Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Coming Out - What I would do if I were "running the country"

I've been a recipient on Peter Myer's elist for several years. I found his website Neither Aryan nor Jew to be a solid academic resource for historical references. I also get a lot of the Asian-Pacific and banking/financial perspective from his forwarded mainstream news articles. I found him to be an interesting man who shared similar interests in self sufficency and learning to build cool things. He's never once discussed communitarianism with me, and it's only been introduced to his list a couple times. When it is, it's always ignored.

So this week I sent him the Clinton calls for Communitarianism in Quebec speech and asked him if we could finally open up the topic, since it's so current. He responded how he would free Australians by taking control of their lives by regulating television and shutting down gambling and other things that hurt people. His policy ideas are what he calls Authoritarian. After he responded, I told him his response sounded very communist and he assured me he is a Socialist.

He explained his understanding of communitarianism without ever saying the word, not once:
"Tony Blair is quoted as an exemplar of the "Third Way" path. Let's suppose this refers to a synthesis between Capitalism and Communism, in which case it combines the WORST features of each (Laissez-Faire from Capitalism, and Hate Laws ie Totalitarianism from Communism).

"If we are to have a synthesis between the two, why not, instead, combine the BEST part of each: Free Speech from Capitalism with Full Employment (a managed economy) from Communism. East European Communism had some private ownership - a mixed economy to a degree - unlike the USSR. Australia of the 1950s & 60s was a much better example of a mixed economy."
Key words: "if we are to have a synthesis." Peter Myers advocates for friendlier communitarianism as if it is inevitable. He obviously believes in the Hegelian theory of forced social evolution and only differs on the exact tactics a national system for the global common good should use on the citizenry. He's what Etzioni would call a "soft communitarian" as opposed to the more sadistic change agents who advocate for violent change. For perspective, he posted a nice article by Etzioni published in a London paper in 1995 after my response.

Peter told me what he would do if he were running his county, and when I ignored that except to ask if there would be limitations on his power, (in almost the same way he ignored my Jesuit quote about the Hegelian communitarian synthesis), his next response insisted I tell him where I stand:
"What ARE your policies on those and other matters? You can't just say, "I'd leave that to Congress" - you've got to say where you stand - how you'd run things if you were in a position of power. It's time to Come Out."
I never said I'd leave anything to Congress, I never even mentioned the Congress. He's arguing against me for something I never said. Pretty slick moves there Peter. I'm impressed. I also never heard the term American Exceptionalism until he said my philosophy sounds like it. When I looked it up I was amazed at how much foreigners who write about Americans don't know about Americans. Foreigners don't get to use American communitarian policies and wars to describe American sentiments to me. Socialist and Hollywood views based in dialectical social evolution theory are not valid assumptions and have previously been rendered moot in the ACL manifesto. The current debate is over communitarianism being an illegal action plan for changing America and not which inevitable communitarian system is a "better" synthesis.

My problem is I know debating social issues like gambling and health care is a Marxist dialectical trap. I saw exactly where he wanted me to take our discussion; right back to Nowhere. I was supposed to change the topic from my ACL thesis and ongoing research, ignore what Clinton said and forget my documented charges against seditious communitarianism. What's more important to Socialists is my personal beliefs about what people should have to do. Not only is it irrelevant, but I don't have those. I really don't care if Americans go bowling alone or in groups. So I sat down to write a response, planning to call him out on avoiding the topic, and instead I wrote this:

Response to peter 10-28-09

Dear Peter,

At first I was going to explain to you that as an American I don't have any policies or plans for what I'd do if I was running my country. I have no desire to take on that job and most average Americans like me don't think in your sociological terms. But then I thought about it and wondered what I would do if I were somehow thrown into a position where Americans would ask me to lead them. This will never happen, but okay, I'll bite. Here's what I would do if I were running my country after my countrymen elected me:

What I would do if I were "running the country"

I would ask the duly elected representatives in our state legislatures to examine my charges against the communitarians during open, public hearings. I would ask them to vote for or against communitarianism. If 3/4 of our state legislatures vote against me and instead agree to ammend the US Constitution in favor of communitarianism, I would retire from public life, and immigrate.

If I'm still in "power" after the states decide to keep me as their temporary "emergency" leader, and nobody's assassinated me yet,

The first act of my public office would be to acknowledge the declaration of WAR against the United States by international communitarians.

I would declare null and void all US policy that places communitarian law over US constitutional law. If the communitarians resist our restoring the legitimate legal order, the ensuing bloodbath would be horrendous, and is to be avoided as much as possible, I agree, but actually fighting in this war is of vital importance and necessary for the future general welfare of our nation. Indeed, if we do not fight now, we will forever lose our children's rights to life, liberty and property.

I would void ALL international trade and security agreements that place communitarian law over US constitutional Law and restore the legitimate rule of law to the American people.

I'd put out arrest warrants upon every Americans suspected of implementing communitarianism in these United States to be tried in new American courts adhering to ONLY Constitutional law.

If I was granted the kinds of powers Peter Myers seems to think a president (or King) should have, I might go even further with my plans for restoring legitimacy here. Given the green light by my countrymen to pursue the communitarians until they are purged from our shores,

I would void any law enforcement authority bestowed upon government agencies or departments that adopted communitarian visions for achieving sustainable development.

I would restore separation of powers, as per constitutional requirements, right after the states replace every seditious congressional representative who clings to communitarian rule of law

I would forbid the continuance of American military/CIA covert operations in foreign nations.

I would withdraw US membership from the communitarian United Nations. I would revoke US support for the communitarian Earth Charter.

I would void every communitarian UN Local Agenda 21 Plan active in the United States.

I would dismantle the communitarian banking cartel starting with abolishing the Internal Revenue Service.

I'd freeze the federal budget and cancel every financial agreement tied to Wall Street.

I would ask the states for the money to hire 100 small town accountants (two from each state) to balance our federal budget, release the report to the public and ask them to suggest innovative, legal ways to quit using the communitarian's Federal Reserve Notes as our currency.

Yes, I would crash American participation in the world "free" market and bring the whole British Rothschild financial scam to a screeching halt. The pain and misery it would cause would be nothing compared to the death and destruction we will experience if we do nothing to stop them.

I would replace the Feds money with new American currency backed by gold, silver, copper, US oil and gas reserves, or any other tangible commodity available in the USA. I'd make every assurance that we as a nation will uphold our nation's legitimate debts to every nation and private contractor that can extablish evidence theirs was not a communitarian agreement with the now banished American communitarian traitors.

I would redesign the communitarians' 1992 Rebuilding America plan using the textbooks describing the American System of Political Economy as guides. I would outlaw any programs based in dialectical materialism or dialectical idealism. We would proceeed by way of observation and not by the communitarian way of illusion.

I would call out the state militias and deputize every law abiding citizen in the country who swears to uphold the constitution of their states. I would assign professional soldiers and private mercenaries to assist in building the militias into a well organized units prepared to protect American borders and homes from communitarian terrorists, both foreign and domestic.

I would end the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and pull our troops out of every other foreign conflict that involves ANY collaboration with communitarians from Israel or Great Britian.

I would cease the War on Terror, both domestically and overseas. I would command our Armed Forces personell in combat zones to make plans to return home in 90 days. I would ask them to search their hearts for what's right and just, and to remember what they swore to defend and uphold. I would plead to them to do their part in healing the terrible rift the communitarians have caused using our country's strength and bravery. I would ask our soldiers to become our emmisaries of real peace by buying all their goods from local merchants wherever they're stationed, to help establish a firm, friendly trading foundation for their children's future, while under command to shoot anyone who continues to take up arms against them.

I would issue the final above directive to every American who, under their constitutions, is required to participate in their own defense. I would also run this drastic idea past every loyal American military professional under my command. I would need moral men capable of taking on the challenge of making my last ditch effort plan work.

I would quit NATO. I would not allow our nation to depend on NATO for assistance in any disaster. No foreign troops would be allowed on American soil, every country with troops staioned in the US would have 30 days to pull every last one out. The only Rapid Defense we need right now is aganst the communitarians.

I would make sure FEMA is fired for their role in Katrina. Using the same power, I would delete The Department of Homeland Security and DARPA from legitimate government operations. We need professional Americans to take back the reigns of American government. All legitimate law enfocrcement programs at the local and state levels would be returned to lawfully elected local law enforcement personel. The FBI would be encouraged to mend their ways. I'd open a new investigation into 9/11, Waco, and Oklahoma under the judicial direction of rank and file professional and volunteer American firefighters and demolition experts.

I would cancel all government no-bid contracts and sever all financial ties to the state of Israel. Americans caught sending money to Israel would be deported to Russia.

I would impose ridiculously high National Tariffs on all foreign imports; Chinese, and all other communist made goods would be stamped MADE by SLAVE LABOR.

I would remove all federal taxes from American made goods and eliminate bureaus and agencies that survive by extortion.

I would politely suggest Americans buy up all the goods they can from large scale, foreign made manufacturers because everything will be legal barter after the Fed collapses and the Tariffs are imposed. I would suggest Americans think of things they can learn to produce for themselves and their neighbors once the foreign goods left on American shelves or in the hands of local scalpers are insanely expensive. Our people will have to become self producing and completely self-sustaining before our nation is healthy and strong enough to re-enter the global market. We must recreate what our enemy Lenin complained was a solid equilibrium between agriculture and industry before we can begin importing foreign made goods again. Only after we are no longer weak and dependent (like only a British colony can be) can we allow foreign competition into US local markets.

I would revise the communitarian's call to "national and local service and volunteerism "and ask our people to volunteer 2 years or 4000 hours to helping their neighborhoods repair the damage communitarianism has wreacked on American towns, farms, forests, cities, rivers, and people from all races, religions and classes. It will require all of America to dismantle local Agenda 21 at the local levels. American hands-on collaboration with foreigners dismantling LA-21 and establishing a protected economy in their home countries would be encouraged and rewarded.

I would shut down, banish the members and confiscate the properties of all academic institutions, think tanks, civil society organizations, churches, law firms and NGOs registered to do buisness in the USA connected to the UN who introduced seditious communitarian programs into the USA, to be divided equally between every American state citizen who files for a piece of it.

I would dismantle the communitarian program called Community Oriented Policing and all it's branches, Fusion Centers, Mapping, Interdepartmental Information Gathering et. al.

I would empty the prisons of all victimless criminals, starting with marijuana possession, DUIs, and all communitarian driving regulations. I would restore 2nd Amendment rights to American men charged and convicted under the communitarian's Domestic Violence Act of 1995.

I would give orders for law abiding, armed Americans to detain for questioning any police officer who arrests law abiding Americans for communitarian crimes. I would ask the counties, boroughs and parishes to form republican citizen's courts operating under state constitutional laws to try, convict and sentence, if found guilty, any federal or state prosecutor in the country who continues to prosecute Americans for committing communitarian crimes.

I would recall all grants to communitarian environmental and earth stewardship agencies and cancel all communitarian based Conservation Land Ownership contracts.

I would open up all communitarian controlled lands to US state citizens for economic redevelopment, starting with National Parks designated as UN Heritage Sites. I would open all public lands to rebuilding new towns, organic farms, using the fresh water supply, homesteading, logging operations, hunting, fishing, mining and other natural resource extractions. I would put back the management of these lands and operations under elected state and local officials.

I would command the FBI to "bring in" Dr. Amitai Etzioni on charges of treason and sedition.

I would command the FBI to expand their investigation of "Mega," (the high ranking Israeli spy the FBI suspects of being in the White House), to include Dr.Amitai Etzioni.

I would tell all known associates and followers of Etzioni's to leave this country immediately or face criminal charges for conspiracy to overthrow the lawful government of the United States. This would eliminate the Clintons, the Bushes and Obama from the American political scene, which would put a big crimp in the Rothschilds' communitarian control in the US.

I would dismantle the entire communitarian system in the US, starting with public education and all the other communitarian programs used to dumb my country down.

Then I would think that's probably enough for my first week on the job. My next week's activities would be determined by American reaction to the first.

He posted my above email to his list with his reponse tonight:

Comment (Peter M.):

That's more like it. This is the first time I've seen you say what should be done.

Before your email arrived, I was thinking of some "test cases" to put to you. One concerned MacDonalds and other "junk food" purveyors. They are causing obesity and diabetes type II. They are reaching into homes via ads on TV, enticing children to eat their junk instead of home-cooked meals. They are supplying toys to children, with the junk food, to get them to pressure their parents to keep coming back.

Before thse Fast Food chains became entrenched, people either ate at home, or ate at Cafes which were separate small businesses rather than Franchises of a big chain. Those Cafes were all different; they served more wholesome food, without the hype and the pressure of TV ads, and without roadside signs producing salivating Pavlovian reactions in those conditioned to eat this food.

Suppose that you took action against MacDonalds and the like, they would say that you were infringing their "individual rights" (and those of their customers). Their right to undermine your children; to reach into your house and appeal to your children over your head; to spread health problems like obesity and diabetes, leaving the public purse to foot the bill.

You may recall that George W. Bush signed a bill granting these Fast Food chains immunity from prosecution over the harm they've caused to individuals.

In your committment to the US Constitution, you spoke of the defence of individual rights. But what of cases where there's a conflict of rights - MacDonalds' "rights" vs the right of (dare I say it) Society?

You may recall that Margaret Thatcher said, "There is no such thing as Society". But I'm arguing that there's a Public Interest issue here: that MacDonalds are undermining the good of Society - the Common Good - and using the concept of "individual rights" in their defence.

The Communitarians you'd bring into line might also appeal to their "rights", and say they were protecting other "rights", namely the rights of Women, Gays, Children, threatened species etc.: a litany of "minorities". So, each side would appeal to "rights".

That's why I wanted you to go beyond abstract terms, to "Come Out". And you have, as a would-be Joan of Arc.

Monday, October 26, 2009

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010

Gisela from Alaskans Against the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) sent this with a warning to be careful what I say. She knows I don't advocate against any group, race, or religion except the communitarians. (As far as I know Etzioni's not a homosexual, I never felt the need to take my research in that direction). So why would she warn me about this? Well, she knows this is just the first stage of the extensive and far reaching planned Hate Crime legislation, and that once it passes it opens US doors to enacting harsher enforcement and expanded meanings that include international communitarian definitions of "hate".

So okay, I've been warned by a very compassionate fellow Alaskan who has studied the new system as well as any Alaskan I've met (or more). But, no way. I will never stop calling Etzioni a liar and a scam artist. Until the day I die I will openly and frequently refer to communitarians as traitors and terrorists. I will sing it loudly, write it with all the passion I feel, and learn to sign it if they cut out my tongue. I was born endowed with my individual right to express myself freely, no man or act of man's law can ever take that away. And yes, the ADL henchmen will keep pushing to include the Jews. We all know what a wimp Etzioni is when it comes to debate. He needs this protection from solid American researchers like me. Etzioni's always crying about how mean people are to him. He always pulls the Holocaust survivor (which is a boldfaced lie) card to shut down any serious attempts to challenge his loopy ideology and Hegelian solutions.

I don't hate Etzioni because he's a Jew, that matters about as much to me as whether he's a fag or not. I hate Etzioni because he used my nation to destroy what little freeedom existed in the world. National Defense in my playbook actually means protecting the USA from Israeli Mossad agents working under cover in the White House as gurus, advisers, and "everything experts". The FBI and the Pentagon need to start sending me a regular paycheck since I'm still doing their job for them. (According to the Army analyst who visited us summer of 2008, Etzioni was not even in the Pentagon datatabase of foreigners known to be terrorists living in the US.)

In case you're wondering, both Senators from Alaska are committed communitarians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have a shared communitarian consciousness.

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 - Vote Agreed to (68-29, 3 Not Voting)

The Senate gave final approval to this bill authorizing defense spending, which also contains a provision that extends the definition of federal hate crimes to include crimes in which victims are targeted because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski voted Not Voting......send e-mail or see bio
Sen. Mark Begich voted YES......send e-mail or see bio

Kevin Rudd's vision for Asia-Pacific community evolves

"It's important that we are in a conscious discussion and a conscious process to evolve options for regional institutions in the future rather than just sitting back and waiting for big problems to emerge." Kevin Rudd

Doesn't Rudd sound a lot like Clinton last week? :) Wouldn't a conscious person also want to know the idea and the formula for global forced social evolution into regional communities? It's not an accident that this regional community plan for Asia and the Pacifice includes providing "$50 million to help deploy civilian experts into disaster and conflict zones in the Asian region." As we learned from the Katrina fiasco, locals are NOT allowed to react to their own local disasters anymore. In an evolved, enlightened, conscious community, only outside "experts" are allowed to lead. And they're also the only ones allowed to "rebuild" after their ineptness causes complete demolitions.

Here's the emerging communitarian legal synthesis happening right now, in Asia and the Pacific. Apparently the Australians, like the Americans, aren't going to be told exactly what system of law this new trade agreement brings into every home in Australia. The reason we gave our book the title 2020: Our Common Destiny is because 2020 is the communitarians target year for completing regional integration. Many LA-21 plans use the year 2020 in their title, even here in independent Alaska there's an Anchorage 2020 Comprehensive Plan.

All of these communitarian regional plans begin as trade agreements, like the EU, and ALL of the plans are now based on the EU "model." There's not one original thing about this "community" plan, it follows the global community plan to a T. The actual legal ramifications of integration are cloaked behind lofty, idealistic phrases that describe how to build a regional architecture.(and I think this is a reference to freemasonry, Etzioni also calls himself "a global architect").

So here we have the National Security editor at the Australian News leading his countrymen by the nose into communitarian slave agreements. Whose security is Patrick Walters protecting with his fluffed up newspiece that leaves out the most important FACTS?

And yeah, the closer we get to global communitarian integration the further the left distances itself from the root philosophy driving our social evolution. The right stays in their anti Obama/healthcare mode... HOW is it possible I'm still one of a handful of researchers identifying the communitarian synthesis? Even people who claim they've heard the term continue to ignore it. That sure makes things a lot easier for the global communitarian cartel. From Peter Myer's elist:

(9) KEVIN Rudd's concept of an Asia-Pacific community by 2020

Kevin Rudd's vision for Asia-Pacific community evolves

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26259137-16953,00.html

Patrick Walters, National security editor | October 26, 2009

KEVIN Rudd's concept of an Asia-Pacific community by 2020 has been canvassed at the weekend's East Asia summit in Thailand together with a rival vision from new Japanese leader Yukio Hatoyama.

East Asian leaders meeting in Hua Hin yesterday discussed the broad regional architecture, with the Prime Minister promoting his plan both at the formal leaders' meeting and in a series on bilateral discussions.

"What I detect across the region is an openness to a discussion about how we evolve our regional architecture into the future," Mr Rudd said yesterday.

"It's important that we are in a conscious discussion and a conscious process to evolve options for regional institutions in the future rather than just sitting back and waiting for big problems to emerge."

Mr Hatoyama's plan is for the creation of an East Asian Community based firmly on the existing ASEAN regional institutions, which could exclude the US.

"You might ask Mr Rudd if his idea is more of an institutional approach than a functional approach," Japanese government spokesman Kazuo Kodama told journalists at the summit.

Mr Rudd also took the opportunity to lobby regional leaders on his plan in a series of bilateral talks with heads of government from South Korea, Japan, New Zealand and The Philippines.

Mr Rudd also announced Australia would provide $50 million to help deploy civilian experts into disaster and conflict zones in the Asian region.

"The government will create a register of up to 500 Australian specialists who will be able to be deployed overseas at rapid notice.

"They will be drawn from both the public and private sectors," he said.

Mr Rudd also confirmed the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand free trade agreement, signed this year, will formally come into force on January 1.

The agreement between the 10 ASEAN economies and Australia and New Zealand brings closer together 12 regional economies, with more than 600 million people and a combined GDP of $3.1 trillion.

Mr Rudd said the agreement would cover 20 per cent of Australia's two-way trade, worth $112 billion, and eliminate tariffs on 96 per cent of our exports to ASEAN nations by 2020.

The FTA covers tradable goods as well as services, investment, intellectual property and e-commerce.

The nations covered by the AANZFTA are the 10 ASEAN member states: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Burma, The Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, as well as Australia and New Zealand.

On Saturday, Mr Rudd met Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao to discuss the proposed Asia-Pacific community as well as the upcoming Copenhagen climate summit and bilateral issues, including the case of Stern Hu, the senior Rio Tinto executive held in detention by Chinese authorities since early July.

Mr Rudd said the Hu case was the subject of "intense and continuing discussion between the foreign ministries of China and Australia".

"My purpose in raising these matters today was simply to highlight the fact that this was a continuing matter of concern to Australia, and I will continue to do so in the future," he said.

Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said yesterday that bilateral relations with Beijing were getting back to "business as usual" in the wake of the Hu case.

"Whilst we've had some significant tensions in the relationship, we believe very much in the last month or so things are getting back to business as usual, and that's a very good thing with a very important relationship," Mr Smith said.

"We continue to urge the Chinese authorities to bring this matter to a conclusion as quickly as possible, to expedite it."

World press plays down Clinton's speech - or flat ignores it

The NYT, the Boston Globe, the LA Times, CNN, CBS, NBC and ALL political talk show hosts are ignoring what Clinton revealed in Montreal. Why can't Americans be TOLD YET?

Bill Clinton praises Canadian unity, the Globe and Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/bill-clinton-praises-canadian-unity/article1326579/ Interesting how the word "communitarianism is mentioned only once in this article, buried in the 10th graph. Compare this to the article in the Suburban News.

Why wasn't this news repeated by the US Press? Shouldn't Americans be told about communitarianism too?

The Star's article follwed the Suburban article: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/711404--clinton-glad-95-quebec-referendum-didn-t-lead-to-canadian-divorce but focuses on the failed Canadian "divorce". Kathleen at Habeas Corpus Canada explains why the failure was necessary in order to establish a communitarian regional government in Canada.

So what's more important, as in what's "hard news" as opposed to "fluff?" I studied journalism at UMass, Amherst under profs who also sat on city desks. I think Professor Howard Ziff would have flunked me for sure if I'd have chosen Bill's opinion of the Canadian referendum over his call for communitarian consciousness. Such an unfamiliar term gives it a higher placement in the story, but hmm. Did Clinton's speechwriters include the "joke" about separation to give the Canadian press something to write about other than his communitarian "call"?

So where's the US Press coverage of this historical speech? Notta. Zip. Zero. As far as the American press, BOTH RIGHT and LEFT, is concerned, this is NOT NEWS. But as we know, most Americans have never even heard of it. What is news in America nowadays anyway?

It was important enough for the ecofriendlymind.com to post it (along with a whole bunch of other topics related to communitarianism) http://www.ecofriendlymind.com/eco-news/news/Communitarianism.html. They have a link to an article at prison planet where a commentor brings up communitarianism: http://www.prisonplanet.com/russia%E2%80%99s-leaders-see-china-as-template-for-ruling.html

So here's Makegood blog about what else was going on at McGill University when Clinton was there telling us about our shared communitarian consciounsess:
"I chaired two sessions titled “Engaging the Next Generation of Volunteers” at the McGill Leadership Summit on Thursday, October 15th in Montreal. McGill is in the midst of a $750 million capital campaign; they recently passed the $500 million mark. The Leadership Summit is a gathering of campaign volunteers from far-flung committee outposts throughout Canada, the US and beyond."
So others attended from the US and beyond (as Buzz Lightyear says, to infinity.. and beyond!). Why didn't ONE of the attendees from the US send a news story or something to an American newspaper about it? Do they all sign non disclosure agreements like that Ophra class at Northwestern or lke what the reporters sign who attend Bilderberg meetings?

Here's Makegood (who apparently likes the idea) quoting a summary of Bill's speech :
"Clinton concluded by cautioning that an unequal world is not a sustainable world and it is not a safe world. He suggested that it is only by addressing these global inequities, and creating a great balance through the world, and spreading hope for a better future, that the challenges of the 21st century will be met. He believes a communitarian consciousness will be build hope in the world."
Now we're "building hope" too. Great. I'm on a budget here. How much does that cost?

Does it matter to the American "anti" LA-21 programme for sustainable development crowd that Bill made the EXACT same connection I made, and Bill said the EXACT same thing I said?

Bill Clinton just told the world that communitarians are building a sustainable world, and nobody in America needs to be told what that means or that he said it at all?

And yes it sounds perfect, beyond religion, beyond mere spirituality. It's so profound only a few special people understand it, and they are the leaders training NOW to show the rest of us sinners the path to communitarian freedom (which only looks like slavery to the unenlightened). How many suckers worldwide are convinced they are more spiritually evolved and now happily consider themselves communitarians, without the first clue communitarians are liars, thieves and murderers? And I'll just bet the faithful will deny it, no matter how much evidence they see that proves the concept of sustainability is a total lie. Once we come to believe in a power greater than ourselves that can heal the world...we just don't let go of that power very easily.

Just stumbled on this long, referenced academic article by Menno R. Kamminga (International Relations and International Organization, University of Groningen) article that argues:
"Sociologist Amitai Etzioni has gained much attention for his communitarian realist theory of foreign politics. Etzioni’s conception of an adequate, principled and pragmatic, foreign politics emphasizes both empirical and moral factors. This article analyses Etzioni’s foreign politics view from a political-ethical perspective. It claims that Etzioni’s view lacks an adequate ethical and policy foundation and thus falls short political-ethically. Etzioni’s communitarian realism fails to offer proper guidance to foreign politics." http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=158

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Common Purpose Philosophy in the London Patriot

This post includes a great quote that calls communitarianism "the tyranny of popularity".

http://www.londonpatriot.org/2009/10/24/common-purpose-philosophy-communitarianism/

COMMON PURPOSE PHILOSOPHY – COMMUNITARIANISM

European Union Collective of Communist Purpose EUCCPCommon Purpose is part of the New World Order and sustainable development movement. The main objective of Common Purpose is social control in a collectivist and corporatist society.

The philosophy behind Common Purpose is a strange mixture of Capitalism and Communism called Communitarianism.

Communitarianism – which is difficult to pin down – is a type of Neo-Communism that owes some of its ideas to Gramsci and the Fabians. When Tony B Liar talked about the ‘Third Way’, he meant Communitarianism.

Communitarianism is a “Big Brother knows best” type of philosophy.

Barack Obama is a Fabian Communitarian, although you will not have heard him use the term during his election campaign. Americans will get a shock when the truth of his hidden agenda becomes known and they find out his real intentions. Bear in mind that Obama is simply a front-man for the New World Order Communitarians.

Communitarians want to create a post-modern, post-democratic feudal society run by a small number of rich and powerful people with everyone else working as peasants. In order to achieve their objectives they must destroy the middle class and the nation state.

These links will explain more about this evil and dictatorial philosophy:

For up-to-date news and discussion about Communitarianism, see Niki Raapana’s excellent analysis.

For an excellent overview of what is going on, see The EU Communitarian Agenda and The New Feudalists.

Matthew D. Jarvie’s “The Fabian Society, Communitarianism and the New World Order” video.

An economic overview of the NWO (from a US perspective): The International Forecaster.

Slightly OT, here is sound advice from someone who understands the economics of what is going on (also from a US perspective): Europac (Peter Schiff).

Quotes

“In a communitarian society, which is inherently coercive, it isn’t just the majority view that prevails and becomes policy, the majority view is the only one which can be spoken, the only one which can be even heard.”
Medawar

“Communitarianism is a collectivist philosophy that explicitly rejects individualism.”
Black Crayon

“…ideology of ‘civic society’ (or communitarism), which is nothing less than one version of post-Marxist collectivism which wants privileges for organized groups, and in consequence, a refeudalization of society.”
Vaclav Klaus

“In general communitarians emphasize society rather than the individual and believe that group responsibilities (to family, community, nation, the globe) should trump individual rights.”
Libertarians vs. Communitarians

“Communitarianism is not about ‘the common good’. It’s about power and the absolute and dictatorial control of money and people – nothing more and nothing less.”
Communitarianism – the dictatorship of everything

“The communitarians work behind the scenes. Élite communitarian ‘thinkers’ quietly slide their new laws inside projects and programs few regular folks will think (or dare) to question. And, just so you won’t look any closer, (or open your mouth to ask one dumb question) the communitarians mask their fascist programs behind all kinds of lovely phrasing. The new phrases work so well that if you do speak up with a debateable question, it means you don’t want to live in a ’safe and healthy community.’ And since everyone has to agree in order to reach communitarian consensus, you will be shunned and excluded from the decision making ‘councils’ that control the new districts. Go ahead and try, but the shifty communitarians will NEVER debate you because their programs are based entirely in a lie called communism.”
The Anti-Communitarian League (ACL)

“We are witnessing a seizure and redirection of power through legitimate means. This is not a dictatorship but something more complex: the tyranny of popularity.”
Utopian Delusions – Communitarianism

“There has been very little systematic criticism of ideological communitarianism, if only because its exact premises and policy consequences are difficult to pin down. Those wary of it tend to be individualist thinkers who worry that self-described communitarians are actually stealth collectivists; or, more plausibly, that the main effect of well-intentioned communitarian rhetoric is to provide cover for collectivists with a much farther-reaching and harsher agenda than the communitarians intend.”
Wikipedia – Communitarianism

“The Communitarian pitch to balance rights and responsibilities thus masks an attempt to shift the basic nature of rights and responsibilities from individuals to the community, i.e. to the state.”
Rights, Responsibilities, and Communitarianism

“The cult television series ‘The Prisoner’ tells the story of a man who, after losing and then regaining consciousness, opens the blinds of his London flat to find that the world outside has undergone a Kafkaesque transformation: the skyscrapers and city streets visible from his window have been replaced with a small and serene village. (2) Accompanying this stark change in his external environment is a sharp decrease in his freedom. Whereas his life in London was his own, he discovers upon venturing out into the village (3) that his decisions and actions are now community property. He is watched everywhere he goes both by neighbors and hidden cameras. (4) He is expected to be an enthusiastic participant in all communal events, and is ostracized as ‘unmutual’ when he instead seeks out privacy and seclusion. (5) The town’s authorities are intent on ensuring that residents cannot opt out of village life: quaint taxis transport people within the village, but never outside of it; phone service is strictly local; maps at the village store show nothing beyond the community’s boundaries. (6) Each showing of independence or defiance by the protagonist brings strong pressure from the authorities to fully account for (and recant) his actions. (7) In short, his familiar urban life is replaced with a communitarian dystopia, hostile to privacy and deeply suspicious of every act of individuality.”
The dangers of fighting terrorism with technocommunitarianism

It's still bear season at Camp Redington

This has certainly been a year for bears around here. We've had several carousing the neighborhoods over the summer. After one griz broke into 5 houses and actually tore huge logs off the back of one a 1/2 mile away, Nordica made me let her brings the dogs back inside gertee. Can't imagine what it'd be like if one of these broke into gertee but it's another good reason to keep up with the slop buckets and dirty dishes. :)

Tim's nephew Ray Jr. got this 800 lb griz last night. It charged them on the trapline, very scary story. Ray Jr. has run the Iditarod 8 times and usually places in the top 20. I think Ray Jr. may become the first Redington to win the race, although I'm guessing his cousin Ryan would disagree with that prediction.

The paws are 8 inches wide

I took video of Tim skinning it; usually leave before that part. Nordica made me change clothes and put them in a plastic bag when I got home. :)

It took 3 men to drag it off the truck

It's an odd feeling being so close to one, even when they're dead.

Tim and Ray Jr. looking for bullets

Friday, October 23, 2009

Rahm Emanuel and Obama's "Quiet Revolution"

Some of my readers may remember my article last spring, "Join the Quiet Revolution" where I detailed the quiet revolution of US policing. At the end I used a quote from the Harvard Crimson Review about Emanuel's philosophy of "universal citizen service" in the style of the IDF.

"It’s not only the promise of money that is motivating change."
David Brooks
Op-Ed Columnist for the New York Times

The Quiet Revolution

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/opinion/23brooks.html

By DAVID BROOKS

Published: October 22, 2009

A few weeks ago, “Saturday Night Live” teased President Obama for delivering great speeches but not actually bringing change. There’s at least one area where that jibe is unfair: education.

David Brooks

When Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan came to office, they created a $4.3 billion Race to the Top fund. The idea was to use money to leverage change. The administration would put a pile of federal money on the table and award it to a few states that most aggressively embraced reform.

Their ideas were good, and their speeches were beautiful. But that was never the problem. The real challenge was going to be standing up to the teachers’ unions and the other groups that have undermined nearly every other reform effort.

The real questions were these: Would the administration water down their reform criteria in the face of political pressure? Would the Race to the Top money end up getting doled out like any other federal spending program, and thus end up subsidizing the status quo? Would the administration hold the line and demand real reform in exchange for the money?

There were many reasons to be skeptical. At the behest of the teachers’ unions, the Democrats had just shut down a successful District of Columbia voucher program. Moreover, state legislatures around the country were moving backward. They were passing laws prohibiting schools from using student performance as a criterion in setting teacher pay.

But, so far, those fears are unjustified. The news is good. In fact, it’s very good. Over the past few days I’ve spoken to people ranging from Bill Gates to Jeb Bush and various education reformers. They are all impressed by how gritty and effective the Obama administration has been in holding the line and inciting real education reform.

Over the summer, the Department of Education indicated that most states would not qualify for Race to the Top money. Now states across the country are changing their laws: California, Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin and Tennessee, among others.

It’s not only the promise of money that is motivating change. There seems to be some sort of status contest as states compete to prove they, too, can meet the criteria. Governors who have been bragging about how great their schools are don’t want to be left off the list.

These changes mean that states are raising their caps on the number of charter schools. When charters got going, there was a “let a thousand flowers bloom” mentality that sometimes led to bad schools. Now reformers know more about how to build charters and the research is showing solid results. Caroline Hoxby of Stanford University recently concluded a rigorous study of New York’s charter schools and found that they substantially narrowed the achievement gap between suburban and inner-city students.

The changes also will mean student performance will increasingly be a factor in how much teachers get paid and whether they keep their jobs. There is no consensus on exactly how to do this, but there is clear evidence that good teachers produce consistently better student test scores, and that teachers who do not need to be identified and counseled. Cracking the barrier that has been erected between student outcomes and teacher pay would be a huge gain.

Duncan even seems to have made some progress in persuading the unions that they can’t just stonewall, they have to get involved in the reform process. The American Federation of Teachers recently announced innovation grants for performance pay ideas. The New Haven school district has just completed a new teacher contract, with union support, that includes many of the best reform ideas.

There are still many places, like Washington, where the unions are dogmatically trying to keep bad teachers in the classrooms. But if implemented well, the New Haven contract could be a sign of perestroika even within the education establishment.

“I’ve been deeply disturbed by a lot that’s going on in Washington,” Jeb Bush said on Thursday, “but this is not one of them. President Obama has been supporting a reform secretary, and this is deserving of Republican support.” Bush’s sentiment is echoed across the spectrum, from Newt Gingrich to Al Sharpton.

Over the next months, there will be more efforts to water down reform. Some groups are offering to get behind health care reform in exchange for gutting education reform. Politicians from both parties are going to lobby fiercely to ensure that their state gets money, regardless of the merits. So will governors who figure they’re going to lose out in the award process.

But President Obama understood from the start that this would only work if the awards remain fiercely competitive. He has not wavered. We’re not close to reaching the educational Promised Land, but we may be at the start of what Rahm Emanuel calls The Quiet Revolution.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Clinton in Montreal calls for "Communitarianism" in The Suburban

This came today from Kathleen at Habeas Corpus Canada. Her commentary about it was penetrating and knowledgable, she's done a lot of research into the Canadian players and their associations. She's reinspired me today... after the past couple weeks of web updates, videos and radio interviews, 'm fried and was thinking of taking a break. Heh. As my ex-husband used to tell me all the time, "Man he works from sun to sun but women's work is never done."

Exactly what part of global communitarianism is a "conspiracy theory?"

cover of the Suburban News

Clinton in Montreal calls for ‘Communitarianism’

Cotler calls speech “one of the most inspiring”

By Joel Goldenberg
http://www.thesuburbannews.ca/content/en/2513

Former U.S. president Bill Clinton put out a clarion call for people to engage in “communitarianism”, doing one’s part for those on the disadvantaged side of the inequality that exists around the world.

Clinton was at Centre Mont Royal downtown Friday morning to receive an honourary degree in Doctor of Laws from McGill University for his achievements in leadership, as part of McGill’s Leadership Summit ‘09. McGill principal Heather Monroe-Blum, who introduced Clinton, noted that only one other U.S. president received a McGill honourary degree — Franklin Roosevelt in 1944.

After opening with some self-deprecating remarks, and noting that he was happy that Quebec and the rest of Canada “didn’t get a divorce” back in 1995, Clinton focused on the work of his William J. Clinton Foundation, which tackles the challenges of global interdependence, helping people with HIV and AIDS, fighting climate change and develop sustainable economic growth in Africa and Latin America. Clinton has also been, sometimes with former president George H.W. Bush, raising funds for recovery efforts after recent devastating natural disasters.
Clinton told the appreciative audience that he likes Canada because “in many ways, it was like America but with one fundamental difference over the last 25 years.

“There’s a great appreciation for individualism, a great belief in the power of free enterprise, and yet there was a certain communitarianism that persisted in Canada that has been lacking in America, but has been building steadily there for the last 10 years,” he explained.

“Communitarianism is neither left nor right, it simply recognizes that we are mutually dependent on each other, that it is inconceivable that we can find personal fulfillment or family success unless we have some concern or care for the general conditions under which we all live.

“The whole world is interdependent to an extent it has never been before.

“I would like to make the argument today that this is basically the mission we have to undertake for the world... We have to have a world consciousness. In the absence of that, we will not make good decisions.”

The former president added that one focus of his foundation is to rectify a 25-year-old policy that saw developed countries deliver food to famine-stricken nations, which became impractical and expensive, rather than promoting the development of local agriculture. He credited Canada for moving away from this policy and noted that former president George W. Bush also wanted to do so.

In general, Clinton said the world is “too unequal, with half the world living on less than $2 a day, a billion people who go to bed hungry, a billion having no access to clean water, 2.5 billion having no access to sanitation and 130 million who will never go to school. One in four people this year will die of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and infections related to dirty water. Eighty percent of the people who die of water-borne diseases are five years of age or younger.” And yet, he also related stories of children and adults either impoverished or devastated by death or natural disaster who choose to persevere.

In the 21st century world, “citizens have the power to affect the course of their own destiny, and the world’s destiny is greater than it has ever been.” He cited the numerous NGOs — non-governmental organizations— around the world as taking such initiatives that governments do not.

“They believe they can change the world from the ground up... When you have the ability to do something that is good, you have a moral responsibility to try and do it. Most of what I spend my time doing now is trying to get people to understand that you don’t have to be president, a member of Parliament or Congress, or a prime minister, to have a positive impact around the world. You don’t have to be rich... if a large number of people with a limited amount of money each agree that something is a problem, they can move the world.”
Mount Royal MP Irwin Cotler, one of those in the audience, said the speech was “extraordinary.”

“One of the most inspiring I’ve ever heard — moving, with great content. He summed it up by saying we live in an interdependent world and we have to see ourselves as a communitarian people, and look out for one another or the nature of the universe in which we live with its instability, injustice, inequality and the like will take us down the road to disaster. That plea for working on behalf of our common humanity, the stories he told, this was one of the greatest speeches I’ve ever heard.”
Do we really have to see ourselves as "communitarian people?" I don't think we know enough about communitarianism to make a healthy choice about it. Why didn't former President Bill Clinton tell the American people about it when they elected him in 1992? Why doesn't President Obama tell the American people about it now. Do we all just become communitarians by default, with nobody really knowing what it is? Oh, okay, yeah...that's real freedom, right?

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Etzioni's idea for a White House Council for Social Advisers (CSA)

Stayed up all night to be sure I'd be awake for my interview this am. Thought I'd make a mini to relax but here I am. Found this post Etzioni made in Jan 2009 about the visions for a White House Council for Social Advisors.

Etzioni was on the Americorps Lauch Committee in 1994. He was on the Launch Committees for Citizen's for Service and Character Education in the early 90s. He was a Member of the Special Committee on Lawyering in the 21st Century, American Association of Law Schools in 1989. He was a Member of the Research Advisory Committee of Resources for the Future from 1976-1980. He was a Member of the Administrative Board, Research Institute on Communist Affairs, Columbia University 1970-1974... ? Anyone who thinks Etzioni's influence is minimal needs to read his bio at Sourcewatch, just for starters. Still don't understand why they begin his Affiliations in 1958; his political carreer began 15 years before that. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Amitai_Etzioni

Etzioni wanted his council to advise the President on ALL matters of social policy, in order to strengthen the Third Sector. Did he succeed? His 2001 views on mandatory vaccinations were recently posted here.

2. Our version of a CSA

We envision the goal of the CSA as to advise the President on all matters of social policy other than those concerning economics or security. These include policies that strengthen the third sector, especially the country’s hundreds of thousands of voluntary associations and civic bodies; that encourage faith based work within the confines of the 1st Amendment; that promote the fulfillment of civic duty via agencies such as the Peace Corps, Vista, AmeriCorps, the Teacher Corps, and the Citizen Corps; promote understanding and dialogue among social groups that differ in their social backgrounds, identities, and beliefs (including racial, ethnic, and sexual orientation); promote assimilation of new immigrants while assisting them in maintaining their sub-cultural heritages (i.e., promoting diversity within unity); promote community organizations; promote dialogues about our responsibilities to one another, to the nation, and to the inchoate global community.

The CSA will be composed of social scientists who have shown a capacity to develop public policies. It could incorporate several existing bodies such as the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives.

To measure and call attention to the social state of union, the CSA would publish an annual report on various social indicators such as the number of Americans who served as voluntary firefighters, emergency medical technicians, or in other forms of volunteerism; the amount of funds raised for social purposes by various foundations and charities; and the number of hate crimes committed, among others, along the lines of the Mondale proposal.

For more information, contact Amitai Etzioni at etzioni@gwu.edu or (202) 994-8190.

This is CIVIL SOCIETY IN THE AGE OF OBAMA: http://civilsocietyintheageofobama.blogspot.com/

A Christian's view of Communitarianism

This writer links to me in his article "John McCarthur Exposed", that's how I found it. Looks like he's done some solid Christian research that will appeal to the people my new video style doesn't.
http://www.johnmacarthurexposed.blogspot.com/

Local Agenda 21 for Blonds - new on youtube

Made this for all the people wo ask me to dumb this topic down. Wonder if my dumb talking and singing helps keep it in perspective. These shorts are just plain fun to make even with my stupid moviemaker program and no audio recording equipment other than my camera. I think I could make some damn fine videos with a production budget. I almost forgot how much I loved making the documentaries at UMass, all except for the interviews where I had to be on camera. I don't have any problem singing for an audience and had many parts in different kinds of musicals, but I avoided dramtic plays like the plague. If I'd have been taller I would have been a Vegas Showgirl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImVecW848Q4

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Literature relating to the linkages between adaptation and sustainable development

How does the proposed Climate Change Convention relate to sustainable development? Would the treaty place the United States under international communitarian regulations? Yes, it will.

http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/document_lists/items/3179.php

What is adaptation?
"Adaptation to climate change is vital in order to reduce the impacts of climate change that are happening now and increase resilience to future impacts. The UNFCCC webpages on adaptation highlight the negotiations and action being carried out on adaptation by governments and stakeholders as guided by the Convention (particularly Article 2 and Article 4)."
http://unfccc.int/adaptation/items/4159.php
How do the Kyoto Protocols relate to Capacity Building?

http://unfccc.int/cooperation_and_support/capacity_building/items/1033.php

How many countries have adapted?
http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/inventory_review_reports/items/4715.php

What role does the US play in the upcoming convention of climate change? Here's the US report on gas emmisions (pretty boring, I know, but it means something):
http://maindb.unfccc.int/library/view_pdf.pl?url=http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/asr/usa.pdf

Is there a Climate Change "Enforcement Branch" of the United Nations?
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/compliance/enforcement_branch/items/3785.php

Communitarian Law Research

The communitarian nature of the new constitution is based on the recognition of the cultural institutions that give form to the behaviours not only of rural communities, but also urban ones. We speak about the ayllus, the tentas, the capitanias, the organising structures that give meaning to migration, migrant settlements, holidays, festivals, challas, rituals and ceremonies, where collective symbolism lies. An initial conclusion could be the following: the new constitution represents a transition from the unitary and social nature of the state to a plural-national and communitarian one.

It is also a constitutional transition, as developments in liberal rights, obligations and guarantees are combined with constitutionalised indigenous demands, and with legal and political forms that give a constitutional framework to the process of nationalisation and recovery of natural resources. In other words, it does not cease to be a liberal constitution, albeit in a pluralist version, incorporating four generations of rights: individual rights, social rights, collective rights and environmental rights. It is also an indigenous and popular constitution in that it incorporates the indigenous nations’ and peoples’ own institutionality, their own structures and practices. In the same way, it is a constitution that recognises the fundamental role of the public realm as an interventionist, welfare and industrialising state. Bolivia's New Political Constitution of the State, by Raul Prada (link below, emphasis mine)
Decided I should update my sources for this interview today, finding things I wrote years ago and things I remember seeing, like this one from the author of Modern Diplomacy: http://www.diplomacy.edu/Books/mdiplomacy_book/nick/regular/nick-5.htm

The direct link to EU Communitarian Law has moved, hard to find it since I only read and speak in english.

Here's how it's explained in Europe:
Environmental Law

Are you aware of all of the obligations imposed on your company by legal regulations with respect to the environment? Are you sure that your company fulfils these obligations duly and reliably? Are you aware that the penalties for breach of these obligations amount to millions of crowns?

Compared to the previous marginal legal regulations, businesses and other entities are now regulated by countless directly applicable communitarian legal regulations and Czech laws as well as decrees aimed at protecting the environment.
http://www.landwellglobal.com/cz/Services/Environmental-law.html

Nice to see this current page for Researching French Law 2009 http://www.scribd.com/doc/18995947/Researching-French-Law-2009 (Communitarian law is acquis communitaire)

Here's the way American law schools teach communitarian law: http://faculty.washington.edu/pmay/pols574/pols574a02.html

It's also called Progressive Corporate Law. this book, written in 1995 deserves more attention. Check out the number 1 and 2 chapter titles: http://www.questia.com/library/book/progressive-corporate-law-by-lawrence-e-mitchell.jsp

Here's a one from http://www.juridica-danubius.ro/ar4/ro that explains quite a bit:
LES SERVICES PUBLICS ROUMAINS ET L’UNION EUROPÉENNE
Doctorante Lavinia DARIE, Université

This article analyzes, on the one hand, the role of services of general interest and the notion of public service obligation under the Communitarian law, and on the other hand, the way in which Communitarian law (which, after Romania's adhesion, became national law by transforming the communitarian acquis into the preferred national law) will influence and enrich Romanian public service. The article deals with the new obligations imposed by the Communitarian law to the Romanian public services.


Here's the view from Bolivia:
Analysis of the New Political Constitution of the State
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x19587

Raúl Prada Alcoreza

Abstract

In this article, the author analyses the characteristics of the new political constitution of the state, passed after Evo Morales took office as the president of Bolivia. This new con-stitution redefines the concept of the state as well as that of citizenship from a plurinational, multicultural and communitarian perspective. The development of liberal rights, obligations and guarantees is combined with grassroots indigenous claims, which are thereby included in the new legal and institutional framework. Hence, the notion of an interventionist, welfare state that protects natural resources takes shape, which incorporates the ways and practices of first peoples and nations into its institutional life. The state thus becomes a tool for equitable, sovereign and sustainable development.

Raúl Prada Alcoreza - Professor and Researcher. Coordinator of Doctorate Studies on Epistemology at the Universidad Autónoma Gabriel René Moreno. Member of the Research Group La Comuna.

...

The characterisation of the Bolivian state as a social unitary state of plurinational and communitarian law is new; this broad and complex description is not found in the old constitution. The characterisation of the state is a thorny subject. It articulates the legal sphere with political urgencies, and the social unitary rule of law with its plurinational, community and intercultural nature, ratifying its condition as free, independent, sovereign and democratic. It is founded on plurality and pluralism that operate in distinct spheres: political, economic, legal, cultural and linguistic. It is based on the recognition of the pre-existence of the originary indigenous peoples and nations, which implies the recognition of their right to self-determination. The characterisation of the state offers a description of the Bolivian people in its diversity and multiplicity, identifying its multicoloured composition with respect to nations, classes(1) and social strata, scattered around the cities and the countryside. The characterisation of the state describes a democratic and participatory government, and opens up multiple types of direct, universal and communitarian representation. It also combines the cultural values of originary peoples and nations with liberal principles. This composite understanding of the characterisation of the state includes liberal constitutional developments and is enriched by the indigenous contributions of new constitutional and political forms.


Here's a book review from Oxford that may help: http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/7/1/136.pdf
Book Reviews
theory and philosophy. The not-so-rare
bibliographical pointers in brackets
scattered throughout the text illuminate an
immense variety of theoretical conceptions
built upon. However, there are a lot of
thoughts that will not feature an explicit
reference to a particular author - but all
these conceptions that are indirectly being
made use of will slowly dawn upon the
reader as an unmentioned yet clearly visible
background that enriches March's and
Olsen's narrative.
In remarkable difference to other works
of democratic theory, 'Democratic
Governance' does not have the sometimes
dusty smell of academic self-reference.
While informed by traditional as well as
less traditional sources, it never comes
close to scholarly rumination. Indeed,
March and Olsen assemble a whole new
world of thinking about the basic issues of
democracy. Sometimes it seems to be
possible to locate them in the vicinity of
some familiar political conception (such as
some strands of communitarian thought, or
new republicanism, or Habermassian
discourse ethics), but as soon as this
familiarity is graspable the authors subtly,
albeit quickly and unmistakably, distance
themselves from it. It is impossible to put
them into a drawer with a traditional label -
they are simply March and Olsen.
Why is it so worthwhile for legal
scholars to invest in this book? Because it
casts a new light on many, if not all,
preconceptions and Vorversta'ndnisse of
legal thought. For instance, is it not
common legal knowledge in modern
democracies that democratic accountability
is the centre-piece and Archimedean point
of conceptualizing democratic legitimacy?
March and Olsen, of course, do not argue
against accountability - but relying on
findings of psychology and political
science, they manage to drag this theorem
into the twilight of ambiguity and implant
that grain of doubt into the reader's brain
that will force her to go on thinking about
accountability and to question some of the
basic knowledge we already believed to be
uncontestedly received. In addition, the
authors place our legal beliefs into a wider
context (of ideas about the common good,
or a civilized society), connect them to
thoughts about learning, ideology,
aspirations, solidarity, virtue, faith, or the
development of political identities, and
thus broaden our horizons in the true sense
of the word. Starting out with a brilliant
analysis of democratic governance, March
and Olsen eventually arrive at a democratic
agenda of how individuals and societies
can achieve institutions that make politics
civil and capable. Anyone with only a
slight interest in political theory who is
bored by self-referring accounts of the
exaggerated antinomies between substance
and process or between liberalism and
communitarianism should buy and read
this book.
Ulrich R. Haltern
Harvard Law School
Boyle, A.E. (ed.), Environmental
Regulation and Economic Growth, Oxford:
Clarendon Press (1994) xxix + 252 pages +
Index. $65.
Increasingly stringent environmental
regulation in industrialized States has given
rise to fears of decreasing competitiveness,
and of a curbing of economic growth.
Simultaneously the possibility of
imposition by these countries of green
barriers to regional and international trade
threatens to restrict imports from countries
with lower environmental protection
standards. Fears of economic inhibition are
justified only to the extent that the concept
of sustainable development demands a halt
on indiscriminate economic development
in favour of environmental protection. Yet
the practical meaning of such a concept
and the implementation of leading
complementary environmental principles,
such as the 'polluter pays' principle,
remain full of uncertainties. Focusing on
the interconnection between environmental
law and economic development.
Environmental Regulation and Economic
Growth, fleshes out some of the key legal
136
Book Reviews
issues underpinning any future synthesis
between economic growth and
environmental protection.
The book is basically a collection of
papers presented at the 1993 Oxford Law
Colloquium, in which the concept of
'sustainable development' and the 'polluter
pays' principle serve as the guiding lines
through which the authors discuss various
topics, ranging from the interconnection of
domestic, European, and International
environmental law, through the role of
information, auditing, and liability regimes
in environmental protection, to the
relationship between free trade policy and
environmental protection, the effects of
environmental regulation on business, and
the costs of compliance with a
continuously growing environmental
regulation.
Therefore, as the editor points out in the
Introduction, the book tackles many
important problems of practical importance
to all those dealing with environmental law,
but it does not attempt to present a
comprehensive account of what in any
event is an extremely wide-ranging issue.
However, as he acknowledges, the confines
of the colloquium and of this book did not
permit the inclusion of contributions by
environmental economists. Nor does it
afford attention to developmental issues as
such, which could be regarded as a rather
important omission, although some aspects
of North-South relationships are touched
upon in chapters devoted to the relationship
between trade and environment.
The book has two particular strengths.
First, its blend of expertise and views of
academics, practicing lawyers, regulators,
and figures in industry and commerce
which presents a multilateral and quite
comprehensive account of the relationship
between environmental law and economic
growth (though it is somewhat surprising
that the perspectives of Non-Governmental
Organizations have not been
accommodated). And second, its constant
drawing upon the interplay of international,
Community and national law, which
provides the reader with insights to the
different policy levels and legal solutions
bearing upon the subject. Thus, for
example, in the national arena special
consideration is given to an analysis of the
relevant legal issues in the United
Kingdom, with occasional references to
other Anglo-American legal systems
(United States, Canada and Australia) and
to other European Union Member States
(mainly to northern partners such as
Germany , The Netherlands and Denmark).
However, while accepting the logical
constraints of the colloquium and the book,
a more detailed analysis of the cost
effectiveness of the environmental
legislation under assessment would have
served to further illustrate the extent to
which different levels of environmental
protection allow economic development, as
well as establishing criteria to select the
most appropriate legal instruments for the
attainment of joint environmental and
economic goals.
Overall, the approach followed in
Environmental Regulation and Economic
Growth constitutes a worthwhile
contribution to the ever expanding
literature on environmental law which,
hopefully, will trigger further research on
methods and processes best suited to realize
sustainable growth.
Carmen Plaza Martin
LLM. (University of Essex)
S.J.D. candidate (Universidad Complutense
de Madrid)
HauBler, Richard, Der Konflikt zwischen
Bundesverfassungsgericht und politischer
Fuhrung, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot
(1994) 286 pages. DM 108; 6S 843; sFr
108.
The expansion of judicial power, above all
of Constitutional Courts, has been the
subject of a flood of publications around
the world (the latest example being Tate
and Vallinder's compilation, reviewed in
this issue). In the United States alone, the
'countermajoritarian difficulty' (Alexander
137

Mini Alaska Naturalist Gift Shop Roombox


Put my latest mini up on ebay last night. Last week I put one of my tables up with one of Catherine's baskets and 10 glass jars filled with plants and balms and it sold for $49.99; that inspired me to make this roombox. It's stuffed with some of my nicest items and should make a lovely addition to anyone's home. It's very Alaskan in that it's tiny (most old Alaskan buildings are quite small) and made of recycled boards. We want to build a "real" gift shop just like it now!

Interview on Oracle Broadcasting Netwrok today at 3pm, sure seems like I'm doing a lot of radio lately, doesn't it? I'll try to say something fresh.

Friday, October 16, 2009

Radio interview this Sunday on Oracle Broadcasting Network

I'll be calling Doug Owen and Michael Vail of Blacklistednews.com of the Oracle Broadcasting Network and The IntelstrikeReport on Sunday at 3:05 Alaska time. They have a 16k winamp link that I could listen to on my sucky dialup.

I have confirmed my Power Hour interview with Joyce Riley on October 21st at 6am Alaska time.

Major initiatives lure Americans into serving the State (God)

More news from Consuelo; her efforts are becoming a major contribution to our body of work. I may plan an ACL award for genuine "service" to freedom, I'd love to be in a position to give out certificates of achievment to people for exposing the enemies of individual liberty. For now my personal, hearty thanks go out to our dear friends all over the world for their continued interest and deep background studies... we all benefit from your devotion.

October 16, 2009

The Marriage of Mainstream Media and Government Propaganda

Posted by David Kramer on October 16, 2009 08:43 AM

ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY FOUNDATION, MAYORS FROM ALL OVER THE U.S. KICK OFF TWO MAJOR INITIATIVES ENCOURAGING VOLUNTEERISM

Today in the heart of Times Square, actors and executives representing the Entertainment Industry Foundation (or EIF, the entertainment community’s collective charitable organization) joined New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and 15 mayors from around the country, numerous celebrities, and key service groups to launch two new initiatives aimed at fostering a new era of volunteerism: EIF’s I PARTICIPATE and the mayors’ Cities of Service coalition.

EIF is mobilizing the entire entertainment community around the ground-breaking, multi-year I PARTICIPATE, which will promote a new way of thinking about service [emphasis mine] and seek to persuade millions more Americans to volunteer regularly.* To jumpstart the campaign, Entertainment Industry President and CEO Lisa Paulsen, Tyler Perry and Ashton Kutcher announced its 2009 centerpiece: a week-long television event running from October 19th to the 25th, when America’s most-loved TV shows on ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC and other broadcast networks will spotlight service through scripted programming, segments and PSAs with inspirational messages and storylines about volunteerism. Randy Jackson (FOX), Christine Baranski (CBS), Tim Daly (ABC) and Michelle Trachtenberg (NBC) also participated in the announcement.

“…which will promote a new way of thinking about service…”

TRANSLATION: “Voluntary Service” will soon mean “Compulsory Duty.” If you notice, even the above phrase subtlety omits the word “voluntary” before the word “service.”
______________________________
__
*What’s “regularly”? Will the government soon set guidelines as to what is considered “regularly”? You can bet on it.

Are Americans really starting to ask what the newspeak means? Sure looks like it. Hooray!