Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

January 20 2013



In 2009, the global eco­nomic crisis began to affect Slov­e­nia not only due to shrink­ing European exports, but also because of mis­guided policies taken dur­ing the years of eco­nomic expan­sion (most dur­ing Janez Janša’s first man­date). In 2009, the Slov­e­nian eco­nomy shrunk by 8% and the over­heated con­struc­tion sec­tor dis­in­teg­rated. The Slov­e­nian eco­nomy entered a second reces­sion in the last quarter. Pro­test­ers blame this new reces­sion not only on the auto­cratic, neo­lib­eral, cor­rupt and incom­pet­ent policies of the cur­rent gov­ern­ment, but on a recent suc­ces­sion of cor­rupt self-​serving gov­ern­ments. This is why pro­test­ers have recently deman­ded the replace­ment of the entire polit­ical elite.

The gov­ern­ment has respon­ded with arrog­ance to the raised voices of its own cit­izens. The ostens­ibly rep­res­ent­at­ive gov­ern­ment has con­sist­ently refused to enter into dia­logue with pro­test­ers and had instead dis­cred­ited and ridiculed their legit­im­ate demands. This shame­ful response has only helped the protest move­ment to grow. The gov­ern­ment has also respon­ded to the protests by clos­ing down the centre of the cap­ital city of Ljubljana, by using riot police, horses, armoured vehicles, water can­nons, anti­riot fences and heli­copters in what can only be char­ac­ter­ized as a gross over­re­ac­tion to the largely peace­ful gath­er­ings of Slov­e­nian cit­izens. The police has imprisoned large num­ber of young­sters, mis­streat­ing them, hold­ing them host­ages, black­mail­ing their parants to stop protest­ing, if they want to see their kids lib­er­ated. Prime Min­is­ter Janez Janša has described the pro­test­ers as “extrem­ist left zom­bies” and char­ac­ter­ized them as rad­ical “neo-​socialists” in an effort to bal­ance out the actual pres­ence of neo-​Nazis (pos­sibly organ­ised by the rul­ing gov­ern­ment itself in an effort to dis­credit the protests at the begin­ning of the move­ment). Again this insult­ing gov­ern­ment response has back­fired, draw­ing more and more angry cit­izens into the streets.


Slovenians Demand Radical Change | Critical Legal Thinking 2013-01-15

The protests were triggered by an appar­ently insig­ni­fic­ant and mar­ginal issue in local polit­ics. In Mari­bor, the second largest city of Slov­e­nia, the city mayor com­mit­ted a private com­pany to install cam­eras across the city, in order to con­trol the traffic and pen­al­ize the viol­a­tions of speed lim­its. The main prob­lem was that the pen­al­ties would be paid to the same private com­pany. This then added fuel to the already foun­ded accus­a­tions of cor­rup­tion in the city coun­cil and not­ably in the mayor’s office. The occa­sional protests cul­min­ated in what became known as the “Mari­bor upris­ing”, where, for the first time in the short his­tory of Slov­e­nian inde­pend­ency, the police used excess­ive viol­ence, water can­nons, heli­copters etc. The com­bin­a­tion of local issues and cyn­ical polit­ical reac­tions from the gov­ern­ing parties lead to the situ­ation in which a vast major­ity could recog­nize their own dis­sat­is­fac­tion and frus­tra­tion with the gov­ern­ing polit­ics, and more broadly with the prob­lem­atic polit­ical tra­di­tion in Slov­e­nia. The ini­ti­at­ives for protests spread across the coun­try and the major­ity of organ­ising was con­duc­ted through the social networks.

The People Returns: A footnote to protests in Slovenia | Critical Legal Thinking 2013-01-16
Sponsored post

December 09 2012

Thomas de Mi­se­re im Hörsaal 3 Uni Leipzig

Nikolausvorlesung - Studentenaktion

"Wozu noch dienen? Der Auftrag der Bundeswehr"
Dr. Thomas de Maizière MdB
Bundesminister der Verteidigung

6. Dezember 2012
Hörsaal 3, Universität Leipzig

Reposted bykrekk krekk

April 18 2012



Spaniens Regierung will für die Folgen ihrer harten Kürzungspolitik gewappnet sein. Wohl deshalb stellte Innenminister Jorge Fernández Díaz jüngst seine Pläne für eine Verschärfung des Strafgesetzbuches vor. Künftig sollen auch friedliche Proteste als „Anschlag auf die Staatsgewalt“ gewertet werden können.

Darauf stehen vier bis zehn Jahre Haft. Und wer im Internet zu Protestaktionen ruft, die in Sitzblockaden oder gar in gewaltsamen Auseinandersetzungen enden, muss damit rechnen, als „Mitglied einer kriminellen Organisation“ verhaftet zu werden. Darauf steht eine Mindeststrafe von zwei Jahren Haft.

Während die Opposition gegen die Pläne protestiert, erhält Fernández Díaz von der Autonomieregierung im nordostspanischen Katalonien Unterstützung. „Es geht darum, dass die Menschen mehr Angst vor dem System haben“, erklärt der dortige Innenminister Felip Puig unumwunden.

Puig war vor knapp einem Jahr in die Schlagzeilen geraten, als er Zivilpolizisten in eine Demonstration einschleusen ließ, die gewalttätige Ausschreitungen anzettelten. Diese dienten uniformierten Beamten dazu, mit Härte gegen friedliche Demonstranten vorzugehen. Videos, die dies belegten, wurden von YouTube gelöscht.


Spaniens Regierung verschärft Strafrecht: Wer Torten wirft, ist ein Terrorist | 2012-04-17
Reposted by99percentsofiasmondkroetefinkreghkrekkzerocool911besencartoffleJuvalekeliasdocsteelkissalonecomplexArkelanfallwhereistheguruzweisatzhorstiporstimodacpaketwonkobrightbytesofiasreturn13krekkdarksideofthemoonJuvalpowerToThePoeple

April 12 2012


Der spanische Innenminister Jorge Fernandez Diaz, der wie andere Minister der Regierung Mitglied der Vatikansekte Opus Dei sein soll, kündigte im Parlament am Mittwoch eine Reform der Strafgesetzgebung an. Ziel ist es, diejenigen strafrechtlich verfolgen zu können, die im Internet oder anderen Medien zu Protesten aufrufen, die wie beim Generalstreik in Barcelona am 29. März "ernsthaft den öffentlichen Frieden stören". Das soll künftig als Bildung einer kriminellen Vereinigung gelten. In Barcelona war es zu heftigen Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Polizisten und Demonstranten und zu Beschädigung von Banken und der Börse gekommen.

Aufruf zu Protesten im Internet soll als Bildung einer kriminellen Vereinigung bestraft werden | Telepolis 2012-04-12
Reposted bykrekkwonkoeat-slow99percentgarethbrown

April 05 2012

Play fullscreen
Dennis J. Snower bei Occupy Kiel

via 2012-04-05 Hinweise des Tages

vgl. Rededuell auf Augenhöhe -

und Blog-Eintrag von Occupy-Kiel-Aktivisten auf Maskenfall
Reposted by99percent 99percent

March 29 2012

March 20 2012

Play fullscreen

Evolutionary biologist Michael Eisen made this t-shirt design in support of the Elsevier boycott.

Academic research is behind bars and an online boycott by 8,209 researchers (and counting) is seeking to set it free…well, more free than it has been. The boycott targets Elsevier, the publisher of popular journals like Cell and The Lancet,  for its aggressive business practices, but opposition was electrified by Elsevier’s backing of a Congressional bill titled the Research Works Act (RWA). Though lesser known than the other high-profile, privacy-related bills SOPA and PIPA, the act was slated to reverse the Open Access Policy enacted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2008 that granted the public free access to any article derived from NIH-funded research. Now, only a month after SOPA and PIPA were defeated thanks to the wave of online protests, the boycotting researchers can chalk up their first win: Elsevier has withdrawn its support of the RWA, although the company downplayed the role of the boycott in its decision, and the oversight committee killed it right away.

But the fight for open access is just getting started.

Seem dramatic? Well, here’s a little test. Go to any of the top academic journals in the world and try to read an article. The full article, mind you…not just the abstract or the first few paragraphs. Hit a paywall? Try an article written 20 or 30 years ago in an obscure journal. Just look up something on PubMed then head to JSTOR where a vast archive of journals have been digitized for reference. Denied? Not interested in paying $40 to the publisher to rent the article for a few days or purchase it for hundreds of dollars either? You’ve just logged one of the over 150 million failed attempts per year to access an article on JSTOR. Now consider the fact that the majority of scientific articles in the U.S., for example, has been funded by government-funded agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, NIH, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, NASA, and so on. So while taxpayer money has fueled this research, publishers charge anyone who wants to actually see the results for themselves, including the authors of the articles.

Paying a high price for academic journals isn’t anything new, but the events that unfolded surrounding the RWA was the straw that broke the camel’s back. It began last December when the RWA was submitted to Congress. About a month later, Timothy Gowers, a mathematics professor at Cambridge University, posted rather innocently to his primarily mathematics-interested audience his particular problems with Elsevier, citing exorbitant prices and forcing libraries to purchase journal bundles rather than individual titles. But clearly, it was Elsevier’s support of the RWA that was his call to action. Two days later, he launched the boycott of Elsevier at, calling upon his fellow academics to refuse to work with the publisher in any capacity.

Seemingly right out of Malcolm Gladwell’s book The Tipping Point, researchers started taking a stand in droves. And the boycott of Elsevier continues on, though with less gusto now that the RWA is dead. It’s important to point out though that the boycott is not aimed at forcing Elsevier to make the journals free, but protesting the way it does its business and the fact that it has profits four times larger than related publishers. The Statement of Purpose for the protest indicates that the specific issues that researchers have with Elsevier varies, but “…what all the signatories do agree on is that Elsevier is an exemplar of everything that is wrong with the current system of commercial publication of mathematics journals.”

The advantages of open access to researchers have been known for some time, but its popularity has struggled.

It’s clear that all forms of print media, including newspapers, magazines, and books, are in a crisis in the digital era (remember Borders closing?). The modern accepted notion that information should be free has crippled publishers and many simply waited too long to evolve into new pay models. When academic journals went digital, they locked up access behind paywalls or tried to sell individual articles at ridiculous prices. Academic research is the definition of premium, timely content and prices reflected an incredibly small customer base (scientific researchers around the globe) who desperately needed the content as soon as humanly possible. Hence, prices were set high enough that libraries with budgets remained the primary customers, until of course library budgets got slashed, but academics vying for tenure, grants, relevance, or prestige continued to publish in these same journals. After all, where else could they turn…that is, besides the Public Library of Science (PLoS) project?

In all fairness, some journals get it. The Open Directory maintains a list of journals that switched from paywalls to open access or are experimenting with alternative models. Odds are very high that this list will continue to grow, but how fast? And more importantly, will the Elsevier boycott empower researchers to get on-board the open access paradigm, even if it meant having to reestablish themselves in an entirely new ecosystem of journals?

As the numbers of dissenting researchers continue to climb, calls for open access to research are translating into new legislation…and the expected opposition. But let’s hope that some are thinking about breaking free from the journal model altogether and discovering creative, innovative ways to get their research findings out there, like e-books or apps that would make the research compelling and interactive. Isn’t it about time researchers took back control of their work?

If you are passionate about the issue of open access to research, you’ll want to grab a cup of coffee and nestle in for this Research Without Borders video from Columbia University, which really captures the challenge of transition from the old publishing model to the new digital world:

[Media: Michael Eisen, Open Access, YouTube]

[Sources: ChronicleThe Cost of KnowledgeLibrary JournalNYTimes]

March 14 2012


Berlin Rally #FREEBRADLEYMANNING 15. März 17 Uhr Kundgebung vor dem Brandenburger Tor #freebrad #wikileaks | Freiheit für Bradley Manning


Schuldig die Wahrheit ans Licht gebracht zu haben.

15. März 17 Uhr Kundgebung vor dem Brandenburger Tor, Pariser Platz Rückseite der Amerikanischen Botschaft. Rally for Bradley Manning in Berlin.

Reposted bywikileakslydschi

March 05 2012

Play fullscreen
Occupy AIPAC Opposes War and Sanctions Against Iran

130 organizations call for diplomacy with Iran and a US Middle East policy not based on unequivocal support for Israel

Time: 08:34 More in News & Politics
Reposted byiranelection iranelection

February 12 2012

Play fullscreen
Noam Chomsky Q&A: "Crisis and Hope: Theirs and Ours"

Noam Chomsky answers questions after delivering speech at the University of Maryland Friday, January 27, 2012 Full speech at

Time: 38:57 More in News & Politics
Reposted bysergelanmieat-slow

February 11 2012

Welche Lobbys haben mit am geheimen ACTA-Verhandlungstisch gesessen? LobbyControl über #ACTA Geheimverhandlungen

Aussetzung der #ACTA Unterschrift: Kleiner Schritt in richtige Richtung | Achtung nur "vorerst"! bis der Protest abflaut

In mehr als 50 Städten in Deutschland und in ganz Europa! Eine Übersicht aller Demos gegen #ACTA findet sich hier

#Occupy #OWS #Protest #Black-Bloc #Chris-Hedges #David-Graeber
Open Letter to the Occupy Movement: Why We Need Agreements
oAnth at Diaspora*  via Evernote
Reposted by99percentkrekkdarksideofthemoon

February 02 2012


February 01 2012

Where In The Tunnel Are We? – By Ehsani | Syria comment - 2012-01-31

Why is the Syrian opposition so divided? Here are some of the main divisions running through Syrian society:

Sunni versus Alawi
Poor versus rich
Rural versus urban
Homs and Hama versus Aleppo and Damascus
Baathists versus Non-Baathists
Religious versus Secular
Saudi Arabia versus Iran
USA versus Russia

Welcome to the cocktail of the new Syrian revolution.

I returned home to Syria two weeks ago. Many of my friends were surprised that I would make the long trip at this time of gathering war.

For two weeks, I traveled (flew) between Aleppo and Damascus. I talked to rich and poor: bankers, taxi drivers, young protestors from Idlib, rank and file army soldiers stationed in Homs, senior Alawi officers, Christian and tribal Sunni families. I did my best to get a comprehensive view of what people were thinking and how they saw the future.

In what follows, I will present a raw interview-type account of three different encounters that I had. Two were with Taxi drivers. One with a soldier. Even though I had my own car and someone to drive me around, I preferred the taxis to get a better feel.


read more via link in the title line
Reposted from02mysoup-aa 02mysoup-aa

Interview with Honneth in Swiss TV

On Sunday January 22, Barbara Bleisch interviews Professor Axel Honneth in "Schweizer Fernsehen" (SF)

"Axel Honneth: Der Kampf um Anerkennung"
11 - 12 a.m.

See the interview here (podcast: video + audio) - or here.

Axel Honneth is Jack C. Weinstein Professor of the Humanities, Department of Philosophy, Columbia University.


// oAnth - (link given above)

Axel honneth

Axel Honneth

Axel Honneth: Der Kampf um Anerkennung

Axel Honneth im Gespräch mit Barbara Bleisch

Der Frankfurter Philosoph Axel Honneth ist einer der wichtigsten lebenden Vertreter der Kritischen Theorie, die in den 1930er Jahren von Horkheimer und Adorno begründet wurde. Während die Kritische Theorie unter dem Eindruck des Nationalsozialismus ein düsteres Bild der Zukunft zeichnete, ist Axel Honneth zuversichtlicher. In seinem neusten Buch «Das Recht der Freiheit» behauptet er gar, unsere Welt werde immer gerechter, da die Menschen nicht müde werden, Unrecht anzuprangern und Anerkennung einzufordern. Der Kampf um Anerkennung wird damit für Honneth zum ethischen Fortschrittsmotor – er verändert unser politisches System, unsere Arbeitswelten und letztlich auch unsere Liebesbeziehungen zum Guten hin.


Das Recht der Freiheit. Grundriss einer demokratischen Sittlichkeit. Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2011.
Das Ich im Wir. Studien zur Anerkennungstheorie. Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2010.
Pathologien der Vernunft. Geschichte und Gegenwart der Kritischen Theorie. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 2007.
Umverteilung oder Anerkennung? Eine politisch-philosophische Kontroverse. Hg. von Nancy Fraser und Axel Honneth. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 2003.
Theodor W. Adorno: Minima Moralia. Reflexionen aus dem beschädigten Leben. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 1969/2003.
Jonathan Franzen: Freiheit. Rowohlt, 2010.
Reposted from02myhumsci-01 02myhumsci-01

January 21 2012

Powers of Ten Perspective on SOPA

The IBM Powers of Ten video is a classic: as the stolid narrator ticks off powers of ten, the camera pulls back or zooms in and a new layer of complexity is revealed. We need a Powers of Ten video for SOPA.

At the initial scale, Hollywood lobbyists convinced Congress to push a bill through that would give Hollywood a measure of control over Internet sites by facilitating DNS takedowns, placing liability on site operators, and generally placing restrictions on Internet businesses designed to benefit existing content distributors. The depressingly smooth passage of the bill meant serious measures were called for: the blackout day. On that day, tens of millions of people became alerted to the consequences of SOPA and wrote to their representatives. SOPA has stalled, possibly died. And there was rejoicing.

But step out a power of ten and you see SOPA was just the latest in a series of legislative manipulations by existing media companies to benefit their coffers. Whether it's extending the term of copyright, criminalizing the circumvention of DRM, or trying to ban repeat-downloaders from the Internet, these media companies are powerful and use their power to extend their profits. Sometimes they even exploit their access to the user to perpetuate their cause, for example by putting unskippable pre-roll anti-piracy messages on every legitimately-purchased DVD. There's no indication that a victory over SOPA means there won't be a SOPA 2.0 in six months time.

Step back further and you see that Internet companies have set themselves up as new distribution channels while the old distribution companies were napping. Amazon can take an author's book and put it in consumers hands without ever involving a publisher, and Apple are following suit. Amazon, Apple, and Google all distribute movies. The legacy distribution companies are owned by the content production companies, and their "save our business" message muddles whether it's content production or legacy distribution that's threatened by these new Internet companies. Congress put their legislative thumb on the scales in a business dispute: old money vs new money, incumbent rent extractor vs upstart.

Step back further and you see that Congress thumbs the scales all the time. Between the money that can be earned from corporations and unions as a lobbyist after leaving Congress, and the money needed to run a campaign to be elected in the first place, there are a lot of reasons for Congressional representatives to be receptive to advances from monied interests. This means their legislative attention is not on the good of society or even the majority, but for the good of those willing to spend money to buy it. This is the big picture view, the root of the problem.

Congress is a flea pit. We can crack the fleas one at a time as they bite us, or we can clean house. I see widespread jubilation on the success of the SOPA skirmish, but only one or two people thinking and talking about how we win the war. We win when we end this stream of Internet-breaking bills, and that will only happen when Congressional election campaigns are no longer paid for by monied interests. An independent Congress will still listen to business and unions, it just won't have to roll over and beg when money whistles.

This is, obviously, a bigger problem to solve. Lessig has called it a "generational" problem: pernicious money will take 30 years to eradicate, so we may end up cleaning up the country for our children. The size of the change doesn't make it impossible. It's a strategy problem, like every other: spend time and money at every power of ten, more where it's urgent and important, investing in R&D where a way forward isn't immediately obvious.

What does it mean to attack it at every power of ten? Simply:

  1. Fight SOPA when it's urgent. Well done, immediate crisis is over!
  2. Prepare to fight SOPA 2.0 and TPP and ACTA 2.0 and .... Until we fix Congress, there'll be more attempts to provide welfare for legacy distributors. Blackouts won't work. Get the holdouts (Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, etc.) to join in a sustainable coalition to oppose future fuckery. Obama's election was made possible by incredible tools for mobilizing voters; we need similarly evolved tools. Invest a little now so we don't have a cold start when the next bad bill comes along.
  3. Buy online. Be the change you want to see: use your wallet to feed the companies you want to succeed, don't spend with the ones who want to break your Internet. Low-priority but ongoing.
  4. Buy and read Lessig's new book Republic, Lost. He was ahead of the curve when he alerted us to problems with copyright law, and he's been ahead of the curve in his identification of corruption as an issue. This is research.
  5. Join rootstrikers or any other group working to eliminate the root cause of Internet-breaking legislation: corruption. At election time, give them money instead of making campaign donations.
  6. Invent the next thing we can all do which will bring us closer to change.

You'll notice I don't have "get Internet giants to lobby Congress" on my list. I'm sure they'll do that already, but I don't believe you can fight this fire with fire. They may need to lobby tactically, but strategically you fight fire by taking away its fuel or oxygen and that means taking obligation-creating campaign donations away from Congress.

If we don't do this, we'll keep scratching and crushing the fleas one at a time until we're miserable from all the bites. We need to zoom out a few powers of ten and clean house to solve the underlying problem.

Reposted bydatenwolf datenwolf

January 20 2012

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.
No Soup for you

Don't be the product, buy the product!

YES, I want to SOUP ●UP for ...