Found this on YouTube
Talk by Naomi Wolf - The End of America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc
Interesting seminar about American Democracy
Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, 32
Ok. Quick comments:
1.- Some of the facts cannot be denied. That's why they're facts. Still, it doesn't mean the rest of those facts will follow. History, contrary to the believe, doesn't have to repeat itself time after time (and I'm not defending anyone... just follow to the next point). In any case, there are several valid points in the speech.
2.- She used the speech to advance her own agenda, with a twofold objective: Promoting her book (something legit that every writer does) and promoting his political views (keep in mind she worked for the Clinton and Gore in their respective campaigns).
What does it mean?. Merely that she's not objective. I doubt anybody can be objective on this topic, but she's clearly not even close.
3.- Technically, it's one of the best speeches I've watched/heard lately. The way she talks, the way she moves, the way she uses the pauses... all that makes you feel closer to her and, thus, closer to her point of view. It's not a political speech, but more of a personal one. It's clear she has a lot of experience in that field. Good stuff.
Sadly, it's only a technically good speech. The content is not quite as good. That "restoring democracy" points is quite laughable, actually...
1.- Some of the facts cannot be denied. That's why they're facts. Still, it doesn't mean the rest of those facts will follow. History, contrary to the believe, doesn't have to repeat itself time after time (and I'm not defending anyone... just follow to the next point). In any case, there are several valid points in the speech.
2.- She used the speech to advance her own agenda, with a twofold objective: Promoting her book (something legit that every writer does) and promoting his political views (keep in mind she worked for the Clinton and Gore in their respective campaigns).
What does it mean?. Merely that she's not objective. I doubt anybody can be objective on this topic, but she's clearly not even close.
3.- Technically, it's one of the best speeches I've watched/heard lately. The way she talks, the way she moves, the way she uses the pauses... all that makes you feel closer to her and, thus, closer to her point of view. It's not a political speech, but more of a personal one. It's clear she has a lot of experience in that field. Good stuff.
Sadly, it's only a technically good speech. The content is not quite as good. That "restoring democracy" points is quite laughable, actually...
migya wrote:TMC wrote:1.- Some of the facts cannot be denied. That's why they're facts. Still, it doesn't mean the rest of those facts will follow. History, contrary to the believe, doesn't have to repeat itself time after time
Yet it does
No, it doesn't.
(Are we gonna start a circle-jerk here or what?. Don't count on me following if you have that in mind
)
TMC wrote:migya wrote:TMC wrote:1.- Some of the facts cannot be denied. That's why they're facts. Still, it doesn't mean the rest of those facts will follow. History, contrary to the believe, doesn't have to repeat itself time after time
Yet it does
No, it doesn't.
(Are we gonna start a circle-jerk here or what?. Don't count on me following if you have that in mind
Look at history regarding the acts of governments the way this woman pointed out - It always leads to the same thing