Another Democratic Loss..oops.. - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-15-2005, 07:48 PM   #16
love, blood, life
melon's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:52 AM
Originally posted by Dismantled
Did King serve his sentence?

I don't think he deserves to see the light of day if that stuff is true.
Here's an explanation:

Prior to entering the world of boxing, King was a numbers racketeer in Cleveland, Ohio. In 1954, King shot and killed a man attempting to rob one of his gambling houses; the death was ruled a "justifiable homicide," despite the fact that King had shot him in the back. In 1966, King was convicted of stomping to death an employee who owed him six hundred dollars. Although he then embarked on a campaign of hush money payments and witness intimidation, he was convicted of second degree murder and given a life sentence. The judge reduced the conviction to nonnegligent manslaughter. Some found this ruling suspicious, as it was made during a private meeting with King's attorney in the judge's chambers, without the presence of the prosecutor or a court stenographer. King has been investigated for possible connections with organized crime. During a 1992 Senate investigation King took the Fifth Amendment when questioned about his connection to mobster John Gotti. In public, however, has responded to mob allegations by calling them racist.

melon is offline  
Old 12-15-2005, 07:56 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
Dismantled's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 21,345
Local Time: 04:52 AM
he seems guilty as hell.

Dismantled is offline  
Old 12-16-2005, 05:37 AM   #18
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LA, California, USA
Posts: 1,349
Local Time: 08:52 AM
well, from what i understand neither Fiddy nor Don King have actual street cred. many feel that Fiddy has lost touch of what it means to come from the streets. recently i was told that hip hop culture has suffered because of his stupid shit. You can hustle, but don't forget who you used to hustle with and don't forget why you had to hustle.
blueyedpoet is offline  
Old 12-16-2005, 10:07 AM   #19
Blue Crack Supplier
Irvine511's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 31,477
Local Time: 04:52 AM
look, i can get all sentimental about democracy as well, the purple finger essentially a middle finger in the face of the nihilism of the insurgency. but let's not forget that sentimentalism isn't just for liberals.

some perspective:

[q]Elections Aren't Enough
Seeing Iraqis vote is wonderful, but you can't rush democracy.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, Dec. 15, 2005, at 5:28 PM ET

Whichever way today's Iraqi elections go, the very fact of their existence is irresistibly inspiring. Watching these long-oppressed people exercising their franchise as citizens, hearing them express their hopes for a better, freer life—who could fail to be moved or to wish them well?

Yet as we await the results (a process that could take weeks, followed by the months it will likely take to form a government), it's an apt time to step back and consider the broader prospects for Iraqi democracy. Unfortunately, they don't look so good.

A new book, Electing To Fight, by two political scientists—Edward Mansfield of the University of Pennsylvania and Jack Snyder of Columbia—reinforces this pessimism. The book argues that, while mature democracies do tend to be more peaceful and almost never go to war with one another, emerging democracies tend to be more violent and aggressive than any other type of regime—and are more likely to erupt in civil war or revert to autocratic rule.

Exceptions, of course, abound: several of the post-Soviet nations of Central and Eastern Europe, some thriving new democracies in Central America. But, working from an exhaustive historical database, Mansfield and Snyder outline the conditions for a successful democratization, among them: a literate populace; a fairly prosperous and diverse economy; and a set of democratic institutions, not least a state apparatus capable of mediating and administering disputes among competing social and political groups.

Apply the list to Iraq. In the winter 2005/06 issue of the National Interest (due out next week), Mansfield and Snyder do just that, and the results come up all zeros. Present-day Iraq, they write, exhibits "all the risk factors": an inflammatory mass media, scant rule of law, corrupt bureaucracies, low income and literacy, an economy based almost entirely on oil, and an exceedingly weak administrative state.

Successful democratization, they write (in both the book and the article), depends not just on some critical mass of conditions but also on the sequence in which these conditions develop. When popular elections occur before democratic institutions take hold, they find, the chances of an enduring democracy are especially dim. "Out-of-sequence, incomplete democratizations," they write in the journal piece, "often create an enduring template for illiberal, populist politics." This is especially true in countries sharply divided along ethnic or religious lines. In such countries, elections have been "an ethnic census, not a deliberation about public issues." They create a politics that hardens these divisions. It becomes difficult, if not impossible, for political actors to forge new ties across those divides; the necessary institutions (trade unions, secular parties, or other interest groups) either don't exist or lack sufficient power.

That pretty well sums up Iraqi politics. What we saw today was not simply Iraqis going to vote for a new parliament. We saw Shiites going to vote for Shiite supremacy, if not an outright Islamic state. We saw Sunni Arabs going to vote for some restoration of Sunni power. We saw Kurds going to vote for the enhancement of Kurdish autonomy.

It might be tempting to reconcile these goals simply by splitting the country into three regions, with each faction controlling its own space. But there are two problems. First, the three regions aren't ethnically "pure"; several major cities, notably Baghdad and Kirkuk, are multiethnic; acts of "ethnic cleansing" are everyday occurrences. Second, a central dispute between the Shiites and Sunnis concerns precisely whether power should be concentrated in the regions or in the central government. In other words, on both counts, formalizing the divide could set off enormous waves of violence.

So, is Iraq doomed? Do today's elections, in the final analysis, mean nothing? No. Lessons of history, however firmly grounded, aren't quite iron laws of physics. Still, the hurdles are extremely daunting.

Some electoral outcomes, if they occurred, might offer a glimmer of hope for a peaceful, democratic Iraq. One would be a large number of votes for the Iraqi National List, former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's party of secular Shiites. First, secularism generally is good for democracy, in that it doesn't conflate political power with God's will. Second, in Iraq specifically, Shiite-Sunni cooperation is more likely if the powers aren't obsessed with questions of which brand of Islam is authentic and which is fraudulent. In last January's election, Allawi's party got only 14 percent of the votes—which may not be enough to exert a moderating influence on the religious Shiites of the United Iraqi Alliance. But if no party—Shiite, Sunni, or Kurdish—can form a majority (another outcome to hope for), the secularists might have influence as some coalition's kingmaker. (Then again, maybe not: The Badr Organization, the armed wing of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, has warned that it would fight to keep Allawi, an ex-Baathist, from coming to power.)

It would also be good to see a very high turnout among Sunnis. The vast majority of Sunnis didn't vote in last January's election, either by choice or out of fear that insurgents would kill them on their way to the polls. This time, the insurgents dropped their intimidation; the nationalists among them realized that the boycott was a colossal strategic error. A strong showing would have two effects: It would more clearly differentiate the homegrown Sunnis from the foreign terrorists; it would signal that they want to join the political system and would thus put great pressure on the Shiites to make key concessions (for instance, revising the constitution to allow the Sunnis more decision-making power and a greater share of the oil wealth).

Still, the election is at best the beginning—not the settlement—of Iraqi politics. When the new government takes office, all the "risk factors" that Mansfield and Snyder describe will come into play explicitly; they will define political disputes, and it will take great skill and determination for Iraqi's political leaders to fashion compromises.

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-16-2005, 11:57 PM   #20
love, blood, life
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:52 AM
slate magazine.

diamond is offline  
Old 12-17-2005, 01:00 AM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
U2DMfan's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 02:52 AM
Originally posted by diamond
slate magazine.

it's a pretty good magazine unless you are a douche.
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 12-17-2005, 10:26 AM   #22
Blue Crack Supplier
BVS's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,146
Local Time: 03:52 AM
This has proven to be a very entertaining thread.

I guess criminal minds think a like.
BVS is offline  
Old 12-17-2005, 10:38 AM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
verte76's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 08:52 AM
Thank God Don King isn't supporting the Democrats. That would be embarrassing.
verte76 is offline  
Old 12-17-2005, 01:03 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
nbcrusader's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Originally posted by verte76
Thank God Don King isn't supporting the Democrats. That would be embarrassing.
And would push the Democrats over their quota of embarrassing celebrities....

nbcrusader is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ©