Mediaboss Marketing

She was constructed as a rallying symbol for protesting students in Tiananmen Square. And when the tanks came rolling in, the Goddess of Democracy crashed to the ground.

She was the symbol of a movement.

On May 30, 1989, 10 art students unveiled the Goddess of Democracy in the middle of Tiananmen Square in Beijing. She stood 30-feet tall, her arms raised to hold her torch high, her eyes staring unwaveringly into those of Mao Zedong, whose portrait hung on the opposite building. The statue rallied the flagging protestors, helping them to reinvigorate their pro-democracy movement in the face of exhaustion and government opposition.

And then, five days later, she watched as hundreds of tanks and thousands of soldiers invaded the camp, shooting down students and ultimately bringing down the goddess herself.

The protests had started two months earlier, in mid-April, after the death of Hu Yaobang, a Chinese politician who had been forced to resign from his position two years earlier over criticism that he was too sympathetic toward students and intellectuals.

While the movement would eventually end with a bloody roar in Beijing, protests were launched in several cities throughout the country.

For nearly two months, students, intellectuals, journalists, and others who sympathized with the activists call for greater rights and government transparency staged protests and boycotts.

In Beijing, these activities centered around Tiananmen Square, the site of many of the countrys most important historical events, from Maos creation of the Peoples Republic in 1949 to earlier student protests dating back to 1919.

The 1989 protests had launched with the force of the students passionate convictions, but, by the end of May, they were starting to wind down.

The students and their supporters were tired. They had put themselves on the line, their lives on hold, for months, and their initial energy and zeal was starting to leech away as more and more people left the square. There were murmurings that it all might be coming to an end.

But not everyone was ready to give up the fight. In a piece written on May 30, 1989, The Wall Street Journal reported that a core group of students had hoped they could keep the protests going through June 20, when the standing committee of the National Peoples Congress was scheduled to meet. But in order to do that, they needed a rallying cry to unite and reinvigorate the movement. They needed a piece of arta symbolthat would represent what they were fighting for.

Over four days and nights, 10 students from Beijings Central Academy of Fine Arts got to work building a statue that would do just that.

The result was a towering white statue of a woman, her one-shoulder dress artfully draped down her body. Her left arm reached across her chest to grasp the bottom of the torch held high in her righta two-handed grip on the flame of democracy.

Her hair billowed out to one side and her facewhich was detailed with Western featuresgazed determinedly over the crowd.

The artists made the choice to construct the statue out of plaster and Styrofoam, a decision that may be attributed partly to speed, but one that also had another benefitthe massive structure would be harder to dismantle.

The students regard the statue as a public relations coup: either it will remain and symbolize the democracy movement and official weakness; or the authorities will be in the embarrassing position of sending the police to attack the Goddess of Democracy and Freedom with sledgehammers, Nicholas Kristoff wrote in The New York Times on May 30, 1989.

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason

On the night of May 30, the remaining protestors in Tiananmen Square became curious when they noticed a wooden scaffolding being built in the middle of the square. Soon after, a crew of tricycle carts came riding into the courtyard, ferrying sections of the goddess from the art school to her new home. It took all night, but piece-by-piece, the Goddess of Democracy took shape.

Reporter Steve Futterman was on the scene that night covering the events of the protest. In a 2009 article on The Huffington Post, he recounted watching this momentous event unfold. It was a slow, arduous process, yet virtually no one left the square, so enraptured were they by the power if [sic] this papier-mch Goddess. The crowd cheered each time a new section was put in place.

The reaction was immediate. Futterman remembers that tens of thousands of ordinary Beijing citizens, people who had played no active role in the protests, quickly flocked to the square to see the statue.

She signifies hope for China, 22-year-old Y. H. Yang told The New York Times. But shes behind schedule in reaching the square, and shes coming by tricycle. That is symbolic of the slowness and backwardness of the democratization process in China.

This new symbol injected a fresh wave of hope and energy into the movement. Tiananmen Square filled back up and the protest enjoyed a new sense of resolve, one bolstered by the tall white beacon of democracy standing vigil in their center.

The Chinese government, predictably, was not so moved. They called the artistic expression an abomination and reiterated that this is China, not America, a fact that surely did not need to be reiterated to those who had given the previous couple of months to the fight for democracy.

But less than four days later, the government decided to intervene and end the stand-off. Premier Li Peng ordered tanks and thousands of soldiers to break up the protestors Tiananmen Square camp on the night of June 3 and into the next day.

There were reports that locals rushed into the streets to try to slow down the soldiers and provide a barricade for the students. But they were no match for the military force, which began firing into the crowds.

To this day, the exact number who lost their lives in the Tiananmen Square Massacre is unknown. Estimates range from the hundreds to the thousands, with thousands more injured and arrested.

Among the death toll that night was the Goddess of Democracy. Her end was televised as a tank rammed into her base and the statue toppled over, face forward.

While the government ultimately prevailed that day, the Goddess of Democracy remains a symbol of the freedom that the Chinese students were fighting for during those protests over two decades ago.

In the following years, cities and countries around the world, from Hong Kong to Canada to San Francisco, constructed replicas of the statue in their own public spaces.

But the Goddess of Democracy remains banished from Chinaat least for now.

The 10 artists knew their plaster and Styrofoam creation wouldnt last forever. In a statement they issued when the statue was unveiled, they revealed their hopes that a more permanent replacement would eventually be created.

On the day when real democracy and freedom come to China, we must erect another Goddess of Democracy here in the Square, monumental, towering, and permanent. We have strong faith that that day will come at last, they wrote. In the meantime, they implored, Chinese people, arise! Erect the statue of the Goddess of Democracy in your millions of hearts!

The rest is here:
The Fate of China's Democracy Goddess - Daily Beast

In 1776, our founders gave birth to a new country, the United States of America.

While there are various narratives about how America was birthed colonialism, slavery, segregation, sexism, etc. our country has become synonymous with structuring a belief system based on equality for all and exercising our rights to freedom of speech.

Our nation was built on the tenets of democracy: rule of law, freedom of press, respect of human rights and active political processes. It is the foundation for which our country stands.

However, since the rise of the tea party in January 2009, America appears to have moved backward instead of forward. Over the past few years, we have seen our nation return to a very dark place.

This movement was fully manifested with the election and inauguration of Donald J. Trump, the 45th president of the United States.

Per the FBI figures as of November 2016, we are witnessing an uptick in hate crimes like we have never seen before.

There was a 7 percent increase in hate crimes overall in the United States and a 67 percent spike targeted toward Muslims. These statistics are not representative of the America that I know and love.

While many have applauded Trumps disruptive leadership style, others argue that his management style and tactics have become and are destructive for our great nation.

During Trumps first two weeks in office, he issued eight executive orders to bypass the United States Congress to advance his own policy agenda.

He signed executive orders to repeal the Affordable Care Act, construct a border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, halt federal government hiring and institute a travel ban that prohibits seven countries with strong Muslim ties from entering the United States.

Although it is within his presidential prerogative to issue executive orders, many of these orders executed are reminiscent of a dictatorship.

Trump seems to ignore that America is built upon three branches of government executive, legislative and judiciary and wants to rule with absolute, dictatorial power.

This form of leadership does not catapult democracy, but rather erodes it.

For example, last week, after a controversial and bruising confirmation hearing, Betsy DeVos became the countrys Secretary of Education.

Due to a 50-50 tie on the senate floor whether to approve her nomination, the senate was split. On Feb. 1, Vice President Mike Pence broke the tie and voted in favor of DeVos becoming the Secretary of Education.

Pences vote signaled that there is no longer a checks and balances system with the Trump administration. And this is dangerous for democracy.

The arguments against DeVos nomination were legitimate. She is not a proponent of public schools and once suggested that guns may have a place in schools. For many, DeVos is gravely unqualified to be the nations educational chief.

In addition to DeVos nomination, Trump nominated Senator Jeff Sessions to become attorney general, despite his controversial past.

Sessions has a well-documented history of making disparaging statements against African Americans and equal rights.

During an unsuccessful bid to become a federal district court judge under the Reagan administration, the late Coretta Scott King drafted a letter on March 19, 1986 to oppose his nomination because of Sessions questionable support for voting rights of African Americans.

George Orwell once stated that Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.

America must return to its principles and decorum of democracy.

Belittling federally appointed judges, using power and influence to bully retailers and the media, and lashing out at every critical commentary is a form of tyranny.

We all enjoy the right to freedom of speech. But, there is a responsibility that comes with having that freedom..

In January, President Obama addressed a crowd in his hometown of Chicago during his farewell speech and stated: The work of democracy has always been hard, contentious and sometimes bloody. For every two steps forward, it often feels we take one step back.

But the long sweep of America has been defined by forward motion, a constant widening of our founding creed to embrace all, and not just some.

Democracy is our birthright as citizens of the United States of America.

Weve come too far to undo all the advances our forefathers and mothers fought for and cannot allow others to dictate our future.

As always, keep the faith.

Kevin R. Johnson, Ed.D. is a frequent columnist and the lead pastor of Dare to Imagine Church, 3801 Market St., Philadelphia, Pa. Follow him on Twitter @drkrj.

View post:
We've gone from Democracy to dictatorship - The Philadelphia Tribune

By Brian Klaas By Brian Klaas February 10 at 4:13 PM

Brian Klaas is a Fellow in Comparative Politics at the London School of Economics and author of The Despots Accomplice: How the West is Aiding & Abetting the Decline of Democracy.

There is an enormous paradox at the heart of American democracy. Congress is deeply and stubbornly unpopular. On average, between 10 and 15 percent of Americans approve of Congress on a par with public support for traffic jams and cockroaches. And yet, in the 2016 election, only eight incumbents eight out of a body of 435 representatives were defeated at the polls.

If there is one silver bullet that could fix American democracy, its getting rid of gerrymandering the now commonplace practice of drawing electoral districts in a distorted way for partisan gain. Its also one of a dwindling number of issues that principled citizens Democrat and Republican should be able to agree on. Indeed, polls confirm that an overwhelming majority of Americans of all stripes oppose gerrymandering.

In the 2016 elections for the House of Representatives, the average electoral margin of victory was 37.1 percent. Thats a figure youd expect from North Korea, Russia or Zimbabwe not the United States. But the shocking reality is that the typical race ended with a Democrat or a Republican winning nearly 70 percent of the vote, while their challenger won just 30 percent.

Last year, only 17 seats out of 435 races were decided by a margin of 5 percent or less. Just 33 seats in total were decided by a margin of 10 percent or less. In other words, more than 9 out of 10 House races were landslides where the campaign was a foregone conclusion before ballots were even cast. In 2016, there were no truly competitive Congressional races in 42 of the 50 states. That is not healthy for a system of government that, at its core, is defined by political competition.

Gerrymandering, in a word, is why American democracy is broken.

The word gerrymander comes from an 1812 political cartoon drawn to parody Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerrys re-drawn senate districts. The cartoon depicts one of the bizarrely shaped districts in the contorted form of a fork-tongued salamander. Since 1812, gerrymandering has been increasingly used as a tool to divide and distort the electorate. More often than not, state legislatures are tasked with drawing district maps, allowing the electoral foxes to draw and defend their henhouse districts.

While no party is innocent when it comes to gerrymandering, a Washington Post analysis in 2014 found that eight of the ten most gerrymandered districts in the United States were drawn by Republicans.

As a result, districts from the Illinois 4th to the North Carolina 12th often look like spilled inkblots rather than coherent voting blocs. They are anything but accidental. The Illinois 4th, for example, is nicknamed the Latin Earmuffs, because it connects two predominantly Latino areas by a thin line that is effectively just one road. In so doing, it packs Democrats into a contorted district, ensuring that those voters cast ballots in a safely Democratic preserve. The net result is a weakening of the power of Latino votes and more Republican districts than the electoral math should reasonably yield. Because Democrats are packed together as tightly as possible in one district, Republicans have a chance to win surrounding districts even though they are vastly outnumbered geographically.

These uncompetitive districts have a seriously corrosive effect on the integrity of democracy. If youre elected to represent a district that is 80 percent Republican or 80 percent Democratic, there is absolutely no incentive to compromise. Ever. In fact, there is a strong disincentive to collaboration, because working across the aisle almost certainly means the risk of a primary challenge from the far right or far left of the party. For the overwhelming majority of Congressional representatives, there is no real risk to losing a general election but there is a very real threat of losing a fiercely contested primary election. Over time, this causes sane people to pursue insane pandering and extreme positions. It is a key, but often overlooked, source of contemporary gridlock and endless bickering.

Moreover, gerrymandering also disempowers and distorts citizen votes which leads to decreased turnout and a sense of powerlessness. In 2010, droves of tea party activists eager to have their voices heard quickly realized that their own representative was either a solidly liberal Democrat in an overwhelmingly blue district or a solidly conservative Republican in an overwhelmingly red district. Those representatives would not listen because the electoral map meant that they didnt need to.

Those who now oppose President Trump are quickly learning the same lesson about the electoral calculations made by their representatives as they make calls or write letters to congressional representatives who seem about as likely to be swayed as granite. This helps to explain why 2014 turnout sagged to just 36.4 percent, the lowest turnout rate since World War II. Why bother showing up when the result already seems preordained?

There are two pieces of good news. First, several court rulings in state and federal courts have dealt a blow to gerrymandered districts. Several court rulings objected to districts that clearly were drawn along racial lines. Perhaps the most important is a Wisconsin case (Whitford v. Gill) that ruled that districts could not be drawn for deliberate partisan gain. The Supreme Court will rule on partisan gerrymandering in 2017, and its a case that could transform and reinvigorate American democracy at a time when a positive shock is sorely needed. (This may hold true even if Neil Gorsuch is confirmed to the Supreme Court, as Justices Kennedy and Roberts could side with the liberal minority).

Second, fixing gerrymandering is getting easier. Given the right parameters, computer models can fairly apportion citizens into districts that are diverse, competitive and geographically sensible ensuring that minorities are not used as pawns in a national political game. These efforts can be bolstered by stripping district drawing powers from partisan legislators and putting them into the hands of citizen-led commissions that are comprised by an equal number of Democrat- and Republican-leaning voters. Partisan politics is to be exercised within the districts, not during their formation. But gerrymandering intensifies every decade regardless, because its not a politically sexy issue. Whens the last time you saw a march against skewed districting?

Even if the marches do come someday, the last stubborn barrier to getting reform right is human nature. Many people prefer to be surrounded by like-minded citizens, rather than feeling like a lonely red oasis in a sea of blue or vice versa. Rooting out gerrymandering wont make San Francisco or rural Texas districts more competitive no matter the computer model used. And, as the urban/rural divide in American politics intensifies, competitive districts will be harder and harder to draw. The more we cluster, the less we find common ground and compromise.

Ultimately, though, we must remember that what truly differentiates democracy from despotism is political competition. The longer we allow our districts to be hijacked by partisans, blue or red, the further we gravitate away from the founding ideals of our republic and the closer we inch toward the death of American democracy.

View original post here:
Gerrymandering is the biggest obstacle to genuine democracy in the ... - Washington Post

BBC (my emphasis added):

The Hamburg court said that it stands by its order, issued last May, which prohibited republication of parts of a poem by German comic Jan Boehmermann. The satirist, who is barred for repeating the majority of the verses, says he will appeal the verdict. The poem, first broadcast in 2016, led to a free speech debate in Germany, and diplomatic tension with Turkey.

Mr Boehmermanns lawyer, Christian Schertz, said Fridays verdict does not take into account freedom of artistic expression.

But in a statement, the court said: Satire that is secured under artistic freedom could be forbidden when it touches on the core area of personal freedom. However, the court also said that a head of state must expect heavier criticism than a regular citizen. The poem played on President Erdogans reputation for cracking down on free speech at home, and included vulgar sexual references. The Turkish president filed a criminal complaint against the satirist after it was broadcast on German television last March.

The criminal charges were later dropped, but the poem remains banned in Germany.

The case hinges on a rarely used 19th-century section of Germans criminal code that prohibits defamation of foreign heads of state

The court objected to 18 of the poems 24 lines, deeming them abusive and defamatory.

Well, they were certainly abusive (text here: trigger warnings, good taste warnings, naughty word warnings, rubber mask warnings, etc.), but they were also clearly satirical. To suggest that they were defamatory would be to suggest, I reckon, that they could be taken seriously. Andwho could possibly think that? I mean, goats.

The attempt by Turkeys thuggish leader (and, yes, Im old enough to remember when The Economist used to describe him as mildly Islamist) to arrange for Boehmermann to be prosecuted ought to have been seen off by any German chancellor worthy of that role. Unfortunately, Angela Merkel is not that person.

Heres Stefan Kuzmany, writing in Spiegel Online earlier thisyear:

Merkel apparently sought to take the wind out of Erdogans sails by hastily having her spokesperson announce that the Bhmermann poem was consciously injurious. She could have thrown her support unmistakably behind Bhmermann, as one might expect from a chancellor charged with defending the German constitution. His poem was very clearly meant as satire; none of the uncomely imputations therein should be taken nor were they meant seriously. The chancellor, of course, knows as much. Yet by adopting Erdogans viewpoint, she has essentially allowed him to determine what should be viewed as satire in Germany and what not. Now, the chancellor must decide if German prosecutors should be allowed to open a case over the insulting of a foreign head of state but because she already described the poem as injurious via her spokesman, she has very little room for maneuver.

She panicked, in other words, notthe first timeshe has done so as chancellor.

And yes, she gave the prosecutors the go-ahead.

Back to the BBC:

After the case became a national talking point, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the authorities would move to repeal article 103 concerning insults against foreign heads of state by 2018.

2018! Merkel is notoriously no friend of free speech, but she might at least pretend

Read this article:
Bhmermann, Erdogan and Merkel's Illiberal Democracy - National Review

Martin Luther King Jr. famously stated, Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.

Nearly 50 years after Dr. Kings assassination, his words continue to ring true. A quintessential example is the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal, which is comprised of approximately 7,000 warheads, each weapon many more times powerful than the bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The existence of a bloated nuclear arsenal is problematic. But even more worrisome is the current policy in place for authorizing a nuclear strike.

Legally, the president of the United States has the sole authority to launch nuclear weapons, even if another country has not fired them at us first. This means that President Trump, or any of his successors, could simply wake up tomorrow and order a nuclear attack. Congress couldnt stop him.

The Supreme Court wouldnt be able to block the order either. In theory, the military officers in charge of implementing the order could reject it, but such a refusal is highly unlikely and would amount to mutiny.

As Americans, we pride ourselves on democratic institutions. We fought a war of independence against a king to ultimately establish a system resting on checks and balances. Our Constitution meticulously separates power to avoid any one person or entity having complete control.

But when it comes to launching the most powerful tools of destruction in the history of mankind, the United States is an absolute monarchy.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution specifically grants the United States Congress the power to declare war. By any measure, initiating a nuclear strike, with the ability of just one weapon to annihilate an entire population center, amounts to an act of warfare.

It is time for Congress to formally retain its war-making prerogative. Senator Ed MarkeyEd MarkeyWarren, Dems accuse Trump of ethics violations Bring Democracy to America's nuclear weapons Overnight Tech: Dems vow to fight for net neutrality | FCC chief defends changes to internet program | Uber sues Seattle MORE (D-Mass.) and Representative Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) recently introduced a bill that would bring democracy to nuclear weapons policy.

If passed, Congress would have to issue a declaration of war before the president can initiate a nuclear first-strike. This sensible bill respects the delegated powers of Congress and vastly reduces the risk of serious nuclear miscalculation or accident. It deserves broad support and should become law as soon as possible.

Importantly, the concern is not partisan. The bill was first introduced in September 2016, at a time when a Democrat controlled the Oval Office and the Democratic candidate was widely considered to be the clear frontrunner for the presidency.

Still, critics may argue that granting Congress nuclear authority creates serious uncertainty. If the United States is under nuclear attack, what if Congress is not in session? Even so, could the legislative body vote quickly enough before Washington is lost? T

hese are valid points and the Markey-Lieu bill answers them in full. If the legislation passes, the President will still have the power to unilaterally order an attack, but only if an enemy has certifiably launched a nuclear strike against the United States. In all other scenarios, Congress must voice its approval.

Numerous national security leaders from former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenBring Democracy to America's nuclear weapons Conway's ethics foul would get you fired in an Obama White House DNC chair hopeful runs in face of faction fight MORE to former Secretary of Defense William Perry to former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright have noted that there are few, if any, conceivable scenarios where the United States would be forced to launch a nuclear weapon first.

But even if such a decision was necessary, it should be done with the support of our democratic institutions. One person, no matter who it is, should never have the singular authority to end civilization on a whim.

Former Congressman John Tierney represented Massachusetts sixth congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives for 18 years. He currently serves as Executive Director of Council for a Livable World, a Washington, D.C. based non-profit organization that promotes policies to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons and to minimize the risk of war.

The views of contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Read more here:
Bring Democracy to America's nuclear weapons | TheHill - The Hill (blog)