Friday 19th of April 2024
Home » content

Idea

Would it be possible to have a section in the forum categories 'currently in the media' where we can point out to each other important articles that other people may have missed?

Also, if we have a frameshop on the issue of abortion, would it be possible to make like a mini library of frameshop results in the right hand column where you could link to summaries of our results? Because if we just left them in the forum, their is so much other info, it'd get forgotten.

In the media - good Idea

Hey Lewisa,

I think this forum will be very useful once things start happening. Well done!

Could I ask those that have started debates about fluoridation and abortion et al what that actually has to do with taking back our government?

Isn't this site supposed to be about US ( not the U.S.A., US ) trying to take back the government on our terms or at least forcing change that we want?

Those issues raised are certainly debateable and play a part in our society's formation but could we try and stick to the main topic?

If we don't then what chance do we have? None. I would suggest those that want to debate other such topics could easily find sites that are dedicated to those other issues.

Sure those issues are part of our democratic process but do we need to bring them up before this site has formed it's main goals?

If we are simply here to discuss our own pet topics then I could fill each forum with such questions as could you. Let's not.

Definitions

Would it not be appropriate on this site to have a section called 'Definitions' because today I see a word that I haven't seen before: frameshop?

Since this site appeals to all ages it is to be expected that contributions will inevitably lapse into the patois of the shop floor.

If there is one cardinal rule about writing it is this: it is the writer's responsibility to be clear; it is not the reader's responsibility to understand.

Re: Definitions

It's a good idea Bob. Definitions, generally cut and paste from dictionary sites, were coming up in Webdiary for a bit, and they do have the habit of underpinning debates.

I'll make it a forum topic, but in the medium term it might be a good function for us to develop for the site. A database of definitions, or a glossary if you like, including alternatives, about whatever stuff comes up on the site. What do people think?

New Forum: Currently in the Media

I've added 'Currently in the Media' to the forum categories. Let's see how it goes.

On 'Frameshops', I must admit I'm not sure how they work yet. But if that's what people are interested in doing then it's going to happen.

In terms of this site, and with regard to an issue like abortion or water fluoridation, we don't support a position. The interest of this site is the highest quality democratic engagement about the given issue from information exchange through debate and decision making.

But can someone explain what a frameshop is in practice?

Hi Hamish

Hi Hamish,
I'm a bit confused by your comment.

"In terms of this site, and with regard to an issue like abortion or water fluoridation, we don't support a position."

If we won't be taking a position on something as mainstream as abortion, what will we be taking positions on? Which parts of moveon.org are you hoping to bring here?

Hi Lewisa

Hi Lewisa,

If you want clarification on my own position on abortion, it is a very strongly held one. Women should choose whether they should be mothers or not. There are complex and highly divisive ethical issues behind such a choice, but these, in my opinion, are choices for women - rather than the state - to make.

I expect many on this site to hold such a position, but by no means everybody. In fact, it's probably just the sort of issue that could be used to split this broad church who are, among other things, Not Happy John!

With the issue of water fluoridation my point is much easier to explain: Let's not pre-empt the outcome, but make sure the debate is accountable and free, let no information be withheld and no voice be silenced etcetera. The website in itself need not have a point of view, as it is obliged only to be fair.

The reason abortion is a more difficult issue is that for many people the very idea of society as a whole arbiting this decision on behalf of individual women is undemocratic. I'm inclined to this view, so I'm challenged here.

Nevertheless, the way I see it the website in itself cannot hold a position on abortion.

I have every hope that people will use this site to organise around issues, whether it is to develop framing workshops or anything else within the law. But such organisation will be, in many cases, with a vocal and critical opposition. It's as it should be.

Alternate positions on issues should also be able to use this site to organise if they wish. The intent of the site is to be a tool for democratic engagement and action, because we have a faith in democracy. The site can no more have a definitive 'position' than can, say, the institution of Federal Parliament.

I hope I've made things a little clearer.

Halfway on Abortion

I don't normally support sexist legislation, but here it seems appropriate. Lets get a total ban on abortions for men. Then all those guys pushing for a ban can be happy they've got it and shut up. We'll leave the women to sort out their rules.

Good ideas, Lewisa

Good ideas, Lewisa.

One of the next features to be added to the site is a News Portal. Jargon for links with a bit of introduction to other stories/sites and then the ability to comment/discuss the posts. Mostly these links seem to be current material, at least that's how they tend to work on other sites. http://www.dailykos.com/, as mentioned by others, is a good example of a news portal.

I love the idea of a mini-library of frameshops - and would certainly support your suggestion. Over to Hamish, et al., I guess. BTW, you can always search for material in the forums or anywhere else for that matter - just having them in their own section would be very convenient though.

Mini Frameshops

I like the idea of a mini frameshop for each specific issue. Each one would need its own moderator (or two) so that questions get properly answered.

I'd like to suggest a frameshop on water fluoridation. If Your Democracy is interested then I and others can provide up-to-date information and maybe someone/s to moderate.

Water fluoridation is being progressively pushed onto communities around the country without proper consultation and this is so in NSW and far north Queensland at present.

(1) The promoters of fluoridation never mention that the chemical most often used - silicofluoride - is an untested contaminated industrial waste product that contains Arsenic and other heavy metals plus likely radioactive decay products and has been shown to be strongly associated with increased rates of social violence and crime. (Documentation can be provided on request).

(2) Health Departments never mention that they are neglecting to follow the basic fluoridation health safety standards as set by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) which requires an authority to measure the actual daily fluoride intake by individuals from all other sources such as food and medication before starting a new fluoridation scheme. (Documentation can be provided on request).

NSW is gathering steam against this gross malpractice.

The issue is now of federal interest because last year the Commonwealth helped fund a silcofluoridation scheme in an Aboriginal community in far north Queensland.

Together we can stamp this out quick smart.

Relevance?

And what has this to do with our democracy for the time being? I think there are much bigger issues at hand. First one has to kill the source of the cancer that is killing our country. Then we can come back to National Issues.

RE: Relevance

Wolf.,Your post made me laugh. I know it wasn't meant to be funny but I got this picture in my head of how well we have all been taught by the system.

We are all just following the same process and procedures that the Government follows. We make enquires and discuss the issues but nothing ever gets done to change it.

I think that what we need is a Committee made up of volunteers from the public that meet at designated times where people can go and air their grieviances and have their complaints of Government corruption looked into.

Sure we might not be able to make our Government accountable as they appear to be protected by law, but why should they be allowed to cover it all up. At least the victim would then feel somewhat vindicated as somebody would listen to them and get to hear the truth and see that they are not lying. Trust me, that makes a difference!.

It might also open our eyes to a pattern of behaviour that resembles that of what is happening our children's playgrounds, on the streets and in our society.

Committees

Hey Jolanda,

Excellent ideas about committees, grievance processes etc. Except perhaps we should form a Committee first to consider how that Committee might be formed. We could have sub Committees discussing each potential sub topic and then perhaps a referendum framed so the response is NO.

I have assumed that as you were laughing your suggestion was also humour. Mine is as having been on endless discussion groups, panels and the rest I have only one conclusion which is that arrived at by Yes Minister. If you want to stop or delay something, form a Committee! If not, forgive me!!

RE: Committees

Wolf. My suggestion wasn't in humour; it was just the picture that I got in my head that made me laugh. I was hoping that volunteers from the Public wouldn't have an agenda. But I can see what you mean.

You see, this is why I believe our Education Department /Government doesn’t teach our children well. They only want certain people to come out of the system with the know how and education to be able to have the confidence and ability necessary to join their ranks, so that they are safe from challenge. They segregate. Generally the system supports and likes the ones that are in the know and the Yes, Sir, No, Sir, anything you say so variety. As they don’t give them trouble, they don’t ask questions! These students just want to know what the right answer is so that they get the marks necessary to get the high paying positions. They conform. The vast majority of students are all discredited by the system by calling them disadvantaged, having learning difficulties, behavioural problems etc., and most people will not give them a chance. The Education Department takes no responsibility, as the Education Act says that the responsibility of educating a student is the Parents.

That’s why a Senate Report on Gifted children came to the conclusion that gifted children were the most disadvantaged students in the system. This is by no means an accident - gifted students ask questions - lots of them so they have to keep them in down.

The way our Education system is run also ensures that many students do not have a clean enough lifestyle growing up to be able to have the knowledge or be able to face the media if they ever decide to go into politics or get in the public eye without being shot down. Those in power are safe from the masses!

The system teaches our children the answers and they do that for a reason! They should be asking them the questions and making them find their own answers. The survival of the human race as a whole depends on answers being found for questions, we need to lead evolution, otherwise we risk being taken over.

I guess that’s the way Committees and enquiries often work. They just get told information/answers; they are not required to really investigate the issues by asking the right questions.

My husband and I have limited education and it is very frustrating. It’s not as easy as people think to be able to know how to word things and what to do to make changes when you don’t have the tools or knowledge and when your reputation can easily be ruined so that nobody has to afford you your human right or even give you the time of day.

The Government has spent all our tax payers money on enquiries, not so as to make changes, but so as to devise a system that has a "closed door" response to allegations and issues. Only those in the know would be able to navigate the web that they have devised, but those in the know wouldn't be interested in trying as they are "in the know" and they are part of the web and they now what happens to those who speak up. Everybody knows.

Hopefully the “Web

Hi David

Hi David,

That sounds great. You may also want to look at http://buzzflash.com which is the drudge report for the Left.

They even provide a ready made code for you to put their headlines on your website.