The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Ai
- Alt-right
- Alternative Medicine
- Antifa
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Super Intelligence
- Ascension
- Astronomy
- Atheism
- Atheist
- Atlas Shrugged
- Automation
- Ayn Rand
- Bahamas
- Bankruptcy
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Bitcoin
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackjack
- Boca Chica Texas
- Brexit
- Caribbean
- Casino
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Censorship
- Cf
- Chess Engines
- Childfree
- Cloning
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Covid-19
- Cryonics
- Cryptocurrency
- Cyberpunk
- Darwinism
- Democrat
- Designer Babies
- DNA
- Donald Trump
- Eczema
- Elon Musk
- Entheogens
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Eugenics
- Euthanasia
- Evolution
- Extropian
- Extropianism
- Extropy
- Fake News
- Federalism
- Federalist
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Gambling
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Genome
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- Hedonism
- High Seas
- History
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Immortality
- Human Longevity
- Illuminati
- Immortality
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jitsi
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Liberal
- Libertarian
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Life Extension
- Macau
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Memetics
- Micronations
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- Nanotech
- National Vanguard
- NATO
- Neo-eugenics
- Neurohacking
- Neurotechnology
- New Utopia
- New Zealand
- Nihilism
- Nootropics
- NSA
- Oceania
- Offshore
- Olympics
- Online Casino
- Online Gambling
- Pantheism
- Personal Empowerment
- Poker
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Polygamy
- Populism
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Posthuman
- Posthumanism
- Private Islands
- Progress
- Proud Boys
- Psoriasis
- Psychedelics
- Putin
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Rationalism
- Republican
- Resource Based Economy
- Robotics
- Rockall
- Ron Paul
- Roulette
- Russia
- Sealand
- Seasteading
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Seychelles
- Singularitarianism
- Singularity
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Spacex
- Sports Betting
- Sportsbook
- Superintelligence
- Survivalism
- Talmud
- Technology
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tms
- Tor Browser
- Trance
- Transhuman
- Transhuman News
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
- Transtopian
- Transtopianism
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Vaping
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Waveland
- Ww3
- Yahoo
- Zeitgeist Movement
-
Prometheism
-
Forbidden Fruit
-
The Evolutionary Perspective
Monthly Archives: December 2015
NSA Austin
Posted: December 28, 2015 at 2:43 pm
Homeadmin2015-12-15T17:22:13+00:00 Our Next Meeting
Become a Fierce Competitor Online. Frustrated with your website? Want to squash speaking competitors? Online marketing is a dog-eat-dog world and competition to rank on page one of search results is fierce. But, you can turn this around now!
Whats Your Score? With such fierce competition, find out how you measure up. Come prepared by running a MarketingGrader.com report on your site vs. a competitors. Bring your rank with you to the program and find out what you can do quickly to improve Findability and get more bookings from the web.
Join us to:
Guessing is expensive! Uncover competitive strategies and leverage real insights to dramatically improve your Findability. Gain a massive competitive edge when you understand SEO.
Go even more in depth with Heather- sign up for the workshop after the luncheon!
Heather Lutzes web marketing career started working at Yahoo! for seven years. She presented at seven Tony Robbins International Business Mastery Events and founded and ran a multi-million dollar SEM agency for thirteen years. Heather is the author of three web marketing books: 1) The Findability Formula, 2) Thumbonomics and 3) Marketing Espionage due out winter 2016.
Currently, Heather is a speaker and CEO of the Findability Group (Findability.com) which includes Findability University, coaching and training frustrated CEOs, business owners and their teams to improve their online presence and get found faster.
Download the Findability App from the App Store or GooglePlay to gain access to free Findability Tools for increased online revenue, your Findability Score, the Findability Diagnostic Survey, and so much more.
Read the original:
NSA Austin
Posted in NSA
Comments Off on NSA Austin
NSA Austin About
Posted: at 2:43 pm
Aboutadmin2014-12-24T16:50:45+00:00 The Austin chapter of the National Speakers Association is the premier local destination for professional speakers and those who want to learn the craft. We present educational programming on marketing, sales, content development and other critical skills for speakers, and we also provide a place where speakers can learn from one another. We look forward to welcoming you to NSA Austin. Vision:
To make NSA Austin the go-to organization for professional speakers as well as one of the most respected and dynamic professional organizations in Central Texas.
Speakers who have presented have included Sam Horn, David Newman, Jill Griffin, Patrick Henry, Neen James, Vickie Sullivan, Dave Lieber and many others.
We have even more excellent programming in store. We encourage you to get to know NSA Austin and see if this is a good fit for you as you continue, or embark on, your own professional speaking journey.
For more information about our current programming, click here to see whats on tap for 2015!
See the article here:
NSA Austin About
Posted in NSA
Comments Off on NSA Austin About
A cure for eczema, is it really posible?
Posted: at 2:41 pm
This is not just a temporary treatment for eczema.
I suffered from moderate to severe eczema, pompholyx, pruritus, psoriasis, rosacea, seborrheic dermatitis,... for almost forty years. That was until seven years ago when I came across a cure for my eczema. Not a treatment for eczema, but for me, a cure for eczema.
If you are reading this, I am going to assume that you also have some form of skin rash. Whether you have dry skin, eczema, psoriasis or any of the several types of eczema skin symptoms, my heart goes out to you.
I know how frustrating and debilitating this skin disease can be and I want to help you with a cure for eczema, psoriasis, dermatitis, or whatever skin disorder you are struggling with through "My Story, Your Cure".
"My Story, Your Cure" chronicles my experiences and struggles with eczema, and then describes in detail how I cured myself of this awful affliction.
February 16, 2010Until very recently I have lived with severe eczema and for those of you who share this condition I have a very good idea of what you may be going through. I also have been free from eczema for six years, a fact I attribute to a significant change in my eating habits.
I started showing symptoms of eczema, according to my mother, when I was two years old. My earliest recollection of having eczema is when I was four. For many years I had almost permanent scabs in the folds of my forearms, behind my knees, my groin and the front of my neck. I was especially self-conscious about the neck rash. It looked like a very nasty rope burn. At night it would get so itchy that I would scratch each spot clean. My mom suffered from eczema also and certainly understood what I was going through. She did everything to try to figure out what was causing the rash. We went for allergy tests which were completely useless. I learned at a very young age that I was allergic to almost everything, including cats, dogs (& all furry or hairy critters), dairy, chocolate, oranges and house dust. House dust? Seriously, where do we go from here? Well, we got rid of the cat. I settled for a turtle, instead of the kindergarten chick. I drank goats milk and ate goats cheese (for a six year old this was a real treat) and for added humility, no more chocolate. None of these remedies made much, if any, difference. We abandoned future efforts to find the root cause of my eczema and focused more on treating the symptoms. I continued my daily regimen of cortisone cream and at times would go for weekly cortisone shots. Every once in a while my skin would clear up for a few days or weeks and I would be the happiest kid on the block. (Summertime was the best). But it always came back as ugly as ever.
When I was thirteen I got a lot better. I used very little cortisone cream and became almost symptom free for five or six beautiful years.
As magical as it disappeared at age thirteen, at nineteen it reappeared without warning and with different symptoms. The eczema was no longer in my joints, but more on the outsides of my arms, chest, legs and face. Yes, face. Why not on the bottoms of my feet or something? Not the face. This left my face raw, red, itchy and stinging, all the time. Oh and my hands would break out with a million of these tiny little blisters (fronts and backs of my hands completely covered). The next few years were a real struggle with my skin and my confidence. The cortisone cream wasnt nearly as effective as it was when I was younger. The only thing that would clear my skin up, even temporarily, was a wonderful little steroid called prednisone. But this was a short term fix and doctors were careful not to prescribe this very often. At one visit to my dermatologist in Edmonton, I asked him if there was anything I could do to improve my eczema, could it be brought on by diet or smoking? (Yes, I was a smoker, started when I was thirteen). I will never forget his reply, You have Atopic Dermatitis and there is nothing you can do except put on more cream. And as I questioned him further he softly replied again, more cream. Of all the dermatologists I saw over the years, this physician was my favorite dermatologist but the only advice that I got from him, from a cure standpoint, was more cream. Though, at the time, I would not have survived without it. I knew there had to be someone out there with the answer.
I listened to any advice that people had to offer and put it to the test. I tried every type of lotion, mineral oil, baby oil, and natural oil that I could possibly find. I even tried a tar-like ointment, and synthetic amniotic fluid cream. Nothing worked, some of it even made it worse. One doctor prescribed a stand up tanning bed treatment, which actually helped a little. I tried acupuncture from a Chinese gentleman who also prescribed a mixture of several roots and herbs, which I had to cook in water to form this highly noxious potion that he called tea. Oh my goodness, it stunk up the house something fierce. After eight or so visits it didnt make even a little bit of difference.
So for many years I stuck with the cream and this little green pill (APO-HYDROXYZINE) at nighttime. The little green pill was great. If I took it a couple of hours before I went to bed it kept me from scratching and I would fall asleep right away. The only problem was that it made me very sleepy the next day. Every few years I would go on prednisone for a week or two to clear things up. I would often coincide this with any holidays that I would take.
I know that my favorite Dermatologist said that smoking was not the cause of my eczema, but I had to rule it out anyway so I quit smoking for a year and a half. I was really hoping this would end my battle with eczema (and apparently psoriasis as well, according to another doctor). Although I felt much healthier, it had no effect on my skin. I tried to stay positive. I told myself that there are people who suffer from far worse conditions than I. As long as I dont let my prescription for the cream and the little green pills run out, I would be okay. Hey, I have dealt with this my whole life and I was going to be okay. I took solace in the fact that it couldnt get any worse. My favorite Dermatologist said to an intern during one of my visits that I was one of the worst cases of eczema (Atopic Dermatitis) that he had ever seen. So how can it get any worse? Well, it can get worse, much worse.
I was in my late thirties and felt as though I was being tested by some higher beings and I am sure they were saying How much pain and discomfort can we put this poor guy through?
I developed eczema all over my entire body. It was so incredibly itchy all of the time, even during the day now. And when I say my entire body, I really mean just that. The worst was on my back. It was one large open wound which covered every square inch of my back. Even by upping the little green pill dosage to two at bedtime, I was often up until three or four in the morning scratching and tearing at my body. With only three or four hours left to sleep, I would get up and shower in the hottest water I could stand. Really, you might think cold would be better, but the hot water was the only thing that lessened the itch. It probably didnt help to heal my skin though. At this time of the night I would often sob with frustration. After showering I put the cream on all over and I would wake my wife to put some on my back. She was not fond of being woken up in the middle of the night. (Much like a bear or similar wild animal) but she got up without hesitation to do this for me. Peggy helped me keep my sanity through this trying time and for that I am truly grateful. By the time the weekend came, I was exhausted. At times turning offers down to go golfing. Okay, now I have to really get this figured out.
I went on steroids (prednisone) twice over the next six months, this offered only temporary relief and then I would break out again.
When I was forty one, a friend of ours introduced me to some material on pH balancing (or alkalizing) diets. I thought, okay, this will probably be very helpful, thank you. What I didnt realize at the time was that I had finally found the answer. As I read through the information, it began to make perfect sense to me. I got on the computer and searched Alkalizing Diets. What I found was amazing. There was so much information on this topic. How could I have missed this?
The following is how I have become to understand pH balance within our body and the effect that our diet has on that critical balance. PH is quite simply (okay, maybe not quite so simply) parts hydrogen. The blood has a pH balance of 7.365 (slightly alkaline). Any significant variance to this pH balance in our blood would mean that we are very ill and likely would not survive. Fortunately our body does everything it can to maintain the pH in our blood. For example, if we become too acidic, our body creates extra fat which is a means of storage for the extra acidity. This in turn leaves our skin too acidic and prone to many challenging diseases (eczema and psoriasis for example) In fact, when our bodies become too acidic, there is a myriad of resulting diseases. The cells that make up our bodies must have a healthy pH balanced environment in order to function without disease. These cells are constantly dying and being recreated. So after a few years our bodies completely renew themselves. So if our bodies are completely made from these little things we call cells, and these cells require a certain pH balance to function properly, then we had better make sure we give the cells what they need.
I really got hooked on this and started learning more and more about the Alkalizing Diet. I quit smoking (this time for good). I started running everyday for twenty minutes, drank lots of water (avoid tap water with chlorine) and followed the Alkalizing Diet to the letter for three months. After one month my eczema cleared right up. And after three months I didnt need any cortisone cream, prednisone or the little green pill. I had so much energy and felt so good, but above all I had normal skin for the first time in my life. As you could imagine, I was so grateful for this. Over the next three months I slowly veered away from the diet and stopped running due to a badly sprained ankle while golfing.
I am still very much amazed by this cure. I was on this diet and exercise regimen for only three months. That was seven years ago and my eczema is gone.
This event has absolutely proven to me that this is the cure for eczema and psoriasis. The pH balanced (acid/alkaline) diet works on the principle of consuming 20 30% healthy acidic foods. These have a pH value of <7 and typically include meats, fish, & most fruits, (except grapefruit, lemons and limes) and 70 80% healthy alkalizing foods. These have a pH value of >7 and typically include all green leafy vegetables, cucumber, celery, tomatoes, onion, garlic, almost all raw vegetables, raw almonds, seeds, sprouts, avocado. It is extremely difficult to determine the exact percentage of acidic versus alkaline foods you are eating, so, dont sweat it too much. However, if you are eating pizza with a slice of tomato on it, you arent quite there yet.
When I was on the diet a typical breakfast would be tomatoes with avocado cut up with ground pepper and sea salt, and a handful of raw almonds. I learned later that it is well worth your while to soak the almonds in water for a couple of minutes and to limit the amount you eat to avoid an upset stomach. Other meals would typically include raw vegetables, raw almonds, chicken breast, or fish and at least one big mixing bowl size salad with raw vegetables and sprouts every day. I know I could have improved my diet a lot with maybe some more beans, lentils or maybe some more research but I never put anything that was not completely healthy into my body for three months. Only eat pure foods. Eliminate all processed foods e.g. sandwich meats, bread, cereal, sugar, table salt. Do not cook your vegetables. They are designed to eat raw. From my reading I learned that If you cook vegetables, this can create an acidic effect in your body and that would defeat the whole purpose of this exercise. Yes, that includes potatoes. Try a few thin slices of raw potato with sea salt if you really insist on potatoes. Do not eat red meat. Lets look at a typical bad meal to understand why to avoid it. A typical bad meal includes meat, potatoes and maybe a cooked vegetable. Okay, to start with, all three items are acidic. If it is red meat then its even more acidic. Red meat can take up to 3-4 hours to digest. If you mix red meat with a carbohydrate or a starch, it can take up to 10 hours to digest that meal. This creates an unhealthy state in your body. If you have to have a steak (only after three months) a bit of fruit 20 minutes before will aid in digestion and then just add a steak and salad for the meal. If you can continue on the alkalizing diet for the rest of your life, I hope you will find that you will be incredibly healthy. Some researchers with PhDs have professed that no known virus can survive in a body that is ph balanced. I am not asking you to believe that though. The only research that I know for certain to be accurate is my own experience with eczema and the effect the alkalizing diet had on me. The effect was so dramatic that it could not be called anything but a Cure. If you want to be a little more cautious than I was have your doctor or nutritionist approve a diet for you using these principles. Just be smart about it. For instance, too much grapefruit can be harmful if on certain medication. So if you are on any medication, or have any health concerns get your diet approved by your doctor.
Look, I am not a doctor, or researcher, or scientist of any kind, but what I have been is my own test subject in my life-long search for a cure for eczema. And in my search I, in fact, found a cure. A cure that worked for me, anyway, and I am hoping will work for you also. So, please, do as I did and follow the diet and a twenty minute daily aerobic exercise (consult your Doctor to approve an exercise that is right for you) for at least three months and then please let me know how you did. Just remember not to put anything into your body that is not completely healthy for you or doesnt fit into the alkalizing diet.A nice steady pleasant aerobic workout every single day is absolutely essential in order to, lets say, rinse your skin of any toxins. Aerobic exercise also releases endorphins (which have a profound effect on your well being). By keeping your workout nice and easy, it keeps you motivated. Trust me on this, all you want to do is break a sweat for 20 minutes every day. I predict that your skin problems will subside and you will feel absolutely amazing. Please do not form your opinion until three months is over, as you may experience initial flu-like symptoms as built-up toxins leave your body. This should happen within the first week or two though.So prepare yourself mentally, and commit yourself to three months on the pH diet. I will definitely say that this requires some discipline but I will also say that this changed my life and I am hoping it will do the same for you. Commit yourself to this diet, dont do it half way. Consider everything you put into your body and make sure it fits into the diet. Yes, I am sorry; this does mean no good things for at least three months. Trust me it will be well worth it. Your skin will clear up, your eyes will be brighter and you will have way, way more energy. If you can think of eating as a way of delivering nutrients to your cells, this might help in eating only the best of foods.
I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for reading my story. If you suffer from eczema or psoriasis I would be humbled if this story helps you. I strongly believe that if you follow the pH diet, drink lots of water (moderate amounts regularly throughout the day) and engage in twenty minutes of easy aerobic exercise (approved by your Doctor of course) for at least three months you will see improvement in your symptoms, if not completely cure yourself from this awful affliction. So plan your meals and make sure you have all the groceries you need on hand. Commit yourself 100% to the diet and aerobic exercise. Then create an image of yourself with clear, beautiful skin.
View original post here:
A cure for eczema, is it really posible?
Posted in Eczema
Comments Off on A cure for eczema, is it really posible?
Everything For Eczema | Prevent the itch stop the scratch
Posted: at 2:41 pm
Today we have a guest post from Christina, who suffered from eczema from childhood all the way through to her adult years. Christina only finally managed to control her eczema when she addressed the health of her digestive system.
The gut is a very important organ in your body, and much more complex than most people think. I never thought that something as seemingly unconnected as the gut could have an impact on my eczema or skin issues in general.
But before I go deeper, let me give you a little background about me
Christina as a child
Ive had eczema ever since I was a kid, about 8 years old. I remember it would just randomly appear on various places on my body, specifically my arms and legs and sometimes on my chest and neck. I was often brought in to see dermatologists and skin doctors, but the diagnosis was always the same thing: Its just eczema, its normal for kids to have. The doctors would prescribe some creams and ointments to relieve the itchiness and help dry it up, but it never got rid of it completely.
As a teenager it was rough. I wasnt able to do other normal things, like wear shorts or sleeveless shirts or go swimming in the summer. I was so embarrassed of my eczema that I even made up stories to the friends I did have, telling them it was bug bites or that it was a rash from something I ate. Most of the time I would try to just change the subject whenever my peers or adults would ask me what it was -because I didnt really know myself.
I remember hoping it was an age factor and that it would get better as I got older. I had read testimonies of people who had horrible breakouts that miraculously disappeared once they hit their 20s. Even my dad told me that he had really bad eczema when he was younger, and that it had gone away eventually. I desperately hoped this would apply to me! Unfortunately, the hope of it only being teenage eczema wasnt the case, and my eczema followed me through my 20s and after.
An adult with a crisis
As an adult I became so frustrated at this never-ending problem that I considered just giving up trying to find solutions. I had doctors tell me that since it seemed hereditary, there was a big possibility it would never go away. I was prescribed steroid creams, corticosteroid creams, antibiotics, and medicines that just didnt work! I was spending lots of money and not seeing any of the results I wanted.
Eczema flare-up
Because I had to use the creams and medications regularly, I was at the point where if I DIDNT use them my eczema would get out of control. (The picture is how my eczema looked when I was using creams) When I would have a flare up, I hid it the best I could. Out came the creams, topical ointments, gauze, tape, and band aids. I would apply and re-apply until it went away, then repeat the process when it came back. At some point my eczema was returning as fast as it was clearing. It would flare, I would apply the cream for 2 or 3 weeks, and then it would go away-only to return 2 weeks later.
I was so frustrated and unhappy. Even having a physical relationship was uncomfortable, and some nights it was so bad I would cry out of frustration because I couldnt sleep. When I was on vacation or traveling I couldnt enjoy myself because I always had this very literal itch.
Research
Just like many of you struggling with eczema, I spent a lot of time online. I would browse new medications and look on forums for peoples experiences with eczema, trying to find a new solution to an age old problem. It surprised me to see how many people were suffering from the same issue that I was, and getting near to no help from their doctors either.
It was one of these days that I stumbled across an article on gut healthrelated to adult skin problems. The article talked about how gut health could be critical in healing skin conditions like adult acne, psoriasis, and eczema. It talked about gut health as the key to revolutionizing the way dermatologists treat eczema.
Now from what I knew, eczema was an autoimmune and inflammatory disease, and so far the only reasonable way for me to treat it was to use medicines or creams to help my body fight against it. I would use antibiotics and medicines (to help my bodys immune system), anti-inflammatory creams (to lessen inflammation), and so on. I never considered that I could go natural and try to heal my body from the inside-out!
Consequences of an Unhealthy Gut
For years I had been addressing my eczema as just a surface problem, never realizing it went way beyond that. As I did more research,I realized that in order to heal your skin you had to go a lot deeper than just lotions and topical creams.
As I mentioned before, the human gut is something so overlooked, but very important as it is responsible for so many different functions in our body. It promotes normal gastrointestinal function, provides us protection from infections, regulates our metabolism and comprises more than 75 percent of our immune system. Most importantly, its home to over 100 trillion micro-organisms, (bacteria) both good and bad. Research has shownthat in order to maintain a healthy gut, there should be a ratio of around 80 percent good bacteria vs 20 percent bad bacteria.
This balance of bacteria in particular has a lot to do with skin and our overall health. Medical researchers and experts in mucosal biology have shown that that the gut was a key factor in autoimmune diseases, like coeliac, diabetes, obesity, and more. Their conclusion was that an unhealthy gut was the main cause for a wide range of autoimmune diseases, including eczema, psoriasis, and other chronic skin issues.
The gut-skin connection
I started to better understand that the link between the gut and overall health was in fact, very strong. In my case, the consequences of an unhealthy gut showed up through my skin. From research and studies, heres what I discovered:
The gut is a big part of the digestive system. What ever goes in, goes out or at least this is how its supposed to work. Now remember how in order to maintain a happy healthy gut, there has to be IDEALLY a 80-20 balance of good to bad bacteria? Well, studies have shown that if you continually consume certain inflammatory foods or toxins, these types of foods can cause the bad bacteria to grow at a rapid pace, outgrowing the percentage of good bacteria.
This is a problem because when the balance is thrown out of proportion, the overgrowth of bad bacteria starts to create toxins that are damaging to our gut lining. These toxins then hit the walls of the gut lining, creating spaces and holes between the cells.
These holes are dangerous because they allow the guts bacteria (remember theres a lot of bacteria in there!), toxins, as well as incompletely digested proteins and fats, to leak out of the gut and into the bloodstream.
This is what is commonly referred to as Leaky Gut Syndrome or increased intestinal permeability. Instead of going straight OUT (like it should), its going back INTO your body (where it shouldnt).
So how does eczema come into play?
Well, because the damaged gut is no longer up to the job of dispensing these bad bacterias and toxins, the body has to use another method of eliminationthe skin.
The skin is the bodys largest elimination organ, so its not surprising why a myriad of skin diseases come into play during this clean-up process. Because of this bacterial breach into our bloodstream via our leaky gut, the body now has no other choice but to react by pushing the toxins out through our skin. Our body is simply trying to eliminate the bacterial problem the best way it can and rid us of the escaped toxins in our blood.
Unfortunately for us, it essentially puts our skin under assault, resulting in multiple breakouts in skin rashes, acne, eczema, pimples, acne and psoriasis. Along with these effects, you may also experience gas, bloating, fatigue, sinus congestion, and foggy thinking.
How to heal your gut and help clearyour eczema
Now that I understood how the gut-skin connection worked, I wanted to do something about it. Looking into my diet was important in helping me clear my skin. I realized that using creams and taking medicines to heal my eczema wasnt the way to heal my bodyI needed to focus on gut health in order to heal my eczema.
Here a few things I did to start healing my gut:
1) Get rid of inflammatory foods. When I first started to heal my gut, I stopped eating inflammatory foods like wheat(gluten), dairy, soy, and high amounts of sugar. Many people think that just because they arent allergic to these types of foods that it means they can eat them all they like. The fact is, however, that these kinds of inflammatory foods can create problems in your gut that cause the bad bacteria to grow. Sugar, for example, actually feeds bad bacteria in your gut, causing them to grow at a really fast pace.
2) Increase the amounts of probiotics. Just getting rid of inflammatory foods isnt enough for your gut to fully heal. If youve been on medications, and especially antibiotics, youre going to need to grow good bacteria. The fastest way to grow good bacteria is to increase probiotic foods and even supplement if necessary. Foods that contain good probiotics are things like sauerkraut, kimchi (marinated cabbage), kombucha (fermented drink), and kefir.
3) Add Omega 3s to your diet. Another thing that greatly helps build gut-lining are healthy fats that contain high amounts of Omega 3s and essential fatty acids. Fish oil, extra virgin coconut oil, and avocado oil are all good sources of essential fatty acids that will help rebuild your leaky gut lining.
How I healed my eczema through healing my gut
Christina's skin before and after she changed her diet.
In my experience, I had never tried anything more revolutionary than using gut-health to clear eczema. As I learned more about the gut-skin connection and went off the creams and antibiotics that were inflaming my gut, I began to see my eczema heal.
After over 12 years of suffering from eczema, trying creams, medications, fad diets, artificial methods, and spending hundreds of dollars and having none of them work, I was finally able to see new skin! Through gut health I found the REAL, inexpensive, natural way to heal my skin, clear my eczema and keep it off permanently.
Ever since I healed my gut, my eczema hasnt returned and Im no longer hiding or covering my body. Instead I feel healthier, more confident, and Ive even gotten rid of some other issues that I thought would never go awaylike my chronic canker sores and dandruff problem.
Doctors told me it was something I couldnt get rid of, and that I would have eczema and be reliant on creams and medications for the rest of my lifebut Im proud to say I proved them wrong..and you can too!
Creams, steroids, and medications are not long-term solutions. It all starts with the gut.
Bio:
Christina Reeves is the Author and Creator of The Flawless Program: a program focusing on gut health as a way to permanently clear skin issues.
Her website http://www.flawlessprogram.com, gives insightful information for anyone looking to heal their gut and fix their skin, naturally and forever!
View original post here:
Everything For Eczema | Prevent the itch stop the scratch
Posted in Eczema
Comments Off on Everything For Eczema | Prevent the itch stop the scratch
Problems Associated with Cryonics – Cryonics: Alcor Life …
Posted: December 27, 2015 at 9:44 pm
(and some possible solutions)
When you buy a house, the seller is legally obliged to disclose any known defects. When you review a company's annual report, it tells you every problem that could affect the corporate share value. Since arrangements for cryopreservation may have a much greater impact on your life than home ownership or stock investments, we feel an ethical obligation to disclose problems that affect cryonics in general and Alcor specifically. We also believe that an organization which admits its problems is more likely to address them than an organization which pretends it has none. Thus full disclosure should encourage, rather than discourage, consumer confidence.
As of 2011, Alcor is nearly 40 years old. Our Patient Care Trust Fund is endowed with more than 7 million dollars and is responsible for the long-term care of over 100 cryopatients. In almost every year since its inception Alcor has enjoyed positive membership growth. We are the largest cryonics organization in the world yet in many respects we are still a startup company. We have fewer than a dozen employees in Scottsdale, Arizona and approximately 20 part-time independent contractors in various locations around the USA, mostly dedicated to emergency standby and rescue efforts. We serve fewer than 1,000 members and the protocols that aid our pursuit of the goal of reversible suspended animation continue to be developed. At the present time the technology required for the realization of our goal far exceeds current technical capabilities. Cryonics will not be comparable with mainstream medicine until our patients can be revived using contemporary technology, and we expect to wait for decades to see this vision fulfilled. Nevertheless, we have made important progress by introducing brain vitrification to improve patient tissue structure preservation.
Alcor shares some of the characteristics of startup companies. The organization is understaffed in some important areas and lacks as much capitalization as would be desired to support maximum growth. Limited resources prevent the organization from hiring as many highly qualified and experienced personnel as desired, and sometimes we have to postpone enhancements to equipment and procedures.
Because Alcor must react quickly to circumstances, it cannot always handle multiple tasks simultaneously. We feel a significant impact if, for example, several members experience legal death in quick succession. A heavy caseload generally means that administrative and even technical development work is postponed while member emergencies take precedence.
On the other hand, Alcor staff believe very strongly in the mission of the organization and are extremely dedicated. Alcor transport team members feel that they are saving lives, and behave accordingly. Most of all, everyone at Alcor is concerned with insuring the security of the patients who have been cryopreserved for the indefinite future. The organization's powerful sense of purpose is reinforced by the fact that all Alcor directors and most staff members have made arrangements to be cryopreserved themselves in the future.
Unlike most startups, Alcor is unlikely to fail for financial reasons. Due to the legally independent status of the Patient Care Trust from Alcor, patients can be maintained indefinitely through its portfolio of cash, investments, real estate, and capital equipment. Some wealthy Alcor members have contributed gifts and endowments to help the organization to advance, and in the event of a financial crisis, many of the people who hope ultimately to be cryopreserved would probably provide assistance. In this sense Alcor benefits from its small size, since it maintains an intimate relationship with many members which would be more problematic if our membership was ten times as large.
Inability to Verify Results
When a conventional surgical procedure is successful, usually the patient recovers and is cured. If the same surgical procedure is unsuccessful or a surgeon makes a serious error, the patient may die. These clear outcomes provide prompt feedback for the people involved. A physician may feel deeply satisfied if a life is saved, or may be deeply troubled (and may be sued for malpractice) if errors cause a death that should have been avoidable.
Clear feedback of this type does not exist in cryonics, because the outcome of our procedures will not be known definitively until decades or even a century from now. We have good reason to expect future technologies capable of repairing cellular damage in cryonics patients, but we feel equally certain that if a patient experiences very severe brain damage prior to cryopreservation, repairs may be delayed, may be incomplete, or may be impossible. The dividing line between these positive and negative outcomes cannot be established clearly at this time.
Suppose a patient experiences 30 minutes of warm ischemia (lack of blood flow at near-normal body temperature) after legal death occurs. Will this downtime create damage that is irreversible by any imaginable technology? Probably not. But what if the ischemic interval lasts for an hour or two hours, or a day? We simply don't know where to draw the line between one patient who is potentially viable, and another who is not.
Of course we can refer to experimental work that has evaluated the injury which occurs when cells are deprived of essential nutrients. These studies provide some guidance regarding the likely damage that a patient may experience, but they still cannot tell us with certainty if future science will be able to reverse that damage.
Another problem afflicting cryonics cases is that many uncontrolled variables prevent us from developing objective criteria to compare one case with another. Consider these two examples:
In the first case, will the long transport time negate the advantage of a rapid initial response and replacement of blood with a chilled preservation solution? In the second case, will the initial hours of warm ischemia outweigh the advantage of the rapid transport to Alcor? We can make educated guesses, but we cannot answer these questions definitively. We have no certain way of knowing which case will work out better, because we have no evidence no outcome.
We do have some simple ways to determine if a patient's circulatory system allows good perfusion with cryoprotectant. Personnel in the operating room will notice if blood clots emerge when perfusion begins. The surface of the brain, visible through burr holes which are created to enable observation, should be pearly white in color. The brain should shrink slightly as water is replaced with cryoprotectant. When perfusion is complete the patient's features should have acquired a sallow color indicating that cryoprotectant has diffused through the tissues.
These simple observations are helpful, but still the people who work hard to minimize transport time and maximize the rate of cooling can never enjoy the satisfying payoff that a physician receives when one of his patients recovers and returns to a normal, active life. This lack of positive outcome can cause feelings of frustration and futility, sometimes leading to disillusionment and burnout.
Conversely, if a case goes badly, team members will be protected from negative feedback. A team leader can never say to one of the personnel, "Because of your error, the patient has no chance of recovery."
The lack of a clear outcome also prevents us from refuting people who claim that future science will be able to undo almost any degree of damage. The danger o
f this extreme positive thinking is that it can lead to laziness. Why bother to make heroic efforts to minimize injury, if nanotechnology will fix everything?
Alcor's stated policy firmly rejects this attitude. Team members are very highly motivated to minimize injury because we believe that our members should not bet their lives on unknown capabilities of future science. Alcor generally hosts a debriefing after each case, encouraging all participants to share complaints, frustrations, and suggestions for improvement. Ideally, each case should be a learning experience, and participants should welcome criticism as an opportunity to identify weaknesses and overcome them in the future.
Still the lack of a clear outcome remains one of the biggest weaknesses in cryonics, since it encourages complacency and prevents accountability. The antidote to this problem is a better set of objective criteria to evaluate cases, and Alcor is working in consultation with brain ischemia experts to develop such criteria.
Volunteer Help
During the 1960s the first cryonics organizations were run entirely by volunteers. The field was not sufficiently reputable to attract qualified medical staff, and no one could have paid for professional help anyway.
Today cryonics is making a transition to professionalism, but financial limitations are prolonging the process. Some paramedics are associated with Alcor, and we hope for more in the future. We have an MD medical director, access to three contract surgeons, access to a hospice nurse, and assistance from an ischemia research laboratory in California where staff has extensive experience in relevant procedures such as vascular cannulation and perfusion. Alcor also communicates with a cryobiology laboratory that has made the most important advances in organ preservation during the past decade. Still, most transport team members who work remotely from the facility are volunteers who receive a week or two of training and modest payment for their work.
In the future, as Alcor becomes more financially secure and is able to offer higher salaries, the organization will attract more medical professionals. At this time, the transition is incomplete.
Limited Support from Mainstream Science
In the 1960s scientists in mainstream laboratories investigated techniques to cryopreserve whole organs. By the end of the 1970s most of this work had ended, and the field of cryobiology separated itself very emphatically from cryonics. The Society for Cryobiology has discouraged scientists from doing work that could advance cryonics, and has adopted a bylaw that threatens to expel any member who practices or promotes cryonics. Consequently the few scientists who are willing to do cryonics-related research live in fear of being excluded from the scientific specialty that is most relevant to their work.
The rift between cryonics and cryobiology may have been caused initially by fears among mainstream scientists that cryonics had a "tabloid journalism" flavor incompatible with science. In addition many scientists have been dissatisfied with the idea of applying procedures without a complete and full understanding of their outcome. Generally, in medicine, first a technique is studied, validated, and perfected, and then it is applied clinically. Cryonics has, of necessity, done an end-run around this formal approach by rushing to apply a technique based on theoretical arguments rather than validated clinical effectiveness.
During the past decade our knowledge and procedures have advanced far beyond the crude freezing methods imagined by most cryobiologists, and experts in molecular nanotechnology have voiced strong support. As more papers are published describing technical advances, we expect that cryobiologists and other scientists will revise their negative assessment of cryonics. In the future we believe that the arbitrary barrier between cryonics and cryobiology will gradually dissolve, and cryonics research will be recognized as a legitimate specialty of the field. However, for the time being the dim view taken of cryonics by most cryobiologists remains problematic, impairing Alcor's ability to achieve respectable status among other relevant groups such as prospective members, regulatory officials, and legislators.
Limited Legal and Government Support
Cryonics is not explicitly recognized in the laws of any state in the United States (see The Legal Status of Cryonics Patients). This does not mean that cryonics is illegal or unregulated. In fact, Alcor must comply with state laws controlling the transport and disposition of human remains, and we make arrangements with licensed morticians to insure that these requirements are met. Alcor also complies with federal regulations established by agencies such as OSHA and EPA.
Still, the lack of specific enabling legislation for cryonics can cause problems. In the late 1980s the California Department of Health Services (DHS) asserted that because there was no statutory procedure for becoming a cryonics organization, human remains could not be conveyed to a cryonics organization via the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA), and therefore cryonics was illegal. Fortunately, the courts were unimpressed by this argument. In 1992 the legality of cryonics, and the legality of using the UAGA for cryonics, were upheld at the appellate level.
In 1990 the Canadian province of British Columbia enacted a law that specifically banned the sale of cryonics services in that province. In 2002 the Solicitor General (Canadian equivalent of a state Attorney General) issued a written clarification stating that the law only prohibited funeral homes from selling cryonics arrangements. Cryonics could still be performed in the province, even with the paid assistance of funeral homes, provided they were not involved in the direct sale of cryonics. This position is affirmed by the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority of British Columbia. Despite these assurances, anxiety about the law remains.
In 2004 a bill was passed by the Arizona House of Representatives to place cryonics and cryonics procedures under the regulation of the state funeral board. In its original form this law would have prevented our use of the UAGA. The bill was ultimately withdrawn, but may be revived at a later date. Very hostile comments were made about cryonics during the floor debate of this bill. We cannot guarantee that any future legislation will be friendly to cryonics or will permit cryonics to continue in Arizona.
Despite these uncertainties, the United States enjoys a strong cultural tradition to honor the wishes of terminal patients. We believe that the freedom to choose cryonics is constitutionally protected, and so far courts have agreed. We are hopeful that we will be able to continue performing cryonics without technical compromise, under state supervision where necessary, for the indefinite future.
Limited Mainstream Medical Support
Cryonics is not an accepted or recognized "therapy" in the general medical community. To the average medical professional, cryonics is at best an unusual anatomical donation. At worst it can be viewed by some physicians as fraud upon their patient. Hospitals have sometimes deliberately delayed pronouncement of legal death, delayed release of patients to Alcor, or forbade the use of cryonics life support equipment or medications within their facilities. On one occasion in 1988 Alcor had to obtain a court order to compel a hospital to release a patient to Alcor promptly at legal death and permit our stabilization proce
dures on their premises.
Relations with hospitals and their staff are not always difficult. Usually when nurses and physicians learn that cryonics is a sincere practice that is overseen by other medical professionals, they will be willing to accommodate a patient's wishes, or at least will not interfere with them. Sometimes medical staff will even assist with cryonics procedures such as administering medications and performing chest compressions if Alcor personnel are not present when legal death occurs.
The lack of formal medical recognition or support for cryonics generally means that cryonics patients remote from Alcor must be moved to a mortuary for blood replacement before transport to Alcor. Ideally these preparatory procedures should be performed within hospitals, not mortuaries. Hospitals presently allow organ procurement personnel to harvest organs from deceased patients (a fairly elaborate procedure) within their walls. We are hopeful that similar privileges will be extended to cryonics more often as the process becomes better understood and accepted, but we cannot predict how quickly this change will occur.
High Incidence of Poor Cases
In more than 50 percent of cryonics cases legal death occurs before Alcor standby personnel can be deployed, and is often followed by hours of warm ischemia. This downtime may cause severe cellular damage.
The threat of autopsy, in which the brain is routinely dissected, is an even greater danger. Any person who suffers legal death under unexpected circumstances, especially involving accidents or foul play, is liable to be autopsied. Alcor strongly urges members living in California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio to sign Religious Objection to Autopsy forms.
Sometimes cryonicists perish under circumstances resulting in complete destruction or disappearance of their remains. Cryonicists have been lost at sea, suffered misadventures abroad, or even disappeared without a trace. Two members of cryonics organizations were lost in the 2001 collapse of the World Trade Center towers. One was a policeman performing rescue operations.
Cryonics is not a panacea or a "cure" for death. The cryonics ideal of immediate cooling and cardiopulmonary support following cardiac arrest cannot be achieved in the majority of cases. We have good reasons to believe that molecular records of memory persist in the brain even after hours of clinical death, but only future physicians using medical technology which we do not yet possess will be able to determine, finally, whether such a person is really still "there."
What can be done?
If you are:
...then please contact us at .
...or check out our volunteer opportunities.
Read the rest here:
Problems Associated with Cryonics - Cryonics: Alcor Life ...
Posted in Cryonics
Comments Off on Problems Associated with Cryonics – Cryonics: Alcor Life …
Book – Rosi Braidotti – The Posthuman
Posted: at 9:44 pm
Description
The Posthuman offers both an introduction and major contribution to contemporary debates on the posthuman. Digital 'second life', genetically modified food, advanced prosthetics, robotics and reproductive technologies are familiar facets of our globally linked and technologically mediated societies. This has blurred the traditional distinction between the human and its others, exposing the non-naturalistic structure of the human. The Posthuman starts by exploring the extent to which a post-humanist move displaces the traditional humanistic unity of the subject. Rather than perceiving this situation as a loss of cognitive and moral self-mastery, Braidotti argues that the posthuman helps us make sense of our flexible and multiple identities.
Braidotti then analyzes the escalating effects of post-anthropocentric thought, which encompass not only other species, but also the sustainability of our planet as a whole. Because contemporary market economies profit from the control and commodification of all that lives, they result in hybridization, erasing categorical distinctions between the human and other species, seeds, plants, animals and bacteria. These dislocations induced by globalized cultures and economies enable a critique of anthropocentrism, but how reliable are they as indicators of a sustainable future?
The Posthuman concludes by considering the implications of these shifts for the institutional practice of the humanities. Braidotti outlines new forms of cosmopolitan neo-humanism that emerge from the spectrum of post-colonial and race studies, as well as gender analysis and environmentalism. The challenge of the posthuman condition consists in seizing the opportunities for new social bonding and community building, while pursuing sustainability and empowerment.
Status
Available
Edition
First Edition
ISBN
9780745641577
ISBN10
0745641571
Publication Dates ROW:
Apr 2013
Publication Dates US:
Jun 2013
Publication Dates Aus & NZ:
Apr 2013
Format
224 x 145 mm 8.80 x 5.68 in
Pages
180 pages
Status
Available
Edition
First Edition
ISBN
9780745641584
ISBN10
074564158X
Publication Dates ROW:
Apr 2013
Publication Dates US:
May 2013
Publication Dates Aus & NZ:
Apr 2013
Format
216 x 141 mm 8.50 x 5.52 in
Pages
180 pages
Status
Available
Edition
First Edition
ISBN
9780745669960
ISBN10
0745669964
Publication Dates ROW:
Jul 2013
Publication Dates US:
Jul 2013
Publication Dates Aus & NZ:
Jul 2013
Format
229 x 152 mm 9.02 x 5.98 in
Pages
200 pages
* Exam copies only available to lecturers for whom the book may be suitable as a course text. Please note: Sales representation and distribution for Polity titles is provided by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
"The Posthuman makes a vital contribution to feminist scholarship across disciplines Braidottis reading of contemporary issues is out of the box: challenging, encouraging and inspiring." Feminist Review
"An important and generative step toward new theories and scholarship and a welcome addition to Braidottis already formidable canon." H+ Magazine
"Shows remarkable clarity and concision even as it lays out highly technical, complexly theoretical, and deeply interdisciplinary concepts." Choice
''This is a rather startling work that requires heavy concentration on the part of the reader to follow the brilliant thinking of the author. Rosi Braidotti, a contemporary philosopher and feminist theoretician, `makes a case for an alternative view on subjectivity, ethics and emancipation and pitches diversity against the postmodernist risk of cultural relativism, while also standing against the tenets of liberal individualism.' Throughout her work, Braidotti asserts and demonstrates the importance of combining theoretical concerns with a serious commitment to producing socially and politically relevant scholarship that contributes to making a difference in the world.'' Grady Harp, Literary Aficionado
"This is an exciting and important text, full of intellectual brilliance and insight. It will make a major mark." Henrietta L. Moore, University of Cambridge
"Braidotti's exhilarating survey of the constellation of posthumanity is lucid, learned and provocative. It will be an essential point of reference in future debates about the central philosophical problem of our age." Paul Gilroy, Kings College London
"Debates over humanism and post-humanism have been fought over from feminist philosophy to literary theory and post-colonial studies. This latest work by Rosi Braidotti presents us with a clear-headed glimpse of some of the hard choices we have before us. Braidotti knows the philosophy, cares about the politics, and empathizes with those who have been shoved aside in these brutal last hundred years. She shows us how feminism, technoscientific infrastructure and political strands cross, sometimes with sparks." Peter Galison, Harvard University
Acknowledgments vi
Introduction 1
Chapter One: Post-humanism: Life beyond the Self 13
Chapter Two: Post-anthropocentrism: Life beyond the Species 55
Chapter Three: The Inhuman: Life beyond Death 105
Chapter Four: Posthuman Humanities; Life beyond Theory 143
Conclusion 186
References 198
Index 214
Read more here:
Book - Rosi Braidotti - The Posthuman
Posted in Posthuman
Comments Off on Book – Rosi Braidotti – The Posthuman
Race Culture: Recent Perspectives on the History of Eugenics
Posted: December 26, 2015 at 12:49 pm
The American Historical Review
Description: The American Historical Review (AHR) is the official publication of the American Historical Association (AHA). The AHA was founded in 1884 and chartered by Congress in 1889 to serve the interests of the entire discipline of history. Aligning with the AHAs mission, the AHR has been the journal of record for the historical profession in the United States since 1895the only journal that brings together scholarship from every major field of historical study. The AHR is unparalleled in its efforts to choose articles that are new in content and interpretation and that make a contribution to historical knowledge. The journal also publishes approximately one thousand book reviews per year, surveying and reporting the most important contemporary historical scholarship in the discipline.
Coverage: 1895-2009 (Vol. 1, No. 1 - Vol. 114, No. 5)
The "moving wall" represents the time period between the last issue available in JSTOR and the most recently published issue of a journal. Moving walls are generally represented in years. In rare instances, a publisher has elected to have a "zero" moving wall, so their current issues are available in JSTOR shortly after publication. Note: In calculating the moving wall, the current year is not counted. For example, if the current year is 2008 and a journal has a 5 year moving wall, articles from the year 2002 are available.
ISSN: 00028762
EISSN: 19375239
Subjects: History, American Studies, History, Area Studies
Go here to read the rest:
Race Culture: Recent Perspectives on the History of Eugenics
Posted in Eugenics
Comments Off on Race Culture: Recent Perspectives on the History of Eugenics
Organizzazione del Trattato dell’Atlantico del Nord …
Posted: December 25, 2015 at 12:43 pm
Da Wikipedia, l'enciclopedia libera.
Coordinate: 505234.16N 42519.24E / 50.876156N 4.422011E50.876156; 4.422011
L'Organizzazione del Trattato dell'Atlantico del Nord (in inglese North Atlantic Treaty Organization, in sigla NATO,[3] in francese: Organisation du Trait de l'Atlantique du Nord, in sigla OTAN), un'organizzazione internazionale per la collaborazione nella difesa.
Il trattato istitutivo della NATO, il Patto Atlantico, fu firmato a Washington, D.C. il 4 aprile 1949 ed entr in vigore il 24 agosto dello stesso anno. Attualmente, fanno parte della NATO 28 stati del mondo.
Il Patto Atlantico traeva origine dalla percezione che il cosiddetto mondo occidentale (costituito da Stati Uniti d'America, Canada, Regno Unito, Francia, Norvegia, Italia ed altri Paesi dell'Europa occidentale), dopo la seconda guerra mondiale, stesse cominciando ad accusare tensioni nei confronti dell'altro paese vincitore della guerra, ossia l'Unione Sovietica, con i suoi Stati satellite.
Iniziava, infatti, a svilupparsi nelle opinioni pubbliche occidentali il timore che il regime sovietico potesse "non accontentarsi" della spartizione geografica generata, al termine della Guerra, da varie conferenze di pace e che, radicalizzando i contenuti ideologici della societ, volesse iniziare una mira espansionista per l'affermazione globale dell'ideologia comunista. Ci gener un movimento di opinione che - anche grazie alle varie attivit in tal senso organizzate dagli Stati Uniti d'America - inizi a svilupparsi in modo generalizzato nei Paesi occidentali e che identific una nuova assoluta necessit di garantire la sicurezza del mondo occidentale dalla minaccia comunista; la NATO, quindi, rispondeva all'esigenza di allearsi e di mettere a fattor comune i propri dispositivi di difesa, per reagire "come un sol uomo" ad un eventuale attacco.
Tale sentimento ebbe una significativa spinta dopo i fatti di Berlino del 1948. La citt tedesca, simbolo del nazismo e Capitale della Germania hitleriana, dopo Jalta venne a trovarsi nel territorio della Germania Est, ossia sotto influenza sovietica, e venne suddivisa in 4 zone, tre delle quali controllate dai Paesi occidentali e la quarta (la parte orientale della citt) dall'Unione Sovietica. Berlino Est divenne Capitale della Germania Est.
Dopo alcuni mesi durante i quali i sovietici avevano iniziato a manifestare disagio e dissenso sulla situazione territoriale e logistica "anomala" di Berlino (enclave occidentale in territorio orientale), che permetteva alle genti sottoposte al regime socialista di transitare facilmente all'Ovest trovandovi rifugio, il 24 giugno 1948 decisero di chiudere il corridoio terrestre attraverso il quale Berlino Ovest era connessa al mondo occidentale, impedendo, di fatto, il suo approvvigionamento logistico: il successivo ponte aereo, organizzato dal mondo occidentale per assicurare la sopravvivenza della popolazione di Berlino Ovest, entrato nella storia.
La vicenda dell'"assedio" a Berlino Ovest, fece naturalmente forte impressione alle popolazioni occidentali e, di fatto, rese matura la decisione di istituire un'Alleanza del mondo occidentale contro la minaccia sovietica.
Il concetto informatore di questa nuova "Alleanza" era quello della "difesa collettiva", riportato nell'Art. 5, che recita:
Questa misura era concepita in modo tale che se l'Unione Sovietica avesse lanciato un attacco contro uno qualsiasi dei paesi membri, questo sarebbe stato trattato da ciascun paese membro come un attacco diretto, ed era rivolta soprattutto a una temuta invasione sovietica dell'Europa occidentale. Le trattative si svolsero tra i firmatari del trattato di Bruxelles (Regno Unito, Francia e Benelux), Stati Uniti, Canada, Norvegia, Danimarca, Islanda, Portogallo ed Italia. L'Unione Sovietica protest vivacemente, affermando la natura aggressiva nei suoi confronti del Patto. Da l a pochi anni essa avrebbe dato vita ad un'Alleanza militare contrapposta alla NATO: il Patto di Varsavia.
La creazione degli organi politici dell'Alleanza Atlantica impieg circa un anno di lavori, tra il maggio 1950 e lo stesso mese del 1951; nelle riunioni a Londra ed a Bruxelles i ministri degli Esteri si accordarono per la creazione di un Consiglio Permanente, dotato di potere esecutivo, affiancato da tre comitati, di difesa economica e finanziaria, di difesa e militare, inglobati poi nel Consiglio Permanente nella conferenza di Londra del maggio 1951.
Con la nascita del Patto di Varsavia inizi la "Guerra fredda", cos definita in quanto, in realt, mai combattuta sul campo, ma per la quale i due blocchi prepararono i loro dispositivi militari in modo cos meticoloso e credibile che fu sviluppato il concetto di "pace armata" (attuato anche con armi nucleari potenzialmente distruttive per l'umanit intera). Dopo la caduta del muro di Berlino, che simboleggi la fine del socialismo reale e soprattutto dell'URSS, la NATO ha radicalmente cambiato la sua visione strategica, avviando un processo di radicale trasformazione. Dopo i fatti dell'11 settembre 2001 avvenuto un nuovo cambiamento nelle strategie dell'Alleanza, che adesso, a processo di trasformazione ormai compiuta, si configura come l'organizzazione mondiale principale per la lotta effettiva al terrorismo internazionale.
Il disposto dell'art. 5 del Trattato, mai attuato durante la Guerra fredda, venne invocato per la prima volta nella storia il 12 settembre 2001 dagli Stati Uniti, in risposta all'attacco terroristico del giorno precedente a New York.
Motivo: Questa sezione esprime, in alcuni passaggi, alcuni giudizi.
Dalla caduta del muro di Berlino in poi, la NATO ha progressivamente perso la propria caratteristica di "Alleanza Difensiva" per orientarsi sempre pi come un ambito di collaborazione militare tra Paesi aderenti. Dopo gli eventi dell'11 settembre 2001, gli Stati Uniti hanno richiesto l'intervento dell'Alleanza sulla base dell'Art. 5 del trattato. In linea generale, la NATO oggi rappresenta l'organizzazione militare pi utilizzata per l'imposizione del pieno rispetto della Carta dell'ONU e delle norme e convenzioni di Diritto umanitario e di Diritto bellico, delle risoluzioni del Consiglio di sicurezza dell'ONU relative a situazioni di crisi di importanza globale.
I principi generali che regolano le attivit dell'Alleanza sono mutati nel tempo, adattandosi ai continui cambiamenti del panorama geopolitico internazionale, ed attualmente possono essere riassunti nei seguenti punti:
L'art. 10 del Trattato del Nord Atlantico descrive come gli stati possano entrare nella NATO:[6]
Questo articolo pone due limiti generali agli stati per l'accesso:
Il secondo criterio significa che ciascun stato membro ha diritto di veto, ovvero pu decidere di porre delle condizioni per l'ingresso di un paese. In pratica la NATO ha formulato un insieme di criteri-base che devono essere soddisfatti per aspirare all'accesso, ma in alcuni casi ci possono essere dei criteri aggiuntivi. I casi pi importanti sono:
Non invece mai stato un criterio riconosciuto quello secondo cui la NATO non si sarebbe estesa ad Est se l'URSS avesse consentito la riunificazione della Germania: questa rivendicazione russa[7] del contenuto di un colloquio tra Gorbacev e James Baker, infatti, non mai stata accettata dalla diplomazia USA[8], che anzi negli anni Novanta sfid l'irritazione russa propiziando l'ingresso della Polonia, dell'Ungheria e della Repubblica Ceca nell'Alleanza.
Come procedura per i paesi che vogliono aderire (pre-adesione) esiste un meccanismo chiamato Piano d'azione per l'adesione o Membership Action Plan (MAP) che fu introdotto nel vertice di Washington del 23-25 aprile 1999. La partecipazione al MAP prevede per un paese la presentazione di un rapporto annuale sui progressi fatti nel raggiungere i criteri stabiliti: la NATO provvede poi a rispondere a ciascun paese con suggerimenti tecnici e valuta singolarmente la situazione dei progressi.
Questi paesi sono all'interno del MAP:
previsto che entrino nel MAP i seguenti paesi:
L'altro meccanismo di pre-adesione il Dialogo intensificato o Intensified Dialogue che visto come passo precedente prima di essere invitati al MAP.
I paesi attualmente in questa fase sono:
Un doppio schema tecnico-diplomatico di accordi stato creato per aiutare la cooperazione tra i membri NATO e altri "paesi partner".
Il Partenariato Euro-Atlantico, o Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), fu creato il 27 maggio 1997 al vertice di Parigi ed un forum di regolare consultazione, coordinamento e dialogo tra la NATO e i partner esterni. la diretta conseguenza del partenariato per la pace. I 23 paesi partner sono:
Ex Repubbliche sovietiche:
Paesi neutrali con economia di mercato durante la guerra fredda:
Paesi neutrali con economia socialista durante la guerra fredda:
Paesi "in attesa":
Il Partenariato per la pace o Partnership for Peace (PfP) fu creato nel 1994 ed basato su relazioni individuali e bilaterali tra la NATO e il paese partner: ciascuno stato pu decidere l'intensit della collaborazione. stato il primo tentativo di dialogo della NATO con paesi esterni, ma ora considerato il "braccio operativo" del partenariato Euro-Atlantico. costituito in maniera principale, da membri operativi della NATO, ad esempio, membri START1991, e collaborano in tema di giustizia, per garantire i principali diritti internazionali, come i patti Bilaterali tra stati nel mondo, svolgono in tema politico-sociale la cooperazione al sostentamento umanitario. La sua azione operativa permette in diversi ambiti, quali sociale, politico, economico, giuridico, medico, ingegneristico, scientifico, artistico, la tutela e la conservazione di diritti umani nel mondo, promuovendo la cultura pacifica nei popoli.
Come gi detto, la NATO rappresenta non soltanto una mera iniziativa di cooperazione militare, ma si configura come fondamentale strumento di collaborazione politica tra i Paesi membri, soprattutto nell'ambito dei processi decisionali afferenti materie di politica estera.
Per questo motivo, la NATO ha una duplice struttura: politica e militare. In linea con quanto accade normalmente nell'ambito dei Sistemi istituzionali democratici dei Paesi membri, anche in questo caso la parte militare ha una posizione subordinata rispetto a quella politica, che, nelle sue diverse articolazioni, espressione diretta della volont dei popoli dei Paesi membri.
L'Alleanza governata dai suoi 28 Stati membri, ognuno dei quali ha una delegazione presso la sede centrale della NATO a Bruxelles. Il pi anziano membro di ciascuna delegazione chiamato "Rappresentante permanente". L'organizzazione politica della NATO basata sulla regola del consenso unanime e comprende:
L'organizzazione militare della NATO articolata in vari comandi con sedi nei diversi paesi membri. Al vertice costituita da:
formato dai rappresentati militari dei Paesi membri ed ha il compito di decidere le linee strategiche di politica militare della NATO. Provvede inoltre alla guida dei comandanti strategici, i cui rappresentanti partecipano alle sedute del Comitato, ed responsabile per la conduzione degli affari militari dell'Alleanza. Il rappresentante militare l'altra figura rilevante della delegazione permanente dei Paesi membri presso la NATO ed un ufficiale con il grado di generale di corpo d'armata o corrispondente che proviene dalle forze armate di ciascun paese membro.
Dal Military Committee dipendono:
I membri della NATO sono attualmente 28. Di questi, 22 sono anche membri dell'Unione europea, mentre 24 di questi sono membri a vario titolo (membri effettivi, membri associati, paesi osservatori, partner associati) dell'Unione dell'Europa Occidentale (UEO) che con il Trattato di Lisbona passata sotto il controllo UE. Per questo negli ultimi anni il peso dell'UE andato sempre pi in crescendo nelle decisioni NATO. Di seguito l'elenco dei 28 membri:
Read the rest here:
Organizzazione del Trattato dell'Atlantico del Nord ...
Posted in NATO
Comments Off on Organizzazione del Trattato dell’Atlantico del Nord …
Organizzazione del Trattato dell'Atlantico del Nord …
Posted: at 12:43 pm
Da Wikipedia, l'enciclopedia libera.
Coordinate: 505234.16N 42519.24E / 50.876156N 4.422011E50.876156; 4.422011
L'Organizzazione del Trattato dell'Atlantico del Nord (in inglese North Atlantic Treaty Organization, in sigla NATO,[3] in francese: Organisation du Trait de l'Atlantique du Nord, in sigla OTAN), un'organizzazione internazionale per la collaborazione nella difesa.
Il trattato istitutivo della NATO, il Patto Atlantico, fu firmato a Washington, D.C. il 4 aprile 1949 ed entr in vigore il 24 agosto dello stesso anno. Attualmente, fanno parte della NATO 28 stati del mondo.
Il Patto Atlantico traeva origine dalla percezione che il cosiddetto mondo occidentale (costituito da Stati Uniti d'America, Canada, Regno Unito, Francia, Norvegia, Italia ed altri Paesi dell'Europa occidentale), dopo la seconda guerra mondiale, stesse cominciando ad accusare tensioni nei confronti dell'altro paese vincitore della guerra, ossia l'Unione Sovietica, con i suoi Stati satellite.
Iniziava, infatti, a svilupparsi nelle opinioni pubbliche occidentali il timore che il regime sovietico potesse "non accontentarsi" della spartizione geografica generata, al termine della Guerra, da varie conferenze di pace e che, radicalizzando i contenuti ideologici della societ, volesse iniziare una mira espansionista per l'affermazione globale dell'ideologia comunista. Ci gener un movimento di opinione che - anche grazie alle varie attivit in tal senso organizzate dagli Stati Uniti d'America - inizi a svilupparsi in modo generalizzato nei Paesi occidentali e che identific una nuova assoluta necessit di garantire la sicurezza del mondo occidentale dalla minaccia comunista; la NATO, quindi, rispondeva all'esigenza di allearsi e di mettere a fattor comune i propri dispositivi di difesa, per reagire "come un sol uomo" ad un eventuale attacco.
Tale sentimento ebbe una significativa spinta dopo i fatti di Berlino del 1948. La citt tedesca, simbolo del nazismo e Capitale della Germania hitleriana, dopo Jalta venne a trovarsi nel territorio della Germania Est, ossia sotto influenza sovietica, e venne suddivisa in 4 zone, tre delle quali controllate dai Paesi occidentali e la quarta (la parte orientale della citt) dall'Unione Sovietica. Berlino Est divenne Capitale della Germania Est.
Dopo alcuni mesi durante i quali i sovietici avevano iniziato a manifestare disagio e dissenso sulla situazione territoriale e logistica "anomala" di Berlino (enclave occidentale in territorio orientale), che permetteva alle genti sottoposte al regime socialista di transitare facilmente all'Ovest trovandovi rifugio, il 24 giugno 1948 decisero di chiudere il corridoio terrestre attraverso il quale Berlino Ovest era connessa al mondo occidentale, impedendo, di fatto, il suo approvvigionamento logistico: il successivo ponte aereo, organizzato dal mondo occidentale per assicurare la sopravvivenza della popolazione di Berlino Ovest, entrato nella storia.
La vicenda dell'"assedio" a Berlino Ovest, fece naturalmente forte impressione alle popolazioni occidentali e, di fatto, rese matura la decisione di istituire un'Alleanza del mondo occidentale contro la minaccia sovietica.
Il concetto informatore di questa nuova "Alleanza" era quello della "difesa collettiva", riportato nell'Art. 5, che recita:
Questa misura era concepita in modo tale che se l'Unione Sovietica avesse lanciato un attacco contro uno qualsiasi dei paesi membri, questo sarebbe stato trattato da ciascun paese membro come un attacco diretto, ed era rivolta soprattutto a una temuta invasione sovietica dell'Europa occidentale. Le trattative si svolsero tra i firmatari del trattato di Bruxelles (Regno Unito, Francia e Benelux), Stati Uniti, Canada, Norvegia, Danimarca, Islanda, Portogallo ed Italia. L'Unione Sovietica protest vivacemente, affermando la natura aggressiva nei suoi confronti del Patto. Da l a pochi anni essa avrebbe dato vita ad un'Alleanza militare contrapposta alla NATO: il Patto di Varsavia.
La creazione degli organi politici dell'Alleanza Atlantica impieg circa un anno di lavori, tra il maggio 1950 e lo stesso mese del 1951; nelle riunioni a Londra ed a Bruxelles i ministri degli Esteri si accordarono per la creazione di un Consiglio Permanente, dotato di potere esecutivo, affiancato da tre comitati, di difesa economica e finanziaria, di difesa e militare, inglobati poi nel Consiglio Permanente nella conferenza di Londra del maggio 1951.
Con la nascita del Patto di Varsavia inizi la "Guerra fredda", cos definita in quanto, in realt, mai combattuta sul campo, ma per la quale i due blocchi prepararono i loro dispositivi militari in modo cos meticoloso e credibile che fu sviluppato il concetto di "pace armata" (attuato anche con armi nucleari potenzialmente distruttive per l'umanit intera). Dopo la caduta del muro di Berlino, che simboleggi la fine del socialismo reale e soprattutto dell'URSS, la NATO ha radicalmente cambiato la sua visione strategica, avviando un processo di radicale trasformazione. Dopo i fatti dell'11 settembre 2001 avvenuto un nuovo cambiamento nelle strategie dell'Alleanza, che adesso, a processo di trasformazione ormai compiuta, si configura come l'organizzazione mondiale principale per la lotta effettiva al terrorismo internazionale.
Il disposto dell'art. 5 del Trattato, mai attuato durante la Guerra fredda, venne invocato per la prima volta nella storia il 12 settembre 2001 dagli Stati Uniti, in risposta all'attacco terroristico del giorno precedente a New York.
Motivo: Questa sezione esprime, in alcuni passaggi, alcuni giudizi.
Dalla caduta del muro di Berlino in poi, la NATO ha progressivamente perso la propria caratteristica di "Alleanza Difensiva" per orientarsi sempre pi come un ambito di collaborazione militare tra Paesi aderenti. Dopo gli eventi dell'11 settembre 2001, gli Stati Uniti hanno richiesto l'intervento dell'Alleanza sulla base dell'Art. 5 del trattato. In linea generale, la NATO oggi rappresenta l'organizzazione militare pi utilizzata per l'imposizione del pieno rispetto della Carta dell'ONU e delle norme e convenzioni di Diritto umanitario e di Diritto bellico, delle risoluzioni del Consiglio di sicurezza dell'ONU relative a situazioni di crisi di importanza globale.
I principi generali che regolano le attivit dell'Alleanza sono mutati nel tempo, adattandosi ai continui cambiamenti del panorama geopolitico internazionale, ed attualmente possono essere riassunti nei seguenti punti:
L'art. 10 del Trattato del Nord Atlantico descrive come gli stati possano entrare nella NATO:[6]
Questo articolo pone due limiti generali agli stati per l'accesso:
Il secondo criterio significa che ciascun stato membro ha diritto di veto, ovvero pu decidere di porre delle condizioni per l'ingresso di un paese. In pratica la NATO ha formulato un insieme di criteri-base che devono essere soddisfatti per aspirare all'accesso, ma in alcuni casi ci possono essere dei criteri aggiuntivi. I casi pi importanti sono:
Non invece mai stato un criterio riconosciuto quello secondo cui la NATO non si sarebbe estesa ad Est se l'URSS avesse consentito la riunificazione della Germania: questa rivendicazione russa[7] del contenuto di un colloquio tra Gorbacev e James Baker, infatti, non mai stata accettata dalla diplomazia USA[8], che anzi negli anni Novanta sfid l'irritazione russa propiziando l'ingresso della Polonia, dell'Ungheria e della Repubblica Ceca nell'Alleanza.
Come procedura per i paesi che vogliono aderire (pre-adesione) esiste un meccanismo chiam
ato Piano d'azione per l'adesione o Membership Action Plan (MAP) che fu introdotto nel vertice di Washington del 23-25 aprile 1999. La partecipazione al MAP prevede per un paese la presentazione di un rapporto annuale sui progressi fatti nel raggiungere i criteri stabiliti: la NATO provvede poi a rispondere a ciascun paese con suggerimenti tecnici e valuta singolarmente la situazione dei progressi.
Questi paesi sono all'interno del MAP:
previsto che entrino nel MAP i seguenti paesi:
L'altro meccanismo di pre-adesione il Dialogo intensificato o Intensified Dialogue che visto come passo precedente prima di essere invitati al MAP.
I paesi attualmente in questa fase sono:
Un doppio schema tecnico-diplomatico di accordi stato creato per aiutare la cooperazione tra i membri NATO e altri "paesi partner".
Il Partenariato Euro-Atlantico, o Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), fu creato il 27 maggio 1997 al vertice di Parigi ed un forum di regolare consultazione, coordinamento e dialogo tra la NATO e i partner esterni. la diretta conseguenza del partenariato per la pace. I 23 paesi partner sono:
Ex Repubbliche sovietiche:
Paesi neutrali con economia di mercato durante la guerra fredda:
Paesi neutrali con economia socialista durante la guerra fredda:
Paesi "in attesa":
Il Partenariato per la pace o Partnership for Peace (PfP) fu creato nel 1994 ed basato su relazioni individuali e bilaterali tra la NATO e il paese partner: ciascuno stato pu decidere l'intensit della collaborazione. stato il primo tentativo di dialogo della NATO con paesi esterni, ma ora considerato il "braccio operativo" del partenariato Euro-Atlantico. costituito in maniera principale, da membri operativi della NATO, ad esempio, membri START1991, e collaborano in tema di giustizia, per garantire i principali diritti internazionali, come i patti Bilaterali tra stati nel mondo, svolgono in tema politico-sociale la cooperazione al sostentamento umanitario. La sua azione operativa permette in diversi ambiti, quali sociale, politico, economico, giuridico, medico, ingegneristico, scientifico, artistico, la tutela e la conservazione di diritti umani nel mondo, promuovendo la cultura pacifica nei popoli.
Come gi detto, la NATO rappresenta non soltanto una mera iniziativa di cooperazione militare, ma si configura come fondamentale strumento di collaborazione politica tra i Paesi membri, soprattutto nell'ambito dei processi decisionali afferenti materie di politica estera.
Per questo motivo, la NATO ha una duplice struttura: politica e militare. In linea con quanto accade normalmente nell'ambito dei Sistemi istituzionali democratici dei Paesi membri, anche in questo caso la parte militare ha una posizione subordinata rispetto a quella politica, che, nelle sue diverse articolazioni, espressione diretta della volont dei popoli dei Paesi membri.
L'Alleanza governata dai suoi 28 Stati membri, ognuno dei quali ha una delegazione presso la sede centrale della NATO a Bruxelles. Il pi anziano membro di ciascuna delegazione chiamato "Rappresentante permanente". L'organizzazione politica della NATO basata sulla regola del consenso unanime e comprende:
L'organizzazione militare della NATO articolata in vari comandi con sedi nei diversi paesi membri. Al vertice costituita da:
formato dai rappresentati militari dei Paesi membri ed ha il compito di decidere le linee strategiche di politica militare della NATO. Provvede inoltre alla guida dei comandanti strategici, i cui rappresentanti partecipano alle sedute del Comitato, ed responsabile per la conduzione degli affari militari dell'Alleanza. Il rappresentante militare l'altra figura rilevante della delegazione permanente dei Paesi membri presso la NATO ed un ufficiale con il grado di generale di corpo d'armata o corrispondente che proviene dalle forze armate di ciascun paese membro.
Dal Military Committee dipendono:
I membri della NATO sono attualmente 28. Di questi, 22 sono anche membri dell'Unione europea, mentre 24 di questi sono membri a vario titolo (membri effettivi, membri associati, paesi osservatori, partner associati) dell'Unione dell'Europa Occidentale (UEO) che con il Trattato di Lisbona passata sotto il controllo UE. Per questo negli ultimi anni il peso dell'UE andato sempre pi in crescendo nelle decisioni NATO. Di seguito l'elenco dei 28 membri:
Read the rest here:
Organizzazione del Trattato dell'Atlantico del Nord ...
Posted in NATO
Comments Off on Organizzazione del Trattato dell'Atlantico del Nord …
Free speech – OpenLearn – Open University
Posted: December 24, 2015 at 1:44 pm
David Edmonds: This is Ethics Bites, with me David Edmonds.
Nigel Warburton: And me Nigel Warburton.
David: Ethics Bites is a series of interviews on applied ethics, produced in association with The Open University.
Nigel: For more information about Ethics Bites, and about the Open University, go to open2.net.
David: For John Stuart Mill the limit of freedom of speech in a civilized society was roughly the point where a speaker was inciting violence. But perhaps it isn't as simple as that. For free speech, in the well-known example, doesnt entitle us to shout "Fire! in a crowded theatre. Where then should we draw the line, and why? Tim Scanlon, Professor in Harvard Universitys philosophy department, has spent much of his career reflecting about issues of toleration and free speech. His initial writings on the topic stressed that the value of free speech lay in autonomy in particular, the right of individuals to have access to information so as to be able to think for themselves. Now he has a more nuanced view which takes into account the interests of both speaker and listener, and empirical considerations about the danger of granting powers of regulation to the state.
Nigel: Tim Scanlon, welcome to Ethics Bites.
Tim Scanlon: Im glad to be here. Thank you very much.
Nigel: Now the topic were focusing on today is free speech. Presumably youre an advocate of free speech at some level, but lets start by getting clear what do we mean by free speech?
Tim: By free speech I mean the need for restrictions on the way in which governments can regulate speech. Whether speech is free in a further sense, that is whether people have opportunities, is a very important thing, but its not the issue of free speech.
Nigel: Thats really interesting, because you immediately began by talking about regulation and controlling what can be said.
Tim: Well certainly speaking is not without costs: what people can say can cause injury, can disclose private information, can disclose harmful public information. Its not a free zone where you can do anything because nothing matters. Speech matters. But because it matters its very important that governments who want to regulate speech, for example to prevent things that would be embarrassing to politicians, or otherwise upset the government, its important that that power should be restricted.
Nigel: The word speech seems to imply something spoken, but clearly speech stands for expression here, its not just speech is it?
Tim: No, its not just speech. In one respect, what defines our thinking about free speech is not the particular acts that constitute speech, but rather the reasons one has for wanting other people to notice for wanting to make some kind of communication with others. Speech is just one way of doing it. How you dress, how you act in public. All those things can signal to other people your values, what kind of life you favour, and the fact that the way you act, as well as the way you speak, can signal those things provide reasons for other people to want to prevent you from doing those things - because they dont want those signals to be out there in the public space. The question of free speech is the question of how that impulse to regulate what can be out there in the public space need itself be controlled.
Nigel: Ok, well lets think about the justifications for controlling free speech. Youve devoted quite a lot of your life to thinking philosophically about the limits of toleration. Whats the philosophical underpinning of your position?
Tim: Well one philosophical underpinning in driving any of this has to be understanding the reasons why people should care about having these opportunities that might be restricted. I began by talking about how free speech has to do with limitations on government power. But of course the value thats at stake is affected by things other than what the government does, its also affected by how corporations can control access to television and other important media. So here we have two sides. On the one hand, philosophically one of the first things you want to do in understanding free speech is to understand what are the values that are at stake, why should we care about it? Thats much broader than the question of government regulation. On the other hand, if you think mainly in terms of constitutional provisions, restrictions on the law, there were talking particularly about government.
Nigel: Often people talk about free speech as arising from individual autonomy. We should have a freedom to be who we are and to express ourselves in the way that we wish to. Its a basic right of humans to express themselves...
Tim: I dont know if I want to say its a basic right. I want to say that people have reasons, all kinds of reasons, to want to be able to express themselves. Although when were talking about the permissible limits on speech we need to focus not only on the interests that people have in wanting to get their own ideas out there, but also the interests that people have as potential audience members to have access to what other people want to say. Philosophical discussions of the topic divide, to some extent, as to whether they focus mainly on speaker values or audience values, and I think its important to take both into account.
Nigel: OK, well with speaker values the justification tends to be in terms of autonomy; but with audience values we start talking about the consequences for the audience. The classic case there is with John Stuart Mill talking about the limits of free speech being set at the point where you harm another individual.
Tim: Thats true although, in a way, autonomy based views on the whole tend to focus on audience values - because its the audience who wants to have access to information to make up their minds. In so far as autonomy refers to the interests we have in being able to form our own opinions about how to live, what to do, how to vote, an autonomy based view tends to focus on audience values. By and large we think of speakers as already knowing what they want and what they value, and wanting to express it. Thats a kind of freedom: but it may not be helpful to call it autonomy. In general, its a case of once burnt twice shy. That is, having originally in my first publication given a theory of free speech that focused on autonomy, Ive since come to think that its a word thats probably a good idea to avoid. Because it can mean so many different things. On the one hand it can mean freedom, that is the ability to do things, on the other hand it can be a particular value, or in Kants case a particular inner power. Its a misused word so I like to avoid it.
Nigel: Perhaps it would be easier to focus on a particular case to bring out the sort of considerations that are relevant here. If we take the case of people expressing contempt for a particular racial group - some people might argue that is a consequence of free speech that people should be allowed to say offensive things. How would you approach that case.
Tim: Well there seems to be a divide on this across different countries. That is, in the United States the law and much of academic opinion is much more in favour of the idea that free speech is incompatible with having laws that ban speech simply because theyre offensive - laws for incitement against racial hatred or expressing contempt for other groups are by and large held to be unconstitutional in the United States whereas in Britain, France, Canada, laws are quite different.
Now Im in this sense typical of my country. Im inclined to be rather suspicious of laws that restrict speech on the grounds that it gives offence to a particular group. Not that I favour speech that does that, I think its terrible; the question is whether you want to have a law that restricts it. And the natural question is why on earth shouldnt you? After all it does harm people. Immigrant groups, racial minorities, are in a vulnerable position vulnerable because they suffer from status harm. Widespread opinion that they are in some way inferior, ought not to be associated with, ineligible for various jobs, and so on.
So why shouldnt speech that supports and perpetuates those attitudes be restricted? The problem is that there are so many ways in which speech can be offensive to different people, that if we start allowing offence to be a ground for restriction its very easy to generalise it, and the restrictions on speech, particularly on political speech, become too tight in my opinion.
Now theres an empirical question here, and I think the jury is out. Canada has laws against speech that foments racial hatred, and Britain does, and so on. So against the free speech advocates of my sort you can say, well they have these laws, the sky hasnt fallen. Political speech continues. On the other hand race relations havent improved much either. So the jury is to some degree out. And with respect to the UK I think its fair to say that a somewhat greater tolerance for restrictions on expression hasnt served the political culture well. Theres also much more tolerance of restrictions on disclosures of official secrets and so on and I think these havent helped political discussion in the UK. So I think the US has benefited to some degree to what might seem to some people an overly rigorous protection of free speech.
Nigel: That strikes me as a slippery slope argument: the idea that you cant take one step down the slope without ending up at the bottom. So you cant take one step by restricting certain sorts of hateful speech because the consequence will be that all kinds of other sorts of speech will be restricted.
Tim: Well in the first instance its not a slippery slope argument. It is a question about what would be the effect of having that particular restriction. So I think the case turns on that. I then move to saying if you look more generally, the more permissive attitude towards restrictions on speech hasnt been a good thing. The view of free speech that Ive come to does give a heavy weight to calculations of that kind. The question is, is a particular regulatory power, the power to restrict speech on certain grounds, is that a power we can give to government without placing important speaker and audience interests unacceptably at risk? Thats the question. And the view that there is a right to speak in certain ways comes down to the claim that if the government were allowed to prevent speech of that kind that would be a dangerous power, that we shouldnt allow, because the values of being able to speak and the values of being able to have access wouldnt be adequately served; and thats an empirical question which powers are dangerous, but thats my view.
Nigel: And the danger that youre speaking of, is that the danger that effective government wont be possible because there wont be sufficient airing of different views?
Tim: Thats one value. That is preserving the kind of opportunity to speak and influence people, and the kind of opportunity on the part of voters to be informed that we need to have a functioning democracy. Thats certainly one value. But there are also more personal values. People have good reason outside of politics to want to be able to influence the development of their society culturally, to express their attitudes about sex about art about how to live. Audiences benefit from having access to these expressions. We want to hear a diversity of views.
On the other hand people want to protect what the dominant attitudes in society are. They dont want people to express permissive attitudes towards sex or attitudes about religion that they disagree with, because that may cause the culture to evolve in ways in which they would prefer it didnt evolve. We all have feelings of that kind; I dont think its just these awful intolerant people. I feel that my society places a greater emphasis on sex, sexual attractiveness and so on than would be desirable. I dont like living in a society thats saturated with these feelings; but thats the price of living in a free society.
I also think religion is growing in its influence and so the sense that one ought to be religious or pay deference to religion is growing in strength in the United States, from my point of view that doesnt make it a society more like the one I would like to live in. But thats the price of living in a free society. There are these ebbs and flows of cultural opinion and if you want to live on terms of freedom with other people you have to be willing to accept the society that results from everybody having access to a public space you just have to accept it.
Nigel: I can see how censoring somebodys political opinions might be dangerous to good government. But censoring somebodys freedom to print pornographic images for instance, how can that harm good government?
Tim: My point in my answer to your last question was that providing the conditions necessary for good government isnt the only thing thats at stake in free speech. People who have views about, say, particular sexual relations, want to be able to express this not only as a matter of self expression, but they want to be in contact with other people who have similar views. And when regulation of that kind of expression is allowed the first thing thats likely to happen is that the minority views of this are the most likely to get restricted, and I think thats a cost. I dont like living in a society where there's lots of pornography and people very interested in that, but, youve got to live with it.
Nigel: Another area where its difficult to see where to draw the line is with factual information that could be used in terrorist activity. So for instance if somebody wants to publish the details of how to make a certain kind of bomb on the internet, is it appropriate to censor them?
Tim: I think it is. I dont think we dont have an interest in access to information about how to manufacture bombs which is parallel to our interest to wanting to have information about what the government is actually doing, or to be able to communicate with others about sexual, moral or religious matters. So I dont think theres a similar threat to our interests as potential speakers or to our interests as audiences who want to be able to form our opinion about things if technical information about armaments and explosives is restricted.
The main worry there seems to me to be at the margin; whether some kinds of information about technical questions about military armaments become important political things that we need to know about. Like we need to know whether a missile defence system would actually work! Now theres a fair amount of distance between having a recipe for making nerve gas at home and having some information about how well the governments attempt to build a missile defence system have actually worked. But in between, there might be a worry. But on the whole Im relatively comfortable with the idea that technical information about the production of armaments is something that its permissible to regulate.
Nigel: Weve talked quite a lot about the differences between the law in the States and the UK, Im intrigued to know whether you think that the kinds of principles that you come up with in your philosophy are universalizable across societies and countries, or whether they are restricted to the particular circumstances of particular countries at particular times?
Tim: On the whole I come down on the universal side. I once had an experience speaking to a seminar that involved people from 27 different countries, academics and non academics. And theyd asked for a presentation on free speech. So I said the question of free speech is the question of whether the power to regulate speech in a certain way is the power that its too dangerous for governments to have. And thats a question of whether, if they had that power, the interests of speakers or audiences would be unduly restricted. And those who believe in free speech also have to believe that we should forbid governments from having this power at acceptable cost. And in the discussion, people all objected; they said your discussion entirely focused on things in the United States. It maybe alright in the United States to prevent the government from restricting speech, but that wouldnt work in India, someone said. Because in India if you allowed people to say certain things, then some people would riot. And a Turkish man said, a man in our law school thinks that bourgeois rights are nonsense, and obviously he cant be allowed to say that kind of thing; but you dont have that problem in the United States. The effect of this discussion was to reinforce my universalist tendencies and to think that things arent that different all over. Because, of course, exactly those questions come up in almost any society.
Now of course societies vary; the risks may be greater in some societies than in others. But on the whole theres a lot of commonality there. As far as the question of riots is concerned, this is whats known in the United States legal arguments as the hecklers veto. If you allow the threat of a riot to be a reason to prevent somebody from speaking all a group has to do to stop somebody from speaking is to threaten to riot. So the first response of the State has to be to stop the riot or put the speech in a venue where it can be protected; those are things the state can do.
Places where people dont believe in free speech, I think they dont believe in free speech largely for the reasons Ive just mentioned, they may think, well in a stable society its ok, but for us the risks are too great. Its possible that sometimes theyre right about that, but on the whole I think its a matter of not having enough faith in your fellow citizens and being too worried about what the consequences will be. Of course its in the interests of governments to encourage these fears, because its in the interests of governments to be able to regulate speech. Not because theyre evil, but just because theyre people who have their objectives and they want to be able to pursue those objectives in what seems to be the most effective way. Governments everywhere have reason to want to restrict speech; so everywhere we need laws to prevent them from doing that.
Nigel: Free speech is one of those ideas that people are prepared to die for. How would you place free speech relative to other important rights or ideas that animate people in political situations?
Tim: Well free speech first has a particular instrumental value, because its very important as a way of preventing other kinds of rights violations. People can be imprisoned in secret and one of the best ways of trying to stop that kind of thing is to try to bring it into the public sphere where political opposition can be mobilised. So freedom of speech has an important instrumental role in protecting other rights. There are cases where freedom of speech can seem to conflict with other rights. For example the right to a fair trial. In order to have a fair trial we need to prevent people from being convicted in advance in the press, so the jury cant be convened that won't already have made up its mind about guilt. That is a clash.
When there is a clash of values of that kind one has to try to work out a strategy to deal with it. I think on the whole, by sequestering juries, by allowing defence attorneys to examine juries in advance and to ask them about their prejudices, on the whole I think one can protect the right to a fair trial, without placing many restrictions on what can be said. I dont want to say there is never a conflict, there can be, but I think on the whole its possible to work them out.
Nigel: Tim Scanlon, thank you very much.
Tim: Thank you, its been a pleasure talking with you.
David: Ethics Bites was produced in association with The Open University. You can listen to more Ethics Bites on Open2.net, where youll also find supporting material, or you can visit http://www.philosophybites.com to hear more philosophy podcasts.
More here:
Free speech - OpenLearn - Open University
Posted in Free Speech
Comments Off on Free speech – OpenLearn – Open University