Please Vote In My Poll

James Lee wrote: What were we talking about? Oh yeah, the virtues of charitable aid to Africa....

Interesting article James,thanks for providing the link.

Makes the cliche "food for thought" almost a dichotomy.....

James Lee wrote: ...so democracy is best when it doesn't follow the will of the people? No offense, Alucard, I think you make good points here...but I think you misunderstand the nature of democracy.DO I, James..? Nothing about the concept of democracy guarantees individual rights...Is that so?in fact, the majority can vote to give up their rights, as has happened throughout the history of the US. I'm neither apologizing for nor attacking democracy (well, not explicitly, anyway), but simply saying that a democratic system will only ever protect individual rights if it is in the interests of the majority to do so. For an classic evaluation of democracy, I recommend de Toqueville well, Tocqueville for one was defending the protection of individual rights against a strong egalitarian majority,  even Plato...not quite as visual as Lang, but far-seeing nonetheless. Of course, since this forum is not a democracy, the question is rather moot for this discussion...I don't think any of the petitioners truly believe that the administration is bound to respond to any pressure (be it force of numbers, persuasive argument, or the concerned parties' departure). At best, this thread is a plea rather than a movement; although the tone sometimes seems like a demand, I hope that neither side truly sees it as such. And it need not be said that we are not participating in a 'free speech' debate. The site has established a compromise where some of the more extreme expressions are forbidden, some are watched more closely than others but generally left alone, and the majority of expression on the site is completely permitted and encouraged. The guidelines are there to maintain civility and to ensure that the site does not attract unwelcome attention by people capable of shutting it down and causing trouble of a serious kind for the owner/ operators. This is smart, reasonable, and practical, but it's not 'free speech' by a long shot. The most telling element of this discussion has been the way in which all parties came to regard the matter as mainly a moral issue. Is it 'right' to post these advertisements in the first place, and is it 'right' for the administration to remove them? Once you're in the moral realm, everything is either relativist or authoritarian and the discussion is mired in rhetoric (no, really? ). The fundamental question should be: are the posts necessary, appropriate, and/or desirable? Whether you want litter in your yard or not is not a moral issue. Neither is asking your guests to take off their shoes when they enter your house. If I were in maani's position (and don't think for a second that I wish to be, or that I believe I could do a better job!), I would have no moral qualms about deleting the posts and replying to the poster with "Sorry, but it's just not the kind of thing we do here. You'd have much better luck on someplace like eBay anyway. No hard feelings." If they were interested in becoming a member of this community, something like that shouldn't offend them, and if they weren't interested...well, why would they want to post in the first place? There, that's the difference a good night's sleep can make. BTW: I love you too, greg.

Liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy where elected representatives that hold the decision power are moderated by a constitution that emphasizes protecting individual liberties and the rights of minorities in society (also called constitutional liberalism), such as freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of religion, the right to private property and privacy, as well as equality before the law and due process under the rule of law, etc.

Such constitutional rights (also named liberal rights) are guaranteed through various controlled institutions and various statutory laws. Additionally the constitution of most of the contemporary liberal democracies protects the rights of individuals and minorities, and prohibits the will of the majority (majoritarianism), by almost eliminating that rule in practice.

Liberal democracy is also based on the notions of tolerance and pluralism. This means that differing political views within society are permitted to co-exist and compete for political power. Liberal democracies are also characterised by periodic elections, in which the competing political views possess the opportunity to achieve political power.

Cheers

Some great prose in this thread..........................Maani and James

And of course I was right.......

maani wrote: Snow Dog: Interesting.  You note that quite a number of people viewed your poll, but only 28 voted in it.  What does that tell you?  I am surprised that you fail to see the relevance. Garion: Obviously, the site would not permit the sale of stolen property of any type.  And though it would admittedly be difficult to prove whether something was stolen or not, it is clear that most if not all of these tickets were obtained through "proper" channels, i.e., the lottery. As for "Behavior Not Related to Decency," I must continue to reiterate my previous comment.  There have been any number of threads and posts that members complained were indecent, immoral, or otherwise inappropriate.  Yet no one left or made a "cause celebre" out of them, even when the admin group chose not to delete them.  If something was, in fact, indecent or otherwise inappropriate, the admin group either edited or deleted the offending thread/post, and/or ejected the member responsible. "Decency" is in the eyes of the beholder - or, more practically, in each person's definition of what is "indecent."  In the case of this site, the admin group determines, sometimes on a case by case basis, whether an offending post is "decent" or not, and to what degree.  And again, in the past when the admin group did not side with even a majority of the members over something they felt was "indecent" or otherwise objectionable (and thus deletable), no one made a mountain out of a molehill about it.  The determination of the admin group was accepted, even if a little bit of grumbling persisted. What makes this different?  After all, it does not rise near to the level of some of the threads/posts that members have complained about in the past - some of which were, in fact, deleted. I continue to feel that many of you are "working on emotions" rather than truly thinking this through.  There is a "hysteria" on this site right now that is extremely unhealthy, and is, sadly, apparently being deliberately "stoked" by a few members.  The problem is that that hysteria has its roots only partially in facts and evidence; the rest is presumption and cynicism.  Would I be too far afield to suggest that this is how dictators come to power?  After all, Tony has all but begged me to go over to "the Dark Side of the force" and use my authority as "benevolent dictator" to delete the offending threads - and he did this by quoting no less a totalitarian primer than Animal Farm! Call me arrogant, call me stubborn, call me anything you want.  But if I have anything to say about it, I will not permit this site to lose its focus, to compromise its most cherished principles, to cave in to the threats or hysteria of members, or to become a place where freedom of speech can and will be impinged by the "majority vote" of its members. I want all of you to keep this in mind as we in America watch our freedoms and civil liberties erode as the result of a pro-rich, pro-war, right-wing agenda that has no room for dissention - which it has openly labeled "unpatriotic."  As two reporters are sent to jail by the Supreme Court for not revealing sources - an absolutely essential element of a "free" press - and when two members of the Bush Administration state, with a straight face, that "people need to watch what they say," I cannot help but be wary of those who would send the admin group down the road to the same sort of proto-totalitarian censorship under the guise of some misguided notion of "morality." I will not become the "Big Brother" of Prog Archives. Peace.

Great stuff once more,you should write school books Maani, you have the gift to expose your ideas very clearly.I saw this weekend an old movie of Fritz Lang : Fury, IMHO one of the best observations about the opposition of Democracy based on laws and popular consensus which has and will often give way to the worst kind of popular 'hysteria'. A real democracy can only work as long as it can guarantee individual freedom acording to the laws.Unfortunately in Europe as in the States politicians are looking for popular assentement to get (re)elected instead of defending democracy. In France  Nicolas Sarkozy a right-wing populist dictator  is becoming more and more powerful, mainly because he claims to defend 'traditional values and morality'.

Tony R wrote: gdub411 wrote: James Lee wrote: Sean: I agree. It's much harder to lie to people about your good intentions if you don't have convincing proof. There's a parallel universe where the Boomtown Rats were able to give Geldof all the attention he craved, and he didn't need to become the Bill Graham of charitable events. Luckily (because the Rats really did suck most of the time), we're stuck in this universe...so we'll just have to hope some good comes out of it. As far as actually helping people, I do believe that he's accomplishing something, so I can't be TOO critical...I just don't think that the actual aid generated equals the cost of the spectacle. I tuned in briefly to see Madonna with her arm around a 'rehabilitated victim of poverty', who looked quite fashionable... and found myself wondering whether pop culture missionaries will take over for religious ones- i.e, do insidious damage to other cultures for centuries to come in the name of saving them. That's why I like you James. You're always upbeat and optimistic. Seriously, though, once again, you give us something to think about. No,he didn't.....

Shhhhh.....i just want him to stay and keep posting and not leave the forum again so I am trying to flatter him.

PS....Talk, Talk is WAY better than VdGG

James Lee wrote: Sean: I agree. It's much harder to lie to people about your good intentions if you don't have convincing proof. There's a parallel universe where the Boomtown Rats were able to give Geldof all the attention he craved, and he didn't need to become the Bill Graham of charitable events. Luckily (because the Rats really did suck most of the time), we're stuck in this universe...so we'll just have to hope some good comes out of it. As far as actually helping people, I do believe that he's accomplishing something, so I can't be TOO critical...I just don't think that the actual aid generated equals the cost of the spectacle. I tuned in briefly to see Madonna with her arm around a 'rehabilitated victim of poverty', who looked quite fashionable... and found myself wondering whether pop culture missionaries will take over for religious ones- i.e, do insidious damage to other cultures for centuries to come in the name of saving them.

That's why I like you James. You're always upbeat and optimistic.

Seriously, though, once again, you give us something to think about.

Linking those three was not my idea but the "seller" (St 24 if I remember well his ID) of those now-infamous tickets that have created the debate in the first place. I just mentionned that it was the onl;y thing that was half-true.

I did not shed a tear for Di , because : she who lived by the medias , shall die by the medias. She was the first one to use them , but also to cry for the invasion of her private life. Sure , she had a few charities , all royalties are recommended to take one or two causes , create a foundation or two , spend a day or two on it (maybe get paid for those days) because it is good for their image.

Geldoff swore the money we gave him in 85 would be used correctly. correct me if I'm wrong , but most food rotted in warehouses or ended up getting sold to the famined people. OK , he was naive but he said that he knew of the problem and would get around it. So much for that. I also can agree with his opinions about third world debt , but he needs to get back to all the talk shows (that pays very well).

As for Bono, if he carers so much for the fans , tickets scalped , face value of tickets at $ 90.00 and an atrocious sound (and no second show) , left most people with an ounce of good common sense in Brussels a taste of rot in the mouth. As for the rest of his causes , he was once quoted as to say that the Bono character was really a lot more fascinating that HE really was. So he admits playing a character. I still have the article/book (Assayas I believe collected those thoughts) and I can send it if you want ! Sorry but in french, only.

Fake was meant not as an insult , but putting on a face for the medias.

Sean:

Actually, just adding another show or two still does not take up all the "slack": some people are still going to be shut out.  In addition, simply because a group is playing a "tour" and not just a concert in, say, Toronto, doesn't mean someone has the means or time to travel to, say, Chicago to see the tour there.  So simply having other "choices" of dates and venues is often useless.

Re Geldof, Bono and Di, I believe you are "broad-brushing" here.  Geldof is almost certainly well-intentioned, but probably has an agenda.  Di spoke out for a couple of good causes, and probably had a truly good heart.

However, I separate Bono from this group because he, of all of them, has truly put his money - and time, energy, celebrity, etc. - where his mouth is on an ongoing consistent basis.  He was been tireless in his campaign to get the World Bank and others to forgive much of the Third World debt - and he was successful.  True, others spoke up as well, but he was the acknowledged leader of that campaign - acknowedged even by the world leaders who eventually joined him and made it happen.

Now he is putting his time, energy, money and celebrity behind the poverty issue, and is having an effect once again.  And although he jumped on this particular bandwagon after some others had started it (including Rev. Jim Wallis and the Call to Renewal group, perhaps the most powerful anti-poverty "lobby" in the world), he has emerged as an important voice in that movement.  Indeed, Live8 could not (or at least would not) have happened without him, since Geldof was inspired by the work that Bono and others were doing on the issue of world poverty.

No, Bono does not belong in a group that you are labelling "fake."  Indeed, none of them are "fake," though, as stated, Bono is the only one who has made it his business not simply to speak about the issue, but to force meetings with world leaders, ecomonic leaders, etc. in an effort to increase both their awareness and their willingness to do something about it.

Peace.