Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
#killswitch - it's George Orwell .AND. Aldous Huxley (not .OR.)
IainB:
No government can maintain power without the tacit consent of the people, at a minimum. Once people speak up, they lose. Because they have to follow the people.
-Renegade (March 26, 2012, 06:03 AM)
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure that history would necessarily always be able to support that statement.
So, what might be the alternatives?
FidoNet/SkyNet begin to look like more attractive approaches as each day dawns.
-IainB (March 25, 2012, 09:37 PM)
--- End quote ---
I have no idea whether that is realistic - i.e., use some alternative network approach (existing or imagined).
Renegade:
No government can maintain power without the tacit consent of the people, at a minimum. Once people speak up, they lose. Because they have to follow the people.
-Renegade (March 26, 2012, 06:03 AM)
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure that history would necessarily always be able to support that statement.
-IainB (March 26, 2012, 09:50 PM)
--- End quote ---
Imagine 1,000 plantation owners trying to keep control of 100,000 slaves that have all decided that they're not gonna take it anymore!
Sure, there will be casualties, but at 100:1, I know where I'd place my bets.
Still, the time for insurrection isn't when you arrive at the camps - it's before when you find out that you're being loaded up and "relocated".
The US got its ass handed to it in Viet Nam by a bunch of farmers with AK-47s.
It got its ass handed to it again by a bunch of farmers and goat herders making IEDs in Afghanistan.
It also got its ass handed to it yet again by the same crowd in Iraq.
All the while in each of those situations, there were collaborators. And they still lost.
There's a pattern here. When you have a population that simply won't put up with tyranny, the tyrants lose. Sure, there are casualties. Heavy casualties. But in the end, the people win.
The base of all power comes from the people. Without them, there is no power. It is only by people surrendering their power to the state that the state gains power.
That's how the Magna Carta was forced on the monarchy. The lords got sick of the monarchy's BS and wouldn't take it anymore. The monarchy was forced to comply.
Most people miss this simple truth, that the true source of power comes from the people.
However, when the people surrender their power, or sit idly back and comply, then that concentration of power can do anything it wants... which is never in the best interests of the people. Things are funny that way.
“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” - Some dude
“A Republic, if you can keep it.” - Benjamin Franklin
I saw a film and at the end they had a National Geographic clip where some lions chased 2 water buffalo and a baby water buffalo. The lions overcome the baby as the adults run off. A short while later the adults show up... with the entire herd... who proceed to promptly f-up the lions as the calf escapes.
It's an excellent metaphor. Had the water buffalo (people) given up, the calf (a person) would have been dinner for the lions (state or concentrated power). But when the herd (the people) return and say "NO!", the lions are powerless to resist.
I'd post the clip here, but Facebook is filtered here in Viet Nam, and I'd posted the link on FB (don't remember where to find it again right now). Oh well. If you know my FB page, scroll down on my wall - it's there.
IainB:
I'm perfectly capable of descending into a frothing mass of obscenity all by my lonesome~! ;D
-Renegade (March 26, 2012, 09:36 PM)
--- End quote ---
Well, I don't blame you, and don't you dare apologise for it.
My response to it was different though.
Off-topic: (so in a spoiler)
SpoilerMy response: It sent my mind spinning over the ethical issues around the use of embryonic material from deliberately aborted human foetuses. This has kept me awake some nights.
It was not something that I knew about until a couple of weeks ago, after following up a news item about which Snopes had this to say:
Pepsi/Senomyx
In January 2012, Oklahoma state senator Ralph Shortey introduced a bill to the state legislature which proposed that: "No person or entity shall manufacture or knowingly sell food or any other product intended for human consumption which contains aborted human fetuses in the ingredients or which used aborted human fetuses in the research or development of any of the ingredients." To many people, this nature of this bill sounded bizarre and left them questioning why food producers would possibly be using aborted human fetuses as ingredients.
--- End quote ---
I was completely dumbfounded when I did some research about:
* HEK293 from Senomyx.
* Agilent Technologies' website $elling MVP Human Fetal Tissue Poly(A)+ RNA
HEK293 is bad enough: it is a specific and stable/reproducible cell line derived from an experiment (the Human Embryonic Kidney experiment number 293) using kidney cells of a foetus aborted in 1972. (I think that's a correct summary.)
But the Agilent thing seems incredible. It even says on their website:
"Check Certificate of Analysis for donor information"
--- End quote ---
The correct definition of "donor is "a person who gives or donates", but I don't think the foetuses in this case would have had any option, and they are not animals, so the medical use of the term does not apply either. It is therefore a euphemism, presumably used in an endeavour to mask or ameliorate the unpleasant truth of what has been done.
The Chinese habit of using/"farming" political prisoners as organ-donors-to-order seems rather tame by comparison. They kill them to schedule, after having previously taken a sample of their DNA to tissue-match with someone requiring an organ transplant. The Chinese have just declared that they will cease this practice in about 5 years, once they have a voluntary public donor scheme in place. (That's right, they don't already have one.) They would not have done this if there had not been a public and international outcry about it in the first place.
I don't think I've seen a public outcry about HEK293 or Agilent, yet those foetuses never got a chance at life, unlike the Chinese organ "donors", who were killed for their organs in maturity.
The amazing thing is that Pepsi, Coca-Cola and Campbell Soups (to name but a few from the Snopes and other articles) all use this "embryonic product" HEK293, though Coca-Cola, and Campbell Soups have ceased to do so after it being revealed publicly, and only Pepsi steadfastly continues. They all use this material to see how it reacts/responds to different food flavours, which apparently helps them to improve the taste of of the food products that they sell. MSG it is not.
The thing is, it is not essential to use HEK293, nor would it seem to be ethical. There apparently are synthetic alternatives. So why on earth use it in the first place?
AFter reading about this a couple of weeks ago and after doing some research and discussing it with my 10yo daughter Lily, I have rather reluctantly boycotted the food products from all 3 manufacturers. I like some of those products too - especially Pepsi. Lily suggested the boycott and refuses to eat anything that has foetal products associated with its manufacture. I am 100% with her on that.
But who has been able to ensure supply to Senomyx and Agilent Technologies with the necessary raw material - human embryonic body parts - for such a vital and (apparently) lucrative business to continue?
Hmm...
Well, if it is US abortion clinics or the PPA (Planned Parenthood Association), then presumably that's OK...Oh, but wait...
--- End quote ---
I am a registered Organ Donor (it's indicated on my New Zealand driving licence), so, if I am killed in a driving accident (and in NZ you must always have your driving licence with you whilst driving, by law), then your organs can be whipped off for transplant, nice and fresh. Mind you, that's probably not as fresh as those Chinese organ-donors-to-order mentioned above, where the ambulance is standing by at the execution and the intended recipient has been brought in to hospital to await the organ's arrival at the transplant theatre.
I am quite happy to be a registered organ donor, but, in NZ at least, it is on the implicit understanding that the donation is to be made after my death, and is not to be the cause of my premature death. You can probably understand that I'd be pretty miffed if the surgeons came to me to (say) extract my liver, whilst I was still using it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version