Thank You.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
*promote

Anyone here read "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein?

This is what he's talking about...look at who his audience is, this is how the two corporate parties work when a disaster happens. They make sure the people aren't there to meddle in the process and they work fast within the small window of confusion and anarchy to push through whatever corporate agenda they need to.

I dunno how to feel about this. On the one hand, I respect that she has pride in what she does and tries to think deeply about it. On the other hand, I just can't respect her job. It seems to me that her job is to fulfill the misogynistic fantasies of a male-dominated industry. The vast majority of these movies fuel the stereotype that women are nothing more than sex-objects and that women enjoy being treated that way. I don't see her saying there's anything wrong with that.

I understand as males we have a strong biological urge to procreate, but I've never heard of there existing any biological need to objectify women. That's seems to me to be a purely cultural construct. I honestly hope a day will come when people feel they don't need porn anymore and this young woman can start exploring her potential as an actress as more than just a "sexual being" but as a human being.

EDIT: Just found this very interesting essay by Naomi Wolf for the case against porn. I agree with one of the comments after the article which states: "Porn isn’t wrong, a society that considers objectifying women to be the normal is what’s fucked up.

A profound, genius, bastard who's "Chicago Boys" went across the world ruining peoples lives wherever they went. Read The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein which does a great job of pointing out what a wreck his ideology made of other countries. It's really hard to argue when you can just point to the policies he supports that were put in place and then the country collapses.

Nice!

There have been a number of books that dealt with the subject:

The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker

The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein

Freakonomics had a section about how terrible we as humans are in gauging the likelihood of something awful happening. The authors illustrate their point by asking you if your child would be safer visiting a friend who had a swimming pool in the back yard, or a friend whose parents owned a handgun. As you could guess, the swimming pool is 100 times more dangerous than the handgun.

Of course, each of these books have extensive references in the back.

@bcglorf If you knew what went on inside the summit, the actions of government would begin to make sense.

"As thousands protested in the streets of Toronto, inside the G20 summit world leaders agreed to a controversial goal of cutting government deficits in half by 2013. We speak with journalist Naomi Klein. 'What actually happened at the summit is that the global elites just stuck the bill for their drunken binge with the world’s poor, with the people that are most vulnerable'"

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/28/naomi_klein_the_real_crime_scene

It's not politicians, but the global financiers, who are pulling this scheme on us. Deficit reduction is used to prolong the recession and here is how the banks will benefit from this whole deal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj7AETNcvkM

Please watch these before posting another response, thanks.

Naomi Klein speaking to over a thousand people in Dundas sq.,TO, on the Israeli attack on Gaza aid flotilla.

The Shock Doctrine was spot on and Naomi Klein deserves a medal for her efforts.

Your video, Ali G interviews Naomi Wolf, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^thinker247:
While I am one to never believe anything my government tells me, I find it highly improbable that anybody but the 19 hijackers caused the events of September 11th. But to play devil's advocate, let me for a minute suspend my belief and agree with the "truthers" that my government perpetrated an act of terrorism against itself.
Why?
In order to invade Afghanistan to plunder its oil? We already had bin Laden on the FBI's Most Wanted List for the bombings of U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. We easily could have invaded under the pretense of finding and extracting bin Laden (and the Taliban and al-Qaeda), because that's exactly what we did after September 11th.
In order to invade Iraq under the banner of anti-terrorism? Hussein had already defied U.N. weapons inspectors for over a decade and Bush was never the type to ask permission, so we didn't need September 11th to justify illegally invading a sovereign nation. We did it anyway.
In order to enact greater restrictions upon the citizens by inducing their fear response? Hell, as a general populace we're lemmings. The Bush administration certainly did not need to kill 3000 people in order to take away our liberties. We gladly give them up whenever anybody in authority asks.
I have yet to hear a rational answer to the question of "Why?" But I'm all ears.


niiiice.
ask a question and then propose possible hypothesis which of course you then dismantle.
let me preface this by stating i am not a "truther" and am not as convinced as my friend rougy is concerning 9/11.
that being said,the US government has never,in my opinion,given this a proper investigation.
let me give you an example:
lewinsky and the impeachment of bill clinton =168 million dollars.
9/11 investigation=6 million dollars
and lets be clear here.the governments version of what happened on 9/11 is itself a conspiracy theory and one that does not hold up well under closer scrutiny.
who is responsible? i do not know and neither do you but i think it prudent to not only ask questions but be allowed to ask those questions.
agree?
now...
as for YOUR question thinker247.
why?
i presume you are asking for motive.
ok.
1.lusitania
2.reichsthag
3.gulf of tonkin
these are all false flag operations and all preceded war.WW!,WW2 and vietnam respectively.i could mention the oil embargo on japan but that is a lengthy conversation.
what ARE the motives for war?
they have always been unequivocally about:
1.land/labor/resources/trade
how does a government,crown or ruling entity get its poorest,least educated and therefore most expendable to go fight and die for something the ruling class wishes?
1.propaganda.
which creates a "fighting spirit".
for thousands of years religion was the impetus to create this spirit but for the last hundred years it has been nationalism but it is ALWAYS the F>E>A>R that is the true driving force.
now that we have established a basis for war let us get to the heart of your question.
since i am not privy to secret documents i must make my answer based on conjecture.i shall do my best.
why would the US government use 9/11 (by action or by proxy) to change 200 years of national defensive posturing to one of "pre-emptive" and declare a war,not on any person or nation but one against an ephemeral opponent?the "war on terror".
1.war is HUGE business and the DOD has been one of the top 10 lobbyists since 1962.
2.saddam hussein,having been bombed for over 10 years straight(fact,look it up) along with sanctions and that ridiculous "oil for food" threatened to change iraq's oil transactions from the american dollar to the euro(fact,look it up)which would have cost the US billions if not trillions.seeing that every oil transaction is done in american dollars.it is the world reserve currency (not for much longer).
3.uzbekisthan has one the last and richest oil and natural gas left in the world.a pipeline which was denied by turkey (that has since changed,but for europes benefit,not america) is being built right now...
where?
ill give ya a guess.
iraq.
and do you know where it will lead into?
want to try another guess?
afghanistan.

those are just a few off the top of my head.i could take the time to be more concise and specific but this is a comment section.
maybe we have differing political philosophies thinker247.i do not trust government nor power because that power historically has ALWAYS attempted to garner more power for itself at the expense of liberty,freedom and the common good of society.
so while i dont think the US government attacked the twin towers,i believe they ALLOWED it.
what evidence do i have? none.and any evidence we could have gotten has been destroyed.
but i was military for a number of years and unless they have gotten lazy and stupid there is no way that would have happened.
could i be wrong?you betcha.
but unlike you i do not trust government and neither should you because historically,governments will abuse whatever powers they have and take your rights away as fast as they are allowed to.
might i recommend:
1.bryzinski "the grand chessboard"
2.naomi klein "the shock doctrine"
3.chalmers johnson "blowback"
hell...just go the PNAC website they practically lay it out for you and that minority controlled the government for 8 years.
history is the greatest teacher and it is your friend.
i have enjoyed this conversation thinker247.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'society, utopia, naomi klein, slavoj zizek, fabrizio eva' to 'society, utopia, naomi klein, slavoj zizek, fabrizio eva, children of men' - edited by EndAll

she... is... hot...
Lara Logan is a mix of Naomi Watts and Scarlett Johansson (though they are both even hotter)

Even though I never have run a marathon, I certainly will dream of Naomi Campbell.

Good advice!

"If there -were- any justice in this country, those folks would be heading into prison about now...but no, we haven't even managed to put some basic common-sense regulation back in place."

^ I second that.

I'm reminded of Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" and maybe this is a part of that.

Many of our problems would be allayed in the USA if we would reinstate commensurate taxes on the VERY wealthy.

Obama and the Dems aren't mean enough. Our country is hurting, our world by extension is hurting, these are truly perilous times, and to reach out our hands to a school of piranhas is nothing short of folly.

This is not a recession.