Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Living Other People's Lives, A Dutch view on the Communitarian v Liberalism divide

Have a few days of fast internet left and watching videos every chance I have. Here's a youtube presentation of another young European man's fundamental, philisophical view of the Dutch Prime Minister's Communitarian paternalism. He gets it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yoi9joi2vm8&NR=1

I still find it amazing that Europeans know so much about this theory of law when Americans still call it a conspiracy theory.

Hardcopy Manifesto update: We are looking at the proof this week. We expect it to take one more week before they're ready to ship. Thank you for your paitence!

Obama's selection of Hillary Clinton as Sec State has to mean more than just a bottle of champagne for Communitarian Network founder Amitai Etzioni. I'd think 2 openly communitarian politicians leading the White House would call for something just a little bit stronger.

Wasn't Hillary the one who used the term communitarian when she was campaigning in Iowa? And Bill is going to distance himself from his Global Initiative when Obama sponsored the Global Poverty Act?

4 comments:

Did NWO Fabians murder John Smith MP? said...

Hi Niki

This may interest you.

A clear motive for the possible murder of John Smith MP has now appeared.

Did New World Order Fabians murder John Smith MP?

the tent lady said...

This does interest me. I know nothing of John Smith MP. I didn't begin my research until 1999, 4 years after he died when it was probably not news anymore (if indeed it ever was in the U.S.). Interesting way of publishing too... :)

I watched part of the movie about the "Quuen" the other night and thought it a bizarre attempt to persuade me that she is a devoted innocent. Mr. Blair is presented the same way Bill Clinton was to us, not suprising considering their private relationship.

Hmmm. There's always been a lot of speculation about the people who died around the Clntons too.

Is assasinating political opponents a normal occurence that continues into modern times, or shall we believe moral globalists who assure us the "westernized" nations evolved and are above this sort of barbarism?

Sorta ties into all the "who killed JFK?" theories (all of which are being thoroughly debunked right now on History channell). Only government accounts are allowed. The lone gunman theory is the oly one allowed.

Fatal car accidents are always accidents, random muggings are always random, convienent heart attacks are always natural (like the UK UN weapons inspector who said Iraq didn't have WMDS), and it was just a miracle that the U.S. govt knew immediately on 9/11 who did it and why.

Bobby Garner said...

History revision begins in realtime as its being made. For instance, in Gibson's interview of President and Laura Bush on Dec. 1st, Gibson ask Bush about his "greatest disappointment", and Bush said "Well, I mentioned one, and that is no weapons of mass destruction. I think another -- in Iraq.". Obviously there was something to add, but he ended with an incoherent sentence. This will be found in the ABC transcript, but two other versions I found are missing any mention of Iraq or WMD's. The White House apparently hasn't posted the interview yet. The search Interview, president, "Charles Gibson" AND "ABC News" produces just 7 hits, and only one of them this year.

Gibson asked a few pretty good questions, but Bush generally avoided direct answers, sometimes implying that the question had been different. Its convenient to misunderstand the question if you don't like it, and you want to answer another one instead. Gibson and most professional interviewers rarely ever follow up.

the tent lady said...

I have noticed more than a few progressive writers who've repeated the Bush quote, I'd assumed it was solid news. Heh. Be interesting to see what the WH posts, won't it?

It's a lot like my asking Seattle under what exact authority city officials rewrote US constitutional law. As a conscript in their 'pilot test of innovative new enforcement strategies', I thought I had a 'right' to know more about this new program. I also thought I had a 'right' to know more about their new federal policing programs, particularly the ones designed to uphold their new revisions (or 'balances' as they prefer to call it).

Their answer to my questions was always, "Don't you want to live in a nice community, Niki?"

My follow up was always, "What's your definition of 'nice'?"

Their answer? "It's a livability issue. It's about quality of life."

And then they had the nerve to question my motives and my sanity.