This is a small essay I wrote in less than an hour. If it has skewed points or bad grammar I'm sorry. If you think it's shit, say so, but at the very fucking least give more than a five-word answer (e.g: "I think it fucking sucks"). If you like it, also, say so!
http://pub.sankyuu.com/personal/essays/oaos/
.doc, .odt, .swx, and .txt versions avaliable, as to satisfy all you damn format prudes with your fancy-shamcy text editors and other bullshit. LONG LIVE NANO. NANO WILL RISE AGAIN.
This document is also GFDL, because I don't want you slimey highschool fuckers to steal my work!
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
Also, I know I'm not an intellectual, but if I never get any feedback on any of my ideas on economic and political things, I'll never get any better.
I thought it was a good read, although any right-winger would hate it. I'd like to point out that I consider myself more of a centrist than anything, I am too young to really be left or right at this point in time.
You ought to cut out all that useless prose; it's just inflating an article that's really way too wordy to begin with, right?
Use concrete language.
Remember that the article isn't an autobiography, although if you're like me you'll often forget that. It took me a decade to figure out.
More facts would be nice. 97.4% of professional writers agree.
Be concise. Well, maybe not, cuz everyone loves rambling. Let me tell you about my dead cat...
Use less parenthesis (and less parenthetical remarks).
Maybe add footnotes.*
Get someone literate to go over it, than get a grammarian to go over it again.
Submit it for critical analysis. Repeat.
(I like it, but it's not ready for prime time)
It mediocre, but... well... meh.
I didn't think there was any problem with the use of parenthesis.
As far as the rant about DIEBOLD, it needs to be tied into the rest of the essay better, and calling Ohio a "hardend blue state" is an exaggeration. Also on the matter of facts, if your doing any kind of semi-serious writing, you really need to cross refernce anything you find on wikipedia with another source (not that I think your understanding of the affair in chile is incorrect, at least not from what i've read)
The Conclusion that you come to is also rather weak, not much more than "OMG capitalism is bizaro socialism!". You do add something in your description of how the government and corporations have been working together (I think Ralph Nader wrote a book about this, something along the lines of "Corporate Welfare", but I don't remember right now), but that should not be a surprise because, as any socialist should relize, corporations, governments, and organized religions are all power structures, just by different names, and different (but fluid) expectations of power and democracy. The less a government is "of, for, and by the people" (which is where I think you were going with the voting fraud stuff), in other words an oligarchy, its obvious it will do what is best for the leaders, which includes allying with other oligarchies (corporations) to rob the prolitariat. [I went off on a tangent here, you can skip the rest of this paragraph] This is why I have always been annoyed by people who call socialism naive, because to me it seems as stupid to trust corporations as totalitarian governments (I dont mean to sound overly dramatic, of course corporations do not have the same power as a government, but they can, and in the US have, been moving closer to this), and a much better idea to have things controled by the people (as the government). In the later case I suppose the effectiveness of such a government would be based on the ability of the people elect leaders that are not stupid or despotic, and would undo reforms. Not that there necisarily have to be leaders, at least not as normaly would think of them, but now I've realy gone off topic.
It would also be nice if you could define what you mean by libertarian for the benefit of americans, because here the term almost universily denotes neoliberalism, a conotation that I understand it dose not have in the rest of the world.
Also, footnotes > endnotes
This post realy got off its original point, and I apologize for that.
> I was given life in 1988. I had only been five when the Berlin Wall finally fell in 1989
Time warp?
The title is rather misleading, and I agree with >>4 that the conclusion is weak as well. In addition to that, lumping China and Malaysia together doesn't make too much sense.
I think you're wrong on the media.
They aren't so much doing stories because of corprate interest as because they need ratings for the news. If you've ever watched any news show during sweeps, it's hard to not figure out that it's sweeps week. It's the one period of the year that the media generally does its best to make it seem like you'll die if you miss the latest report. So you'd be hard pressed to show that they showed the president's war speeches for the reason that it helped the sponsers, but because it's entertainment.
Another thing, I remember reading that the Neo-Conservative movement was actually started by former Trotskists, who substituted the Communist Revolution for a Conservative or Neo-Conservative one.
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/print/coverprint.html
Mentioned by Jim Buchanan.