Setting standards for a civil society...sort of

What I want to know is, how do we intend to create and maintain a civil, just, and free society under increasing government surveillance, and powerful control by large corporate monopolies?

This is a huge topic, so I'll just dive in by saying these two articles are worth a quick glance... [1]

1) 'Faking Democracy' by Lynn Landes (April 6, 2004)

Written seven months before the U.S. election in November 2004, this piece clearly explains the state of democracy in America, within this new digital age. Ballot-fixing is a real concern, regardless of electronic or manual voting systems. [2]

We've come to accept, and expect, foul play and corruption in our goverments, and from big businesses. Yet, this also means: good-bye freedom and autonomy, good-bye free speech and free thought, good-bye safe and healthy society for ALL, good-bye social integrity, good-bye responsible and lawful governments...and good-bye democracy.

A brighter future? It's your call.

Question and Suggestion: If governments fear the general public are too uninformed, or too easily swayed, to make an intelligent choice, perhaps there should be educational processes and a voter qualifying system. [3] Just a thought.


2) 'Kinsey and the Homosexual Revolution' by Judith Reisman, President of The Institute For Media Education (July 13, 2002)

Having been on a Kinsey kick recently, I'm posting this essay about the disturbing implications of how research data may have been collected for the Kinsey Report. Reisman rightly stresses the dire importance of, and need for, ethics in science and research. An urgent topic - both socially and environmentally.

A key factor in all of this is public perceptions. I've been suggesting for awhile that shifting media patterns may affect our collective way of thinking, now and in the future. Example: I'm noticing loose parodies of unethical research experiments, both past and present, being increasingly woven into TV sitcoms and movies. Coincidence? Maybe.

Sure, it's hilarious. Yet, the overall effect:

a) Takes people's minds off the moral implications;
b) Lessens expectations of professionalism and integrity; and
c) Detaches people from the topic being spoofed.

Sorry to be so vague, but...

Humour's great, and we need more of it! Yet, it can also make important issues seem less so. Like bunny wabbits and other creatures being used for commercial product testing: If we don't see the suffering, why worry about it?

Human guinea pigs are, likewise, a shocking and horrifying fact of life, as Reisman's essay suggests. Besides the mind games and mass manipulation I keep alluding to, do you want to become tomorrow's chemical or biological experiment? [4]

Again, it's your call.


(I know this is all a bit fuzzy, but please bear with me here.)

---------

[1] Certain sites and hard-hitting articles I've posted have disappeared from the internet, so I may have to copy the contents beforehand, so people can still access the information.

[2] Thoughts on democracy and voting processes in both Canada and the U.S. can be found throughout this weblog. Also see:

'Canada's democratic future'
'Questions about U.S. election'
'Voting issues, no news coverage'

[3] Coincidentally, a bill motion has just been put forward to lower the voting age in Canada (article to come).

[4] Mild examples of questionable research practices may be found in want ads, like Now Magazine's classifieds (print version). Read the occasional calls for human research subjects: they don't offer ethical or long-term guarantees. Women have always gotten short shrift in this respect, for various reasons. I also suspect people who participate in mental health services or activities (eg, therapy, groups, etc), or those who may have addictions or addictive tendencies, are being closely and invasively studied - right across North America. (Vancouver seems to be a growing hotspot.)