The Great Liberators: Bush vs the Internet

[Loren Booda]

Which will do more to liberate the world in the next 4 years, President G. W. Bush's lame duck, isolationist and hypocritical policies, or the corrupt, deceitful and smutty Internet?

 

[Smurf]

well seeing as Bush is moving the world backwards...

 

[cragwolf]

There is nothing isolationist about Dubya's policies. And it depends what you mean by liberation.

 

[vanesch]

The Greater Liberator will be the Ants, after the human race has put itself down, as a result of all the military conflicts that will arise amongst "liberated nations" when climatic changes will alter the distribution of elementary goods such as water and food.

 

[Smurf]

I am the Great Liberator, I will arise from undisclosed history, will be charismatic and revered the world over. I am the Great Liberator, I just need to grow up first.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The truly great liberator is the will of the world's people to see that true justice, not imposed "democracy" prevails. Juan Cole, an expert on Iraq who has no use for the Bush policies, notes the groundswell of enthusiasm among Iraqis for the coming elections. Not because it will ratify the American occupation, but because it will give them a chance to achieve an Iraqi system of justice.

 

[the number 42]

"I may disagree with what you say, BUT..."

Just heard on the BBC World Service news that a US internet service provider has terminated their contract with an Iranian student website, without any reason given. I'm a bit sketchy on the details here, and haven't found a link for this, but will later...

[later...]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4202617.stm
"Iran has accused the US government of ordering an American internet service provider to stop hosting the website of an official Iranian news agency. The Iranian Student News Agency said no explanation had been given by the server, called The Planet, for its abrupt move to terminate the contract".

 

[the number 42]

This is very worrying to me. One of the few hopes that people have in sorting out problems is to openly discuss them. This isn't always comfortable, as views may be expressed by some that are repugnant to others. This is one of the great things about PF, that people are prepared to say what they think and listen to others' views, and do so on principle. And guys, freedom of expression is a GREAT principle; please let's not stand by while others throw it away (in our name). Voltaire had it right when he said: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". In who's interest is it that our ears are blocked to the opinions of others?

 

[jammieg]

What is great liberation? And what is great regulation?

Can anyone say or do anything that hasn't already been done that truly sets you free?

With every advance in communication comes an advance in prosperity.

President Bush will liberate the American people from fear and terror and oppression by making it so apparent how corrupt our government and some citizens have grown that the people will reclaim and remake it, or it will continue to fall.

Who elects who we are to elect? Money is not the best judge of what's right, you are. With potentially free mass communication there is the possibility of a better judge of presidents. It's called Iwantmypresident.com, let's people judge each other and vote each other and debate the issues and send in their resumes along a ladder system, I would much rather vote for one of these people, I mean it already exists and millions of people are participating, will you, or would you rather vote for a choice between two idiots covertly pre-elected by idiots, don't get me wrong, I love idiots without them we would never know how bad things could get. Actually it doesn't exist, sorry to get your hopes up but wouldn't it be nice to have hope.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Which will do more to liberate the world in the next 4 years, President G. W. Bush's lame duck, isolationist and hypocritical policies, or the corrupt, deceitful and smutty Internet?

Hi LB how are you these days? I don't think that either the Internet or Bush have done much liberating really. Bush liberated the Iraqis from their constitution and their status as a Republic, I guess that's sarcastic. Honestly, that's kind of comparing apples to oranges more or less. I think the Bush term is more quantifiable: under Saddam people are oppressed and the Ba'ath party leeches off of society, however, the system is inherently socialist and property is, at least on paper, publicly owned. Bremer's new constitution violates the Geneva convention and puts formerly public property into the hands of politically selected contractors who are licenced to loot both American and Iraqi public property. Iraqis are free of Saddam, but they are not free to vote for him. I wouldn't call any of it Liberation until the Bremer constitution, which is designed to remain after the new Iraqi constitution is drafted, is completely abolished forever.
There's not too much debate as to the amount of liberation Bush has done here in America, also. It's a negative number, i.e. Patriot act and media consolidation, and the fact that if your name happens to be Kennedy expect to take an extra 3 hours for any domestic flight. We all know how those Irish blue-bloods & cat stevens likes to hijack...
As for the internet, although it is under-rated as a ubiquitous democratic force, there are obvious limitations to its effect. Knowledge is power, but access is also power. The Internet is definitely liberating for those seeking knowledge, but not really a device for excercising power (beyond freedom of speech). As bandwidth improves & becomes cheaper, god willing, it should become an effective vehicle for strong, convincing, and correct opinions.
I'd guess as it stands today, the internet would get a liberation rating of 2 (on a scale of -10 to 10, 10 being the liberation of France in WWII, -10 being the confinement of Polish Jews in concentration camps). Bush I'd guess would get a liberation rating of -2. 2>-2, the internet beats Bush.

 

[SOS2008]

There is nothing isolationist about Dubya's policies. And it depends what you mean by liberation.

Isolationism traditionally refers to non-involvement in the world economically, militarily, etc. as the U.S. was prior to the world wars. However, LB is correct that Bush has had a "go it alone" approach, though largely because other countries didn't choose to assist HIM with world-domination war mongering.

Back to the topic, liberation is WAY more likely to transpire via the Internet. The Blogs are now considered to be a new watchdog compared to traditional media agencies (and boy we could use help here). And organizations are using the Internet for grass-roots organization, including massive emails to representatives, regulatory agencies, etc. I wonder how this will evolve with regard to the ignorant masses--wouldn't it be great if they could be circumvented?

In the meantime...there was a man who accomplished nothing before the age of 40, who had limited, if not questionable experience in politics, yet became the President of the United States. Go for it Smurf!

 

[Loren Booda]

schwarzschildradius,

Sorry to have overlooked you. I have my ups and downs; its good of you to keep with PF and check in on me.

Hey, folks, how long until the Internet is a recognized government, rather than how it began, as a tool of government?