 100 vojnika za jedan dan, kakve bi to bile demostracije narod je tamo polticki emancipovan, mi o tome mozemo da sanjamo, dosta ce vode proci Savom dok 40% nepismenih sa kojima se manipulise od unije sa Grckom do unije sa Bjelorusijom.

[ikica1]

Milovane, vlast ovde jeste "prigrabljena" i to na vrlo perfidan nacin. Oni tipovi koji sede u poslanickim klupama i jos vise drustvo koje sedi u Beloj kuci su svi placeni cinovnici velikih korporacija. Njihov zadatak je da naloge tih korporacija sprovode sa sto manje narodne opozicije. Nije na vlasti bio Nikson, nego General Electric, Boeing... a oni su rado zamenili svog sluzbenika kad je on zbog prisluskivanja postao nepopularan.

Amerikanci su mnogo sta, ali nikako politicki emancipovani. Vecina ljudi ovde i ne glasa, a oni koji glasaju cesto i ne znaju tacno za koga (ovo pisem iz iskustva!). Sto se tice demonstracija, ja bih rekao da za to imamo da zahvalimo preduzetnom americkom duhu. Izaci na ulice je ovde nogo teze nego u Srbiji i zaista je za divljenje da se to ipak cini u ovakvim razmerama.

Ako imas prilike pogledaj emisiju "Countdown Iraq" koja se emituje uvece radnim danima na MSNBC. Sve sto cine je da histericno pozivaju na rat (sa Irakom) - ustvari, cela emisija je tako postavljena kao da ce se rat sigurno voditi, samo je pitanje kako ce Ameri pobediti. Drugi dnevnik RTS i HTV su bili pozivi na mir u predjenju sa ovom emisijom. Gotovo je nemoguce gledati NBC, a da se ne cuju pozivi na rat.

Ono sto nije opste poznato je da je MSNBC ogranak General Electric - kompanije koja snabdeva lavovski deo mlaznih motora za americku vojsku (pazi listu: B1-B, C-5M, 767 AWACS, C-40, F-14, F-15, F-16, B2, U2, Joint Strike Fighter, F/A-18, F-117A, JAS 39, A-4S Super Skyhawk, A-10... ima jos dosta). Oni su takodje proizvodjaci motora za M1 Abrams Tank i Crusader Artillery System kao i motora za prakticno sve borbene helikoptere. Da skratim pricu, moze se slikovito reci da GE pokrece americku vojsku.

Ostaje samo da se pitamo koliko je vaznih politicara dobilo "podrsku" od GE za svoje predizborne kampanje.

[milovan]

IKICAL

CITAT

..........................................
Milovane, vlast ovde jeste "prigrabljena" i to na vrlo perfidan nacin. Oni tipovi koji sede u poslanickim klupama i jos vise drustvo koje sedi u Beloj kuci su svi placeni cinovnici velikih korporacija. Njihov zadatak je da naloge tih korporacija sprovode sa sto manje narodne opozicije. Nije na vlasti bio Nikson, nego General Electric, Boeing... a oni su rado zamenili svog sluzbenika kad je on zbog prisluskivanja postao nepopularan

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Zadovoljan sam vasim odgovorom,i moram priznat jakom argumentacijom.
Meni je jasno da kapital upravlja sa maloumnima ponekad i ideologija kao S. Koreja, ili nas nacionalni romantizam.
Ali ja vjerujem ako tamo ima slicnosti sa Danskom, istog momenta kad drzava bude trazila "NOVAC", jedinog sveca kojeg oni postuju, i nedaj boze pocnu stizat "VODORAVNO", njihovi vojnici, nece biti te medijske propagande koja ce zaustaviti gradane da iskazu svoj protest,
i tada ce se mnogi od tih pasivnih potrosaca CHIPSA podici sa svojih debelih guzica, e u tom trenutku ja nebih volio da im stanem na put.
U Danskoj gradu Helsingor, postoji zamak iz srednjeg vijeka, SHEKSPIR je tamo smjestio Hamleta, u podrumu , zatvoru, ili kako danci kazu Kazamatana, postoji statua starca koji sjedi i kao da spava, zovu ga HOLGA DANAC,
on spava i odmara ali kad se on probudi bjezi glavom bez obzira jer pogibe, zemlja ili demokratija je u opasnosti.
Nadam se da neki Holga Amerikanac spava i ceka, nadu mi uliva dosta pozitivna uloga Amerike u borbi za demokratiju i ljudcka prava, ali vidim i ja, da im NAFTA udari u mozak.
Zahvalan sam na vasa ostroumna posmatranja i zapazanja, nikad nije kasno da i ja nesto naucim.
Srdacan pozdrav Milovan

[revolucionar]

ikica1:
Milovane, vlast ovde jeste "prigrabljena" i to na vrlo perfidan nacin. Oni tipovi koji sede u poslanickim klupama i jos vise drustvo koje sedi u Beloj kuci su svi placeni cinovnici velikih korporacija. Njihov zadatak je da naloge tih korporacija sprovode sa sto manje narodne opozicije. Nije na vlasti bio Nikson, nego General Electric, Boeing... a oni su rado zamenili svog sluzbenika kad je on zbog prisluskivanja postao nepopularan.

Amerikanci su mnogo sta, ali nikako politicki emancipovani. Vecina ljudi ovde i ne glasa, a oni koji glasaju cesto i ne znaju tacno za koga (ovo pisem iz iskustva!). Sto se tice demonstracija, ja bih rekao da za to imamo da zahvalimo preduzetnom americkom duhu. Izaci na ulice je ovde nogo teze nego u Srbiji i zaista je za divljenje da se to ipak cini u ovakvim razmerama.

Izgleda da je ovo tacno i mnogobrojna literatura opisuje ovakvo stanje u Americi. Ne razumem samo zasto u Americi nema dovoljno kriticara, nekakve avangarde koja bi promenila nesto ? Da li tamo ima nekakvih organizacija koje se bore za vise demokratije i pravicnosti ? Zapadna drustva su dosta dinamicna i stalno se menjaju. Ne mogu da verujem da u Americi postoji toliki "imobilizam" naroda.

[Hromi Daba]

Indy:
"Na stranu sto se politika koja generise terorizam uopste ne obustavlja, stavise, kako jasno vidimo, ona i eskalira. Dokle god postoji ovakva distribucija dobara na planeti i u okviru pojedinih zemalja, bice terorista. Dokle god ima onih koji nemaju nista da izgube, a sve da dobiju, bice terorista"

Pazi sta pricas Indy. Isto ovo je rekao Kretjen (PM Kanade) pa su ga Ameri zasuli drvljem i kamenjem i proglasili ga anti-amerikancem. :smile:

[milovan]

ZNAM DA SAM PROMASIO TEMU;
ALI NADAM SE DA NIJESAM NAPRAVIO STETU

JA SE IZVINJAVAM ALI SAM SMATRAO DA POJEDINA GLEDANJA NA RAZVOJ DEMOKRATIJE OD KORIJENA TRAVE NE TREBA PODCJENJIVATI.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Da li je Srbiji potrebna defasizacija?

MOJ ODGOVOR JE DA.

Pitanje je odakle poceti, sa vrha ili sa dna?

Ja mislim da treba poci od sebe od svoje familije, od oca koji dominira, diktira ,nareduje, propisuje moralne norme.
Od sebe i odnosa prema supruzi, djeci.
Od gradcke cistoce, i uticaja pojedinca na komunalne usluge.
Da nabrojim skola, jaslice, obdaniste u Danskoj se biraju jednom godisnje roditelji koji zastupaju nase interese.
Banka je obavezna da svakih 6 mjesci podnese izvjestaj o svom poslovanju, i svake godine biraju stedise svog predstavnika u direkciji Banke.
Opstina svake godine odredi opstinski procenat oporezivanja licnog dohotka, mnogi danci na lokalnom nivou glasaju Desne partije jer su one anti birokratcke i stede novac, ti isti ljudi na Drzavnom nivou glasaju Socialdemokrate.

Da vas ne zamaram, nego da vam kasem moje iskreno misljenje.

DEMOKRATIJA SE NE ZAVODI DEKRETOM.
(To bi bila diktatura)

DEMOKRATIJA JE PROCES MENTALNOG STANJA GRADANA I ON U DANSKOJ TRAJE 150 GODINA I JOS SMO NA POCETKU.

NADAM SE DA SAM PREVELIKU ULOGU INTELEKTUALACA REDUCIRAO NA NIVO PRIZEMNI I BOLJE RECENO "KORIJENE TRAVE" OD CEGA SVE POCINJE.

PRIJE 150 GODINA SU RUSI PISALI O REVIZORU I KUPOVANJU MRTVIH DUSA DA BI UMANJILI POREZ STO MI DANAS ZNAMO O PORESKIM SISTEMIMA .
TEORIJA JE JEDNO A ZIVOTNO ISKUSVO DRUGO
JEDNO BEZ DRUGOGA NE VALJA

[sonja]

Ovo je postalo mesto za moje generalne postove ove vrste. U svakom slucaju evo jos jednog "for your amusement" ili zgrazavanje, kako hocete...

The Nation - the Daily Outrage

=====================================
01/30/2003 @ 09:30am

Flat-Out Censorship on CNN
by Peter Rothberg

There are outrages, and then there are outrages. Check out the ads that Comcast cable refused, at the last minute, to let the nation's largest peace group run on 
CNN in Washington D.C. before and after the President's State of the Union speech. Comcast said the ads made "unsubstantiated claims" about the war (though much the same could be said of the President). Yet these ads are absolutely innocuous; they are merely a series of Americans voicing concerns that aren't even remotely radical. We're talking about sound-bites along the 
lines of "I need to see more proof," or "we have other priorities," or "this war will not make us safe." View the ads and you'll agree this is a clear-cut case of pro-government censorship -- not "spin" or "bias," but censorship -- on CNN, in the nation's capitol, on a topic as deeply serious as whether to go to war, and on one of the most important days of that debate. 

If he wishes to be remembered as the leader of a democracy, the President must immediately rebuke Comcast; this blatent case of censorship should become a national scandal, and the responsible people at Comcast should be identified, hauled 
before Congress to testify, and fired. Tell Comcast, the President and your member of Congress that we live in a free country.
=====================================


*  *  *

The worst case of pro-government censorship my generation has seen has been met with a big fat yawn. Neither the president nor Comcast nor CNN have had boo to say about Comcast's decision to pull some inoffensive anti-war ads off CNN the night of the State of the Union. (As for the First Lady, she's too busy muzzling poets to weigh in.) Now it seems this Back-in-the-USSR moment was far from a fluke. The Washington Post reports that CNN, Fox and NBC have all refused airtime for antiwar groups -- and not just for those controversial "daisy" ads, but for 
mainstream spots featuring a Methodist Bishop and actresses Susan Sarandon, and Jeanne Garofalo. (If you've seen such ads, that's because peace groups have sometimes gotten around the nationals by buying locally from affiliates and cable operators.) The Post quotes a CNN spokeswoman explaining that "we do not accept international advocacy ads on regions in conflict." (What?) An NBC spokeswoman tells The Post the network refused an antiwar ad because "It pertained to a 
controversial issue which we prefer to handle in our news and public affairs programming." (What?) Fox apparently shrugged and smirked.

http://www.thenation.com/outrage/

[ Izmena poruke: sonja na dan 2003-02-02 19:18 ]

[sonja]

Nadovezujuci se na prethodnu poruku evo jednog zanimljivog clanka...

Published on Friday, January 31, 2003 by the Boulder Daily Camera
Media Concentration is a Totalitarian Tool
by Molly Ivins 

AUSTIN, Texas — Now here's a dandy example of the kind of thing that never makes it to the front page or the top of the news broadcast, but that affects absolutely everyone. The Federal Communications Commission, led by Michael ("my religions is the market":wink: Powell, is fixing to remove the last remaining barriers against concentration of media. 

This means one company can own all the radio stations, television stations, newspapers and cable systems in any given area. Presently, 10 companies own over 90 percent of the media outlets. Bill Kovach of the Committee of Concerned Journalists and Tom Rosenstiel of the Project for Excellence in Journalism say these are the most sweeping changes in the rules that govern ownership of American media since the 1940s. The ownership rules were put in place after we had seen how totalitarian governments use domination of the media to goad their countries into war. 

We already know what happens when the free-market zealots remove restrictions on ownership. In 1996, the FCC eliminated its rules on radio ownership. Conglomerates now own hundreds of stations around the country. One company, Clear Channel, owns more than 1,200 stations, and there are 30 percent fewer station owners than there were before 1996. The result is less local news and local programming, since the formats are programmed at headquarters. Clear Channel owns as many as six or seven stations in a market, broadcasting generic country, generic pop, generic oldies, etc. 

The fearless investigative television journalism we have all come to expect (an hour-long special on Michael Jackson's face in the works) will not be improved by this move. The FCC is doing this in an almost covert way. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps reports that only under pressure did the commission agree to hold one lone public hearing on it, in Richmond, Va. 

A coalition of consumer and media advocacy groups presented a 140-page filing that shows joint ownership of newspaper and broadcast outlets fails to meet the constitutional requirement, set out by the Supreme Court in 1945, that "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the people." 

In 1987, FCC commissioners appointed by Ronald Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine, and that has already had a stunning effect on political debate in this country. That same year, Congress put the Fairness Doctrine into law, but Reagan vetoed it with this memorable rationalization, "The Fairness Doctrine is inconsistent with the tradition of independent journalism." The Fairness Doctrine had been upheld by the Supreme Court in a 1969 decision that viewed the airwaves as a "public trust" and said fairness required the public trust to accurately reflect opposing views. In a 1986 decision, the D.C. Federal Court of Appeals in a 2-to-1 decision upheld a new FCC rule refusing to apply the Fairness Doctrine to television text. The two prevailing judges were Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork. 

Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Ore., did a report for the newspaper there last year on the prevalence of right-wing hosts on radio talk shows. "The spectrum of opinion on national political commercial talk radio shows ranges from extreme right wing to very extreme right wing — there is virtually nothing else." Monks notes the irony that many of these right-wing hosts spend much of their time complaining about "the liberal media." 

On the two Eugene talk stations, Monks found: "There are 80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective. ... Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair balanced or democratic about it." 

To point out the obvious, broadcasters and their national advertisers have a clear stake in promoting the views of those who advocate lower taxes on the rich and on big corporations. What is so perfectly loony about the FCC's proposal to unleash yet another round of media concentration is that it is being done in the name of "the free market." 

Is the free market not supposed to encourage competition rather than lead to its disappearance? The U.S. now ranks 17th, below Costa Rica and Slovenia, on the worldwide index of press freedom established by the Reporters Without Borders. 

Copyright 2002, The Daily Camera

[sonja]

Nikako da mi ponestane ovakvog "crnog" materijala... :mad:

Special Report
Justice Dept. Drafts Sweeping Expansion of Anti-Terrorism Act
Center Publishes Secret Draft of ‘Patriot II’ Legislation

By Charles Lewis and Adam Mayle

(WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2003) -- The Bush Administration is preparing a bold, comprehensive sequel to the USA Patriot Act passed in the wake of September 11, 2001, which will give the government broad, sweeping new powers to increase domestic intelligence-gathering, surveillance and law enforcement prerogatives, and simultaneously decrease judicial review and public access to information.

more at http://www.publicint...&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0


_________________
The test of courage comes when we are in the minority; the test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority. Ralph W. Stockman

[ Izmena poruke: sonja na dan 2003-02-10 05:19 ]