- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,568
I wouldn''t consider this a cultural issue. Rest assured, there are a good lot of us in the US who are befuddled as well.
I WANT to be WRONG!!!!
- Thread starter ksinger
- Start date
- Status
miraclesrule
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2008
- Messages
- 4,442
NewEnglandLady.....
It''s so true. The Bill of Rights was created for the citizens to prevent a would be despot or a tryrannical dictator from seizing governmental power as it has happened in history so many times. It''s so odd that many young people thank that Hitler was some crazy dude who someone grabbed power with an army of thugs to reek havoc on the people. In fact, Hitler slowly came to power through the erosion of laws just like Mussolini and Stalin gained power. Through their parliment and their government. Those that would believe it could never happen in America....well, it''s no different than the people in those other countries who didn''t believe it could happen either. But it did and it can...and quite frankly, it is now...happening in America.
It''s so true. The Bill of Rights was created for the citizens to prevent a would be despot or a tryrannical dictator from seizing governmental power as it has happened in history so many times. It''s so odd that many young people thank that Hitler was some crazy dude who someone grabbed power with an army of thugs to reek havoc on the people. In fact, Hitler slowly came to power through the erosion of laws just like Mussolini and Stalin gained power. Through their parliment and their government. Those that would believe it could never happen in America....well, it''s no different than the people in those other countries who didn''t believe it could happen either. But it did and it can...and quite frankly, it is now...happening in America.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 5,083
Don''t bother. I don''t think anyone - ''ceptin'' maybe strmrdr, even read any of the links. I personally thought the Operation Northwoods was the most dismaying. The Joint Chiefs signed off on plans to kill civilians as part of a propaganda plan to start a war. In 1962. But that would never happen today because we''re so much smarter/moral now....
If it happens here, it will happen precisely as it did before - because ordinary people were apathetic or because they steadfastly refused to countenance that such a thing could happen, "Yeah, whatever, that''s just paranoid/crazy". You can''t guard against what you don''t believe will ever come to pass..so...
Wonder if Naomi is off the no-fly list...
LaraOnline
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 3,365
Well, the interesting thing about Hitler is that he rose to power through the institutions. It happened legally, through the power of the people.
It seems paranoid, and a little old-fashioned, to think that power will come straight from a bullet of a gun. We'd need a large-scale, as in world wide, propaganda campaign, waaay before guns became a part of it.
Hitler didn't rise to power just because the general population didn't have access to guns, or because the army had too much power and the people were scared into silence, not until much later anyway. There was broad support for his politics.
Also, Hitler had an agenda, that involved expansion into other countries, an aggrandizement of the 'motherland' and a perception of the 'true' German.
Why would the political power group turn against US citizens on a large scale... which is not the same as a CIA staged event to whip up support for an external war or government-supported military action.
Are you proposing that the army is going to discriminate between, say, ethnic groups? That's not going to happen in todays US army very well, now is it...
Perhaps if you spell out where *exactly* you think this is going, we'll be able to help you.
It seems paranoid, and a little old-fashioned, to think that power will come straight from a bullet of a gun. We'd need a large-scale, as in world wide, propaganda campaign, waaay before guns became a part of it.
Hitler didn't rise to power just because the general population didn't have access to guns, or because the army had too much power and the people were scared into silence, not until much later anyway. There was broad support for his politics.
Also, Hitler had an agenda, that involved expansion into other countries, an aggrandizement of the 'motherland' and a perception of the 'true' German.
Why would the political power group turn against US citizens on a large scale... which is not the same as a CIA staged event to whip up support for an external war or government-supported military action.
Are you proposing that the army is going to discriminate between, say, ethnic groups? That's not going to happen in todays US army very well, now is it...
Perhaps if you spell out where *exactly* you think this is going, we'll be able to help you.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 5,083
Lara, my point - and I''m sure now I didn''t make it very well - is that the legal protections are being eroded in this country. That when you put all the seemingly unrelated pieces together, you get a potential situation not unlike Germany back then. A leader demands power in a time of crisis, the legislative body gives it to him. They KEEP giving it to him. He demands MORE. Etc. Laws start to be ignored. Secrecy increases. Legal protections against use of the army against civilian populations - like Posse Comitatus - (and it''s been AGES since I perused it I admit - at one time I knew it pretty well) - get ignored in the name of "security".Date: 10/9/2008 6:20:13 AM
Author: LaraOnline
Well, the interesting thing about Hitler is that he rose to power through the institutions. It happened legally, through the power of the people.
It seems paranoid, and a little old-fashioned, to think that power will come straight from a bullet of a gun. We''d need a large-scale, as in world wide, propaganda campaign, waaay before guns became a part of it.
Hitler didn''t rise to power just because the general population didn''t have access to guns, or because the army had too much power and the people were scared into silence, not until much later anyway. There was broad support for his politics.
Also, Hitler had an agenda, that involved expansion into other countries, an aggrandizement of the ''motherland'' and a perception of the ''true'' German.
Why would the political power group turn against US citizens on a large scale... which is not the same as a CIA staged event to whip up support for an external war or government-supported military action.
Are you proposing that the army is going to discriminate between, say, ethnic groups? That''s not going to happen in todays US army very well, now is it...
Perhaps if you spell out where *exactly* you think this is going, we''ll be able to help you.
I don''t think there will be any kind of coup, that''s too blatant. If it happens it will NOT be at the overt point of gun. But the populace WILL be lulled into a sense of "security" about the use of the miliary. Hey man, what''s the big deal? They''re just here to help... Or even better, don''t even bother to tell people. Outside of this board, and even ON this board, how many people even KNOW that protections were in place and that the regular army is not supposed to be used for actions on US soil? This latest thing is, as I recall, a provision of the original Patriot Act which gave the president some pretty extraordinary powers, and which Congress tried to pull back on certain parts on the last reauthorization, but Bush did and end-run around with another of his famous signing statements. I need to research it further...but regardless, there it is. The Operation Northwoods link was to illustrate that abuses have been seriously considered in the past. Why would today be any different? In fact, with the situation as it stands, abuses today are MORE likely.
I asked the DH last night if he really thought that an army brigade could control a country this size, he shrugged and said, "All they need to do it get people to agree that it''s OK to have soldiers on the streets. The won''t need to shoot. But the end result is the same."
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 5,083
Oops.. My bad. I overstated. Pre-coffee is my excuse.Date: 10/9/2008 6:11:08 AM
Author: ksinger
Don''t bother. I don''t think anyone - ''ceptin'' maybe strmrdr, even read any of the links. I personally thought the Operation Northwoods was the most dismaying. The Joint Chiefs signed off on plans to kill civilians as part of a propaganda plan to start a war. In 1962. But that would never happen today because we''re so much smarter/moral now....
If it happens here, it will happen precisely as it did before - because ordinary people were apathetic or because they steadfastly refused to countenance that such a thing could happen, ''Yeah, whatever, that''s just paranoid/crazy''. You can''t guard against what you don''t believe will ever come to pass..so...
Wonder if Naomi is off the no-fly list...Any bets?
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 5,083
I would also trot this out for consideration, since you have noted our inwardness. Many here (and I don''t mean here on PS, but here in the US) have noted that we''ve allowed some pretty amazing things in the name of "security". In your own words, there are broad support for those policies - or at the very least tacit acceptance. Torture? Well, OK..we MUST, and we''re the "good guys" so it''s OK. Secret prisons? Security mandates it. Renditions? They''re clearly guilty of SOMETHING or they wouldn''t have been snatched like that. Suspension of habeas corpus? What''s the big deal? They''re terrorists fer cryin'' out loud. They don''t DESERVE our protections! Transparency and historical record? Oops! We lost ALL those emails, darn! And the whole country starts to take on more and more of a bunker mentality as this war, this endless war, continues. There may one day be an entire generation, who if they pay attention, and that is up for debate, will never know a year of their lives that our country wasn''t at war, who may not know that once it was not normal to see soldiers on the streets.Date: 10/9/2008 6:20:13 AM
Author: LaraOnline
Well, the interesting thing about Hitler is that he rose to power through the institutions. It happened legally, through the power of the people.
It seems paranoid, and a little old-fashioned, to think that power will come straight from a bullet of a gun. We''d need a large-scale, as in world wide, propaganda campaign, waaay before guns became a part of it.
Hitler didn''t rise to power just because the general population didn''t have access to guns, or because the army had too much power and the people were scared into silence, not until much later anyway. There was broad support for his politics.
Also, Hitler had an agenda, that involved expansion into other countries, an aggrandizement of the ''motherland'' and a perception of the ''true'' German.
Why would the political power group turn against US citizens on a large scale... which is not the same as a CIA staged event to whip up support for an external war or government-supported military action.
Are you proposing that the army is going to discriminate between, say, ethnic groups? That''s not going to happen in todays US army very well, now is it...
Perhaps if you spell out where *exactly* you think this is going, we''ll be able to help you.
The Bush administration also has an agenda - and I''m truly not so paranoid as to think it is jackbooted soldiers controlling us at gunpoint, but it is the creation of a unitary executive branch. They''ve done a fine job of it actually. My concern is less that Bush is going to stage some sort of crap, than the fact that precedent has been set, unchallenged - or it has been challenged and the challenge was ignored with complete impunity, and that those policies and new power balance amongst the 3 branches of government will be in place for the NEXT president. Power once granted, is rarely given back. I''m certain McCain won''t and I have doubts as to whether Obama will either. Power is heady stuff. As long as we stay permanently "at war" with shadowy "terrorism", all the extraordinary powers that the executive branch claims are necessary will remain in place. Can you see why now this war has been such a boon to such an agenda? We''re going to be "at war with terrorism" ad infinitum.
Mostly, people here are wise to the big lie. But the little lie repeated a million times works pretty well still.
LaraOnline
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 3,365
Yes, I can see what you're saying now.
That the corrupt 'shadowy place' of power - although it has been acknowledged publicly, in a way that is shaking the US people in a new way, for example the revelations about renditions - will become even more deeply ingrained in the US government's 'corporate psyche', and that abuses of power, and immoral acts in the name of power, will become even more commonplace, and perhaps more sophisticated and secret.
I think that is probably a quite reasonable fear. People learn by doing, after all, and there are high-level military and government people that have aquainted themselves with very murky moral issues as a result of this war.
When you say a unitary executive branch, do you mean a military group, primarily? what kind of activities would you see as being assigned to this executive branch? The 'too hard' stuff, like the renditions, which will be passed along, now, to this even shadowier group of shadowy people?
The infinite 'war on terror' reminds me of the movie where all the best and brightest went off to fight a war against giant insects. Seen it?
And yes, we are told a million little lies, a million times a day. Like 'Coke makes you feel good'. I have to say, the evidence is in that little lies work well!
Geez, do you see soldiers on the streets?
I have to say that even in this topic I have learned a lot. I was interested to hear democracy defined as a 'representative democracy'... I mean, how else is democracy meant to work? Do we ALL go down to the White House and vote?
Also, there seems to be a kind of belligerence surrounding the association that each of the states has, not with each other so much, but with the US-level of government.
This HAS to be something that is passed on through the school system, as an educational point of difference that sets the US apart from other countries politically.
Our education system constantly reinforces how well our Aussie federation works!
Oh well.
We kind of love rules over here. We expect government to 'be there' for us.
And also... there seems a kind of faith in physical muscle! (money/guns) over intellectual exchange as a quest for power. And I guess there's a grain of truth in that, too!
That the corrupt 'shadowy place' of power - although it has been acknowledged publicly, in a way that is shaking the US people in a new way, for example the revelations about renditions - will become even more deeply ingrained in the US government's 'corporate psyche', and that abuses of power, and immoral acts in the name of power, will become even more commonplace, and perhaps more sophisticated and secret.
I think that is probably a quite reasonable fear. People learn by doing, after all, and there are high-level military and government people that have aquainted themselves with very murky moral issues as a result of this war.
When you say a unitary executive branch, do you mean a military group, primarily? what kind of activities would you see as being assigned to this executive branch? The 'too hard' stuff, like the renditions, which will be passed along, now, to this even shadowier group of shadowy people?
The infinite 'war on terror' reminds me of the movie where all the best and brightest went off to fight a war against giant insects. Seen it?
And yes, we are told a million little lies, a million times a day. Like 'Coke makes you feel good'. I have to say, the evidence is in that little lies work well!
Geez, do you see soldiers on the streets?
I have to say that even in this topic I have learned a lot. I was interested to hear democracy defined as a 'representative democracy'... I mean, how else is democracy meant to work? Do we ALL go down to the White House and vote?
Also, there seems to be a kind of belligerence surrounding the association that each of the states has, not with each other so much, but with the US-level of government.
This HAS to be something that is passed on through the school system, as an educational point of difference that sets the US apart from other countries politically.
Our education system constantly reinforces how well our Aussie federation works!
Oh well.
We kind of love rules over here. We expect government to 'be there' for us.
And also... there seems a kind of faith in physical muscle! (money/guns) over intellectual exchange as a quest for power. And I guess there's a grain of truth in that, too!
LaraOnline
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 3,365
I think if you can get the people to accept there is a 'war' going on, then extraordinary powers being given to the head of state is, and always was, kind of par for the course.
The US administration has been kind of hamstrung in that terrorism is not really out-and-out war, is it... terrorists don't abide by the Geneva Convention, for example.
So the definition of what the US is experiencing - war or 'terrorist attack' - is really important for working out what is appropriate as far as extraordinary powers for the head of government goes.
I guess it's a foreign war...? across a couple of countries...?
It would be interesting to compare the powers given to Bush, with those of the leaders of Britain during the time of the Irish terrorism troubles.
How do the two administrations compare?
The US administration has been kind of hamstrung in that terrorism is not really out-and-out war, is it... terrorists don't abide by the Geneva Convention, for example.
So the definition of what the US is experiencing - war or 'terrorist attack' - is really important for working out what is appropriate as far as extraordinary powers for the head of government goes.
I guess it's a foreign war...? across a couple of countries...?
It would be interesting to compare the powers given to Bush, with those of the leaders of Britain during the time of the Irish terrorism troubles.
How do the two administrations compare?
dragonfly411
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,378
Lara,
Part of the problem is that the people no longer believe that this is a war on terrorism anymore. To many it seems like Bush''s Personal Agenda against Iraq, vs. against terrorism and the people who started the attack. For instance, how is it ok that Bush is sitting around enjoying drinks and parades of royal horses while the very country he is sitting in is speculated to house some of the terrorists who started this whole deal? Those are the questions people want answered at this point, why are we so blindly focused on Iraq while real terrorism is still happening and we aren''t moving against it, at least it hasn''t been made known that we are....
Part of the problem is that the people no longer believe that this is a war on terrorism anymore. To many it seems like Bush''s Personal Agenda against Iraq, vs. against terrorism and the people who started the attack. For instance, how is it ok that Bush is sitting around enjoying drinks and parades of royal horses while the very country he is sitting in is speculated to house some of the terrorists who started this whole deal? Those are the questions people want answered at this point, why are we so blindly focused on Iraq while real terrorism is still happening and we aren''t moving against it, at least it hasn''t been made known that we are....
LaraOnline
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 3,365
Interesting point, Dragonfly.
At the moment as far as local US action goes, it's basically a war of ideas, and of psychology, is it not?
It is possible I have missed some key news items over there, but since 9/11 has there been another terrorism attack on US soil?
At the moment as far as local US action goes, it's basically a war of ideas, and of psychology, is it not?
It is possible I have missed some key news items over there, but since 9/11 has there been another terrorism attack on US soil?
miraclesrule
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2008
- Messages
- 4,442
I can''t remember where I read it....oh yes I can...let me go find my book....oh well, I can''t find it....
But it was something like...We can never prevent another Hitler from being born, but we can hope that such a person would never again gain the support of the people that would allow them the destruction they are intent upon....
That is my hope for our future. The divide and conquer is working in America, just look at the polarized politics. It weakens a nations core and confuses the electorate so that they can''t...or won''t...see what is happening right in front of them.
Sometimes I wonder if certain people are hoping for a self fulfilling prophecy. I hope that we instead wake up and realize that we are allowing it to happen, rather than some sort of biblical revelation of damnation that is taking place. Humanity is allowing this fragile democracy to be eroded, and the mass of humanity is what is needed to bolster it back into reality.
Karen,
Naomi has been on the security list for a few years now. She says that they go through her luggage and she has to submit to the additional security every time she flys. She discusses this in a very well done Q&A that was on NPR with one of the writers of the Patriotic Act who interviewed her for the End of America book. He is now a professor at Georgetown University. It was after viewing that interview that I ordered the book. The link was sent to me by a fellow Board member who is now at Harvard. Naomi has guts, that''s for sure. In fact, she reveals several other people who are on the security list as a result of challenging the Bush Administration.
But it was something like...We can never prevent another Hitler from being born, but we can hope that such a person would never again gain the support of the people that would allow them the destruction they are intent upon....
That is my hope for our future. The divide and conquer is working in America, just look at the polarized politics. It weakens a nations core and confuses the electorate so that they can''t...or won''t...see what is happening right in front of them.
Sometimes I wonder if certain people are hoping for a self fulfilling prophecy. I hope that we instead wake up and realize that we are allowing it to happen, rather than some sort of biblical revelation of damnation that is taking place. Humanity is allowing this fragile democracy to be eroded, and the mass of humanity is what is needed to bolster it back into reality.
Karen,
Naomi has been on the security list for a few years now. She says that they go through her luggage and she has to submit to the additional security every time she flys. She discusses this in a very well done Q&A that was on NPR with one of the writers of the Patriotic Act who interviewed her for the End of America book. He is now a professor at Georgetown University. It was after viewing that interview that I ordered the book. The link was sent to me by a fellow Board member who is now at Harvard. Naomi has guts, that''s for sure. In fact, she reveals several other people who are on the security list as a result of challenging the Bush Administration.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 5,083
Not regular army, no, not yet. But members of one of the world''s largest mercenary forces - Blackwater - a group siphoning huge amounts of government monies as a "security" force working for the State Department in Iraq, and not answerable for their actions under military laws (there is an order in place that private contractors cannot be prosecuted for war crimes as a military person could), have been employed by both our government and private indivduals, when Katrina happened. Hey, all the National Guard was deployed to Iraq. They take no oaths to The Constitution, they work as thugs for hire, and our government employs them. The president can now direct a private army of highly trained men who are not answerable to Congress. What more need one say?Date: 10/9/2008 9:37:01 AM
Author: LaraOnline
Yes, I can see what you''re saying now.
That the corrupt ''shadowy place'' of power - although it has been acknowledged publicly, in a way that is shaking the US people in a new way, for example the revelations about renditions - will become even more deeply ingrained in the US government''s ''corporate psyche'', and that abuses of power, and immoral acts in the name of power, will become even more commonplace, and perhaps more sophisticated and secret.
I think that is probably a quite reasonable fear. People learn by doing, after all, and there are high-level military and government people that have aquainted themselves with very murky moral issues as a result of this war.
When you say a unitary executive branch, do you mean a military group, primarily? what kind of activities would you see as being assigned to this executive branch? The ''too hard'' stuff, like the renditions, which will be passed along, now, to this even shadowier group of shadowy people?
The infinite ''war on terror'' reminds me of the movie where all the best and brightest went off to fight a war against giant insects. Seen it?
And yes, we are told a million little lies, a million times a day. Like ''Coke makes you feel good''. I have to say, the evidence is in that little lies work well!
Geez, do you see soldiers on the streets?
I have to say that even in this topic I have learned a lot. I was interested to hear democracy defined as a ''representative democracy''... I mean, how else is democracy meant to work? Do we ALL go down to the White House and vote?
Also, there seems to be a kind of belligerence surrounding the association that each of the states has, not with each other so much, but with the US-level of government.
This HAS to be something that is passed on through the school system, as an educational point of difference that sets the US apart from other countries politically.
Our education system constantly reinforces how well our Aussie federation works!
Oh well.
We kind of love rules over here. We expect government to ''be there'' for us.
And also... there seems a kind of faith in physical muscle! (money/guns) over intellectual exchange as a quest for power. And I guess there''s a grain of truth in that, too!
LaraOnline
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 3,365
Ugh, private 'security' / mercenary forces in the US streets... that sounds really horrible.
Also, miraclesrule said some pretty interesting things, about the frail nature of democracy
I mean, lets face it, democracy can seem a little like 'mob rule' at times... but: apparently a group of medium-level intelligence people will come up with better solutions that one single high-intelligence person. so I guess that's an incredibly simple-minded analogy of why democracy works / wobbles along...
'Naomi'... are you talking about Naomi Wolf? That was a complete guess...
One thing about the US character ... it seems US people are a bit like white South African people (broad generalisation coming up here) in that they work intensely hard and they LOVE to win. There is a huge cultural emphasis on winning. And, at the end of the day, it is probably more important to win than to play the game COMPLETELY 'in the spirit' at all times. Get me? I heard the US customs was turning away Australian journalists that turned up at their international airports after 9/11... and those journos were there on HOLIDAYS...
I totally get that your government bodies would play hardball... I mean, it totally happened in the Cold War, didn't it...
Also, miraclesrule said some pretty interesting things, about the frail nature of democracy
I mean, lets face it, democracy can seem a little like 'mob rule' at times... but: apparently a group of medium-level intelligence people will come up with better solutions that one single high-intelligence person. so I guess that's an incredibly simple-minded analogy of why democracy works / wobbles along...
'Naomi'... are you talking about Naomi Wolf? That was a complete guess...
One thing about the US character ... it seems US people are a bit like white South African people (broad generalisation coming up here) in that they work intensely hard and they LOVE to win. There is a huge cultural emphasis on winning. And, at the end of the day, it is probably more important to win than to play the game COMPLETELY 'in the spirit' at all times. Get me? I heard the US customs was turning away Australian journalists that turned up at their international airports after 9/11... and those journos were there on HOLIDAYS...
I totally get that your government bodies would play hardball... I mean, it totally happened in the Cold War, didn't it...
dragonfly411
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,378
Lara
I don''t know that there HAS Been another terrorist attack.
I feel like justice should have been done and the group who decided to take the actions of 9/11 should have been brought to judgement. But instead, the war was turned to Iraq, and the man who committed the 9/11 crimes is possibly still running around. That angers me
I don''t know that there HAS Been another terrorist attack.
I feel like justice should have been done and the group who decided to take the actions of 9/11 should have been brought to judgement. But instead, the war was turned to Iraq, and the man who committed the 9/11 crimes is possibly still running around. That angers me
LaraOnline
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 3,365
Yeah, I have to say that my personal response to the Iraq war, when it was announced as a follow-on from 9/11, was ... that the choice to go for Iraq was completely disjointed, surreal, as if there were other power relationships going on in the background that had guided the choice of the US governemnt in ways I couldn''t ever be aware of. Which is undoubtedly the case!
bobbin
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2008
- Messages
- 473
Lara, I think what is even more surreal is that our government decided to go into Iraq as well... My personal reaction to this was to send 1000 paper cranes to our foreign affairs minister with a wish to stop the war, and to march in the protests!
As for how well Australian federation works, well, it doesn''t. The split of power between the states and the federal government means that there is always someone to pass the buck to, and important issues like saving the River Murray are victims to power plays between the levels of government. However, federalism is lauded in Australia because it brought the country together and made it one, isntead of a number of indicidual states. It is lauded because without it, Australia as a country wouldn''t exist.
The UK is actually a constitutional monarchy, as is Australia. The US is indeed a democratic (or constitutional) republic, although that still makes it a democracy. Republic simply refers to the structure of government- eg president isntead of queen as the head of state. Although I am still very confused by how the US elections work!
Hopefully Australia will soon be a republic too!
Australia is actually facing the same sort of human rights abuse issues etc in the name of ''national security'' that America is at the moment, although on a somewhat lesser scale. Just look at our ASIO and terror crimes legislation. It basically gives the government the power to kidnap any citizen from the streets if they have any inkling they may have ANY sort of information on a terrorist act, even if they are not involved.
We should be even more worried about this as we do not have the same level of protection in our constitution, as we do not have a bill of rights. The government could, if they wanted to, lock any one of us away indefinitely for no reason (from memory, I may be getting confused and this may only be non-citizens).
Finally Lara, I am going to join your little adoration club! I love reading your posts! I identify very much with your outlook on life.
End of threadjack.
As for how well Australian federation works, well, it doesn''t. The split of power between the states and the federal government means that there is always someone to pass the buck to, and important issues like saving the River Murray are victims to power plays between the levels of government. However, federalism is lauded in Australia because it brought the country together and made it one, isntead of a number of indicidual states. It is lauded because without it, Australia as a country wouldn''t exist.
The UK is actually a constitutional monarchy, as is Australia. The US is indeed a democratic (or constitutional) republic, although that still makes it a democracy. Republic simply refers to the structure of government- eg president isntead of queen as the head of state. Although I am still very confused by how the US elections work!
Hopefully Australia will soon be a republic too!
Australia is actually facing the same sort of human rights abuse issues etc in the name of ''national security'' that America is at the moment, although on a somewhat lesser scale. Just look at our ASIO and terror crimes legislation. It basically gives the government the power to kidnap any citizen from the streets if they have any inkling they may have ANY sort of information on a terrorist act, even if they are not involved.
We should be even more worried about this as we do not have the same level of protection in our constitution, as we do not have a bill of rights. The government could, if they wanted to, lock any one of us away indefinitely for no reason (from memory, I may be getting confused and this may only be non-citizens).
Finally Lara, I am going to join your little adoration club! I love reading your posts! I identify very much with your outlook on life.
End of threadjack.
LaraOnline
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 3,365
Hi there Bobbin! Thanks for joining our convo!
And thanks for the kind words. I''ve been feeling a little sorry for a couple of things I''ve posted recently... but sometimes I can''t be bothered being anything but ''as it is'' as well, you know?
Sometimes when I''ve been really desperate, I would have appreciated a little more straight talking. But... who knows how others will interpret what you have to say. Print does not have tone, unless you are very careful!
Interesting points about the federation. While in the posts above I was principally talking about our ''educators'' spin on federation, (basically in high school political history lessons)... I will agree with you that federalism and the state seem well, an old-fashioned system to me now. Part of the problem with this is our state responsibilities for expensive services, such as *health* - which will never be run efficiently and effectively within a budget, I don''t think, so there will always be buck-passing there ... and school education is a ''flammable'' issue politically as well!
And as for the local government system... don''t get me started!!
It all seems so creaky, so unwieldy - and SO expensive!!! Are you a ''regionalist'' by any chance? I hate all the politicking and buck-passing that passes as government management between state and federal governments these days!
However, coming from WA, I guess we would hold off on regional/federal organisation. I still die every time a ''seperatist'' letter is posted in the state paper! WA is generating so much wealth for the country - and you should see our metro train system! It''s the best! So some money IS getting through ... in a way we''re kind of like the Norwegian countries our political commentators love referring to so much... large tax base, small geographical area (ie Perth metro).
It is interesting also that you bring up the Bill of Rights - or the lack of one. I have been one of those that is of the opinion that being Human should not include having a list of what lawyers deem to be suitable as a ''right'', because human experience often has a way of leaking out from what we can guess will happen in the future.
So I am sceptical of the worth of a Bill of Rights... but I guess I''m open to being convinced. I guess I feel safer not having a list!
The rights of terrorist investigators to prevent a terrorist attack, vs the rights of individuals that have somehow become caught up in an investigation, is a serious issue. I have been involved with environmental protests, and I can see how police investigations can draw in fairly innocent people. However, I think the Australian media does an absolutely stirling job of taking up the cudgel for people detained or otherwise suspected of terrorism involvement, as our broadsheet media is fairly tightly focused on issues such as racism and disempowerment of the individual against the state. I also think our media, overall, is quite responsible in not whipping up hysteria about terrorism plans that have been uncovered by police in investigations. I think our media covers trial quite fairly, and without hysteria. I don''t get the afternoon eastern papers, though, and I also don''t listen to talk-back radio! I am not 100% certain that further hampering police efforts to prevent or investigate terrorism plans will actually lead to the greater good, though. I know through my own experience in environmental protests, that law-breakers will go to great links to avoid prosecution / slip through loopholes / investigate all avenues open to them. And that''s just an example when the stakes are not very high at all!!
LaraOnline
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 3,365
Also bobbin, interesting you mentioned that the government could detain any of us against our will indefinitely.
I think mental health patients already fall under this bracket... if your guardian, or next of kin, could convince a doctor that you were suicidal, I do believe you could be locked up against your will in Australia, for an indefinite period (until the doctors were convinced you were okay).
The mental health act is a tool that dictators use in many countries, I believe.
I think mental health patients already fall under this bracket... if your guardian, or next of kin, could convince a doctor that you were suicidal, I do believe you could be locked up against your will in Australia, for an indefinite period (until the doctors were convinced you were okay).
The mental health act is a tool that dictators use in many countries, I believe.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 5,083
I think the Australian media does an absolutely stirling job of taking up the cudgel for people detained or otherwise suspected of terrorism involvement, as our broadsheet media is fairly tightly focused on issues such as racism and disempowerment of the individual against the state. I also think our media, overall, is quite responsible in not whipping up hysteria about terrorism plans that have been uncovered by police in investigations. I think our media covers trial quite fairly, and without hysteria.
Can you spare a few independent Australian jounalists then, for poor old America....?
Can you spare a few independent Australian jounalists then, for poor old America....?
LaraOnline
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 3,365
I think a major point of difference between our cultures would be that modern Australians generally have a very cynical view of 'nationhood' and patriot behaviour generally. Current culture-making centres around the migrant experience to a very large degree (disregarding the Aboriginal experience for the moment), which began with the British and continues with the European, Asian, Middle Eastern and now African migrants.
We *do* have some people who fly national flags in their backyards. But they are very far and few between, and generally, to do so is probably seen as a bit tacky, and even possibly reflective of a 'white australia' mindset.
I don't even think the public primary schools play the national anthem or fly the flag at weekly school assemblies any more.
At university level, and at high school, our history and social studies lessons focus more on the individual experience, rather than the 'grand narratives' of monuments and laws drafted.
Our media maintains a strong and continuous interest is our treatment of illegal (boat) people. We are most concerned about detaining them in jail-like circumstances when they elect to stay to contest their refugee status via our legal system.
As I mentioned, we have a strong and continuous interest in the migrant experience generally, as well.
I guess these factors are a part of the reasons why I think our media is not so heavy on the terrorist threat. When our previous government released fridge magnets giving a hotline number to call to pass on suspicious information, the measure was laughed out of town as alarmist overkill.
We *do* have some people who fly national flags in their backyards. But they are very far and few between, and generally, to do so is probably seen as a bit tacky, and even possibly reflective of a 'white australia' mindset.
I don't even think the public primary schools play the national anthem or fly the flag at weekly school assemblies any more.
At university level, and at high school, our history and social studies lessons focus more on the individual experience, rather than the 'grand narratives' of monuments and laws drafted.
Our media maintains a strong and continuous interest is our treatment of illegal (boat) people. We are most concerned about detaining them in jail-like circumstances when they elect to stay to contest their refugee status via our legal system.
As I mentioned, we have a strong and continuous interest in the migrant experience generally, as well.
I guess these factors are a part of the reasons why I think our media is not so heavy on the terrorist threat. When our previous government released fridge magnets giving a hotline number to call to pass on suspicious information, the measure was laughed out of town as alarmist overkill.
LaraOnline
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 3,365
Well, we didn''t have 9/11
Pretty dramatic introduction into the ''club'' of countries that have experienced terror attacks, if you ask me...
Pretty dramatic introduction into the ''club'' of countries that have experienced terror attacks, if you ask me...
Delster
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 2,231
OK, I've no idea why these points are bothering me, but for some reason I don't want to leave these facts uncorrected.
(a) Hitler was not a communist
(b) England is not a republic, it's a monarchy. It's also a parliamentary democracy.
Strm, you're absolutely right, it's too hard to understand the 'right to bear arms' ideology if you're not from the US. Truth be told, it's always boggled me. In Ireland, the ordinary police force is unarmed. Heck, we don't even call them the 'police'. We call them 'the guards', which is short for their official title, An Garda Síochána, which means 'the guardians of the peace'. It's a whole other mindset. They don't 'enforce the law', they 'keep the peace'...
I think I may have an answer to your question too about a government that has never harmed its own people. The only time the Irish government has ever used its army to harm its own people was during the Civil War. After the agreement of the treaty establishing the Irish Free State a significant number of the old IRA opposed the treaty. The IRA had heretofore engaged in guerrilla warfare against the UK, but they now turned on Irish who supported the treaty. After the people voted, by a significant majority, to accept the treaty, these anti-treaty forces occupied the Four Courts complex (the location of our Supreme Court), sparking outright war. The government unleashed the army, defending the State. And in the interests of disclosure, I describe this from the perspective of someone who had family on both sides, literally brother fighting brother.
And to be fair, I can't promise the old Brehon kings didn't attack their own peoples, but I don't think I'd class them as a "government" in quite the same sense
NEL can you explain to me why you say the US is thankfully not a democracy, but a republic? Ireland is both, and I know they're not interdependent, but I'm still intrigued by the attitude that republic is favourable to democracy. Lara is right, the US is definitely portrayed overseas as 'bringing democracy to [insert country of choice here]'.
(a) Hitler was not a communist
(b) England is not a republic, it's a monarchy. It's also a parliamentary democracy.
Strm, you're absolutely right, it's too hard to understand the 'right to bear arms' ideology if you're not from the US. Truth be told, it's always boggled me. In Ireland, the ordinary police force is unarmed. Heck, we don't even call them the 'police'. We call them 'the guards', which is short for their official title, An Garda Síochána, which means 'the guardians of the peace'. It's a whole other mindset. They don't 'enforce the law', they 'keep the peace'...
I think I may have an answer to your question too about a government that has never harmed its own people. The only time the Irish government has ever used its army to harm its own people was during the Civil War. After the agreement of the treaty establishing the Irish Free State a significant number of the old IRA opposed the treaty. The IRA had heretofore engaged in guerrilla warfare against the UK, but they now turned on Irish who supported the treaty. After the people voted, by a significant majority, to accept the treaty, these anti-treaty forces occupied the Four Courts complex (the location of our Supreme Court), sparking outright war. The government unleashed the army, defending the State. And in the interests of disclosure, I describe this from the perspective of someone who had family on both sides, literally brother fighting brother.
And to be fair, I can't promise the old Brehon kings didn't attack their own peoples, but I don't think I'd class them as a "government" in quite the same sense
NEL can you explain to me why you say the US is thankfully not a democracy, but a republic? Ireland is both, and I know they're not interdependent, but I'm still intrigued by the attitude that republic is favourable to democracy. Lara is right, the US is definitely portrayed overseas as 'bringing democracy to [insert country of choice here]'.
- Status
Did You Miss the May 2024 Jewels of the Weeks?
Did You Miss the May 2024 Jewels of the Weeks? - 05/31
The Best Time to Buy a Diamond Engagement Ring
The Best Time to Buy a Diamond Engagement Ring - 05/29
300x240.png)