The debate about democracy (whatever that means)

A good opinion piece highlighting how the word "democracy" can mean something &, at the same time, can be meaningless. Although, the piece is few months' old, but the heart of the opinion is "democracy" is a fairly debatable concept.

The primary reason it is debatable or "essentially contested concept" is because most of the public don't understand what the heck is "democracy". Most of the public thinks that merely voting in an election by the general public is "democracy", but it isn't. In many developing countries, elections take place quite frequently, but as soon as the election results are called, the losing party calls foul.

Democracy in the modern world has become similar to a soccer / football match. If a referee awards a penalty or free kick & then that penalty or free kick results in a winning goal for one of the teams, the other team (coach, players, fans etc.) call foul & blame the referee for the decision that helped the other team win the match, regardless of that decision being correct or wrong.

People like & want "democracy" as long as it benefits them economically, financially, socially, politically etc. As soon the "democratically-elected" government makes a decision which goes against the wishes of the public, that same public turns against the government & start claiming that "democracy doesn't exist in this country."

As I stated above that people don't know what democracy is about. Elections & voting are not "democracy," because after all, these activities also happen in Zimbabwe & Congo. Perhaps, those are rigged elections but then most elections are, around the world. In some place, rigging happens at the polling station & in some place, rigging or, in other words, public relations, happen long before the polling day; throughout the election campaign.

Democracy is essentially about the leader (elected or otherwise) listening, learning, & then doing what the majority of its public wants; all the while keeping a close eye on the human rights of minorities, so they are not trampled afoot, while the decisions to benefit the public majority are being implemented. It's not so easy to do. It requires a leader who is not afraid to do something, which may even harm its political party in the short term. It requires a leader who puts the needs of its countrypeople well ahead of his/her & its political party's needs. These kinds of leaders are non-existent in this modern world, where it seems that every other country is either "democratic", or "undemocratic", depending on the public's benefits gained from that given government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/the-debate-about-democracy-whatever-that-means/

...
Is anyone actually against democracy, after all? Surely not. But democracy is a tricky word. It can mean all sorts of things, or something close to nothing at all.
...

But there I go, using one of the most loaded words in any language, “democracy,” to score cheap debating points. It’s hard to resist the temptation. We do it all the time in Canadian politics. When a cabal of opposition politicians wanted to supplant the Conservative government at the end of 2008, they said they were serving parliamentary democracy. When Harper fought back, he made similar claims. In 2009 & 2010 & 2011, every time Michael Ignatieff thought he might defeat the minority government of the day, it was easy to find observers who’d ask what could be wrong with a little democracy. As if only an election is democracy. As if Parliament isn’t an expression of democracy.
...

“Democracy” is what the Scottish philosopher W.B. Gallie called an “essentially contested concept,” a notion everyone can praise in the abstract while disagreeing, honestly & in good faith, about almost every detail of any given case. (Gallie listed “art” & “duty” as other essentially contested concepts. Art is wonderful & everyone should do his duty, but is that mess on the wall art, & what’s my duty today?) Debate is at the heart of democracy, or should be. But appeals to democracy are usually designed to shut debate down, not to deepen it.

"21st Century Beggars" by Gatis Sluka

"21st Century Beggars" - Gatis Sluka, Latvijas Avize, Latvia

Paranoia (movie line 1)

IMDB          RottenTomatoes          Wikipedia

Especially true for our "modern" age of smartphones & social media.

"Search Engine of the Future" by Jeff Koterba

"Search Engine of the Future" - Jeff Koterba, Omaha World Herald, Omaha, Nebraska, US

"Standardized Tests" by Mike Keefe

"Standardized Tests" - Mike Keefe, US

"Movies Then & Now" by Gary Varvel

"Movies Then & Now" - Gary Varvel, Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis, Indiana, US

With a $42 Billion defense budget, is Japan a hawk in dove's clothing?

An informative piece. I didn't know that Japan was a pacifist nation but then still spends $42 Billion on its defense budget & a naval force more powerful than China's.

South China Sea & Eastern Europe are the next 2 battlegrounds for US & its allies. With everyone beefing up their military muscles, this is not going to be a great world to be living in the next 10-20 years. There might not be another nuclear war, but more than enough armament at hand, politicians being pressured by military hawks to use that armament pile their countries have built up, & a decreasing war-time casualty rate due to drones will make it seem like a nuclear war happening all around the world.

Wishing for peace in this world is only that; a wish. The world may seem "modern" to a naïve person, but it seems to me, that humans are regressing towards a cavemen mentality. Technology has only made it easier to attack another human or nation, just like a club or any other piece of ancient war-time technology made it easier for a caveman to attack its fellow being.

The humans & hence, the world, are definitely not moving towards a bright future for this planet. Perhaps, that's why, the rich are exploring ways to emigrate from this planet (e.g. Virgin Galactic) & Hollywood keep peddling movies where the Earth has been abandoned because of environmental disasters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/28/idUS56270205620150428

Japan’s identity as a pacifist nation, as defined by Article 9 of its constitution, is increasingly at odds with reality. The Japanese Naval Self-Defense Force is the second-most powerful naval force in the region, trailing only its close ally, the US Navy. Japan has the seventh-largest defense budget in the world; its Ministry of Defense is the largest department in the entire Japanese government.
 
Strategically, a strong Japanese military allows the US — a close ally of Japan’s — to maintain distance from any military confrontation with China over territorial claims. It deprives China of the argument that the US is neither a party to the dispute, nor native to the region. The problem for the US lies in convincing allies, especially South Korea, that an increasingly robust Japanese military does not risk a return to Japanese imperialism.
 
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, adopted in 1947, forbids Japan from having “land, sea, & air forces, as well as other war potential.” The article established Japan as a pacifist nation, but in 1950 change was already needed, as the US deployed its troops from Japan to Korea and left Japan defenseless. To counter this vulnerability, General Douglas MacArthur authorized the establishment of national defense forces to protect the Japanese home islands. Reinterpretations have continued ever since, to the point that the Japanese Self-Defense Forces are an army, a navy & an air force in all but name.
 
For all of the reinterpretations, Japanese forces remained confined to Japanese home territories without much change until 1992. At that time, Japanese embarrassment over being unable to contribute anything but financial support to Operation Desert Storm led to the passage of a law reinterpreting Article 9 to allow the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) to take part in U.N. peacekeeping operations.
 
In 2004, Japan sent troops to Iraq to conduct humanitarian relief, where they were only allowed to fire if fired upon, & were not permitted to come to the aid of other coalition troops under attack. The cloak of pacifism, though markedly smaller, still adequately covered all sensitive aspects of the JSDF. But in the last few years, most of the remaining cover has been pulled away.
 
Last year the Japanese government adopted a new law, reinterpreting Article 9 yet again, this time to allow for “collective self-defense.” Japanese forces can now be deployed to assist allies under attack. While the US & the Philippines welcomed this development, other countries in the region were less than enthusiastic. It is no surprise that China, which has long criticized Japan for not adequately acknowledging & repudiating its past atrocities, objected to this change. But a sharp negative response from US ally South Korea must have rattled US military planners. Even Australia, generally in lock-step with US defense policies, gave a tepid response.
 
Already, the widening scope of the Japanese military is changing the defense landscape in the region. Japan has negotiated agreements to cooperate with Vietnam & the Philippines in conducting naval exercises & patrolling disputed areas in the South China Sea, which should give China pause as it considers its next steps in the region.
 
These agreements continue to stretch the envelope of collective self-defense. Protecting allies from bullying is a far cry from aiding allies in a war. The US & Japan are walking a fine line, as the US encourages Japan to be a greater participant in defense issues, well beyond limits on collective self-defense expressed just months ago, while not raising the specter of a Japanese return to militarism.
 
Japanese Prime Minister Abe has long advocated changing the Japanese Constitution to allow Japan to become a “normal” nation, with a military matching its economic & diplomatic instruments of power. While he is unable to say it out loud, the christening of the Izumo warship last month has normalized Japanese naval power to a great degree. The Izumo is an indigenously developed helicopter-carrying destroyer, & the largest vessel in the Japanese fleet. The Japanese are careful not to call it a carrier, which would make it an offensive weapons system, but in size & capacity, it is very similar to a US Marine Corps’ helicopter carrier. While currently slated to carry only general purpose helicopters, the Izumo could be modified to handle attack helicopters, the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, or even the F-35B, the Marines’ vertical short takeoff & landing version of the new fighter. Configured in this way, the Izumo would be a clear match for China’s lone aircraft carrier.
 
Today, Japan’s cloak of pacifism has been reduced to little more than a fig leaf. The Japanese are developing capabilities that allow it to fight any adversary. The fig leaf will soon be gone.

Facebook isn't a charity. The poor will pay by surrendering their data

A great opinion piece.

People are fawning over the modern technology & connectivity (internet, smartphones, apps etc.) & they have truly disrupted the business & labour markets alike. But what we gloss over (seeing the trees but forgetting the forest) that these same technologies, if brought some good things in this world (e.g. Wikipedia & WikiLeaks), they also brought a lot of pain in the shape of, for instance, millions of job losses, cyber-bullying, lack of privacy, much closer integration of financial systems (which, in turn, helped spread the financial crises of one country, globally).

Internet now is turning into a device for exploiting the poor, & with the help of dire economic & financial situations, at least, in the near future, billions of poor will keep getting exploited by rich (who became rich with the help of internet in the first place).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/26/facebook-isnt-charity-poor-pay-by-surrending-their-data

Luxury is already here – it’s just not very evenly distributed. Such, at any rate, is the provocative argument put forward by Hal Varian, Google’s chief economist. Recently dubbed “the Varian rule”, it states that to predict the future, we just have to look at what rich people already have & assume that the middle classes will have it in 5 years & poor people will have it in 10. Radio, TV, dishwashers, mobile phones, flatscreen TVs: Varian sees this principle at work in the history of many technologies.
 
So what is it that the rich have today that the poor will get in a decade? Varian bets on personal assistants. Instead of maids & chauffeurs we would have self-driving cars, housecleaning robots & clever, omniscient apps that can monitor, inform & nudge us in real time.
 
As Varian puts it: “These digital assistants will be so useful that everyone will want one & the scare stories you read today about privacy concerns will just seem quaint & old-fashioned.” Google Now, one such assistant, can monitor our emails, searches & locations & constantly remind us about forthcoming meetings or trips, all while patiently checking real-time weather & traffic in the background.
 
Varian’s juxtaposition of dishwashers with apps might seem reasonable but it’s actually misleading. When you hire somebody as your personal assistant, the transaction is relatively straightforward: you pay the person for the services tendered – often, in cash – & that’s the end of it. It’s tempting to say that the same logic is at work with virtual assistants: you surrender your data – the way you would surrender your cash – for Google to provide this otherwise free service.
 
But something doesn’t add up here: few of us expect our personal assistants to walk away with a copy of all our letters & files in order to make a buck off them. For our virtual assistants, on the other hand, this is the only reason they exist.
 
In fact, we are getting shortchanged twice: first, when we surrender our data – eventually, it ends up on Google’s balance sheet – in exchange for relatively trivial services, &, second, when that data is then later used to customise & structure our world in a way that is neither transparent nor desirable.
 
This second life-shaping feature of data as a unit of exchange is not yet well understood. However, it’s precisely this ability to shape our future even after we surrender it that turns data into an instrument of domination. While cash, with its usual anonymity, has no history & little connection to social life, data is nothing but a representation of social life – albeit crystallised into kilobytes. Google Now can work only if the company behind it manages to bring vast chunks of our existence – from communication to travel to reading – under its corporate umbrella. Once there, these activities can suddenly acquire a new economic dimension: they can finally be monetised.
 
Nothing of the kind happens to today’s rich when they hire a personal assistant. Here, the balance of power is clear: the master is dominating the servant – & not the other way around, as is the case with Google Now & the poor. In a way, it’s the poor who are the true “virtual assistants” to Google – in helping it to amass the data that the company later monetises.
 
Varian never asks the obvious question: why it is that the rich need personal assistants? Could it be – as seems likely – that it’s not because they like personal assistance but because they like free time? However, to frame the argument this way would be to reveal that the poor, perhaps, are not going to be enjoying as much free time as the rich, even if they get all the latest gadgets from Google.
 
The dialectic of empowerment works in mysterious ways: yes, the smart devices could save us time – so that we can spend it working to pay our higher, personalised insurance costs, or send that extra work-related email, or fill in an extra form that is required by some newly computerised bureaucratic system.
 
Facebook, Google’s closest competitor, pulls the same trick with connectivity. Its Internet.org initiative, which now operates in Latin America, south-east Asia & Africa, was ostensibly launched to promote digital inclusion & get the poor in the developing world online. Online they do get but it’s a very particular kind of “online”: Facebook & a few other sites & apps are free but users have to pay for everything else, often based on how much data their individual apps consume. As a result, few of these people – remember, we are talking about very poor populations – are likely to afford the world outside Facebook’s content empire.
 
Here is the Varian rule at work again: on the face of it, the poor do get what the rich have already – internet connectivity. But the key difference is not hard to spot. Unlike the rich, who pay for their connectivity with their cash, the poor pay for it with their data – the data that Facebook would one day monetise in order to justify the entire Internet.org operation. We are not dealing with a charity here, after all. Facebook is interested in “digital inclusion” in much the same manner as loan sharks are interested in “financial inclusion”: it is in it for the money.
 
Any service provider – be it in education, health, or journalism – would soon realise that to reach the millions using Internet.org, it had better launch & operate its apps inside Facebook rather than outside. In other words, the poor might eventually end up getting all those nice services that the rich already have, but only with their data – their congealed social life – covering the costs of it.
 
The free connectivity that Facebook offers to the developing countries is essentially a giant financial derivative that finances the development of its infrastructure: Facebook gives these countries connectivity in exchange for the right to monetise the lives of their citizens once they have earned enough money.
 
The Varian rule, it seems, needs a major correction: to predict the future, simply look at what the oil companies & banks have been doing for the past two centuries & extrapolate to Silicon Valley, our new default provider of infrastructure for all basic services. In that future, alas, virtual assistants would not be enough – we would be in dire need of virtual psychoanalysts.

"Bush & Clinton" by Joe Heller

Modern democracy = family dynasties

"Bush & Clinton" - Joe Heller, Green Bay Press-Gazette, Green Bay, US

Noam Chomsky on Modern Capitalism