Edit: something else that annoys me - people who laugh in cinemas at things that aren't funny because they think this makes it seem like they 'get it', even though there's nothing to get. I.e, I saw Bowling for Columbine and there were a bunch of people in the cinema who kept laughing throughout this film at people, and situations, that weren't funny. What they didn't seem to understand was that Bowling for Columbine isn't funny. They were laughing because they they thought that laughing made them look clever. People like this make me sick.
I'm just thinking out loud here. I'm bored. Anyone home?
Ah, Man,
Totally not fair. I don't know where this thread has gone, but on this note - I laugh at almost everything, even things that "Society" would say are not funny.
It tends to get me 'that look' from authority figures.
For instance, we're having a meeting and boss 1 shares an idea that boss 2 (who is not included in our meeting) has proposed. I burst out laughing, like Julia Roberts style, 'cause the idea was fucking ludicrous.
My boss tried to say the idea wasn't funny, I said that obviously it was if it made me laugh so hard. Point being that laughter is often an involuntary response to many different things and can be a part of several different emotions.
So, on authority, I guess I have a problem with them when they try to pull shit that seems ridiculous.
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
Again, the poem said nothing about anyone not liking the poor. You said that, and only you. Bukowski didn't say it. He was talking about something else.
And saying that someone can be proud for there to be authority makes no sense. It's like saying that there are people that are proud that there are squirrels, or that there are people who are proud of the rain.
In the meantime, can you explain why people who don't like authority are a problem? And whilst you're at it, can you also explain how Jesus and Gandhi were a problem? Ya see, they didn't like (I didn't say detest) authority either.
Seriously man, read what I wrote more carefully. I JUST said that I know the poem isn't about anyone not liking the poor, and I know Bukowski didn't say that. I'm saying that particular line is very striking to me, and it goes beyond the scope of the average person and conformity. There are those who detest poverty, and there are also those who are proud of it...as in there are wealthy people who detest the poor, and there are poor people who detest the wealthy. Therefore, each are showing pride in their wealth or lack thereof. Both positions are unwise, and these people become a problem. They don't encourage balance in society, they disrupt it. That's why we should be weary of them.
Even if my explanation isn't what Buk meant, I still think it holds up in a debate about authority (you still haven't told me your interpretation yet btw). Authority is an extremely useful tool in preserving our individual freedom as well as the collective freedom for all...this all goes back to balance. It's a balancing act which nobody (including Bukowski) can always recognize. Sometimes we slip...just like I used to when I'd mess with cops or campus security or bouncers. I still slip, but it's getting less and less because I'm becoming more balanced...Bukowski's work has helped me with that. The fact that you brought him into this thread is probably the reason I'm still posting in it
In the meantime, can you explain why people who don't like authority are a problem? And whilst you're at it, can you also explain how Jesus and Gandhi were a problem? Ya see, they didn't like (I didn't say detest) authority either.
Jesus and Gandhi didn't have a problem with authority. They had a problem with authoritative systems that had become unjust. They were both religious men...they dedicated their lives to serving what they consider to be a higher authority...a supreme being (although Gandhi's isn't as clear-cut as Jesus' obviously).
You're saying that I blame child rape on the authorities? Errm, o.k. Sure.
Excuse me while I go and bang my head against the wall.
Defensive much? I said nothing about your thoughts on child rape, I simply asked how many child rapists the FBI caught last year... the point being that those "authority figures" you dislike are needed and do many good things. That for every Kent State massacre (once in the history of the USA I believe), there are 10,000 criminals taken off the streets by these people. For every one racist cop who bludgeons a black man to death, there are thousands that protect women, children and minorities on a day to day basis. For every one usher on a power trip, there are a hundred people in the theater next door thanking an usher for getting the annoying guy that wouldn't shut up out of the movie. For every one bouncer who acts like a prick (and I wonder how many are just acting tough so that people don't test them and how many are actually doing anything to you to cause you problems), there are a dozen who have put themselves in danger by removing a drunk man from the bar before he starts a fight or stabs somebody.
By all means, question authority and keep tabs to make sure they're doing their jobs and not abusing their position. But that's no reason to be disrespectful and ASSume the worst of them just because they have a job to do that involves making sure you and the people around you aren't acting like jackasses and ruining things for the rest of us.
As for chaos, would you say that the world is presently an orderly place that deserves to be protected and maintained in its current state by people who obey orders, wear pin-striped suits, and wave flags?
I think Timothy Leary may have been on to something - put L.S.D in the water supply and watch these jobsworths run around like headless chickens.
Agreed! There's something very very sterilised about the world today.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Byrnzie, are you familiar with the poem The Second Coming by Yeats? It's supposed to be a lament of the decline of society and the ruling classes but really all he does is pump me up for it.
"Turning and turning in the widening gyre,
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
FUCK YES I say
I fuckin LOVE Yeats
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
there are good and bad authoritative figures. In general, I've no time for authority but I've been pleasantly proven wrong on a few occasions. Something happened years ago though that leaves a general bad taste in my mouth when it comes to authoritative figures trying to prove themselves or abusing their authority! I don't think that bad taste will ever leave so basically authority has to prove itself to me constantly. I believe that's how it should be... after all, they work for US!
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Anyone else have a problem with it? I don't get on with authority - in whatever shape or form; bosses, pub landlords, train ticket inspectors, the cops, ushers in cinemas, message pit moderators, bouncers. I just have a problem with the whole lot. People in authority make me uncomfortable - fear and loathing.
They often remind me of Nurse Ratched from 'One flew over the cuckoos nest'.
I don't like people who see it as their job to control you. They make me want to stir shit up and throw a spanner in the works.
Maybe a bit of a generalization, but you get my drift.
Anyone else feel the same way?
Edit: something else that annoys me - people who laugh in cinemas at things that aren't funny because they think this makes it seem like they 'get it', even though there's nothing to get. I.e, I saw Bowling for Columbine and there were a bunch of people in the cinema who kept laughing throughout this film at people, and situations, that weren't funny. What they didn't seem to understand was that Bowling for Columbine isn't funny. They were laughing because they they thought that laughing made them look clever. People like this make me sick.
I'm just thinking out loud here. I'm bored. Anyone home?
wow.....you live in china and have a problem with authority?
do you dislike authority as much as those who stood in front of the tanks?
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
are individuals allowed to have a second child yet?
the only reason i ask, an exchange student my wife had during the 07-08 school term, informed her that her neighbor was taken away by the authorities for becoming pregnant for the second time.
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
People here are freer than they are in England or the U.S. There's no nanny state here.
I am thinking Zhao Yan would disagree with you.
I have been to China. I was in Hong Kong 9 days before it was 'handed back' to the Chinese. I would again disagree with you. But maybe these are just my experiences.
Not to mention what a joke their "constitution" is. :rolleyes:
I don't have a problem with authority. I also have no problem arguing my side of an issue when I KNOW they are wrong.
Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
I am thinking Zhao Yan would disagree with you.
I have been to China. I was in Hong Kong 9 days before it was 'handed back' to the Chinese. I would again disagree with you. But maybe these are just my experiences.
Not to mention what a joke their "constitution" is. :rolleyes:
I don't have a problem with authority. I also have no problem arguing my side of an issue when I KNOW they are wrong.
Agreed.
Well, apparently if you want to buy the new Chinese Democracy album by Guns n Roses, you are screwed if you are in China. Apparently, the Minister of Culture does not like "democracy" being in the title. Yes, freedom!
Edit: I was in Best Buy the other day, and was amazed at how many album covers have George Bush on the cover (in an unflattering way). This crap about China being more free than the US is ridiculous. You can say anything you want in the US. You can practice any religion you want in the US. Yeah, be a Christian in China. See how that works out for you. Yeah, Chinese Freedom!
If you have a problem with authority, you need to grow up.
Steve is grown up and mature and very intelligent.
I think he was just spouting off at the ones that take advantage of their position and use it to pad their sense of self worth. It is the condescending attitude and obnoxious way of strutting around, all puffed out with a false sense of themselves that people tend to take issue with. I know I have experienced my fair share of pompous asses, all in the name of authority. :rolleyes:
Thanx for agreeing with me.
Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
are individuals allowed to have a second child yet?
the only reason i ask, an exchange student my wife had during the 07-08 school term, informed her that her neighbor was taken away by the authorities for becoming pregnant for the second time.
In rural areas they're allowed a second child if their first is a girl. In the cities the one child policy still stands - unless you can pay a hefty fine.
I think it's a good idea. They should adopt it in England aswell. There are too many people in the world. And there are too many people in England having babies who can't afford to raise them, and who are too young to have children.
You're kidding right? The nation famous for coercing google into helping them block any websites the state disapproves of has "no nanny state?"
There's no website that I've not been able to access here other than Piratebay, but then I just use a proxy server to get around that.
I lived in England most of my life. I've also been all over America on more than one occasion. People here in China live freer lives.
In England and the U.S people have the illusion of being free. That's all it is - an illusion. There's no real democracy in the West. As an obvious example; both the populations of the U.S and Britain were unanimously opposed to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Did that make any difference? Nope. The Government went ahead with the invasion anyway, based on a pack of blatant lies. And if the people had really caused any trouble and created any kind of scene then what's to say that we wouldn't have witnessed scenes like those in Tienanmen Square in 1989? Not too much different from Kent State, or Seattle, or Genoa really.
Well, apparently if you want to buy the new Chinese Democracy album by Guns n Roses, you are screwed if you are in China. Apparently, the Minister of Culture does not like "democracy" being in the title. Yes, freedom!
Edit: I was in Best Buy the other day, and was amazed at how many album covers have George Bush on the cover (in an unflattering way). This crap about China being more free than the US is ridiculous. You can say anything you want in the US. You can practice any religion you want in the US. Yeah, be a Christian in China. See how that works out for you. Yeah, Chinese Freedom!
No, you've got it all wrong. They don't like it because it's shit.
You can say anything you want in the US. You can practice any religion you want in the US. Yeah, be a Christian in China. See how that works out for you.
Try living in both countries, and then tell me that people in China don't live freer lives. And the fact that they can't buy a particular Guns & Roses album in the shops here, or that Christianity isn't widely accepted - somewhat like Islam not being widely approved of in the U.S - is neither here nor there.
being a fan of mcewan this one i was bemused at what the reasoning would be. so i clicked on the link. big woop i say. this is hardly an example of someones freedoms being trampled on. everybody knows you cant enter the US to work without the appropriate documentation. we all know this. and make no mistake thats what mcewan was doing
did mcewan have this documentation? was someone just doing their job in detaining him? just cause hes been doing 'this kind of thing' for 30 years doesnt mean in these security sensitive times it should be allowed to continue so nonchalantly.
is he a threat to national security? no
was it about him ever being? no
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
If you have a problem with authority, you need to grow up.
If you don't have problems with authority you need to do more thinking.
You have an executive branch of government that has run amok and taken a shit on the Constitution. Those authority figures love guys like you. No questions asked. That's how they planned on pulling off all the signing statements, the abuses of power, the obstructing of justice, illegal warfare for profit, secret rendition. They've done all this in your name and at your expense, financially, culturally, politically.
Don't ever stop asking questions. Don't ever give up your right to demonstrate.
Edit: I was in Best Buy the other day, and was amazed at how many album covers have George Bush on the cover (in an unflattering way). This crap about China being more free than the US is ridiculous. You can say anything you want in the US. You can practice any religion you want in the US. Yeah, be a Christian in China. See how that works out for you. Yeah, Chinese Freedom!
American Freedom!:
10-05-2004, 11:27 PM
By JENNIFER BUNDY
Associated Press Writer
'CHARLESTON, W.Va. — A couple arrested for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts to a July 4 presidential appearance filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday alleging their First Amendment rights were violated.
Jeff and Nicole Rank, the couple arrested after wearing anti-Bush shirts at the president's July 4 speech at the West Virginia Capitol Building, address the media in Charleston, W.Va., Tuesday, Sept. 14, 2004, about their arrest and pending lawsuit claiming that the Secret Service violated their First Amendment rights.'
'..Zirkel said he was sitting in the food court drinking coffee with his wife Marie, 77, and several others when police and mall security officers approached and demanded they remove their anti-war T-shirts.'
http://www.metafilter.com/23802/anti-bush-t-shirt-banned
'Anti-Bush T-shirt banned at Michigan school "DEARBORN, Michigan (AP) -- School officials ordered a 16-year-old student to either take off a T-shirt emblazoned with the words "International Terrorist" and a picture of President Bush and or go home, saying they worried it would inflame passions at the school where a majority of students are Arab-American.'
'The rights of ordinary people to speak out against an unjust war and atrocities unleashed in their name are being crushed. Fascism is at the door. Who else, asks John Pilger, will fight it?
On 7 December, Maya Evans, a vegan chef aged 25, was convicted of breaching the new Serious Organised Crime and Police Act by reading aloud at the Cenotaph the names of 97 British soldiers killed in Iraq. So serious was her crime that it required 14 policemen in two vans to arrest her. She was fined and given a criminal record for the rest of her life.
Freedom is dying.
Eighty-year-old John Catt served with the RAF in the Second World War. Last September, he was stopped by police in Brighton for wearing an "offensive" T-shirt which suggested that Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes. He was arrested under the Terrorism Act and handcuffed, with his arms held behind his back. The official record of the arrest says the "purpose" of searching him was "terrorism" and the "grounds for intervention" were "carrying plackard and T-shirt with anti-Blair info" (sic)...
Consider parallel events in the United States. Last October, an American doctor, loved by his patients, was punished with 22 years in prison for founding a charity, Help the Needy, which helped children in Iraq stricken by an economic and humanitarian blockade imposed by America and Britain. In raising money for infants dying from diarrhoea, Dr Rafil Dhafir broke a siege which, accor-ding to Unicef, had caused the deaths of half a million under the age of five. John Ashcroft, the then US attorney general, called Dr Dhafir, a Muslim, a "terrorist", a description mocked by even the judge in a politically motivated travesty of a trial.
The Dhafir case is not extraordinary. In the same month, three US circuit court judges ruled in favour of the Bush regime's "right" to imprison an American citizen "indefinitely" without charging him with a crime. This was the case of Jose Padilla, a petty criminal who allegedly visited Pakistan before he was arrested at Chicago airport three and a half years ago. He was never charged and no evidence has ever been presented against him. Now mired in legal complexity, the case puts George W Bush above the law and outlaws the Bill of Rights. Indeed, on 14 November, the US Senate in effect voted to ban habeas corpus by passing an amendment that overturned a Supreme Court ruling allowing Guantanamo prisoners access to a federal court. Thus, the touchstone of America's most celebrated freedom was scrapped. Without habeas corpus, a government can simply lock away its opponents and implement a dictatorship...'
In Cohen v. California 403 U.S. 15 (1971) Paul Robert Cohen, 19, was arrested for wearing a jacket with the words "Fuck the Draft" inside the Los Angeles Courthouse. He was convicted of violating section 415 of the California Penal Code, which prohibits "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person [by] offensive conduct."
The conviction was appealed to the state Court of Appeals, which held that "offensive conduct" means "behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn disturb the peace," and affirmed the conviction.
The Supreme Court, by a vote of 5-4, overturned the appellate court's ruling. It said:
"Absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense."
"George W. Bush: International Terrorist"
A high school junior in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, Bretton Barber, was asked to remove his anti-George W. Bush T-shirt in the lead up to the Iraq War. It featured a picture of Bush with the words "International Terrorist." He was asked to remove it because it supported terrorism.[6] The student sued his school district and his principal in Federal District Court in Detroit, Michigan (Bretton Barber v. Dearborn Public Schools [286 F. Supp. 2d 847]). In a 25-page published opinion, Barber won the lawsuit, and his high school was ordered to allow him to wear the shirt.
"Give Peace a Chance"
In the leadup to the Iraq War, a man was asked to leave a shopping mall by a security guard because of his "Give Peace a Chance" T-shirt.
"Meet the Fuckers"
In October 2005, Lorrie Heasley, of Portland, Oregon, was removed from a Southwest Airlines flight in Reno, Nevada for wearing a T-shirt displaying an image of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Michael Chertoff and Michael Brown with the caption "Meet the Fuckers," spoofing the film title Meet the Fockers...'
If you don't have problems with authority you need to do more thinking.
You have an executive branch of government that has run amok and taken a shit on the Constitution. Those authority figures love guys like you. No questions asked. That's how they planned on pulling off all the signing statements, the abuses of power, the obstructing of justice, illegal warfare for profit, secret rendition. They've done all this in your name and at your expense, financially, culturally, politically.
Don't ever stop asking questions. Don't ever give up your right to demonstrate.
Asking questions and dismissing authoritative systems when they become unjust is not the same thing as understanding the concept of authority and the need for it. I don't know why some people can't make this distinction. This thread would've ended a lot sooner if this distinction was made by the OP.
I think authority is needed to preserve the collective freedom for all. That doesn't mean I automatically respect and accept all forms of it. If an authoritative system becomes unjust, it should be replaced with one that's fair and reasonable. But it shouldn't NOT be replaced. That's retarded and childish to think like that.
Asking questions and dismissing authoritative systems when they become unjust is not the same thing as understanding the concept of authority and the need for it. I don't know why some people can't make this distinction. This thread would've ended a lot sooner if this distinction was made by the OP.
I think authority is needed to preserve the collective freedom for all. That doesn't mean I automatically respect and accept all forms of it. If an authoritative system becomes unjust, it should be replaced with one that's fair and reasonable. But it shouldn't NOT be replaced. That's retarded and childish to think like that.
Authority/power structures should be constantly challenged, questioned, and made to justify themselves. Shit, if we wanna start getting philosophical about it then I'll go grab my Frantz Fanon, Michel Foucault, and my Chomsky.
Though I wasn't looking to get so involved. I was really just talking about people in authority, and wondered if anyone else feels the same way.
I treat people as individuals, but I regard most people in authority with what I regard as a healthy distrust. Until they prove to me that they are a person and not a job (a jobsworth) - and therefore liable to place their job description above any human decency/individuality they might possess - then fuck 'em. It's just a quirk of mine. Authority figures generally get my back up. That's all. I wasn't trying to convert anyone here, I just wondered if anyone else felt the same way.
Edit: (Actually, I was just bored when I began this thread, and just decided to throw this topic into the mix. Though sometimes if you say too much about something you start to wonder if you actually believe what you're saying. Oh well, I started so I'll finish).
Asking questions and dismissing authoritative systems when they become unjust is not the same thing as understanding the concept of authority and the need for it. I don't know why some people can't make this distinction. This thread would've ended a lot sooner if this distinction was made by the OP.
I think authority is needed to preserve the collective freedom for all. That doesn't mean I automatically respect and accept all forms of it. If an authoritative system becomes unjust, it should be replaced with one that's fair and reasonable. But it shouldn't NOT be replaced. That's retarded and childish to think like that.
I didn't say there isn't a need for it. There is, "to preserve the collective freedom", and for more than that. And that's why I get disgusted with the abuses of power, the constant corruption, the invasions on our rights and so-called freedoms. So I put it back on you- the fact that I do get outraged or disapprove, and write lots of letters to my senators and representatives, is because I do understand the need for authority and that it is in place to better serve the people.
Comments
Ah, Man,
Totally not fair. I don't know where this thread has gone, but on this note - I laugh at almost everything, even things that "Society" would say are not funny.
It tends to get me 'that look' from authority figures.
For instance, we're having a meeting and boss 1 shares an idea that boss 2 (who is not included in our meeting) has proposed. I burst out laughing, like Julia Roberts style, 'cause the idea was fucking ludicrous.
My boss tried to say the idea wasn't funny, I said that obviously it was if it made me laugh so hard. Point being that laughter is often an involuntary response to many different things and can be a part of several different emotions.
So, on authority, I guess I have a problem with them when they try to pull shit that seems ridiculous.
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
Even if my explanation isn't what Buk meant, I still think it holds up in a debate about authority (you still haven't told me your interpretation yet btw). Authority is an extremely useful tool in preserving our individual freedom as well as the collective freedom for all...this all goes back to balance. It's a balancing act which nobody (including Bukowski) can always recognize. Sometimes we slip...just like I used to when I'd mess with cops or campus security or bouncers. I still slip, but it's getting less and less because I'm becoming more balanced...Bukowski's work has helped me with that. The fact that you brought him into this thread is probably the reason I'm still posting in it
Take it easy, man.
Defensive much? I said nothing about your thoughts on child rape, I simply asked how many child rapists the FBI caught last year... the point being that those "authority figures" you dislike are needed and do many good things. That for every Kent State massacre (once in the history of the USA I believe), there are 10,000 criminals taken off the streets by these people. For every one racist cop who bludgeons a black man to death, there are thousands that protect women, children and minorities on a day to day basis. For every one usher on a power trip, there are a hundred people in the theater next door thanking an usher for getting the annoying guy that wouldn't shut up out of the movie. For every one bouncer who acts like a prick (and I wonder how many are just acting tough so that people don't test them and how many are actually doing anything to you to cause you problems), there are a dozen who have put themselves in danger by removing a drunk man from the bar before he starts a fight or stabs somebody.
By all means, question authority and keep tabs to make sure they're doing their jobs and not abusing their position. But that's no reason to be disrespectful and ASSume the worst of them just because they have a job to do that involves making sure you and the people around you aren't acting like jackasses and ruining things for the rest of us.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
do you dislike authority as much as those who stood in front of the tanks?
Have you ever been to China?
People here are freer than they are in England or the U.S. There's no nanny state here.
people there are more free.....free enough to stand before tanks and voice their discourse. interesting indeed.
the only reason i ask, an exchange student my wife had during the 07-08 school term, informed her that her neighbor was taken away by the authorities for becoming pregnant for the second time.
You're kidding right? The nation famous for coercing google into helping them block any websites the state disapproves of has "no nanny state?"
I have been to China. I was in Hong Kong 9 days before it was 'handed back' to the Chinese. I would again disagree with you. But maybe these are just my experiences.
Not to mention what a joke their "constitution" is. :rolleyes:
I don't have a problem with authority. I also have no problem arguing my side of an issue when I KNOW they are wrong.
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
Agreed.
Well, apparently if you want to buy the new Chinese Democracy album by Guns n Roses, you are screwed if you are in China. Apparently, the Minister of Culture does not like "democracy" being in the title. Yes, freedom!
Edit: I was in Best Buy the other day, and was amazed at how many album covers have George Bush on the cover (in an unflattering way). This crap about China being more free than the US is ridiculous. You can say anything you want in the US. You can practice any religion you want in the US. Yeah, be a Christian in China. See how that works out for you. Yeah, Chinese Freedom!
I think he was just spouting off at the ones that take advantage of their position and use it to pad their sense of self worth. It is the condescending attitude and obnoxious way of strutting around, all puffed out with a false sense of themselves that people tend to take issue with. I know I have experienced my fair share of pompous asses, all in the name of authority. :rolleyes:
Thanx for agreeing with me.
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
In rural areas they're allowed a second child if their first is a girl. In the cities the one child policy still stands - unless you can pay a hefty fine.
I think it's a good idea. They should adopt it in England aswell. There are too many people in the world. And there are too many people in England having babies who can't afford to raise them, and who are too young to have children.
There's no website that I've not been able to access here other than Piratebay, but then I just use a proxy server to get around that.
I lived in England most of my life. I've also been all over America on more than one occasion. People here in China live freer lives.
In England and the U.S people have the illusion of being free. That's all it is - an illusion. There's no real democracy in the West. As an obvious example; both the populations of the U.S and Britain were unanimously opposed to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Did that make any difference? Nope. The Government went ahead with the invasion anyway, based on a pack of blatant lies. And if the people had really caused any trouble and created any kind of scene then what's to say that we wouldn't have witnessed scenes like those in Tienanmen Square in 1989? Not too much different from Kent State, or Seattle, or Genoa really.
Sorry Mum.
By the way, whenever you happen to be stopped by a cop, do you always refer to him as 'Sir'?
No, you've got it all wrong. They don't like it because it's shit.
On a similar note:
Cat Stevens refused entry to US
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3678694.stm
Bez refused entry to US for historic gig
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/a45779/bez-refused-entry-to-us-for-historic-gig.html
US refuses visa to Iranian film director Abbas Kiarostami
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/visa-o01.shtml
Ian McEwan Refused Entry to U.S.
http://www.ianmcewan.com/visa-2004.html
Try living in both countries, and then tell me that people in China don't live freer lives. And the fact that they can't buy a particular Guns & Roses album in the shops here, or that Christianity isn't widely accepted - somewhat like Islam not being widely approved of in the U.S - is neither here nor there.
being a fan of mcewan this one i was bemused at what the reasoning would be. so i clicked on the link. big woop i say. this is hardly an example of someones freedoms being trampled on. everybody knows you cant enter the US to work without the appropriate documentation. we all know this. and make no mistake thats what mcewan was doing
did mcewan have this documentation? was someone just doing their job in detaining him? just cause hes been doing 'this kind of thing' for 30 years doesnt mean in these security sensitive times it should be allowed to continue so nonchalantly.
is he a threat to national security? no
was it about him ever being? no
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
If you don't have problems with authority you need to do more thinking.
You have an executive branch of government that has run amok and taken a shit on the Constitution. Those authority figures love guys like you. No questions asked. That's how they planned on pulling off all the signing statements, the abuses of power, the obstructing of justice, illegal warfare for profit, secret rendition. They've done all this in your name and at your expense, financially, culturally, politically.
Don't ever stop asking questions. Don't ever give up your right to demonstrate.
American Freedom!:
10-05-2004, 11:27 PM
By JENNIFER BUNDY
Associated Press Writer
'CHARLESTON, W.Va. — A couple arrested for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts to a July 4 presidential appearance filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday alleging their First Amendment rights were violated.
Jeff and Nicole Rank, the couple arrested after wearing anti-Bush shirts at the president's July 4 speech at the West Virginia Capitol Building, address the media in Charleston, W.Va., Tuesday, Sept. 14, 2004, about their arrest and pending lawsuit claiming that the Secret Service violated their First Amendment rights.'
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/80866/
March 31, 2008.
80-Year-Old Church Deacon Arrested for Refusing to Remove His Anti-War T-Shirt
'..Zirkel said he was sitting in the food court drinking coffee with his wife Marie, 77, and several others when police and mall security officers approached and demanded they remove their anti-war T-shirts.'
http://www.metafilter.com/23802/anti-bush-t-shirt-banned
'Anti-Bush T-shirt banned at Michigan school "DEARBORN, Michigan (AP) -- School officials ordered a 16-year-old student to either take off a T-shirt emblazoned with the words "International Terrorist" and a picture of President Bush and or go home, saying they worried it would inflame passions at the school where a majority of students are Arab-American.'
http://www.newstatesman.com/200601090004
The death of freedom
John Pilger Published 09 January 2006
'The rights of ordinary people to speak out against an unjust war and atrocities unleashed in their name are being crushed. Fascism is at the door. Who else, asks John Pilger, will fight it?
On 7 December, Maya Evans, a vegan chef aged 25, was convicted of breaching the new Serious Organised Crime and Police Act by reading aloud at the Cenotaph the names of 97 British soldiers killed in Iraq. So serious was her crime that it required 14 policemen in two vans to arrest her. She was fined and given a criminal record for the rest of her life.
Freedom is dying.
Eighty-year-old John Catt served with the RAF in the Second World War. Last September, he was stopped by police in Brighton for wearing an "offensive" T-shirt which suggested that Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes. He was arrested under the Terrorism Act and handcuffed, with his arms held behind his back. The official record of the arrest says the "purpose" of searching him was "terrorism" and the "grounds for intervention" were "carrying plackard and T-shirt with anti-Blair info" (sic)...
Consider parallel events in the United States. Last October, an American doctor, loved by his patients, was punished with 22 years in prison for founding a charity, Help the Needy, which helped children in Iraq stricken by an economic and humanitarian blockade imposed by America and Britain. In raising money for infants dying from diarrhoea, Dr Rafil Dhafir broke a siege which, accor-ding to Unicef, had caused the deaths of half a million under the age of five. John Ashcroft, the then US attorney general, called Dr Dhafir, a Muslim, a "terrorist", a description mocked by even the judge in a politically motivated travesty of a trial.
The Dhafir case is not extraordinary. In the same month, three US circuit court judges ruled in favour of the Bush regime's "right" to imprison an American citizen "indefinitely" without charging him with a crime. This was the case of Jose Padilla, a petty criminal who allegedly visited Pakistan before he was arrested at Chicago airport three and a half years ago. He was never charged and no evidence has ever been presented against him. Now mired in legal complexity, the case puts George W Bush above the law and outlaws the Bill of Rights. Indeed, on 14 November, the US Senate in effect voted to ban habeas corpus by passing an amendment that overturned a Supreme Court ruling allowing Guantanamo prisoners access to a federal court. Thus, the touchstone of America's most celebrated freedom was scrapped. Without habeas corpus, a government can simply lock away its opponents and implement a dictatorship...'
Illegal T-shirt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_T-shirt
"Fuck the Draft"
In Cohen v. California 403 U.S. 15 (1971) Paul Robert Cohen, 19, was arrested for wearing a jacket with the words "Fuck the Draft" inside the Los Angeles Courthouse. He was convicted of violating section 415 of the California Penal Code, which prohibits "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person [by] offensive conduct."
The conviction was appealed to the state Court of Appeals, which held that "offensive conduct" means "behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn disturb the peace," and affirmed the conviction.
The Supreme Court, by a vote of 5-4, overturned the appellate court's ruling. It said:
"Absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense."
"George W. Bush: International Terrorist"
A high school junior in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, Bretton Barber, was asked to remove his anti-George W. Bush T-shirt in the lead up to the Iraq War. It featured a picture of Bush with the words "International Terrorist." He was asked to remove it because it supported terrorism.[6] The student sued his school district and his principal in Federal District Court in Detroit, Michigan (Bretton Barber v. Dearborn Public Schools [286 F. Supp. 2d 847]). In a 25-page published opinion, Barber won the lawsuit, and his high school was ordered to allow him to wear the shirt.
"Give Peace a Chance"
In the leadup to the Iraq War, a man was asked to leave a shopping mall by a security guard because of his "Give Peace a Chance" T-shirt.
"Meet the Fuckers"
In October 2005, Lorrie Heasley, of Portland, Oregon, was removed from a Southwest Airlines flight in Reno, Nevada for wearing a T-shirt displaying an image of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Michael Chertoff and Michael Brown with the caption "Meet the Fuckers," spoofing the film title Meet the Fockers...'
I think authority is needed to preserve the collective freedom for all. That doesn't mean I automatically respect and accept all forms of it. If an authoritative system becomes unjust, it should be replaced with one that's fair and reasonable. But it shouldn't NOT be replaced. That's retarded and childish to think like that.
Authority/power structures should be constantly challenged, questioned, and made to justify themselves. Shit, if we wanna start getting philosophical about it then I'll go grab my Frantz Fanon, Michel Foucault, and my Chomsky.
Though I wasn't looking to get so involved. I was really just talking about people in authority, and wondered if anyone else feels the same way.
I treat people as individuals, but I regard most people in authority with what I regard as a healthy distrust. Until they prove to me that they are a person and not a job (a jobsworth) - and therefore liable to place their job description above any human decency/individuality they might possess - then fuck 'em. It's just a quirk of mine. Authority figures generally get my back up. That's all. I wasn't trying to convert anyone here, I just wondered if anyone else felt the same way.
Edit: (Actually, I was just bored when I began this thread, and just decided to throw this topic into the mix. Though sometimes if you say too much about something you start to wonder if you actually believe what you're saying. Oh well, I started so I'll finish).
I didn't say there isn't a need for it. There is, "to preserve the collective freedom", and for more than that. And that's why I get disgusted with the abuses of power, the constant corruption, the invasions on our rights and so-called freedoms. So I put it back on you- the fact that I do get outraged or disapprove, and write lots of letters to my senators and representatives, is because I do understand the need for authority and that it is in place to better serve the people.