This is What Democracy Looks Like

The film documentary "This is What Democracy Looks Like" intrigued me, the fact that it appeared our democratic society was more of a Chinese/North Korean communist society. I was fascinated how the major corporations controlled the media to show people around the US that the protestors in Seattle were creating a huge disturbance, being physical which made the police take action. Also how the police said on television that nomore than 20 people were injured, meanwhile that was only a glimpse of the people who were beated, pepper sprayed, and i think it was OC spray which led to chromosomal mutation, birth defect, and more problems.

It was amazing how many people came together united for one purpose and that was to stop WTO. I was very suprised to find out that this event where over 5000 people joined together for this purpose only occured 9 years ago. When I was watching the documentary I was thinking to myself, "Where the hell was I? Why have I not heard of this?" Yea I was only 9 years old but you think something at this magnitude of an event, that I would at least remember hearing something related on the news.

What also amazed me is how the mayor, and the police took away the protestors rights to asemble and freedom of speech. At one point people were not even able to have pis or look like they were part of the protestors. The protestors were very peaceful and it was astonishing how they were treated by the police. After a couple days, most of the people were being arrested, even people who were not even part of the group. The police would constantly lie to the media. The best part of the documentary was when the corporation leaders were complaining that its unfair how the protestors are preventing people from not going to their stores. That it is such a tragedy because its in peak season where they get the most money.

Overall I was amazed how a simple very peaceful protest would turn wrong because the buisnesses did not want to lose money. I am happy that the protestors achieved their goals. I believe the major cororations and WTO can shove it.

Milstein on Anarchism

Cindy Milstein points out many ways in which Anarchism, Liberalism, and Socialism, have interacting themes, and she also points out how anarchism is not all negative. The three ideologies push for individualistic freedoms/impowerment. The difference between the three is how they recieve or achieve the freedom or sense of impowerment. Anarchism and Socialism are probably most similar in being that " All anarchist are socialist, but not every socialist is an anarchist". She states that "anarchist maintained that people could attempt to build the new world in the shell of the old", which is how anarchist difer from socialist, since socialist wait until the old world withers away. I do not believe this would work for anarchist because, I do not see how implimenting a new system into an old one would work. I do not see everyone accepting a new system because most people belive that there is nothing wrong with the old, and what's not broken does not need fixing.

Soviet Propoganda

The Soviet propoganda had an abbundance of interesting posters, but only a couple, or group with same idea, really stood out to me. What really stood out to me was that in the Soviet's propoganda they should that they have more interest in the safety and well being of the children(the nation's future) than the adults. Also they promoted excersize and fitness for the citizens. Lastly what really stood out was how the Soviets used propoganda to try and show the civilians that the US is planning to attack, or willing to attack, meanwhile the soviets "just want peace".

The propoganda posters showed an importance in the developement and safety of the youth. For example if a disaster were to occur the main emergancy response would be put towards looking for the children. Also th adults must teach the children how to put on emergancy mask incase of attack, or they have to teach them how what to do incase of an emergancy. They also made education and excersize an important aspect of a kids life. They made certain childhood groups that helped the children learn the Soviets ideas. I believe the importance of the youth in the Soviet's mind is that the youth is their future, and if socialist ideas were to succeed in the Soviet Union the children would have to be well educated.

Other propoganda posters harped on the importance of excersize. One poster in particular showed a man who would not excersize, then missed excersize classes, and then missed sports activites. At the sametime everyone esle is excersizing and playing sports. Then the poster shows him struggling to carry something that a girl is easily carrying in the front. I believe that the Soviet Union really wanted their citizens to be fight inorder to possibly get called for to go to war. Or possibly the are to be fight so they could so theyre dominance.

Socialism (Heywood)

Socialism arose in Europe as a reaction against the social and economic conditions generated by the growth of industrial capitalism. Socialist's birth has closely been linked to the development of a new but growing class of industrial workers. These workers suffered from poverty and degradation. Socialism has the idea of collectivsm stating that humans are capable of overcoming social and economic problems by drawing upon the power of community rather than individual effort. They also believe that the relationship between humans should be one of cooperation rather than competition. Socialist disagree with the thought of competition because it promotes selfishness and agression in the community. Socialist believe that social class is the deepest and most politically significant division in society. They believe that class divisions should be removed since the class system is founded upon exploitation and injustice.

I agree with many of the points that socialist bring up. I am however disappointed that groups took these ideas and sort of manipulated them into their form of government. Like the Soviet Union, they took these ideas, got the publics support, and once the government had controll the economy went on a downward spiral and the people were suffering dramatically. I feel that if a government took these ideas and did not manipulate them at all, the government can be very prosperous and the people would lead a happy life.

John Dewey

What I get from Dewey's article is that liberty is directly parrallel to the amount of power you have. If you have more power, you have the liberty to do more than someone with less power. "It (Liberty) is power, effective power to do specific things". Liberty has to do with the fact of "what a person can do and what a person cannot do".

He goes on saying that the possesion of power has to deal with the distributuion of power. Also thirdly he goes on to say how there is no absolute liberty. That a persons freedom can be taken away at any moment.

I believe that many of the things Dewey states is true, but it should not be this way. Everyone should have equal liberty, and liberty should be absolute.

William Graham Sumner

"Is it wicked to be rich? Is it mean to be a capitalist?" an who should bring up the point of which a person is too rich. These are questions Sumner brings up in his writing. The only anwer I could come up with is that, it is only wicked to be rich, or be a capitalist, if you do not put money back into society to help your fellow man. The only people who should not be rich are the greedy ones who won't put a peny into society or people who did not work to be rich. People like Paris Hilton do not deserve the nurishment of being rich, because the main reason they are at their status is because of their father. Don't get me wrong, I know there are rich people who put money into society, btu it is not enough.

Sumner brings up the point that if a clergyman were to work his way up from a man of poverty to a rich man is a good member of society. But as soon as he becomes rich, society views him as being suspicious, as a danger to the betterment of society. I agree with Sumner that this is wrong for society to view him as being a danger to society. The man worked he way up to being rich which is a great achievement for him and it should not be taken away from him.

Also I belive Sumner tries to bring up the point that there are naturally gifted/smart people in society who deserve the best. And that there are also people who just slack or are stupid and they deserve what they get. Also Sumner points out how the rich are good people, that if the working people ask the poor ask the rich to do something for them, the rich will comply.

After reading this document I still believe that people are do not deserve being rich only if they do not put money back into society. I think that if the rich are as good of people that Sumner states they are, the rich would put as much money as they could into fundations, charity, taxes, and more, since they have the money to put it in. They do not need the five cars and million dollar jewelry.

Platform of the American Anti-Imperialist League

Right off the bat, the author goes to the point theat the policy of imperialism is hostile to liberty and tends to point towards militarianism. As Lincoln, and Washignton both viewed that all men, race or color not being a factor, are entitled to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Also governments only recieve their power rightfully from the people they govern. They league insist that imperialist ideas is "crimianl aggression".

Imperialism takes away both of these facts. A country under imperialism, like the Philipines in the article, lose their liberty and pursuit of happiness. Also imperialist governments do not recieve their right to govern rightfully, since they basically take over the government. Also in the Philipines many lives will be lost at the hands of America, which is one of the things humans are entitled to.

I believe this article is right, that countries should not imperialism. People have the right to choose their own government, and another country should not have the right to come and take over another countries government. A national law states that a strogner country may take over a weaker country, which I believe is wrong. Like Washington stated after the American revolution, "America should not interact with other countries, we should be isolated"