Slashdot Mirror

So it's just a curious coincidence that these things all occur regularly in countries governed by Sharia law?

There is no country in the world today that is governed by Sharia law. Not one. As in none. You watch too much TV.

Your ad-hominem fails. An old workmate is an Iranian Muslim who left Iran with his family and moved to Australia due to the social conditions in Iran. One of my highschool friends is a Persian Baha'i whose family left Iran due to religious persecution. A uni mate and drinking buddy, and his ex-girlfriend, are both Muslim. All of these are peaceful Muslims with somewhat 'westernised' values, at least to the point where they don't believe in amputation or stoning, but none of them have ever argued that Sharia-governed countries in the Middle East are not Islamic countries.

It wasn't an ad-hominem, more of an observation. And actually, it still stands. A Muslim who goes out drinking isn't really the kind you're likely to learn much about Islam from. Not that I begrudge him his choice, there are many members of my family who choose to not take their religion seriously, it's up to each person to choose their own destiny. However, I doubt you'll hear much about the nature of Sharia law from them, as they really don't know much about it themselves. They're very much like most Christians today, most of whom couldn't name two apostles.

So not only are U.S. copyright laws the main objection of militant Islamists, but "the Western media" actually IS engaged in a global smear campaign to convince the world that Islamic extremists have a vendetta against Western values? Please.

Copyright laws have nothing to do with it, I was illustrating a point and you've gotten all carried away.

As for the smear campaign, well I don't know what you'd call the repetition of blatantly false information that is pretty obviously designed to spread fear about imminent doom at the hands of the hordes of extremist Muslims. I never used the words "smear campaign", you did. If you had any Muslim friends who actually knew anything about their religion, they'd be more than willing to point out where CNN/Fox is dishing out the BS, and believe you me, it gets dished out in spades on ever terror related news story.

The U.S. government may be taking U.S. citizens' rights away, but those rights are still lightyears better than in Sharia-governed countries.

Again, there are no Sharia governed countries. And if the US freedoms are better than those in Saudi Arabia or Iran, only time will reveal how long that remains the case.

A tiny minority (percentage-wise) of Muslim extremists have convinced themselves that Westerners' values are sinful

True.

thus demonising all Westerners, and that Allah wants them to spread Islam to the world, by force if necessary.

False. Muslims have no interest what you do on your side of the ocean. Muslims (and indeed all third world nations) *do* care what western governments and corporations do when they come into a country and do things like effectively enslave the population for a token wage, overthrow democratically elected governments and replacing them with dictators that serve them, attempt to seize control of the public interest through bribery and corruption, experiment on hapless third worlders with new drugs in the name of profits, and... the list goes on. If you think that it is Muslims/Commies/some other extremist group who are the aggressors and the west are the victims, you need to get your head out of your ass and look around you.

It's a little disingenuous to demand links when you yourself didn't bother to provide any in the original post.

I posted facts, which raised no doubts. Not even from you. Someone stating, the sky is blue, for another example, needs to post no links either.

It's also more than a little ridiculous to compare Chile to Cuba. Chile is an enormous country compared to Cuba (756,950 sq km vs. 110,860 sq km), and has tremendous mineral wealth

Oh, please... So, it is the size (a lot of it — hardly habitable mountains, BTW), and the mineral wealth, huh? Right... There are countries without any of that (Taiwan, Israel to name a couple), which are doing much better than Cuba anyway — not that Cuba's own nickel (which you mysteriously dismiss) and oil (which you forget) are anything to sneeze at. It could also have excellent tourism industry, instead of (or in addition to) its current shady sex-tourism. The also have copper (yes, the same copper), cobalt, iron...

No, dear, there is no escaping the fact, that Castro's government — and the Communist governments in general — are not only bloody, but also horrendously inefficient and incompetent. It wouldn't have survived without USSR's support, and this willingness of the Russian empire to support anyone sufficiently loyal (for the sake of empire-building itself) was the point of my original posting in this thread.

[blockquote}They weren't kickout out of their homes, you ignoramus.[/blockquote]

1. Yes they were - 2. Becuase I stand up for an opressed people I am called names.... Ridiculous

Millions of other Palestinians live as refugees in other Arab countries (as well as one million in Israel proper), after fleeing wars in 1948 and 1967. According to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 (1948) and subsequent resolutions, these refugees have the right to return to their homes, or to be compensated for their losses. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert indicated that refugees might be allowed to return to a future Palestinian state, even his "best offer" refused all the right to return to homes in Israel itself.

here is the source link
http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mideast/pa lestine/

And here is some background about globalexchance.org

  Global Exchange is a membership-based international human rights organization dedicated to promoting social, economic and environmental justice around the world. Since our founding in 1988, we have successfully increased public awareness of root causes of injustice while building international partnerships and mobilizing for change.

Why are the Chinese so lauded by the leftist frauds? The very things the leftists belligerently accuse the USA of-- torture, imperialism, corporatism-- those are openly celebrated in China.

Why are self-professed "rightists" so out of touch with reality, half of the time?

You think it's the fault of the left that China has most-favored nation trading status with the United States? (News flash: Walmart is now classifed as left-wing).

In point of fact, the left has been complaining for some time about chinese sweatshops.

(And "openly celebrated"? Huh?).

But I'm not so sure about the "fortunately" part of your post. Like with a lot of freedoms and righs the US takes for granted, such as freedom of speech, having it written in law is but one thing.

The US is actually a great example of the problem with centralising these types of powers. Even if things are initially set up with good intentions, with the central power having very limited powers, eventually that central power will find a way to get around all those limitations that were put in place.

Of course, in the end, the WTO is a much worse entity to have such powers in the first place, as the representatives aren't even remotely directly elected.

You can have all the freedom of speech you want, if half the nation impose self censorship due to various moral, ethical or religious reasons, you don't really have anything resembling free speech.

As long as the WTO is protecting free speech, I don't have a problem. I hope you're not implying that online gambling is a free speech issue, or that the WTO exists to protect individual freedoms of any sort. No, the WTO exists to protect big business. This is not just the reality of the situation, it's their stated mission.

So yeah, if the WTO protects free speech, that's fine. But what if they strike down child labor laws, or antitrust legislation, or environmental protection legislation?. Here's someone else's Top Reasons to Oppose the WTO. So my fears about what's possible isn't just hypothetical. Some of it is already happening. Giving the WTO the power to directly strike down laws would make this worse.

The WTO might not have the right to strike down US law, but in reality, isn't this precisely what their power is?

Certainly not precisely. For example, say the WTO does declare the online gambling law to be in violation. Does that mean that I can now violate this law with no fear of prosecution? Absolutely not. The US courts, up to and including the US Supreme Court, will still enforce a law despite the fact that it violates a WTO agreement. Only an act of Congress can change this.

Few nations can survive the trade tariffs for very long if they're hefty enough and hitting the right market. So if the WTO really wants, can't it stop pretty much any behavior its members find abhorrent enough?

No, if the governments of the WTO member-countries really want, they can stop pretty much any behavior. And part of that is that they have to "really want" it. There are a number of places where various countries, including the US, are in violation of WTO agreements, and yet nothing much is happening about it.

I suppose you could say that this is true of any judicial or quasi-judicial entity with no physical troops. Only a few decades ago even the US Supreme Court had a lot of trouble striking down individual state laws. So maybe the ability to strike down laws is a sliding scale, and not a black and white issue. If so, I'd put the US Supreme Court's ability to strike down federal laws at a 9.9 out of 10, their ability to strike down state laws at a 9, and the WTO's ability to strike down US laws at a 3 or a 4.

http://www.american.edu/TED/saipan.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/09/real.delay/
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/sweatshops /saipan/abc040100.html
http://www.msmagazine.com/spring2006/paradise_full .asp

That article at the Daily Kos to which I linked itself links, in it's third sentence, to the ABC News transcript of 5/24/99 documenting Brian Ross investigating Abramoff's slavery biz in Saipan. But the Daily Kos article was written by someone who's been covering the abuses in the islands for a long time. It includes copies of Preston, Gates lobbyist conspiracies to protect the Marianas abuses. And compiles lots of other cited evidence into a good picture of the racket Abramoff's Republicans, including Delay and Hastert, were running in their "Conservative Paradise", making a travesty of American borders, Chinese trade, and other "Conservative" values. Read it and judge for yourself. That's the power of the Web. Google the facts presented in DKos, and make your own decision.

So instead of seeing a Daily Kos link and caving in to Republican "shoot the messenger" copouts, just click it and see all the facts and logic painting this picture. Not that you are copping out, but others reading this thread have to fight off several layers of Republican media brainwashing. We're just here to help.

It seems to me that usually it's the people in the WEST that are complaining, and not the workers themselves.

To my knowledge, western companies pay on average three times better salary than local companies do.

They are already doing that. The salaries are still very low when compared to ours, but they are still better than what local companies are paying.

3rd Demand: Decent Wages

Nike has rejected demands that it ensures that Nike workers are paid a living wage--that is, a full time wage that would provide a small family with an adequate diet and housing and other basic necessities. Instead, the company has used statistics selectively and in a misleading fashion to give the false impression that wages currently paid to Nike workers are fair and adequate. Meanwhile those workers struggle to survive on wages that are barely enough to cover their individual needs, let alone those of their children.

...corporate and U.S. government crime.

Your argument conveniently leaves out the fact that many factory workers in third world countries were at one time independent farmers whose livelihoods were destroyed by WTO agreements that allowed the dumping of cheap GMO'd agricultural products in their markets thus destroying their livelihood. Once their livelihoods have been destroyed they are easy pickings for multinationals who rove the world in a predatory fashion looking for the lowest possible wages and thus creating downward pressure on wages throughout the world that is exploited by people with high incomes in the west.

Again I don't see you jumping on any boats to work a 12 hour shift in a sweat shop, though that would certainly be more "productive" of an actual real good than your shilling for the forces of oppression and suffering.

The far right in the U.S. tries to make much of individual crimes and has promoted the idea of the victim impact statement:

http://crime.about.com/od/victims/a/impact.htm

This is fine as far as it goes, but I propose an extension, a victim impact statement for all the victims of corporate and U.S. government crimes. Under this arrangement victims of U.S. multinational corporations and would have a public forum to speak of the abuses they suffered at the hands of factories subcontracted to U.S. multinationals, in addition victims of U.S. war crimes such as the innumerable bombings of civilians in Iraq would also be given an opportunity to speak and to confront those responsible for their suffering. This follows from basic logic, after all if victim impact statements are designed to allow victims to have some sort of closure for their suffering ought those who have caused the most suffering be the first in line for having to hear from their victims? Despite the airtight logic of this proposal I doubt apologists for globlization will put it on their agenda anytime soon. After all we wouldn't dare actually hear what the true impact of globlization is on the ground, far better to look at charts whose numbers point, up, up, up, right? Although no proper formal program of this type exists you can read of the stories of the victims of globalization at:

http://globalexchange.org/

After all accountability and responsibility are only for the little people, upper middle class Americans and other people in the west needn't bother with such trifles as responsibility for their actions, and accountability for the suffering and death they have caused right?

Would that be the same business economics that would say Windows is the best operating system because it made Bill Gates makes the most money? Oops. As far as I'm concerned economics is an advanced snow job to try to convince people that it's in their best interest to receive a small amount of pay and to use up the planets resources at an exponentially growing rate such that our generation may be the last one to live any kind of decent life whatsoever so the current generation of Americans can buy mounds of cheap crap at Wal-Mart. Yes economics involves a lot of advanced calculus using derivatives and integrals and some fancy statistical techniques as well. Yet if the fundamental assumptions are wrong or biased then all those fancy 3-d charts and graphs are meaningless. For example does a greater GNP equal a happier life? Not if the things we are producing kill us with stress and pollution, and only 1% of the population really benefits from the increased wealth. I'm old school and back in the day there was a saying about bad code, garbage in garbage out, or GIGO. From what I can see most economics that assume the economies can grow forever and mainly benefit a small elite while stripping the planet of resources is GIGO. There are limits both to our resources and to how long people in the third world will put up with being driven off their land when we dump GMOd agricultural produce on their markets, and then how long they'll put up with working in factories after being made landless and homeless for less than a buck an hour while their drinking water and other fundamental needs have been "privatized" by the IMF. Bechtel was driven out of Bolivia by angry mobs after the IMF contracted them to privatize Bolivia's water supply.

http://www.democracyctr.org/bechtel/

Who's going to be the next multinational corporation to be driven out of a country by an angry mob? Hint WTO meetings need to be held on isolated islands because the G8 leaders and business interests are loathed so much by people for the terrible suffering they have caused.

So again I don't want to hear any crap about economics. Corporate globalization causes many people to suffer so a VERY few can live in obscene luxury despite what direction a graph may point in your economics textbook. There are graphs that are abstract and deceptive, and then there are empirical FACTS on the ground I suggest you do some reading about the facts on the ground. Start here:

http://globalexchange.org/

http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/c olombia/3927.html Not just the CEO of a company. The Colombian president offered to microchip travelers to the US. He did not say it in public -- but made the proposal in a conversation with a US senator, who then revealed the story.

The distinction is irrelevant. Nike dictates all the terms to the sweatshops that make Nike shoes and they are specifically culpable for their decision to stop doing business in Korea and Taiwan after those sweatshops unionized to seek out cheaper, more exploitative places elsewhere.

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/sweatshops /nike/

You are regurgitating Nike propoganda, which has been demonstrated to be false. Nike is not responding to bad publicity by addressing the problem, they are responding on the cheap by hiring PR firms to "shore up their image."

Yeah "foreign investment" sure helped those people in Vietnam and Indonesia working at Nike factories for less than 40 dollars a month:

"By 1997, Nike was shamed into telling its Indonesian contractors to stop asking for exemptions to the minimum wage and to stop paying apprentice wages. But the company still does not require its contractors to pay workers a living wage. In April 1999 when the Indonesian government announced that it was increasing the minimum wage to 231,000 rupiah/month ($26US), Nike for the first time announced that it would raise wages for its Indonesian factory workers higher than the legally required minimum,. Their new wage was a minimum cash wage of 265,000 ($30US) and a bonus package that adds up to 332,000 ($37.50US).

While this is certainly a step forward, the wages are still a far cry from a living wage. An Indonesian wage study released by Global Exchange shows that 332,000 rupiah/month ($37.50US) is needed to cover the basic needs of one person. A living wage, which is a wage that helps cover the needs of a family, not just one worker, would be twice this figure, or 664,000 rupiah/month ($75US).

Moreover, Vietnamese and Chinese workers still get poverty wages. In all three countries, $4 a day would be considered a decent wage. Nike, a company with $8.7 billion in revenue in 1998 that sells its shoes for $150, can well afford to pay its workers such a meager sum.

Moreover, Vietnamese and Chinese workers still get poverty wages. In all three countries, $4 a day would be considered a decent wage. Nike, a company with $8.7 billion in revenue in 1998 that sells its shoes for $150, can well afford to pay its workers such a meager sum."

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/sweatshops /nike/faq.html

Yes living expenses are less in third world countries but not THAT much less. Cheap labor conservatives love "foreign investment" when the the prevailing wage in the country being invested in is a slave level of wage. If we are actually concerned with helping people and not exploiting them, we should aim for them becoming self sufficient through education, and micro businesses, not being exploited by first world multinationals. And yes laptops might be PART of that picture, FIRST people need to be healthy through building basic infrastructure like clean water, good agricultural practices, etc. THEN in the long term they can build up educational opportunities so they no longer need to be dependent on foreign aid. But first things first don't put the cart before the horse, and don't look at people as a source of cheap labor to be exploited.

Well i'm not saying they have to work in our interest, but at least respect us and maintain normal diplomatic relationships, not instigating coups, or openly funding radical non democratic groups.

As an US citizen, you would be very suprised at the amount of money the US administration spends in illegal activities in Venezuela.

In the links i provided you can read some of the details.

Regional integration is one of the long term goals, and one of the main foreign policies for Venezuela. It is a type of integration that goes beyond trade agreements, in fact it gives priority to social, political and cultural aspects as well.

Its not exactly that we are standing up to the states, its more like the US administration wants their rules imposed on us, without us having any chance to discuss anything. They pretend we go to Washington d.c. and sign without reading whatever they wish. Any objection, is good enough for Bush to declare us part of the "axis of evil, communists, etc".

For example, they would love to see PDVSA, the state oil company, sold to private interests. Well who do you think PDVSA is competing with in the international market? Exactly, the multinational oil companies, which the Bush administration is closely related with. Im sure they would love to buy it all, but our current constitution, discussed and approved by the majority of the people in the referendum of 1999, forbids this.

Here are some more links:
http://www.embavenez-us.org/constitution/intro.htm
http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/
http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/v enezuela/
http://www.veninfo.org/
http://www.embavenez-us.org/
http://www.vicuk.org/

Richard Stallman has many comments about Venezuela (he has been here many times) http://www.stallman.org/
In fact, he is calling to "Protest Bush by buying gas from Citgo." by citing an article made by Jeff Cohen: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0516-25.htm

Citgo belongs to PDVSA, which means us:
http://www.citgo.com/

We ship daily 1500000 barrels of oil to the United States. of these, 660000 go to Citgo.

Here are some interesting oil facts:

- An oil tanker from Venezuela takes from 4 to 5 days to reach the south coast in USA. The same oil tanker coming from the middle east, takes about 40 days.
- Venezuelan oil is heavier than average (requires more refining), and it has a lower international price (about 10US$ less per barrel).
- Because its not so profitable and enviromentally friendly, there have been no new refineries built in the United States in the past 25 years.
- Refining capacity in the States has peaked at 100% capacity for many years already, getting more oil to the market won't lower prices anymore, and the global demand of oil has already reached maximun production ("Peak Oil" levels).
- Citgo owns 8 of those not so profitable refineries...
- USA with 7% population of the world consumes 27% of total oil production. Please guys, support energy efficiency usage and alternative methods.
- China and India are demanding more and more fuel, we have already established good relationships with them.

A couple of documentaries i recommend you to watch:

http://endofsuburbia.com/
http://www.chavezthefilm.com/

I am thinking this notion of corporation, needs to go away. Make every business a sing propriatary whatever.. the people running the business need to have some sort of responsibility. The way corporations are now no one is responsible for anything anymore. If a corporation ends up doing something evil in the name of profit (which it will if it the reward is worth the risk, b/c a corporation as an entity has no conscience no purpose other than acrue wealth) there is no one to hold accountable (with the rara exception).

I don't think it's as simnple as that.

There is evil inherent in the concept of modern business corporations, but they are nevertheless useful, and should be reformed rather than done away with. The evil, in my opinion, comes down to two things:

1. Limited liability
2. Narrowly financial responsibility

Limited liability is what has made the corporation powerful. It allows investors to simply walk away from their debts when things go wrong, ignoring the carnage they've caused to businesses down the food chain. I think limited liability should be done away with, that every shareholder should be personally liable for a share of a company's debt proportional to their shareholding, unless they can prove malfeasance by the directors (in which case the directors would be personally liable for the lot).

Corporations, as presently constituted, have narrowly financial responsibility. They are responsible only to their shareholders, and they are responsible only for their financial performance. Corporations externalise a lot of their costs by, for example, dumping untreated waste into the environment; and global corporations, if prevented by legislation from doing that in one jurisdiction, will simply up sticks and move to another. Corporations also engage in activities of dubious morality - almost half of the chocolate we eat is harvested by slaves; many of the clothes and shoes we wear are made in sweatshops; most of the firearms used by criminals are produced by western corporations. And yet there's no comeback to the investors for any of this. We need a system where any fine imposed on a corporation for illegal activity, and any damages assessed against a corporation, are levied pro-rata on the shareholders. Shareholders need to have a positive interest in the legality and ethics of their corporations business activities. It's also important that corporations can be sued extra-territorially - that simply by moving their operations to a more lax jurisdiction corporations can't evade legal and moral responsibilities.

Secondly, there are quite a few ethical companies out there still, despite the FUD most people spew about unethical practices being inevitable.

Take, for instance coffee and chocolate. You could refuse to purchase any of those two items that doesn't bear the Fair Trade seal. This is just one example, there are many more. Every little bit of purchasing pressure helps, whether you see immediate results or not.

Not all businesses care about profit above everything else -- although it is true for most publicly traded companies who don't have a majority shareholder.

The system is NOT inevitable. Only consumer apathy makes it inevitable, and that depends upon comments like yours. It's true that there will always be unethical employees and managers, and there will always be some unethical businesses. But all it takes is a bit of incentive from consumers and from individuals who make policy in companies, and you have ethical businesses.

Be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Exactly ... Survey says corporations prefer dictatorships.
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/econ101/su rvey.html

No, he let the weapons inspectors in and let them search anywhere. We gave them the locations of where we thought they were producing WMDs and they all turned out completely wrong. We kicked the weapons inspectors out so that we could bomb Iraq.

That's not entirely true. Bush certainly did rush to war, but Saddam was always very shifty. See, for example, the documentary by Scott Ritter, one of the head weapons inspectors, In Shifting Sands. His basic take was that Saddam made it impossible to tell whether all the bad stuff was gone, but he was sure that such a large proportion of it was gone that Iraq was no longer a strategic threat.

One of the big unanswered questions about all of this was why Hussein continued to play games with the inspectors, the UN, and the US even though it now seems like he had nothing to hide. The best theory I heard was that maintaining the doubt helped him look scary to his neighbors. But that seems like small reward for the massive damage that sanctions inflicted. My personal notion is that the only way you can survive that long as a brutal absolute dictator is to never give in to anybody, and that although that bias worked for him inside Iraq, it eventually screwed him on the global stage.

$3,000,000,000 even

I pay about $6.50/lbs for Organic Fair Trade Certified beans at my local Co-Op, Trader Joes, etc. It is very good, organic, helps poor famers and it is cheap.

Starbucks sells Fair Trade Certified coffee but they generally do not sell it in brewed form. Probably pricey too.

Blurb:
Coffee is the second largest US import after oil, and the US consumes one-fifth of all the world's coffee, making it the largest consumer in the world. But few Americans realize that agriculture workers in the coffee industry often toil in what can be described as "sweatshops in the fields." Many small coffee farmers receive prices for their coffee that are less than the costs of production, forcing them into a cycle of poverty and debt.

Fair Trade is a viable solution to this crisis, assuring consumers that the coffee we drink was purchased under fair conditions. To become Fair Trade certified, an importer must meet stringent international criteria; paying a minimum price per pound of $1.26, providing much needed credit to farmers, and providing technical assistance such as help transitioning to organic farming. Fair Trade for coffee farmers means community development, health, education, and environmental stewardship.

You can read more about Fair Trade coffee here.

for Fair Trade Certified Coffee

Consider choosing to pay a little extra for your coffee to encourage sustainable agriculture, preserve rainforests and help out the long term social fabric of coffee growers and their families.

Sure, he buys a Ford car (manufactured in Czechloslovakia), and a Dell computer (has a huge plant in China to serve the Asian market), and a Motorola cellphone (Motorola has plants friggin' everywhere), a pair of Gap jeans (this site says they're doing at least some of their manufacturing in Mexico, with the workers making around $0.28/hr), and a Maytag washer (some quick googling indicates that at least seven of the nine Maytag plants are in the U.S.).

So you're safe on the Maytag one. But aside from that, in what sense are these "American companies?" If it's because the bulk of the stockholders are American (something I couldn't confirm or deny), then it's hard to care. If it's because they oversee operations from here, it's again difficult to see how this equates to making things better for the average person.

Prosperity for American-based companies doesn't necessarily translate into prosperity for most Americans. Further, given the amount of loyalty displayed by these large companies in the past, there isn't anything stopping them from picking up and moving the bulk of the companies elsewhere.

The US is famous for not playing fair with trade. Take the story of Vietnamese catfish, for example.

Vietnam, a relatively poor country compared with other WTO members, is hoping to join next year. PovertyThe Catfish Farmers of America decided they weren't getting the profits they used to; Vietnam was supposedly dumping catfish on the market. Since they knew that they had no proof for any of this, they decided to claim that only American catfish could be called "catfish". Tariffs ranging from 37 to 64 percent have been slapped on Vietnamese catfish with nothing more than allegations.

The US really claims the WTO can help poorer countries. Well, the Vietnamese are well on their way to climbing out of poverty, but this catfish story has been a huge blow to the country. The US wants it both ways; I wonder how long it will take before the US starts paying a price for crimes like this.

Unfortunately, not even the Senate has the authority to negotiate policy on the FTAA. Why? Because on August 6th 2002 they gave up that right when president Bush signed into law 'Fast Track' trade promotion authority, granting the president the ability to negotiate trade treaties as he sees fit, independant of Congressional input. All Congress gets to do now is vote 'yes' or 'no' on the finalized text of agreements such as the FTAA.

The best action against this corporatization of national policy is to take to the streets. The FTAA's next Ministerial meeting is in Miami on November 20th and 21st. Get some friends in a car, drive there, and make your voice heard by the people making the decisions. Write articles. Put them in your local weeklies and on websites and in flyers and posters and handbills.

The FTAA isn't a national issue because there isn't enough public outcry. There isn't any public outcry because people don't know whats at stake. Educate yourself and others. Support Indymedia.

Unfortunately, not even the Senate has the authority to negotiate policy on the FTAA. Why? Because on August 6th 2002 they gave up that right when president Bush signed into law 'Fast Track' trade promotion authority, granting the president the ability to negotiate trade treaties as he sees fit, independant of Congressional input. All Congress gets to do now is vote 'yes' or 'no' on the finalized text of agreements such as the FTAA.

The best action against this corporatization of national policy is to take to the streets. The FTAA's next Ministerial meeting is in Miami on November 20th and 21st. Get some friends in a car, drive there, and make your voice heard by the people making the decisions. Write articles. Put them in your local weeklies and on websites and in flyers and posters and handbills.

The FTAA isn't a national issue because there isn't enough public outcry. There isn't any public outcry because people don't know whats at stake. Educate yourself and others. Support Indymedia.

The correct way to solve this is to de-classify corporations as individuals, and create a new category for "corporate speech". This may very well require a consitutional ammendment. There are clear distinctions between the things an individual says and the things a corporation says and the law needs to reflect that.

"Corporate speech" laws could easily cover telemarketing as well. The same issue is closely tied to issues of campaign finance as well. Corporations simply should not have equal rights with citizens because they do not have equal responsibilities or abilities.

The solution to telemarketing is to remove first ammendment protection for corporations.

• References:
• Nike's corporate speech: overwhelming the voice of citizens
• Nike settlement leaves corporate speech unresolved
• ACLU & Nike vs. Reason
• A proposal for a consitutional ammendment

-- Bob

Not exactly nullified, but many corporations are already finding ways to avoid paying their taxes.

"companies would have the right to vote"

In a sense, companies do vote... through political contributions, lobbyists, political favors, etc.

"environmental protections would go away"

With the passage of NAFTA, we already see this happening. From Global Exchange:

NAFTA includes unprecedented ways for corporations to attack our laws through so-called "investor-to-state" lawsuits. Such suits, established by NAFTA's Chapter 11, allow corporations to sue governments for compensation if they feel that any government action, including the enforcement of public health and safety laws, cuts into their profits. Already, Chapter 11 lawsuits have been used to repeal a Canadian law banning a chemical linked to nervous system damage, and to challenge California's phase-out of a gas additive, MTBE, that is poisoning the state's ground water. Negotiators want to include these anti-democratic lawsuits in the FTAA.

Man, that's a classic one, but I'll take mine politically and environmentally correct and fully capable of attaining the Big O. Just like my, errr, satisfied women...

Considering that to be "Fair Trade" certified, coffee should be bought to farmers at a minimum(sp?) of $1.26 per pound (see here) and normal selling price goes for $0.50 per pound... it's possible.

But even if it's "Fair Trade" it's still quite unfair to me if the farmers only gets ~13% (in the case of $10/pound) of sale price...

1. San Francisco Examiner
   
2. American Civil Libterties Union
   
3. Los Angeles Times (archived at globalechange.org, but I checked the article against LA Times' for-pay-archive)
   

a href=

And the reason the Nazi's needed to be defeated was the fact that they attacked and invaded other countries, just as the US is now doing.

So you're implying that the Americans and the VAST MAJORITY of the United Nations are "invading" Iraq? You should probably tune in to the reality that is the world around you.

Let me brief you:
a) Iraq has been found to be in BREACH of resolution 1441 which was passed UNANIMOUSLY a few months ago by ALL 15 UN permanent members.
b) France has disrupted the UN coalition because they have a multi-billion dollar stake in Iraqi oil.
c) They (the UN [with the exception of the few cowardly countries that France has "jaded" by their biased beligerence]) have decided to "remove a rapist/killler/torturer" dictator from power, and demonstrate that the UN is more than just a typical debate society which accomplishes nothing, but talks about "a lot".

If you're convinced that Saddam is a good guy, or that he should stay in power, or that the UN is in the wrong, perhaps you should move to Iraq.

Of course by doing so, you'd only end up being "liberated" by the majority of the UN nations as they free Iraq from it's tyranny.

1
2
3
4

Actually, some of them do. Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but the idea of U.S. military tasks being outsourced to private companies is a little bit creepy to me.

It's illegal in China to link to Falun Gong websites because FG is regarded as a "terrorist organization." I don't see this policy as very different. The question is: should we be happy that our laws are stomping out dissent in a manner similar to that of the Chinese? I'm sure it's still perfectly legal for UCSD students to link to organizations that advocate the violent overthrow (and commercial airplane bombing) of Cuba - there are members of such organizations in high places in the Bush administration. Otto Reich comes immediately to mind.

From the article:

"Project to ship a container of 230 refurbished computers to Ecuador to extend the technical capacity of civil society and the anti-globalization movement leading up to the anti-FTAA protests in early November. If successful this will be the first stage in an ongoing project to send large numbers of computers to social movements in the global south through indymedia."

Now, for those of you that want to make up your own minds, here's the FTAA Official website and here's Global Exchange's take on the situation. A Google search for FTAA turns up many links, but pro and con, and should provide enough information for the interested.

GM doesn't just make crops more plentiful or disease resistant, it introduces a new species. This can cause all sorts of problems. GM plants can destroy biodiversity, become unkillable mutant superweeds, and give corporations more IP power. As an example, I believe there was an old Slashdot story (I searched but couldn't find it) about a Canadian farmer who was being sued because genetically modified seed blew off of passing trucks and cross-fertilized his field.

This doesn't mean that GM is bad, or that Kona coffee growers aren't more concerned with the purity of their brand than their crop, just that we should proceed with care.

They probably won't need to. Somebody's going to have to speak up to claim it, and what do you want to bet Microsoft's lawyers will be there to make sure the winner has to spend that $200,000 on legal fees to fight off the DMCA?

Won't matter if it's international, neither. Didn't matter with Dmitri Skylarov, didn't matter with James Sabzali...

I mostly agree with you, however I thought I'd dispute a few points.

I'm also frightened by the proposed Palladium system from our favorite software monopoly. The notion that machines I buy for my own purposes will be "checking up on me" to make sure I'm honest is profoundly disturbing.

Palladium doesn't check up on you. It makes sure you can't do anything a few hardware/software venders don't want you to do. ...and it also enforces what you are allowed to do with specific files--set by the creator of that file. It's like they own your computer, and you are just borrowing it from them--funny how they're taking away ownership from the common person. Next, you'll be considered property of various corporations because you ate some of "their" food that you "rented".

If I may throw some blame in the other direction, think about these developments the next time you violate someone's copyright. If weren't doing that, the motivation behind a lot of these "Big Brother" technologies would go away. Your crime is not victimless.

I agree that copyright infringement has victims, however they are only victims if they lose a sale. IANAL, but that appears to be part of fair use--"(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." ( Title 17 of the United States Code - chapter 1 section 107)

However I disagree that infringement is the cause of these "big brother" measures. It's all about how many corporations believe that they have a "right" to profits. Why else would that clause in NAFTA chapter 11 be an issue? Corporations' interpetation of this law allowed them to sue the United States and Mexico because those countries enforced antitrust and environmental law! The entertainment cartel is no different--they believe that they should be allowed to sell plutonium laced food to children if they can make a profit from it. ...or create laws that allow them to control all audio and video distribution systems.

As for me, I'm going to avoid doing business with the cartel as much as possible. I just recieved my order from CDBaby, and I'm very satisfied with it. At least I have a resonable assurance that the money I pay them won't be used to take away my freedom, deny me the ability to play CDs I bought, or steal money from me.

Maybe the U.S. should put an end to the illegal immigration from Mexico and the Mexican Army crossing the border and annex Mexico. The U.S. is already training their Army

Well, it'd almost be nice if this was a flame, but it's probably a typical example of how most people have no idea what's going on in this region.

So, am I going to correct that massive information deficit with just one post?
Ha!
You gotta be kidding!

Ok, random facts:
Why are the 'Occupied Territories'/'Disputed Territories' known as the 'Occupied Territories'/'Disputed Territories'?
Because the UN has been saying since 1967 that Israel should withdraw from them.
http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1967/s67r242e.p df

Why do many Palestinines dislike the US?
You could just read this:
http://www.merip.org/media_outreach/CT-Harm-done-g lobe.html
Basically, the US is funding Israels occupation:
- Israel gets about a third of US foreign aid
even though
- Israel's GNP is higher than Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza combined.
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
(actually, most of the US's aid goes to military uses
http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/jul98/23_13_097.html )

What is one of the reasons Palestinians dislike Ariel Sharon?
He was Minister of Defence during a 1982 Palestinian massacre... gah, just look here:
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/palestine/ news2001/amnesty100301.html

About 3 times more Palestinians have died in this conflict than Israelis. About a quarter of them, children.
The Palestinians have vastly less land available to them, they are poorer - many are living in refugee camps, after all.

And blah, here's more.
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/palestine/ eduardoCohen.html

And "Will somebody please think of the Children!?"
http://playgroundsforpalestine.org/
Ok, so that's not actually funny...
:(

I could say that it's kinda atrocious how one group of people are treating another, considering they know how it is to be treated that way, and worse.
But I'd be living in Lah-lah land. People are not that nice, fair, or decent.

And yay, there's probably some people who will have gotten to this bit, and already decided I'm "a bad guy" so they can ignore me.

But it's not that simple.
It's a war, with all the nasties of a civil war.
It's in the best interests of Fundamentalists on both sides to continue the conflict, as it works helluva good in the popularity ratings.

Each side is gonna say the other side is THE BAD GUYS, because that's how wars work.
If you don't believe it, people don't want to fight them.

Currently, the Palestinians are getting the worse end of the stick, but Israelis are not "THE BAD GUYS" either.
It's just people - working, eating, caring for their children, getting on with life - on both sides, but until you realise that, there won't be peace.

A completely non-revolutionary idea, but still true.

Well, it'd almost be nice if this was a flame, but it's probably a typical example of how most people have no idea what's going on in this region.

So, am I going to correct that massive information deficit with just one post?
Ha!
You gotta be kidding!

Ok, random facts:
Why are the 'Occupied Territories'/'Disputed Territories' known as the 'Occupied Territories'/'Disputed Territories'?
Because the UN has been saying since 1967 that Israel should withdraw from them.
http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1967/s67r242e.p df

Why do many Palestinines dislike the US?
You could just read this:
http://www.merip.org/media_outreach/CT-Harm-done-g lobe.html
Basically, the US is funding Israels occupation:
- Israel gets about a third of US foreign aid
even though
- Israel's GNP is higher than Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza combined.
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
(actually, most of the US's aid goes to military uses
http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/jul98/23_13_097.html )

What is one of the reasons Palestinians dislike Ariel Sharon?
He was Minister of Defence during a 1982 Palestinian massacre... gah, just look here:
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/palestine/ news2001/amnesty100301.html

About 3 times more Palestinians have died in this conflict than Israelis. About a quarter of them, children.
The Palestinians have vastly less land available to them, they are poorer - many are living in refugee camps, after all.

And blah, here's more.
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/palestine/ eduardoCohen.html

And "Will somebody please think of the Children!?"
http://playgroundsforpalestine.org/
Ok, so that's not actually funny...
:(

I could say that it's kinda atrocious how one group of people are treating another, considering they know how it is to be treated that way, and worse.
But I'd be living in Lah-lah land. People are not that nice, fair, or decent.

And yay, there's probably some people who will have gotten to this bit, and already decided I'm "a bad guy" so they can ignore me.

But it's not that simple.
It's a war, with all the nasties of a civil war.
It's in the best interests of Fundamentalists on both sides to continue the conflict, as it works helluva good in the popularity ratings.

Each side is gonna say the other side is THE BAD GUYS, because that's how wars work.
If you don't believe it, people don't want to fight them.

Currently, the Palestinians are getting the worse end of the stick, but Israelis are not "THE BAD GUYS" either.
It's just people - working, eating, caring for their children, getting on with life - on both sides, but until you realise that, there won't be peace.

A completely non-revolutionary idea, but still true.

From another post:

um please explain that. what i see is a country led by an extreme right wing leader (athiests arent citizens, the only way to settle problems is thru war, big business rocks, capitalism rocks, etc). maybe i just missed all the humanitarian things bush is doing, so if you could please enlighten me i would be greatful.

No, Bush truly is not "extreme right wing", he's actually closer to down the middle. Aside from that, your definition of "right wing", "conservative" is full of misconceptions. You and many other "left wingers" might be dedicated to humanitarian ideals, but government involvement in everything is not the way to go about that. The United States was founded on the ideas now called "conservative". Read the Constitution if you doubt that. There's nothing there which gives the government the right to do "humanitarian" things. These are left to churches and other private organizations, where they belong, and where they actually get done. Government involvement only does the opposite, allowing those in power to get rich while the rest of the world suffers from excessive taxes and inflation.

From another post in this thread:

Liking capitalism is an "extreme right" idea? We live in a capitalist society.

Sadly, no. We live in a progressively socialist society. We (at least the US) started out capitalist, but with things like the IMF and World Bank, we have been progressing down the road of Fabian Socialism for many years. "Fabian" is the term chosen by the Fabian Society, led by such English socialists as Sidney and Beatrice Webb and George Bernard Shaw. Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrocosus was the Roman general who won the Second Punic War against Hannibal:

{Fabian policy}, a policy like that of Fabius Maximus, who, by carefully avoiding decisive contests, foiled Hannibal, harassing his army by marches, countermarches, and ambuscades; a policy of delays and cautions. (dict.org)

Thus, the Fabian goal is the same as that of the Communist Bolsheviks, but their means. are through propaganda and legislation rather than violent overthrow.

The stained glass window at the Beatrice Webb House in Surrey, England, shows Shaw and Webb reshaping the world on an anvil, with the crest of a wolf in sheep's clothing in the background between them. It also portrays the masses below them, kneeling to worship books advocating the theories of socialism.

Through such institutions and policies as the Federal Reserve, FSLIC, and FDIC in America, and the IMF (also see: here) and World Bank internationally, America and the rest of the world have been submerged in the "ideals" of socialism.

For more information, if you want to be an informed and educated individual rather than another mindless person screaming "right wing extreme!", do some research on the Bolsheviks/Mensheviks, socialism, the Federal Reserve System, the FDIC, other policies instituted during Roosevelt's socialist "New Deal", the IMF and World bank established at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 by Fabian socialists at least two members of a Communist espionage ring in Washington, among other things.

For a start, I recommend The Creature from Jekyll Island to anyone who thinks we truly live in a free-market, capitalist society. The author, through much research, exposes the mechanisms which are making this society socialist (which is to say, liberal, aka "left"), and which have been the cause of massive inflation over the years by creating oney out of nothing.

From another post:

um please explain that. what i see is a country led by an extreme right wing leader (athiests arent citizens, the only way to settle problems is thru war, big business rocks, capitalism rocks, etc). maybe i just missed all the humanitarian things bush is doing, so if you could please enlighten me i would be greatful.

No, Bush truly is not "extreme right wing", he's actually closer to down the middle. Aside from that, your definition of "right wing", "conservative" is full of misconceptions. You and many other "left wingers" might be dedicated to humanitarian ideals, but government involvement in everything is not the way to go about that. The United States was founded on the ideas now called "conservative". Read the Constitution if you doubt that. There's nothing there which gives the government the right to do "humanitarian" things. These are left to churches and other private organizations, where they belong, and where they actually get done. Government involvement only does the opposite, allowing those in power to get rich while the rest of the world suffers from excessive taxes and inflation.

From another post in this thread:

Liking capitalism is an "extreme right" idea? We live in a capitalist society.

Sadly, no. We live in a progressively socialist society. We (at least the US) started out capitalist, but with things like the IMF and World Bank, we have been progressing down the road of Fabian Socialism for many years. "Fabian" is the term chosen by the Fabian Society, led by such English socialists as Sidney and Beatrice Webb and George Bernard Shaw. Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrocosus was the Roman general who won the Second Punic War against Hannibal:

{Fabian policy}, a policy like that of Fabius Maximus, who, by carefully avoiding decisive contests, foiled Hannibal, harassing his army by marches, countermarches, and ambuscades; a policy of delays and cautions. (dict.org)

Thus, the Fabian goal is the same as that of the Communist Bolsheviks, but their means. are through propaganda and legislation rather than violent overthrow.

The stained glass window at the Beatrice Webb House in Surrey, England, shows Shaw and Webb reshaping the world on an anvil, with the crest of a wolf in sheep's clothing in the background between them. It also portrays the masses below them, kneeling to worship books advocating the theories of socialism.

Through such institutions and policies as the Federal Reserve, FSLIC, and FDIC in America, and the IMF (also see: here) and World Bank internationally, America and the rest of the world have been submerged in the "ideals" of socialism.

For more information, if you want to be an informed and educated individual rather than another mindless person screaming "right wing extreme!", do some research on the Bolsheviks/Mensheviks, socialism, the Federal Reserve System, the FDIC, other policies instituted during Roosevelt's socialist "New Deal", the IMF and World bank established at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 by Fabian socialists at least two members of a Communist espionage ring in Washington, among other things.

For a start, I recommend The Creature from Jekyll Island to anyone who thinks we truly live in a free-market, capitalist society. The author, through much research, exposes the mechanisms which are making this society socialist (which is to say, liberal, aka "left"), and which have been the cause of massive inflation over the years by creating oney out of nothing.

Too bad that, in most cases, companies don't clean themselves up; they convince local government to establish c o r p o r a t e 'wealthfare' programs that force the public's tax money to foot the bill for whatever maintenance and equipment is needed to reach standards set by environmental regulations.

In 1999, Brazil spent 1.7% of it's GNP on defense. The same year, the USA spent 3.2%. Of course, the USA GNP per capital is much higher than the Brazilian, so that a bigger share of a bigger pie.

The defensive posture of many of the respondents to Jon's article is quite instructive. Indeed, his point "...to be ignorant of the past is to be defenseless against the future..." is bolstered by the feverish reactions of a very priviledged sector of the world's population (I myself am among them).

One respondent asserted how hard we geeks have worked to gain our technical expertise. "Tough Noogies" he says to those who lack an understanding such as his, because they are obviously lazy or stupid if they don't understand email encryption programs.

Most of my tech friends are white, male, middle-class 20-somethings, who benefitted from access to a CS department in some university, parents who paid for their first Commodore, and life in an advanced capitalist economy which values their tech skills. All too often they are unaware of the blood and sweat from which they directly benefit. Arrogantly, they talk of how hard they worked to get where they are.

I don't agree with Jon's praise of individualism, as it ignores the weight carried by those who toiled in some sweatshop to assemble everything from the boards in your PC to the shirt on your back to the coffee your drinking. There is an egregious arrogance in the tech community about the historical role of colonial subjugation, military brutality, and fierce labor exploitation in bringing us to our current state of technical comfort.

What is needed in the opensource community is not a focus on more individualism, but rather an emphasis on how our feelings about freedom of speech and information are directly related to realities of the global economy. What Jon described as a handful of protestors in Seattle was estimated by some to be almost 50,000 mostly peaceful demostrators who were taking to the streets in protest of what the corporations are doing to the planet.

Those of you concerned about freedom and democracy have a lot in common with the people protesting in Seattle, DC and now Philadelphia.

I must disagree. It is true that companies will do whatever is in their self-interest but this is not always the same as the best-interests of consumers, quite often counter to the best-interests of labor, and nearly always counter to the "interests" of the environment. Without regulation it is easier and cheaper for a company to trick, disceve, and otherwise screw-over other parties than to act in "enlightened self-interest".

The free market seems to benefit a few of us in the first world but harms a great many less fortunate. If you are interested, here are some links about what the free market is doing to other countries right now:

Corporate Watch

Global Exchange

Campaign for Labor Rights

/joeyo

I'd say that the most important thing we can do is educate ourselves. Before you rag on Katz for being a conspiracy theorist, have a careful look at what is going on.

As geeks, we will probably be the last to be affected by globalization. I don't really give a f*ck if the thought police make it impossible for me to download the latest Backstreet Boys single without paying for it. But the level of control the "powers that be" are attempting to gain is frightening.

It isn't a conspiracy, it is a bunch of greedy lawyers working for greedy corporations trying to pass laws in their favor, in order to make as much money as possible. What does that mean? If the Man had his way, we wouldn't be able to post negative product reviews online, let alone create laws that favor human rights or the environment versus corporate rights.

How many people do you suppose know what the WTO protests were all about, besides a few news clips? They were about fighting corporate domination, globalization, Orwellian politics, whatever you want to call it.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is just a small piece of the puzzle.

Geeks may not have the voter turnout that "old people" have, but we have a grasp on communications technology like nobody else. Once we educate ourselves, we can begin the process of educating others, by posting messages like this, creating educational content, or just talking about it. Learn not just what is going on in the legal realm, but how your decisions (your job, what you buy, what you eat, where you shop) effect the rest of the world.

So, where do you start? Read the Global Exchange's book "Corporations are Gonna Get Your Mamma" (better yet, don't order it from Amazon, go get it from your local independent bookseller).

Or read Chomsky or Nader. Go see Jello Biafra next time he does a spoken word tour. Stop reading corporate controlled media entirely.

Once you educate yourself, it is your decision whether to do something or not. There are lots of outlets for activism. Join your local Green Party, write a Windows virus, quit your job as the E-trade webmaster, become a teacher...

This whole democracy thing doesn't work unless our population is well-informed and active. What's the other alternative to a democracy? A technocracy? Try plutocracy. The people with the money are the people with power. I imagine that pretty much everyone that reads Slashdot are pretty bright folks. What are we called? The emerging Knowledge Worker class? Even if we "allowed" the Man 10 times more power than he has now, you and I would probably be just fine. We will be able to find a job. We will be able to exercise most of the freedoms we enjoy now. So maybe you need to ask yourself if democracy is worth fighting for.

I don't think that they do have the power to shut down a countries authority, but they certainly can undermine the undermine a countries sovereignty. Global Exchange states that:

"By creating a supranational court system that has the power to economically sanction countries to force them to comply with its rulings, the WTO has essentially replaced national governments with an unelected, unaccountable corporate-backed government. For the past nine years, the European Union has banned beef raised with artificial growth hormones. The WTO recently ruled that this public health law is a barrier to trade and should be abolished. The EU has to rollback its ban or pay stiff penalties. Under the WTO, governments can no longer act in the public interest. "

The following are useful guides for determining what power they have NOW and what is on the table for the Millennium Round.

Much of the power is behind the scenes and through influencing government power, so it is harder to measure.

For more info

Good Summary!

As stated by Global Exchange:
The WTO is increasing inequality Free trade is not working for the majority of the world. During a the most recent period of rapid growth in global trade and investment--1960 to 1998--inequality worsened both internationally and within countries. The UN Development Program reports that the richest 20 percent of the world's population consume 86 percent of the world's resources while the poorest 80 percent consume just 14 percent. WTO rules have hastened these trends by opening up countries to foreign investment and thereby making it easier for production to go where the labor is cheapest and most easily exploited and environmental costs are low. This pulls down wages and environmental standards in developed countries who are having to compete globally.

To protest the WTO, Join Protesters Around the World on November 30th.

For Canadian Protests