Opening democracy

aEwkVS ftltyfekwvje, [url=http://hvycqwgzfelz.com/]hvycqwgzfelz[/url], [link=http://xpelgjvbzfeu.com/]xpelgjvbzfeu[/link], http://qelrafyrtdgv.com/

The UK Government wants to reclassify cannabis - yet again! - this time upgrading it from a Category C to B drug, in order to 'send a message' that drugs are bad. The reclassification is not to warn us off becoming degenerate hippies and dropouts though - it's for the sake of our mental health. Is this a reasonable argument for greater restrictions, or should we be free to choose our own poison, whatever its ill effects? At our next Club Night, we will interrogate the rights and wrongs of the drugs debate. Are drugs a means to expand our horizons and experiences, or a harmless recreational choice? Should politicians use the law to send a moral message?Speakers include:Swaran Singh, Professor of Social & Community Psychiatry and Consultant Psychiatrist, Health Sciences Research Institute, Warwick Medical SchoolMarcus Roberts, Director of Policy at DrugScope, the UK’s leading independent centre of information and advice on drugs. He is the author of a number of reports and briefings for the Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme, and Nacro’s report ‘Drugs and Crime – From Warfare to Welfare’, as well as the report of the Independent Inquiry on Drug Testing at Work (funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation).Jamie Douglass, a contributing editor of Profile magazine, who previously conducted postgraduate research into drug cultures and has written for the Independent, Guardian and spiked. Date: Thursday 26 JuneVenue: Old Queen's Head (Upstairs), 44 Essex Road, London N1 8LN. Time: doors open 7pm; debate begins around 8pmCost: free to Club members; £5 non-members (pay on the door).

Faced with strong criticism for its expansive and erroneous
use of conditionality, and in the wake of a financial crisis, the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) approved in 2002 a set of guidelines to inform its use of
structural conditionality. The Conditionality Guidelines committed the Fund to
reduce the overall number of conditions attached to Fund lending and ensure
that those attached respected and were drawn from nationally developed poverty
plans in recognitions that developing country ownership is instrumental for
successful development.

Compared to the politics of today, the spring of 1968 seems like a period of unbridled optimism: young people took to the streets for a better world and 'utopian' and 'radical' were not yet dirty words. But while many of those young radicals are now establishment figures in politics, media and business, the world they sought has not come about.

Beauty in Morocco: In the Eyes of Religious Men (Study)

Elias Morocco

INTRODUCTION

² Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder ² as the saying goes. Despite the fact that people differ in the way they judge beauty, they all agree that beauty plays an important part in their lives. As little attention has been given to “religious men” to give their opinions about beauty, I will conduct this research to explore all areas that make up true beauty from the perspective of a sample of ² religious men ². In this study a religious man is defined as a person whose heart is ²clean and healthy ². It is cleansed from any passion that defies God’s commands; moreover, his utterances, thoughts and actions are obedient to God. Therefore, it is improper to assume that a good Muslim is limited to physical appearance such as growing beard and letting the clothes hang down before the ankle .There are many hadiths by the prophet may peace be upon him that support this meaning. Al Bukhari narrated that Abu Hurayra said that some people asked the prophet “Who is the most honourable among people. He replied the most honourable among people with Allah is the one who has the most taqwa.” Given this hadith, one should mention that righteousness does not lie in the performance of ritual prayers, but it extends to include good behavior, ethics, fear of God with all actions. As people are judged by their actions, I will limit my sample to preachers, ²Imams² and students at ²Dar Al Hassania² to avoid any ambiguity that the definition of ²religious men² inevitably generates.

Here are some facts that you will not find in the media:
1. In the private bankers debt-based money system that we are made to use, 97% of money circulating has been created as computer ledger entries by private commercial banks when we take out loans and mortgages. It has no tangible existence outside the banks computer systems because we withdraw hardly any of it in the form of Government created cash. This system is replicated in virtually every developed country, the world over.
2. No borrowing in the system would mean no money. When the commercial banks lend “money” its NEW NUMBER MONEY (existing as data only) created the moment the amount appears in the “borrower’s” account. No depositor is ever sent a letter saying their money is temporarily unavailable because its been lent to someone else. Meanwhile not one person in a hundred grasps the fact that our governments have all permitted private banks to create over 95 percent of our money supply bringing huge profits to them and endless debt to us. Obviously there will not be enough money to pay the interest as the interest has to come from the same source, (further borrowing from banks). So national and personal debt rises and the overall interest due also rises with time. This is the real reason why we are told the economy always has to grow. Present UK government debt mostly to the private banks is £0.5 Trillion, up from £90 Bn in 1980 and £26 Bn in 1960.

The history of Rome was a society like no other. We are all part of the Roman conflict. Some how during the fall of Rome, every one of us in the great world of our survived the fall of Rome, the 700 years of complete destruction of society, infrastructures, library's from 2000 years of history and we all were either part of the rise of Christianity, survived Paganism in some parts of the world or became part of the last religion that followed in fear of Christianity, Islam. Although many great people have been part of the Islamic history, the greatest portion of Islam that still survives today is the reason it was established, to counter the fear of Christianity during the fall of the Roman empire in the East. Islam took 2000 years of history and destroyed it and has yet to advance its own people out of the dark ages and uses this as a motivation for destruction of Christianity. As Christianity moved forward in the West, Islam slowly declined until all it had left was to fight for land and take over Christianity and its money, power and strong following of Christians world wide. The history of Rome ended at the beginning of the rise of Islam and Christianity. Both religions believe in God therefore every soul believing in God has the possibility of being saved. The error in judgement is not on the people but on the false prophet. I have read about how a false prophet will rise and millions will follow this great leader. They will truly believe he is the leader or prophet of his people. Because Islam use's Sex to gain young mens souls to die for God, Because Islam use's fighting to convert instead of love and because Islam has a leader without a face because of the fear of looking into the eye's of a false prophet or that the man was just a man who used the poor people of the day to motivate them to steal the riches of Christianity and the fall of Rome. The false prophet is Islam and the leader of Islam. The Billions that follow the war, the 72 women that will be at the end of young men's suicide deaths is so easy to see it is false. Everyone I have ever talked to has admitted it can not be. So if it can't be that millions will die for a lie then how can the religion that believes illiteracy and only knowledge of the Koran is a good thing. How can Women be bound to home and hide be a blessing of God. Because of his own inability to control him self, covering women helped him succeed to be a better person. I have met many good Muslims yet never have I met a Muslim that truly has seen the light of day or the blessings of God.

Senator Specter Fights for Constitution Joel S. Hirschhorn On the Friday before July 4 Republican Senator Arlen Specter showed his respect for the U.S. Constitution and his anger about President Bush’s repeated pissing on it by introducing the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2007. What happens to this crucial bill will test both congressional integrity and courage. Specter had the honesty to call President Bush's abuse of signing statements an "unconstitutional attempt to usurp legislative authority." "The president cannot use a signing statement to rewrite the words of a statute nor can he use a signing statement to selectively nullify those provisions he does not like," said Specter.

Coopracy is the evolutionary development of democracy.the original intent of democracy was to allow the society to progress in a positive and logical development of the culture. the intention was to create the forum through which discussion caused the gradual gain in insight through the intellect. If one asks the question, what is god?, usually the person questioned is confused, as what to answer. if one asks the question what does democracy mean? usually the response is the same. if ne asks what they think Coopracy means ? the intuition of those asked responds naturally, the individual automatically grasps the meaning of the word. Therefore an act of evolution has taken place within the personal environmental culture of the individual.

A major failing of 'representative democracy' is having election systems that give government 'representatives' who are very far from being representative of, or at all like, the majority of voters. In fact elected government 'representatives' may all be of a professional politician class that isolates itself from, has little real understanding of, and have different interests to, the majority. A simple scientific answer would be forming governments by random selection of representatives from the actual voters themselves - a computer picking randomly from voter lists. Then government representatives would actually be representative, and would have much better knowledge of who and what is being governed.

I think we should get right away from the idea that our Members of Parliament actually represent us, because plainly they do not. The political party system in the UK. ensures that elected politicians owe allegiance to their party, and to their party leader, not to the electors in their constituency (some of whom) voted them in. If MPs truly wanted to represent their constituents, they would have to ask constituents for their opinions, and they would have to make those opinions public, and what's more, they would have to declare support for majority opinions (that's what representation means). Can you imagine this happening? Of course not.

If new ideas are to be expressed, which are at variance with British Government thinking, can we assume that everything we write, will be seen by some government department or other, and that action may be taken against us? or am I just being paranoid? If action were taken against us, even without our knowledge, do we have any protection from our own government? Should we just speak up anyway, regardless of the consequences? These thoughts obviously occur to forum users. Would Her Majesty's Government, (not ours) take covert action against an outspoken individual? It doesn't have to be violent

I think the answer to this one lies, not with the theory of democracy itself, but with the electorate. I believe it was Winston Churchill who said that in the 20th century the people with get the governments they deserve. Maybe a less trite observation that it appears. Consider this illustration... I wish to have my own house designed and built to be perfect for me so I throw it open for bid on how to achieve this. However I know almost nothing about building thing so when judging which bid to pick I will naturally go for the one that offers me what I want. Fine, it's my house my money and if it fails it's my problem. But what if 3 others had to live in this house too and 1 of them knew a lot about the ins and outs of building. If all 4 of us just pick whatever we want then the voice that would give us the best choice is squashed under the weight of an ill informed majority. Acting against the view of an 'expert' in this situation would make us fools.

There are three major problems with democracy, both as an idea and in the ways in which it is practised: 1.It treats numbers of people as having a single will 2.It is a deceit: people are led to think that they have a voice in decisions that are made on their behalf when in reality they often have little or none. 3.The received wisdom that "democracy is a good thing" discourages critiquing the principle of democracy, the ways in which it is applied and the search for alternatives. The fatal flaw in democracy is the concept of demos, or the people. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights promotes democracy in these terms:

[/b The HUMAN PARADIGM Consider: The missing element in every human 'solution' is an accurate definition of the creature. The way we define 'human' determines our view of self, others, relationships, institutions, life, and future. Important? Only the Creator who made us in His own image is qualified to define us accurately. Choose wisely...there are results. In an effort to diminish the multiple and persistent dangers and abuses which have characterized the affairs of man in his every Age, and to assist in the requisite search for human identity, it is essential to

Once upon a time, America stood as a free and just nation. Its people had pride, it presidents had power, and although it may have not been liked throughout the world, it was respected. But recently, it has deteriorated. America leans on other countries for support, and expects others to follow its reckless path of warfare. It declares that people of other lands are suppressed, and then seeks to "help" them, by invasion and occupation. Its leaders carry out personal vendettas, and not a week goes by without a new scandal erupting. It's people have become lazy and unwilling to perform even the simplest of tasks.

Since Switzerland has the only democratic political structure for governance on this planet - isn't time we started to talk about that fact - rather than talking ad nauseum about the symptoms of not having a democratic political structure. The media keep spinning that if a citizen votes every 4 or 5 years - then the poltical structure is democratic. Nothing could be further from the truth. What do citizens then do for the next 4 or 5 years, after voting - pick one's nose - pray to the "Invisible Big Bogeyman" - yak here, forever about the symptoms? There was a great 12 part series on Canadian television (the CBC) covering Democracy - and on that series it was stated and demonstrated that England is the least democratic country in the world. But a long list of countries including the U.S.A., Canada (and the list goes on forever) are just as undemocratic as England.

It seems as if the left is intent on ignoring the reality that Iraq and Afghanistan are now ruled by democraticlly elected governments. The left clings to the existence of resistance to democracy as some vague indictment of the progress made so far. Who is fighting against democratic rule? Not the majority, obviously. Who on the left is supporting this fight against democracy? Everyone?

I agree with the latest article on this list about democracy losing its relevance at the national level. National governments are very strongly disciplined these days by the requirements of international finance. For instance credit rating agencies like Moodys and Poors give sovereigns assessments based on their viability along business lines, and this affects the value of their currency and the rate they have to pay for loans and finance more generally. This means that parties are dragged, by these financial forces, into a narrow techicist approach to the economy, and these forces leave little room for maneuvre for the parties involved, and thus little difference for the various political parties in the positions they can take up. Thus elections stop being a real choice for the people.

Democracy?? In the UK or the USA?? Don't be stupid..............