Max Swing: Good TV Shows are still possible!
I just recently watched "Jeremiah" again, all two season there are. Although I am a big fan of Jay Michael Strazynski (known for the infamous Babylon 5 series, which ran over 5 seasons and had the best-thoughtout plot ever seen in television series), I can still say objectively that everyone should at least take a look on this series. It is compelling and science-fiction in its truest meaning.
Instead of just posing technology of the future, this series tries to show a society and how it could work. Although, this is not the true purpose and main theme behind this Show. I don't want to give away too much, so I just summarize it a bit.
The show takes place in a near future and develops a post-apocalyptic scenario. Governments and nations no longer exist and sceptics would say that the "survival of the fittest" is on the run. This is certainly true and there is a big blackhole of injustice or self-justice in this future. But there are still small settlements or groups that cling together and work peacefully with each other. Instead of money, the currency is tradable material. You get a beer for two cans of rice and so on.
How our world collapsed, you might ask now?
Well, that's easy. There was a Big Death, a super-virus that killed all people over the age of innocence. Everyone over the age of 30 died and the kids had to fend for themselves.
But instead of babaric uncontrolled violence or a tyranny of the strong, it created a lot of settlements who trade peacefully with each other. Of course, there were tyrannic regimes in some of the settlement, but they were not strong enough to rule all the other settlements.
Then everything changed when the remainings of the former military started to annex what was once theirs. They try to enforce a military dictatorship that would finally introduce the safe-authoritarian state which can be seen in 1984 (George Orwell).
But there is one small military base under control of the decendants of the military inhabitants of that base and this refuge starts to fight the forth coming future, the military dictatorship of the U.S. Army.
This show is about love of freedom, individuality and anti-authoritarianism. It is staged around two heros, Jeremiah and Cody. It outlines the morality of self-interest and the longing for independency. Building on this it features the core-theme of Authoritarian against Anarchic societies.
I will go deeper into the show in my next post. However, I recommend to watch at least some of the episodes, because the next post will reveal lots of the plot and thereby might make the show uninteresting to you.
We will look at how the show employs the anarchic society and what question it poses against it. I will also dwell on the two different authoritarian fractions the show gives us in the two seasons it has.
In the end, I will look at the exact picture of individuality and liberty in this show, which will be a difficult task, because it is thwarted in many ways.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
A typical German Movie
I have been in cinema early this week to watch one of the newly acclaimed German movies, "DIE FETTEN JAHRE SIND VORBEI". I thought I'd give it a try, because it is an independent production by a German screenwriter and besides it should have been refreshing against all those Hollywood Busters.
And it really had a tricky and well-thought out story line, the stylistic cinematographic work was except only a few flaws, good handcrafted work (less special-effects, more solid camera techniques) and it had several different themes. All in all, it was a rather funny fun-movie with an ambigious moral (not to say no moral at all ;) ) and an underlying principle that shouldn't inspire people.
We have an Nietzschean background in this movie that is screwed in several scenes and never truly the focus of the movie, which ruined it somewhat. However, there are other themes (which never present a solution) like a conflict of Youth and Elders, conservative against rebellious youth, egalitarian against snobism and of course, rich against poor.
I will return to that later, after you read the following summary of the movie (ATTENTION SPOILERS INCLUDED!!!). Just one last word before we start, the rich are portrayed stupidly and poorly as the amoral, evil snobs without any form of caring or insight, which is typical to nowadays movies, especially in Europe. However, it also has a true ring in respect of the Rich. They have lost philosophy and forsake it for their own disadvantage, because they regarded it as unnecessary. That's why the hostage Bernd cannot defend his position properly against the terrorist youth that confronts him with philosophic problems of todays world.
Let's start with a brief summary:
******* SPOILERS (DON'T READ IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE MOVIE) *********
There are three young people, I'd say in the mid-twenties. Two male and one female, they are all into alternative way of living and they demonstrate against Sweatshops and the society in general. In the beginning of the movie, we see a few idealist youths(with the girl in the scene as a newly hired recruit for the anti-sweatshop demo) having a demonstration against violation of human rights and the unjust habits of the richt western-world against the so-called 3rd World.
This short scene is very important for the whole theme of the movie, so I will explain it in detail.
We see some of the young idealist enter a shop for shoes which have been produced (at least, the young ones proclaim it) in Indonesia by child labor. They try to convince some costumers, also young people, to boykott those products of the unjust capitalism of greed. The owner of the shop slowly, but forcefully, albeit formal and polite, pushs them to the door. There a German police unit already waited for those punks and they get beaten inside a police van.
Now, the story continues, when we see that Jule (the girl) moves to the apartment of the two boys Jan and Peter. Peter is her boyfriend so this is alright. Lisa works as a waitress part-times and had to sold her apartment due to unpaid bills. She also owes a debt to a rich person of about 96000 Euro. Lisa believes that her future life is destroyed by that money, although she never knew what to do with her life, later she admits that she only wanted to live from moment to moment.
We don't know what Jan does for a living, but Peter works for a security company and they break into houses which are equipped with security installations of former company. They don't steal anything, but instead they rearrange all the couches, chairs, paintings, pictures, sculptures and so on. They are rather creative in it and show a certain amount of style.
Then they leave a message behind, in form of a letter, that either says:
"Die Fetten Jahre sind vorbei" or "Sie sind zu reich" (The good years are over or You are too rich)
Those flyers are always signed with "Die Erziehungsberechtigten" (The Guardians). They do this, at least they give that reason, to change the world, to give birth to a more social conscience to those who don't have as much money.
Now, Lisa falls in love with Jan after some time and they break into the house of the person, which Lisa owes the money to. Of course, Peter doesn't know anything about it, because he is in Spain at that time. They not only rearrange the furnitures this time, but also leave a trail of destruction in the house. However, when they leave the house, they forget Lisa's cell-phone at the place.
When Peter returned from Spain, Lisa and Jan don't tell him, but decide to get the phone by themselves. This turns out to be a bad idea. While they are inside, the owner of the house "Bernd" returns and Lisa get caught on first sight. He remembers her, but can't alarm the police, because Jan hits him unconscious. They call Peter and the burglary turns into a kidnapping. They take Bernd as a hostage and flee to a mountain log cabin.
There the relationship between Lisa and Peter collapse, because she finally admits herself to love Jan. However, they reunite after some hours and at last they even get friends with Bernd. He understands their motives, but not their means. The hostage is reminded of his own youth as a member of the 60s movement and his rebellion against the state.
At last, they apologize and return him to his home, where he swears not to call the police and to rethink the 96000 euro debt of Lisa. However, as soon as the three kids left, he becomes thoughtful and falls back in his conservative role. Meanwhile the three youngsters finally decide to go on with their job to wake up the world against the capitalist greed.
Next day, the police is in front of the apartment where they lived. The special forces units rushes in but finds the place abandoned. A letter is pinned to the wall:
"Manche Menschen ändern sich nie!" (= Some people don't change!)
We see an intercut with Bernd in the police car, guiltly sneeking around.
Then we see the three young people in a spanish hotel, checking out. They take Bernd's mediterranian Yacht and rush of into the sunlight to a distant island, in order to cut three satelite transmission towers, which would end the TV transmission to all the people in Europe for days.
********* END OF SUMMARY ***********
You will see that this is a huge source not only for political philosophy, or political argumentations, but also for philosophy, psychology and several other interesting viewpoints. The amount of relativist moral, subjectivism, utilitarism, altruism and other new-age socialism parts, common to the "NEW" Berlin generation, is very high. But instead of informing the audience of the socialist background, Daniel Brühl (playing in "Good-Bye, Lenin!") this times plays the young rebel with a Che Guevarian inspirationism.
Since it is late, I will continue depicting the amorality of the movie and the rich-bashing that is so common in Germany and the sources for that when I have time at hand.
Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net
And it really had a tricky and well-thought out story line, the stylistic cinematographic work was except only a few flaws, good handcrafted work (less special-effects, more solid camera techniques) and it had several different themes. All in all, it was a rather funny fun-movie with an ambigious moral (not to say no moral at all ;) ) and an underlying principle that shouldn't inspire people.
We have an Nietzschean background in this movie that is screwed in several scenes and never truly the focus of the movie, which ruined it somewhat. However, there are other themes (which never present a solution) like a conflict of Youth and Elders, conservative against rebellious youth, egalitarian against snobism and of course, rich against poor.
I will return to that later, after you read the following summary of the movie (ATTENTION SPOILERS INCLUDED!!!). Just one last word before we start, the rich are portrayed stupidly and poorly as the amoral, evil snobs without any form of caring or insight, which is typical to nowadays movies, especially in Europe. However, it also has a true ring in respect of the Rich. They have lost philosophy and forsake it for their own disadvantage, because they regarded it as unnecessary. That's why the hostage Bernd cannot defend his position properly against the terrorist youth that confronts him with philosophic problems of todays world.
Let's start with a brief summary:
******* SPOILERS (DON'T READ IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE MOVIE) *********
There are three young people, I'd say in the mid-twenties. Two male and one female, they are all into alternative way of living and they demonstrate against Sweatshops and the society in general. In the beginning of the movie, we see a few idealist youths(with the girl in the scene as a newly hired recruit for the anti-sweatshop demo) having a demonstration against violation of human rights and the unjust habits of the richt western-world against the so-called 3rd World.
This short scene is very important for the whole theme of the movie, so I will explain it in detail.
We see some of the young idealist enter a shop for shoes which have been produced (at least, the young ones proclaim it) in Indonesia by child labor. They try to convince some costumers, also young people, to boykott those products of the unjust capitalism of greed. The owner of the shop slowly, but forcefully, albeit formal and polite, pushs them to the door. There a German police unit already waited for those punks and they get beaten inside a police van.
Now, the story continues, when we see that Jule (the girl) moves to the apartment of the two boys Jan and Peter. Peter is her boyfriend so this is alright. Lisa works as a waitress part-times and had to sold her apartment due to unpaid bills. She also owes a debt to a rich person of about 96000 Euro. Lisa believes that her future life is destroyed by that money, although she never knew what to do with her life, later she admits that she only wanted to live from moment to moment.
We don't know what Jan does for a living, but Peter works for a security company and they break into houses which are equipped with security installations of former company. They don't steal anything, but instead they rearrange all the couches, chairs, paintings, pictures, sculptures and so on. They are rather creative in it and show a certain amount of style.
Then they leave a message behind, in form of a letter, that either says:
"Die Fetten Jahre sind vorbei" or "Sie sind zu reich" (The good years are over or You are too rich)
Those flyers are always signed with "Die Erziehungsberechtigten" (The Guardians). They do this, at least they give that reason, to change the world, to give birth to a more social conscience to those who don't have as much money.
Now, Lisa falls in love with Jan after some time and they break into the house of the person, which Lisa owes the money to. Of course, Peter doesn't know anything about it, because he is in Spain at that time. They not only rearrange the furnitures this time, but also leave a trail of destruction in the house. However, when they leave the house, they forget Lisa's cell-phone at the place.
When Peter returned from Spain, Lisa and Jan don't tell him, but decide to get the phone by themselves. This turns out to be a bad idea. While they are inside, the owner of the house "Bernd" returns and Lisa get caught on first sight. He remembers her, but can't alarm the police, because Jan hits him unconscious. They call Peter and the burglary turns into a kidnapping. They take Bernd as a hostage and flee to a mountain log cabin.
There the relationship between Lisa and Peter collapse, because she finally admits herself to love Jan. However, they reunite after some hours and at last they even get friends with Bernd. He understands their motives, but not their means. The hostage is reminded of his own youth as a member of the 60s movement and his rebellion against the state.
At last, they apologize and return him to his home, where he swears not to call the police and to rethink the 96000 euro debt of Lisa. However, as soon as the three kids left, he becomes thoughtful and falls back in his conservative role. Meanwhile the three youngsters finally decide to go on with their job to wake up the world against the capitalist greed.
Next day, the police is in front of the apartment where they lived. The special forces units rushes in but finds the place abandoned. A letter is pinned to the wall:
"Manche Menschen ändern sich nie!" (= Some people don't change!)
We see an intercut with Bernd in the police car, guiltly sneeking around.
Then we see the three young people in a spanish hotel, checking out. They take Bernd's mediterranian Yacht and rush of into the sunlight to a distant island, in order to cut three satelite transmission towers, which would end the TV transmission to all the people in Europe for days.
********* END OF SUMMARY ***********
You will see that this is a huge source not only for political philosophy, or political argumentations, but also for philosophy, psychology and several other interesting viewpoints. The amount of relativist moral, subjectivism, utilitarism, altruism and other new-age socialism parts, common to the "NEW" Berlin generation, is very high. But instead of informing the audience of the socialist background, Daniel Brühl (playing in "Good-Bye, Lenin!") this times plays the young rebel with a Che Guevarian inspirationism.
Since it is late, I will continue depicting the amorality of the movie and the rich-bashing that is so common in Germany and the sources for that when I have time at hand.
Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
German's wise men or why philosophy is necessary
I have just received the new "Spiegel", from whom I have discussed reports before. This time they have an interview with Weder di Mauro, one of the youngest economically wise-men, as they are called, here.
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,328841,00.html
The worst remark of the 39-year old economy advisor is that she criticises the ideologic layout of the parties. This is in my eyes, a terrible miscalculation, because only strict reforms (strict to their ideologic and philosophic basis) can improve anything. Everything else is a half-baked try that has lost its meaning, because the inner-logic of the reform will be lost due to contradictionary influences.
The good thing is that she stresses the need of more investment by the people, who need not to be afraid and she also attacks the myth of massive out-sourcing. This fear, however, is not made by the politicians only, but also by the Euro itself (as I have discussed below).
However, her lack of understanding basic ideologic, politic and philosophic premises and evading the issue by ignoring any ideology, is deeply dissatisfying and in a way an expression of the new social order. Premises are not to be judged and/or followed!
This is what Ayn Rand has written in her famous book "Atlas Shrugged", where the new-age college boys have not gasped the complex problem of economy and political influence in it.
They can only use the politics for their own needs, but they don't really understand the ideologic agenda they follow, obviously, because they won't take part in any logic ideology.
Therefore, my stand that philosophy is a pre-requisite for economics, as is ethics, should be honored. Academia should give those topics a little more thought in the future.
But meh, that won't happen anywhere nowadays....
Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net
I have just received the new "Spiegel", from whom I have discussed reports before. This time they have an interview with Weder di Mauro, one of the youngest economically wise-men, as they are called, here.
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,328841,00.html
The worst remark of the 39-year old economy advisor is that she criticises the ideologic layout of the parties. This is in my eyes, a terrible miscalculation, because only strict reforms (strict to their ideologic and philosophic basis) can improve anything. Everything else is a half-baked try that has lost its meaning, because the inner-logic of the reform will be lost due to contradictionary influences.
The good thing is that she stresses the need of more investment by the people, who need not to be afraid and she also attacks the myth of massive out-sourcing. This fear, however, is not made by the politicians only, but also by the Euro itself (as I have discussed below).
However, her lack of understanding basic ideologic, politic and philosophic premises and evading the issue by ignoring any ideology, is deeply dissatisfying and in a way an expression of the new social order. Premises are not to be judged and/or followed!
This is what Ayn Rand has written in her famous book "Atlas Shrugged", where the new-age college boys have not gasped the complex problem of economy and political influence in it.
They can only use the politics for their own needs, but they don't really understand the ideologic agenda they follow, obviously, because they won't take part in any logic ideology.
Therefore, my stand that philosophy is a pre-requisite for economics, as is ethics, should be honored. Academia should give those topics a little more thought in the future.
But meh, that won't happen anywhere nowadays....
Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Germans prepare for state-control
I have said it innumberable times in the past, Germany is drifting towards socialism, even if it is a soft kind of socialism. But this kind just substitutes the metal gun with the velvet gun. In the end, they are very similar in words and in action.
Of course, nobody wants to see it and nobody takes me seriously. They think it to be a bad habit that there is so much beaurocracy, but they are unwilling to change anything (politicians even less than everyday men and women, because they'd diminish their own position of power).
A good example has been brought up by "Der Spiegel", a famous German newsmag. Germans are security fanatics, even if it is not necessary, or it would drive many companies out of business. The newest gadget of the law-abiding politicians of the authoritarian-side is the life-boat rule. Inland-boat traffic on the river rhine was always a very safe thing, until the government decided otherwise.
Now, it is dangerous, and we have to protect against the new huge 20 cm waves and the long distance to reach help or the shore (20 m?!). To protect the poor citizens, who could die on the river rhine, the government invented a new law that made it necessary for the boat captains to buy expensive life-boats. Those life-boats are usually seen on high sea ships, where they are necessary for your survival. On those small tourist boats on the rhine, however, those boats are unnecessary. The life-boats are so expensive that the quantity needed for your boat and the care-taking could easily wipe the economic balance of those small tourist companies, who undertake rhine-tours by boat.
So, you tell me that the state does not interfere with business? That we have a truly free-market or even a social market? What is social in killing business out of fear of the improbable?
Damn you, Authoritarians!
Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net
I have said it innumberable times in the past, Germany is drifting towards socialism, even if it is a soft kind of socialism. But this kind just substitutes the metal gun with the velvet gun. In the end, they are very similar in words and in action.
Of course, nobody wants to see it and nobody takes me seriously. They think it to be a bad habit that there is so much beaurocracy, but they are unwilling to change anything (politicians even less than everyday men and women, because they'd diminish their own position of power).
A good example has been brought up by "Der Spiegel", a famous German newsmag. Germans are security fanatics, even if it is not necessary, or it would drive many companies out of business. The newest gadget of the law-abiding politicians of the authoritarian-side is the life-boat rule. Inland-boat traffic on the river rhine was always a very safe thing, until the government decided otherwise.
Now, it is dangerous, and we have to protect against the new huge 20 cm waves and the long distance to reach help or the shore (20 m?!). To protect the poor citizens, who could die on the river rhine, the government invented a new law that made it necessary for the boat captains to buy expensive life-boats. Those life-boats are usually seen on high sea ships, where they are necessary for your survival. On those small tourist boats on the rhine, however, those boats are unnecessary. The life-boats are so expensive that the quantity needed for your boat and the care-taking could easily wipe the economic balance of those small tourist companies, who undertake rhine-tours by boat.
So, you tell me that the state does not interfere with business? That we have a truly free-market or even a social market? What is social in killing business out of fear of the improbable?
Damn you, Authoritarians!
Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Since my time online is going to be limited, because I have too much to do on campus, I will make post nothing new for the next weeks. This is also partly caused by my petty attempts to move out of my current domus :P
Let's see when I will find time again, perhaps I will post a short story the next few days :)
Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net
Let's see when I will find time again, perhaps I will post a short story the next few days :)
Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net
Thursday, October 28, 2004
John Horvat has it right... partly
He writes in his column for telepolis.de:
This means in short, that they can take all data or hold persons which may or may not be guilty, because there is no sort of verification necessary. This is a new high in government observation and an addition extension of the Big Brother state.
Most likely, you cannot even get the information about the criteria via the "Freedom of Information Act" (which is not nearly as free as you think), because those data would fall under national security. Incidentially, those are listed under a category which is exempt from this Act. Tragical and pure luck, isn't it....
Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net
He writes in his column for telepolis.de:
Take, for example, America's proposed CAPPS II, a law which represents a
scary example of the extent to which a government seeks control. According to
this law, all airline passengers would be screened and their records would be checked against the FBI's NCIC (National Crime Information Center) database -- which, ironically, is exempt from requirements to ensure that its contents are accurate.
This means in short, that they can take all data or hold persons which may or may not be guilty, because there is no sort of verification necessary. This is a new high in government observation and an addition extension of the Big Brother state.
Most likely, you cannot even get the information about the criteria via the "Freedom of Information Act" (which is not nearly as free as you think), because those data would fall under national security. Incidentially, those are listed under a category which is exempt from this Act. Tragical and pure luck, isn't it....
Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net
Is Turkey ready for the EU?
The talks about the joining of turkey to the European Union has gone into the second round and they didn't lose momentum. In fact, they even built momentum in the last few days. Famous politicians, writers, artists and other stars have commented the attempt to include a partly-islamic country into the European Union.
I want to demonstrate the problem via the discussion in Germany. The socialist party hopes to get Turkey into the EU, because they believe that it would set an example to the rest of the world. What kind of example should that be, you ask?
Well, they want to demonstrate that there is no difference between an islamic-secular country and the western world and they want to show that we can live together peacefully. They hope to get access to the Middle East and disolve the resentments of the Mullahs and Theocracies.
Then there is the conservative party, the CDU, which doesn't want them to join. In the wake of the anti-Turkey voices of the conservatives swims the liberal party FDP. And once the liberals have made the choice out of the right reasons.
Turkey, they reason, is still not ready to join up, because they still violate human rights, aren't truly secular, because they still prevent the ancient rule of patriachic nations. The administration of Erdogan does nothing to prevent abuse of women by their husbands and they still torture their prisoners if necessary.
Those violations of human rights are no small things and should alone stop the integration until they are solved sufficiently.
So, my opinion is clearly towards more talks, but no integration until we have a truly democratic turkey with safe civil liberties.
Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net
The talks about the joining of turkey to the European Union has gone into the second round and they didn't lose momentum. In fact, they even built momentum in the last few days. Famous politicians, writers, artists and other stars have commented the attempt to include a partly-islamic country into the European Union.
I want to demonstrate the problem via the discussion in Germany. The socialist party hopes to get Turkey into the EU, because they believe that it would set an example to the rest of the world. What kind of example should that be, you ask?
Well, they want to demonstrate that there is no difference between an islamic-secular country and the western world and they want to show that we can live together peacefully. They hope to get access to the Middle East and disolve the resentments of the Mullahs and Theocracies.
Then there is the conservative party, the CDU, which doesn't want them to join. In the wake of the anti-Turkey voices of the conservatives swims the liberal party FDP. And once the liberals have made the choice out of the right reasons.
Turkey, they reason, is still not ready to join up, because they still violate human rights, aren't truly secular, because they still prevent the ancient rule of patriachic nations. The administration of Erdogan does nothing to prevent abuse of women by their husbands and they still torture their prisoners if necessary.
Those violations of human rights are no small things and should alone stop the integration until they are solved sufficiently.
So, my opinion is clearly towards more talks, but no integration until we have a truly democratic turkey with safe civil liberties.
Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net
Bush considers Europe to be a security problem
AND
German Bild endorses George W. Bush as President
Of course, security reasons is only the obvious part. Most likely, they don't want to have more anti-bush comments with proper reasoning and logic on their servers. And perhaps they don't want to terrify their European counter-parts with their theocratic agenda. Who knows?
It shows that you can even succeed with an unpopular policy, if you stick to it and you think it was right. If it was right, the truth will win and so it did (or at least the memory of the American citizen is very short).
So, I think Schröder went in the right direction and the American people start to believe him. That's what the poll indicats in my opinion.
German's biggest newspaper, that's right, but still the most supid one. I don't know anyone who truly appreciates the opinion of the "BILD Zeitung". Instead they think it is flat and not very detailed, oftened too sensational to be taken seriously.
But, well, let's go to their reasons, why Bush is the better alternative.
Bush has clear priorities, yes, and these priorities are the reason why not to appeal to him, because he is in favor of a theocratic democracy, because he applies a new form of socialism by the Right-Wing and he has the worst record on civil liberties I can think of (Patriot ACT I / II).
Bush has learned that force is the only way to make war on terrorism! That's another lie in itself. He didn't learn it, he just applied it and irgnores any consequences or logical fallacies in it! Instead Iraq is a shattered nation, terrorism is on the rise in all other countries. He has brought Iran to proliferation and Syria will surely follow to be at peace. Bush has ignited the Middle East in a new Jihad also affecting Israel and Palestine. Bush has started to impose sanctions on free trade and research (stem-cell imports and research f.e.). He has stopped the trade of work-force via the anti-terror policies. The once proud nation of immigrants has become a isolated suspicious island!
On the last two issues:
Bush has made errors and mistakes, but instead of admitting them or even performing better by learning from them. He will do them again and again! I don't this is a solution or an argument in this case.
The last one is stupid, because it is no valid argument for Bush. Yes, we know Bush and perhaps this is the reason, why we would even go with an unkown?!
All in all, this evaluation of Bush is again short and stupid, even for BILD standards.
Some other interesting parts
Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net
AND
German Bild endorses George W. Bush as President
The Spiegel reports of some truly stupidious and bad explained acts on behalf of the George Bush campaign team:
Wanna log on to George W. Bush's re-election website? No problem. If you happen
to be in the United States that is. For everyone else on the planet, the Web
site www.georgewbush.com is blocked. "Error message 403. Access denied." The
move by Bush campaign officials to block the site to visits from outside the US
comes following an attack on the domain last week that shut it down for two
days. The assault was a so-called "Denial of Service" attack, whereby a huge
number of computers are hijacked and used to simultaneously log-on to the same
site. The site's server crashes under the strain. The site was blacked out on
Monday. "We took this measure for security reasons," Bush spokesman Scott
Stanzel said on Wednesday following days of silence on the issue. (1:45 p.m.
CET)
Of course, security reasons is only the obvious part. Most likely, they don't want to have more anti-bush comments with proper reasoning and logic on their servers. And perhaps they don't want to terrify their European counter-parts with their theocratic agenda. Who knows?
When German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder pledged, in 2002, to oppose a US attack on Iraq, the image of Germans in the mind of most Americans went down the tubes. Now, however, a new poll offers hope that the transatlantic ice age may be ending. US pollster Magid, working with the German Information Center, asked Americans how they viewed German-American relations and found that 35 percent felt they were "excellent" or "good," up from only 17 percent in a poll taken a week after Baghdad fell in April 2003. After Britain, which got an 88 percent approval rating, 57 percent of Americans further said that Germany was the country's most-important European partner. Nevertheless, the Foreign Ministry in Berlin still has its work cut out for it: 45 percent of Americans still think Germany is a stray ship. Still, "the trend is going in the right direction," Germany's ambassador to Washington, Wolfgang Ischinger told reporters. (12:38 p.m. CET)Is it? I don't believe it, just because a poll said that more people like Germans. I don't want to be liked by people who support someone I despice, because this only gives you goose-bumps. They might actually know something, you don't and it will surely be to your disadvantage. Another precious detail in this poll, when applied to our anti-war policy, is the short period of hatred against Germany, which has decreased (as the poll indicates) and I can only affirm it, because I have been to New York in Mid-August.
It shows that you can even succeed with an unpopular policy, if you stick to it and you think it was right. If it was right, the truth will win and so it did (or at least the memory of the American citizen is very short).
So, I think Schröder went in the right direction and the American people start to believe him. That's what the poll indicats in my opinion.
Lest you think that everyone in Europe is anti-Bush, the German tabloid
Bild comes through on Wednesday with "Ten Reasons George W. Bush is the Better
President:
1. Bush has clear priorities.
2. Bush has learned that military strength is the only answer to
fanatics.
3. Under Bush, the US will continue to bear the financial, military and
casualty burden in the fight against terrorism.
4. Bush will do everything he can to prevent nuclear proliferation.
5. Bush has learned that America can defeat every country in war, but needs
allies in peace. Thus, his second term will be characterized by cooperation with
international partners.
6. Bush knows Europe is militarily weak, so he won't ask them for
help.
7. Under Bush, America will remain a strong partner for Israel in its fight
for survival.
8. Republicans have always been stronger supporters of free trade than
Democrats.
9. Every new American administration makes mistakes. Bush has already made
his.
10. With Bush, we know what to expect. With Kerry, we don't. (Wednesday,
4:18 p.m. CET)
German's biggest newspaper, that's right, but still the most supid one. I don't know anyone who truly appreciates the opinion of the "BILD Zeitung". Instead they think it is flat and not very detailed, oftened too sensational to be taken seriously.
But, well, let's go to their reasons, why Bush is the better alternative.
Bush has clear priorities, yes, and these priorities are the reason why not to appeal to him, because he is in favor of a theocratic democracy, because he applies a new form of socialism by the Right-Wing and he has the worst record on civil liberties I can think of (Patriot ACT I / II).
Bush has learned that force is the only way to make war on terrorism! That's another lie in itself. He didn't learn it, he just applied it and irgnores any consequences or logical fallacies in it! Instead Iraq is a shattered nation, terrorism is on the rise in all other countries. He has brought Iran to proliferation and Syria will surely follow to be at peace. Bush has ignited the Middle East in a new Jihad also affecting Israel and Palestine. Bush has started to impose sanctions on free trade and research (stem-cell imports and research f.e.). He has stopped the trade of work-force via the anti-terror policies. The once proud nation of immigrants has become a isolated suspicious island!
On the last two issues:
Bush has made errors and mistakes, but instead of admitting them or even performing better by learning from them. He will do them again and again! I don't this is a solution or an argument in this case.
The last one is stupid, because it is no valid argument for Bush. Yes, we know Bush and perhaps this is the reason, why we would even go with an unkown?!
All in all, this evaluation of Bush is again short and stupid, even for BILD standards.
Some other interesting parts
Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
On a side note
http://cordair.com
This is a site you should check out of you are interested in realistic and meaningful paintings/drawings and/or scultpures. Quent Cordair presents some beautiful images of aspiring and inspiring artists, especially the degree of realism is sometimes disturbing.
All those images are well crafted and show some of the virtues of Objectivism and more so Liberalism. The freedom of man to do what he needs to be happy, the liberty to free himself of his restrictions, the ascent of happiness.
This is one of those pictures I love. It is named "Mind over Matter" and was painted by Sylvia Bokor. She grandly captures the theme of Mind over Matter, while the blue sky represents the sky without limits and thus shows that we are not limited by Earth, because our destiny is up there. The blue represents freedom of mind and thereby freedom of the individual. It also gives the impression of a moved image with the clouds in the middle-lower picture.
Above the clouds you can see a plane crossing the sky, leaving a white line behind. The plane could also represent freedom, but most likely turns on man's achievement to dominate, control and understand nature. Ultimately, it shows how man used nature to conquer it in a peaceful and gentle way. Again you see the two dominating colors in it, blue and white. Those two colors are also meant to symbolise liberty and individualism, because they refer to the U.S. Independence War.
Of course, there are still more symbols, analogies and impressions in this picture, but I only wanted to demonstrate some of its qualities.
So, now, you are off to look for yourself and perhaps get yourself some of this wonderful works of art.
Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net
http://cordair.com
This is a site you should check out of you are interested in realistic and meaningful paintings/drawings and/or scultpures. Quent Cordair presents some beautiful images of aspiring and inspiring artists, especially the degree of realism is sometimes disturbing.
All those images are well crafted and show some of the virtues of Objectivism and more so Liberalism. The freedom of man to do what he needs to be happy, the liberty to free himself of his restrictions, the ascent of happiness.
This is one of those pictures I love. It is named "Mind over Matter" and was painted by Sylvia Bokor. She grandly captures the theme of Mind over Matter, while the blue sky represents the sky without limits and thus shows that we are not limited by Earth, because our destiny is up there. The blue represents freedom of mind and thereby freedom of the individual. It also gives the impression of a moved image with the clouds in the middle-lower picture.
Above the clouds you can see a plane crossing the sky, leaving a white line behind. The plane could also represent freedom, but most likely turns on man's achievement to dominate, control and understand nature. Ultimately, it shows how man used nature to conquer it in a peaceful and gentle way. Again you see the two dominating colors in it, blue and white. Those two colors are also meant to symbolise liberty and individualism, because they refer to the U.S. Independence War.
Of course, there are still more symbols, analogies and impressions in this picture, but I only wanted to demonstrate some of its qualities.
So, now, you are off to look for yourself and perhaps get yourself some of this wonderful works of art.
Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net
The Election in the United States comes closer and closer...
Yet, there are still so many lies and a deceiving administration that blocks any attempt to get an objective truth out of the dozen reports. Fakes, like Bush's hysterical terror warning, sheddered my truth in any good information policy in the current government of the USA.
Despite all the uncovered truthes, that Iraq was no direct threat, that there was no link to Al-Qaida before 9/11 and so forth, there are still people in the U.S. who stick to this lying example of a spine-less person.
Instead of facing the truth, he continues making up his dream-world (as seeing in the faked terror-alert). Can YOU trust someone, who does not trust this world, who doesn't believe in a real world?
The old hype of the Republicans, that most media-channels are in control of the Democratsm is history if you watched TV lately. Just take FOX News, which is clearly patriotically and right-winged, but the problematic thing is that it can reach millions of homes at once. And what leftist media stands against it? CNN? It's not that left-sided....
And where is a liberal channel by and for liberals? There is no such thing in the most liberal country on Earth (still).. Or at least, there is no country-wide channel and thus the liberal party will never claim what could be a middle path between the two extremes. But, meh, this is again very biased, isn't it?
But, well, it is still yours to decide what is true and what not...
Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net
Yet, there are still so many lies and a deceiving administration that blocks any attempt to get an objective truth out of the dozen reports. Fakes, like Bush's hysterical terror warning, sheddered my truth in any good information policy in the current government of the USA.
Despite all the uncovered truthes, that Iraq was no direct threat, that there was no link to Al-Qaida before 9/11 and so forth, there are still people in the U.S. who stick to this lying example of a spine-less person.
Instead of facing the truth, he continues making up his dream-world (as seeing in the faked terror-alert). Can YOU trust someone, who does not trust this world, who doesn't believe in a real world?
The old hype of the Republicans, that most media-channels are in control of the Democratsm is history if you watched TV lately. Just take FOX News, which is clearly patriotically and right-winged, but the problematic thing is that it can reach millions of homes at once. And what leftist media stands against it? CNN? It's not that left-sided....
And where is a liberal channel by and for liberals? There is no such thing in the most liberal country on Earth (still).. Or at least, there is no country-wide channel and thus the liberal party will never claim what could be a middle path between the two extremes. But, meh, this is again very biased, isn't it?
But, well, it is still yours to decide what is true and what not...
Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)