new thread
North Korea wages war on Long Hair
North Korea wages war on Long Hair
I don't want to start any political arguments here. There is good and bad in every ideology, and for me the criteria is how well the freedom and dignity of the individual person is respected. So I'm not here to promote "right" or "left" or anything.
However, I do notice that the North Korean "Commies" are all too aware of the meaning of hair length. This is totalitarianism. It is shocking in our day and age, after perestroika and glasnost, to see how the Orwellian society persists.
I think it is important to be aware of this tendency. Keep it growing and flowing!
My blogAnd this is not political? Well, anyway I think we can agree that only control freaks are responsible for this kind of thing.
BTW, it is a 2005 article and it's now 2014.
And the Korean war paused with a cease fire in the 1950s
and could very easily restart tomorrow depending on how
trigger happy it's 26 year old leader is.
Very little has changed in North Korea since the war
was put on pause in the 1950s.
I think it is important to note that North Korea is a very closed society. It is a country that can't afford to feed it's people
but spends a ton of money on the military.
It should also be mentioned that the Korean war never really ended, it paused with a temporary cease fire, a cease fire that
could easily end tomorrow.
North Korea is a very closed country, led by a very young
leader (dad died leaving a very young 26 year old to lead the
country.
It should be noted that attitudes towards North Korea is not
really political. it is a very closed country with a leader who
is a dictator who has chosen, like his father, to keep his
country very isolated from the world. it has a 26 year old
very inexperienced dictator who had his uncle very brutally
killed in recent weeks. And he could kill many more if he
chose to restart a war with the south Korea. And don't forget
he'd love to have the ability to launch a nuclear rocket to
aim at the US of A. Luckily he can't reach the US of A, but he
can reach South Korea and other neighbors.
But this is not really political, it is a reality that North
Korea is a very closed country, led by a very paranoid,young
leader out to prove himeslf. And he has nuclear weapons and
a first class military. Go read up on the Korean war to
understand what North Korea can and will co.
I find the situation with North Korea to be very scary.
No matter what your political beliefs are North Korea should
scare the daylights out of you.
I had a number of relatives fight in the Korean war and
it's disturbing that the war could be restarted any day now.
What does "freedom" really mean to you?
For instance, the US is known as "the land of the free" (for those who are rich, of course).
If you're poor you're not entitled to :
- access university education (and therefore, a better quality of life)
- access to a doctor , therefore, to health (unless you have the money to pay for a doctor).
- If you're not straight, you cant marry the person you love (Unless you live in some of the few countries where same sex marriage is allowed).
And these are just a few examples that came up to my mind... I am sure there should be more.
So, my question is: what does freedom really mean to you? Do you really feel free?
I read LHIA saying exactly the following:
"I think it is important to note that North Korea is a very closed society. It is a country that can't afford to feed it's people but spends a ton of money on the military. "
Well, the US is a country that CAN afford public health and public university education to every citizen, but instead, the government preferrs to spend that money on the military.
So, what is really the difference between the North Korean Society and the American Society?
What is the perspective Americans have on their own country?
Anyway, no offense to anyone. Just my point of view.
Actually, the poor have access to that stuff. The middle class is who is hurtin'.
Depends on the state. (See above map from lambdalegal.org.) The U.S. government recognizes same-sex marriages in all states, but local governmental recognition is per the above map. Court decisions are rapidly going in the direction of nationwide recognition in all states.
One of the results of having a democracy is we don't go to war over divisive issues like that. We wait for the political democratic process to play out. If we get tired of Obama, we don't cut off his head. We wait until the next election.
I feel freer with each year that passes. I am old enough to remember when discrimination against black people and gay people was pervasive, and when the government was using the military draft as a weapon on a mission to destroy longhair culture.
Well, the American people do. Read on....
There is an oft repeated saying here, that "Freedom isn't free." We seek to use our military in the furtherance of freedom, rather than to suppress it. We must care a lot about this, because we spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined.
Americans at the deepest level don't trust the American government. We have three branches of government to spread the power around so none becomes too powerful. And if those three fail us, we have the fourth branch of government: Our guns.
Our right to own guns is enshrined in the same constitution that establishes the three branches of government. If Americans are rabid about one thing, it is remaining free.
And I'm glad to give you mine.
Bill
I will just reply to two things you mentioned ( the other things you mentioned, I partially agree with them and we could debate about it for years - And I love debating! But I dont think this is the right place and way to debate because that could take hours and hours and hours of typing on the pc haha).
So, you have to maintain your poverty status throughout your life for your government to give you medical care and education? Is that what you mean. Because otherwise, If I get a better job, then I will not be able to get a cancer treatment , or an HIV treatment , or wont be able to go to college.
Well, as far as I know there is no federal law regarding same sex marriage.
Thank you very much for debating with me, and again, I am not trying to make anyone feel uncomfortable . I love the fact that we can debate , even with our own differences. Some people in other parts of the world arent that lucky!
Unfortunately, the government passes laws with sharp cutoffs instead of tapering them off. This encourages some people to stay below a cutoff point where they would lose certain benefits. This situation for an individual is not necessarily life long. One may be poor when young, get a good education, get a good job, have all the benefits, spend every penny of it, and retire a pauper. Then the government will be looking after you again.
There had never been a federal law on marriage until the law was passed in the 1990s saying the federal government would not recognize same sex marriages. Marriage in the U.S. has always been granted, regulated, and dissolved by the individual states. Last June the U.S. Supreme Court threw that 1990s law out, so the federal government now recognizes marriages, but a same sex couple must have gotten the marriage from a U.S. state or foreign country that will grant such.
The freedom to talk about it is extremely important. Frank talk is what makes the difference between settling differences peacefully and settling them with violence. The U.S. "freedom of speech" right is pervasive. In Quebec, you have to use French in some circumstances. In the U.S., you have a right to use any language you want. In Pakistan, you can't defame God. In the U.S., you can say anything about God that you want. In some European countries you can't refer to Nazis or say other things reminiscent of World War II. In the U.S., you can.
There have been some clashes between California Internet companies and some foreign governments over what users have posted on California web sites. The California sites may acquiesce because they have business interests in those countries, but the California courts will not enforce "freedom of speech" issues here. Twitter, Facebook, and yes, MLHH, are all located in California. We may post here free of governmental interference. This does not mean you can post anything, of course. A site's owners, such as Twitter, Mark Zuckerberg, or the MLHH trustees, may disagree! And as a site's owners, they have that right.
Bill
I understand this. But I believe it's still unfair. In my country you are entitled to access public health and a university career no matter if you are poor or rich, local or foreign. The State pays (through our taxes) for health and education for any person in the country.
I dont remember where i read the case of an American living with HIV and having the treatment subsidized by the government. This benefit -he said- is to be kept as long as he can proof that he meets certain requirements. So, he had to refuse better job offers and better salaries, because if he "upgrades" his life quality, he would have to pay for the whole price of the HIV treatment.
That does not happen here. Any person can access any medical treatment for free, no matter how much money you earn on an annual basis.
Two things to mention here:
1- You're telling me the only time the federal government passed a federal law was just to make clear that they would not recognize same sex marriages? It's the first time I hear a government passes a bill in a negative way.
2- You're saying this : " the federal government now recognizes marriages, but a same sex couple must have gotten the marriage from a U.S. state or foreign country that will grant such".
Isnt that discrimination? Treating a straight marriage in a different way that a same sex marriage is treated?
That's how all marriages are treated. It's just that all states will marry opposite sex couples while only some will marry same sex couples. Therefore, a same sex couple may have to travel to a different state than their own to get married.
Bill
Actually no. If you're poor you have access to the abosolute minimum, which often isn't enough.
Several years ago I had a friend who worked like 80 hours a week, but had no health insurance. He died as a rssult of an
infected wound, he couldn't get medical care when he needed it.
All too often you just enough medical attention so they can toss you out the door.
And gun owners always keep forgeting the first part of the
second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Gun rights people will go on about the right to bear arms but hey never mention anything about a well regulated militia.
Well can't "the people" themselves form "a well regulated malitia?Also it does say the right of "the people to keep and bear arms" so to me, as well as others,it works both ways.Frankly the genie is out of the bottle concerning small arms as the government will never be able to get the population to give up their weapons.Just too many out there and its their right to own them.I'd hate to see what happens the day the government would actually try to confiscate small arms as it won't be neat and clean.I know the public can be like sheep but in this case I'd think they'd resist.Cheers
Mârk
The framers of the Constitution were very clear about the fact that the "militia" to which they referred was NOT a State-run military force (i.e., Army National Guard), but a convening of private citizens intent on preserving their own freedom. I agree with Mârk wholeheartedly... if it ever came to pass that the government attempted to fully and finally strip people of the right and ability to protect themselves and their loved ones, it would be a bloodbath. I don't foresee this happening, though. If anything, the campaign to pacify and brainwash our citizenry through propaganda into an ever-increasing state of "sheepishness" and unfounded fear of the "big, bad scary guns" will continue gaining momentum, the stupid masses will give away their rights, of their own accord, until "the sons and daughters of lions become sheep."
--Val
I encourage everyone to read this excellent article (link below), written by my acquaintance and fellow martial artist, James Williams...
Virtue of the SwordVERY well described. Too many people don't understand this.
---------------------------------
we may have a second civil war. The peasants (the 99%) are fed up with a political system that caters only to the wealthy. We are pretty much an oligarchy. We need to restore a system that is OF, FOR, and BY the people. If it doesn't happen at the ballot box, it will happen on the battlefield. And yes, those in power are worried. End of rant.
Scott
Money can buy elections, but it will only go so far. We've seen millionaires pour vast amounts into candidates or propositions, but if the subject is obnoxious enough, the public has voted them down. Just ask "Governor" Meg Whitman.
Bill
Remember slot of this was foisted on us by the supreme court in the Citizens United case. That is one of the reasons why elections are critical, you're electing the president who
will fill vacancies on the supreme court, supreme court justices who sit on the court for life.
The US of A also has an electoral system where only millionaires
can get elected. Some guy who makes $8,000 a year will get slaughtered in an election. We have a congress full of millionaires, they make millions of dollars a year but then
pitch a fit at raising the minimum wage,
TRUE FREEDOM to me is the ability to live, do & be anything we want to be, as long as it is within the rule of law & within all moral & ethical guidelines, where another persons rights & freedoms are not impinged upon... in this atmosphere of expression, growth, consideration & respect ALL persons & spirits soar, fly & thrive to their fullest potential, contributing in a positive way to the communal pot ... where EVERYBODY wins ... possibly 'utopia' to some ...
Gene Burns had an old saying when he was on the air, "Politics
doesn't work, you have to work it."
The rich and powerful run the government in the US of A. The middle class and the poor haven't figured out that if they want
to change things they have to 1. get themselves elected to public office and 2. make their voices heard by their elected
officials. Too many of the middle class don't bother to vote,
and they don't make their opinions heard. The squeecky wheel gets the greece and in this instance it is the rich who get the grease.
In other countries people are dying for the right to vote. Here in the US of A too many can't be bothered to vote or find out about the candidates and the issues.
I would mention that North Korea is a totalitarian country,
You do what the government wants when they want it or you'll
end up in prison/in jail/etc. North Korea is not a democracy.
That is becuase voters are passive and often don't bother to
let their views be heard at the ballot box.
North Korea doesn't have the right to vote. The US of a has the right to vote but too many can't be bothered to vote or
make their opinons know to their elected officials.
The US of A has the best politicians money can buy. The system is completely corrupted by money.
The founding fathers of the US of A envisioned a government made of the common people. They envisioned farmers/blacksmiths/etc.
going to participate in the government for a short period of time
and then return home to be a farmer/blacksmith/etc. They did not
envision "career" politicians who had to be millionaires to get elected. And it is those millionaires who have lost touch with the common people who strugle to pay their mortgage, put food on the table, fill the gas tank, heat their house, etc.
Finally descent is tolerated in the US of A, descent in a country like North Korea is not. Just ask Kim Jong Un's uncle.
Oh wait you can't, he got brutally killed under Kim Jong Un's orders. That is what happens when you dare to disagree with the
leaders in North Korea. Thankfully the US of A isn't that
bad.
I will add, comparing the U.S. to North Korea....
Both have border fences. The U.S. fence was built where they had problems keeping people out. The North Korean fence was built to keep people in.
If you don't like it here, you are free to leave. I have crossed the borders into Canada and Mexico many times. When you drive up to the border to leave the U.S., there are no guards on the American side. The highway just comes up to the border and goes across it unimpeded.
Bill
In my opinion, being allowed to leave the country or not does not make you free .
I can be allowed to leave my country at any time , but if I cant get meet the basic needs while I stay in my own country just because my government does not provide me with the means to meet those needs . Am I still free?
Being free (to me) is not just having options to choose between black or white.
If you are poor and you cant even choose if you want to go to college or get a job, are you really a free human being?
IMHO you're missing the main point here.
Ultimately in the US of A you have the ultimate freedom to vote for whomever you want to run your government. you don't have that freedom in North Korea. Sure the US of A has flaws but a country like North Koreas has alot more flaws.
If you don't like the policies in the US of A then
"Remember in November when you vote."
Find out who the candidates are that are running in your area,
find out who they stand on the issues, ask questions,
let them know your feelings on the issues.
That is something you can do in the US of A, you can't do that
in North Korea.
What I tried to point out is the following.
You said " North Korea can not even afford to feed its people but they spend good money on the military".
Well, the US CAN afford to provide their people with the basic needs - such as health and education- but instead, the US government prefers to spend all that money on the military.
So, who's the "evil" here? The one who CANT afford to feed their people and spend good money on the military OR the one who CAN afford to provide their people with the basic needs to have a good standard of living but PREFERS to spend that money on the military?
I dont see any difference between one and the other one.
I am not trying to compare the US government vs the North Korean government. I am just pointing that out.
On the other hand, you define the north korean government as a totalitarian government. That is truth. I agree. The North Korean government kills their own people.
But wait.. isn't that something that the American government does too?
As far as I know the death penalty is still in practice in the USA. Not only in the USA, but also in countries such as:
-Afghanistan
-Cuba
-North Korea
-South Korea
-Iran
-Iraq
-Pakistan
-Syria
-Vietnam
You understand how serious that is? The funny thing is that the USA battled against many of those countries , when actually the US and those countries have a lot in common too.
(Hey, I understand that capital punishment is only in use in a few states of the USA, not in the entire country but to me is serious that the "Land of the Free" still allows executions in some parts of its own territory ).
That is the choice of who we send to congress (the house).
The house.
Elections have consequences.
Interesting topic.
North Korea's fear of long hair has less to do with ideology than with conservative Asian values and attitudes.
Back in the 1960s and early 1970s, Singapore which is anti-communist also made life difficult for long haired men there, though it has since relaxed on that.
China under Mao used to regard long hair as a symtom of western "decadence" but today has long haired rockers who outdo their counterparts in Taiwan and Hong Kong.
It also could be because long hair on men in ancient China was prevalent amongst royalty and nobility, who were anathema to both the republicans and communists.
At the time, there also was a joke that socialist Albania would not let Karl Marx in because he had longish hair.
There's also an account by a then young British communist who said he was teased as "looking like a girl" by Mao's wife Chiang Jing for him having long hair.
Back during the anti Vietnam War protests in the U.S. and Europe, most young men with long hair were either liberal, libertarian or moderately left, whilst some even were far left.
Today, it's harder to tell one's political orientation from the length of a mans hair, since some are left-liberal, some libertarian (right wing anarchist) and some even outright right wing.
The above applies more to North America, whilst European long hairs are most probably inclined more towards the liberal left.
So I don't think there's a clear line today between one's ideology and the length of one's hair.
That is true. While i've got long hair and am extremely liberal
I know a number of guys who have long hair and are staunchly conservative.
In our civil war group i'm liberal but many others are very conservative (republican).
But what we want to know is how many are abolitionists, and how many are pro-slavery? [wink]
Bill
I don't think I could ever trust anyone in that grey uniform, even if they were wearing it for a reenactment.
Alun
In reenactments someone has to play the confederate part.
I would also add there those on the union side today who are
sympathetic to the south.
