Slashdot Mirror

It seems to me that this concentration of power will certainly lead to abuse. I had been hoping that the FTC would impose restrictions on this new behemoth, but that does not appear to be the case. You've all heard the arguments before, but no one expresses the need for dissent better than Noam Chomsky.

From Noam Chomsky:

"There's a general tendency for the whole system to move toward oligopoly, a small number of huge corporations which dominate one or another area and usually interact."*

"The current merger is ... a step towards restricting control over the global media system to an even narrower range of private power interests, relying -- as is often the case -- on publicly funded initiatives, ideas, development, provided to them as a gift without public consent, even awareness."*

A good Chomsky resource.

For those with a taste for the ironic, here's the transcript of a chat with Prof. Chomsky in 1995 on AOL.

For general corporate news, try http://www.corpwatch.org/

Check out this concern from the ACLU about the possibility of censorship as a result of this decision.

It seems to me that this concentration of power will certainly lead to abuse. I had been hoping that the FTC would impose restrictions on this new behemoth, but that does not appear to be the case. You've all heard the arguments before, but no one expresses the need for dissent better than Noam Chomsky.

From Noam Chomsky:

"There's a general tendency for the whole system to move toward oligopoly, a small number of huge corporations which dominate one or another area and usually interact."*

"The current merger is ... a step towards restricting control over the global media system to an even narrower range of private power interests, relying -- as is often the case -- on publicly funded initiatives, ideas, development, provided to them as a gift without public consent, even awareness."*

A good Chomsky resource.

For those with a taste for the ironic, here's the transcript of a chat with Prof. Chomsky in 1995 on AOL.

For general corporate news, try http://www.corpwatch.org/

Check out this concern from the ACLU about the possibility of censorship as a result of this decision.

[The following is a revision of a letter I have been distributing via email. I ought to have posted this earlier, but I lacked the courage. You can find the original on my website.]

Dear US Citizen,

I am writing to remind you to vote conscientiously tomorrow. I will also indulge in a little political activism by introducing some issues (watered stock, free trade, and others) for your consideration. As you read this message, keep in mind that I am not recommending that you vote for this or that candidate, but only that you think about what is at stake, make a choice, and vote.

I wish to bring to your attention a pattern of behavior by national governments that suggests that, in the world-wide political arena, the interests of citizens rank far below those of large corporations, and that the latter seek actively to diminish the influence of citizens on their governments' legislative activity. In some countries, citizens are even compelled by law to foot the bill for this nonsense. ;) It is worth noting that the worst consequences of this are not in the future: most US citizens feel so disenfranchised today that they either don't vote or vote for the lesser evil, and US taxpayers (citizens or not) bear the burden of unprecedented personal and national debt. If you don't vote, you will be capitulating, and the future of US politics will be that much closer to a foregone conclusion. As a citizen of the European Union and a resident of Switzerland, a very small sovereign state, I have learned that the rest of the world cannot afford apathy or carelessness on the part of registered voters in the US. You can think of this message as a plea for help.

[As you read this, please excuse the careless use of "Americans" where "US citizens" would have been correct.]

The first issue I want to discuss is the connection between corporations and public money. You may or may not be aware of the emergence of watered stock and pooling as a powerful weapons in the corporations' arsenal; for example, Microsoft and Cisco have managed to attain tax-free status by writing off stock options (and then earning some of that back when new stock is issued for the purpose of redeeming those options) and Citigroup recapitalizes and decapitalizes itself arbitrarily to achieve spectacular mergers (thus posing a great risk to the banking sector) -- right under the nose of the SEC. In a perfect world, this sort of abuse would have been reigned in already but, in our world, the possibility of relief seems remote. Let me make this plain: the watered stock write-off scheme amounts to a theft of public money and pooling needlessly endangers the stability of the economy. At the very least, insofar as stock represents a redeemable claim against a company's assets, it is a perversion of the modern economic perspective in which the stock market is allegedly as adequate a store of value as gold ever was.

Actually, said modern economic perspective was already quite perverse (in ways too numerous to mention) long before watered stock was even imagined. Such perversity is a natural consequence of the absence of an adequate standard of value, which was in turn an intended consequence of changes in policy that took place earlier in the century. Long ago, Alan Greenspan explained that the institution he heads today is a powerful instrument with which the government can confiscate part of the value of your money and, not incidentally, engage in deficit spending regularly. You might argue that calculated inflation is a small price to pay for being able to float a chronic debt and sustain a deficit as needed. You might argue that your national debt is presently unassailable because American households, which on average have a negative savings rate and face unabatable credit card debt, are financially overcommitted as it is. You might be wrong. Habitual deficit spending and the resulting chronic national indebtedness, along with the corporate welfare mechanisms that aggravate them, are to blame for your misery: the federal government uses inflation and national debt to mortgage your personal assets and your public resources, respectively, as effortlessly as a corporation uses watered stock to dilute the value of your share holdings. Think what you will of Greenspan's former support of the gold standard, but you have to admit that he was correct in predicting the practical consequences of failing to provide an adequate store of value, and in identifying the welfare state as the primary beneficiary:

Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes.

What he may not have realized then is that corporate welfare is just as likely a welfare scheme as any other.

It now behooves us to ask not only how this wave of abuse can be stemmed, but also how this sort of situation can arise even under the watchful eye of our elected officials. The answer is that, in the US, the Executive and the Agencies operate with considerable autonomy; many important decisions are often made away from public scrutiny, largely or altogether, and there is a vested interest on the part of large corporations to increase the autonomy, if not the stature, of these public servants. Consider the case of MAI, the Multilateral agreement on investment -- a charter of rights and freedoms for corporations. Those of you who have not heard of it should at least know that it was the culmination of attempts to transfer some important powers from the popularly elected legislative bodies to the executive officials of sovereign states and to give corporations the legal standing of sovereign states. Let me take a moment to explore the brilliance of these tactics.

• When decision making forums are sheltered from public scrutiny, executive officials can serve corporate interests with impunity.
• When corporations have the same legal standing as sovereign states, large multinational corporations have power over small sovereign states -- perhaps even those in which the company is incorporated.

Surely, you can give examples of an administration negotiating treaties that would be difficult to accept for a majority of citizens and impossible to ratify for most congresses; now, try to imagine a future in which the legislature is powerless to stop unfavorable or undesirable consequences of free trade arrangements that it did not have the opportunity to approve or reject. Surely, you can name instances of a corporation getting away with practices that a majority of citizens would condemn but which the courts are powerless to stop in the absence of adequate legislation or jurisdiction; now, try to imagine a future in which a corporation undertakes legal action against sovereign states for refusing to let it set up shop, or even for having laws and regulations that hinder it, such as strict environmental standards.

"That's not a problem," you say, "because Public Citizen told us about MAI in the nick of time." That's not the point; the point is that MAI is evidence of an alarming, long-standing pattern of behavior: as Noam Chomsky has said, our governments really are, and have been for a long time, trying to undermine democracy. Consider, as further evidence, the case of Australia's MIGA, an agency that predates MAI and obviates the "need" for it.

Now, the two leading candidates, Al Gore and George Bush, look at the issue very differently, saying that free trade creates jobs, without mentioning what kind and where. Actually, Bush has even said that it is the duty of the administration to "sell" free trade (on WTO's terms, of course) to US citizens! Ralph Nader, on the other hand, has said that he wants the US to withdraw from the WTO and that we should re-examine the premise of so-called "free trade" agreements. I was going to give you a reference to Nader's website with that last statement, as WTO/NAFTA was one of the three key issues on his home page until just a few days ago, but now it is not even in the issue summaries. What could this mean? I think it means that he has pushed one of his favorite issues into the background because he needs enough votes to get federal funding for his next campaign. And this, in turn, suggests that American politicians think that the US electorate is politically comatose. You can help prove them wrong: a strong showing by Americans on election day would tell US politicians and corporations and the world that Americans are still in control of their political system. It would be a great sequel to the Battle of Seattle, with a lot less violence and just as much press coverage. Realistically, you probably cannot afford to act as resolutely as José Bové, but you can vote.

When I think about US politics, I think of the fable in which a master presents some options to his student, threatening to beat him with a cane if he chooses poorly; the essence of the problem is that the student cannot choose any of the options presented to him without risking bodily harm. (You should now take a moment to discover how the student can avoid the beating and what the moral of the story is.) You can and should vote for the presidential candidate who will most closely represent your interests, as you have more valid options than the mainstream media seem to suggest: you can vote for George W. Bush; you can vote for Al Gore; you can vote for Ralph Nader; you can vote for Harry Browne; and you can vote for some other candidate (yes, there are more) though his name may not appear on your ballot. If you cast a so-called "useful" vote, you are supporting a system in which you have a lot less influence than you otherwise might, and you might get beat with a cane. Of course, if you don't vote, you have no voice, nor will you ever, and when you and I finally get beat with a very stiff cane, no one will hear us scream. Please, vote.

Yours,

Alejandro Gómez de Argüello

You've answered your own question. You did well in life because you got a good start: your parents were well-educated and supportive. If they had been illiterate, I doubt that you would have fared as well. Poverty breeds poverty.

There are about one million Americans who work full-time, but are still homeless. Moreover, there 1.2 billion people in the world who live on less than $1 a day. I find this unacceptable. Since I earn far more than most, I think it's right that I should give a large portion of my income to help those who are less well-off.

For more about global poverty, see this.

For the causes of poverty, see this.

Then read this or this or this to find out more about what can be done.
--

The wealth of the world is becoming more and more concentrated: a few thousands of people (most of them Americans) hold ~80% of the entire world's wealth, while about half the world's population (that's like 3,000,000,000 people) works for less than $5 a day. Nearly a Billion people are under-nourished; about 20,000 people die of starvation every day. Even in the U.S.A., whose inhabitants hold near 50% of the global wealth, 45 million people are without health insurance.

Us techies, my friends, are but a small minority who gets to enjoy high standards of living, either because of the type of work we do (high tech, good for making even more money for rich), or the country where we live (you have a good chance at comfortable life if you live in Europe or the US).

If I were to walk up to one of the filthy rich, a person who can really stand to make some serious spending, and tell him: "Hey, man, let's distribute food and medication in Africa and Asia!" he'd answer "Where's the profit in that? I'd rather develop some new tech contraption and sell it to the rich 20% of humanity for loads of money." It doesn't really bother the likes of him that the money he's carrying is but the representation of the product of the work of many people, most of them probably third-worlders...

Which brings us to politics. Without making any personal accusations of this person or another, we can see that the world's governments, which were supposed to act on our behalf ('our' meaning the world's population) have acted so that a minority of people could become ever richer. In fact, some even argue that governments are designed to benefit only a small ruling class. Want an example? James Madisson, one of the drafters of the US constitution, is known to have said during the constitutional debates that the constitution must provide means of preventing the poor masses from pludering the opulent few... and, in retrospect, I suppose that it does.

As a final note, just remember that our actions as inhabitants of the globe are not always reversible to a better state of affairs - global warming, pollution, depleted natural resources - they're only going to get worse unless we learn to sometimes turn away from the monitor and look out the window.

Check out a more detailed analysis of the global socio-economic system at ZNet magazine

Investing in the stock market in of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. It can provide a company with much needed capital to produce greater growth. However, speculation is the act of putting money into a company on whim; for short term. Speculation, as I see it, is the factor in the stock market which destablizes it. Instead of investing in the long term, day traders do by the minute profit catching, irregardless of the actual value of the company. Additionally, I think it's safe to say that Nader is against any method in which you could make significant amounts of money at the expense of someone else, which is exactly what stock market speculation does: when everyone sells off their stock simultaneously to profit off of the skyward bound IPO, and it tanks, the people who joined in late are screwed.

It falls in line with the core belief that corporations, and those who are fortunate to have money to place in corporations, shouldn't be wholeheartedly congratulated for screwing over the hard working laborer.

For more information concerning the ways that corporations screw over democracy, check out this interview done with MIT Professor Noam Chomsky.


yours,

Here's some more info from Zmag about the conditions the jailed in Philly are facing, and the abuse of civil rights, i.e., pepper spray on non-violent people, denying lawyer visits, excessive bail (as in the article, $500,000 for a misdemeanor?!)

Here's some more info from Zmag about the conditions the jailed in Philly are facing, and the abuse of civil rights, i.e., pepper spray on non-violent people, denying lawyer visits, excessive bail (as in the article, $500,000 for a misdemeanor?!)

I'm sure that they would just frame you for something similar if they happened to get inadmissible evidence.

"Scott, Ann and Milo were transporting the other 16 people in their van to the scene of an area to protest. Kendall and I were going to be support people for the group. Kendall and I were supposed to rendezvous with the group at the Greyhound bus station at 3:00 p.m., at which point we would go to the scene of the protest (two blocks away) and perform the action we had planned. The group never showed up.

Finally, at 3:30 p.m., Kendall got a phone call on his cell phone. It was Scott. He told Kendall that 15 Philadelphia State Police officers had surrounded his van and arrested everyone in it. The 19 had not committed any crimes or actions of any kind. They were not anticipating arrest."

"Despite denials by the Philadelphia police to some Green Party members from Houston and me, Scott has confirmed the civil and human rights abuse stories. He says none of the prisoners were given food for 14 hours. He says they never had bathroom breaks. He was told by jail guards that an ACLU lawyer came to represent the arrested activists at their arraignment hearings, but that he was not allowed to meet with any of the arrested activists.

Scott says that asthmatics and diabetics were not allowed to have their medicines. He told me that one diabetic woman became sick and passed out from not having had her medicine, and that the arrested activists had to chant for several hours before the nurse finally came to check on her."

"But whatever the number is, the reports from the inside are not good. For at least ten hours there was no food, at one point the guards had suspended bathroom ?privileges?[MS '?' for "'" retained], the legal team representing those arrested had very little access to their clients, and many of those held were told that their lawyers were not coming to see them when in fact the real story was that the authorities were not telling the legal team who was being held where. On top of this, there are reports of police and guard violence against people in custody, and at least one woman was seen being dragged naked and bleeding. Several people have been held in isolation, including those identified as organizers, and are being given more serious charges. The medical needs of some of the arrestees are not being met, including the withholding of asthma inhalers and medication for hypoglycemia."

"Valocchi [a journalist arrested while covering the protests], still wearing a red jailhouse wristband, said he did not get food for 24 hours, and did not get access to a telephone for 48 hours, even though he cooperated fully with police. In all, he was held for 49 hours. "I hear my girlfriend's been looking for me for like three days," he said. He also said there was one man in a cell near him "vomiting profusely for at least an hour before he got any medical attention. And when he did, that medical attention was a cup of juice and a sugar pill."

Valocchi said he was not the only innocent bystander thrown into jail. "There was a jogger who got yanked in. He was just a scared mama's boy in running shoes and a security shirt. I heard him on the phone with his mom, and he sounded completely terrified, telling his mom they were treating us like pigs."

"As a journalist, I've always been a big defender of the Philadelphia Police Department in general," he said. "But no more. They were completely out of control." "

I'm sure that they would just frame you for something similar if they happened to get inadmissible evidence.

"Scott, Ann and Milo were transporting the other 16 people in their van to the scene of an area to protest. Kendall and I were going to be support people for the group. Kendall and I were supposed to rendezvous with the group at the Greyhound bus station at 3:00 p.m., at which point we would go to the scene of the protest (two blocks away) and perform the action we had planned. The group never showed up.

Finally, at 3:30 p.m., Kendall got a phone call on his cell phone. It was Scott. He told Kendall that 15 Philadelphia State Police officers had surrounded his van and arrested everyone in it. The 19 had not committed any crimes or actions of any kind. They were not anticipating arrest."

"Despite denials by the Philadelphia police to some Green Party members from Houston and me, Scott has confirmed the civil and human rights abuse stories. He says none of the prisoners were given food for 14 hours. He says they never had bathroom breaks. He was told by jail guards that an ACLU lawyer came to represent the arrested activists at their arraignment hearings, but that he was not allowed to meet with any of the arrested activists.

Scott says that asthmatics and diabetics were not allowed to have their medicines. He told me that one diabetic woman became sick and passed out from not having had her medicine, and that the arrested activists had to chant for several hours before the nurse finally came to check on her."

"But whatever the number is, the reports from the inside are not good. For at least ten hours there was no food, at one point the guards had suspended bathroom ?privileges?[MS '?' for "'" retained], the legal team representing those arrested had very little access to their clients, and many of those held were told that their lawyers were not coming to see them when in fact the real story was that the authorities were not telling the legal team who was being held where. On top of this, there are reports of police and guard violence against people in custody, and at least one woman was seen being dragged naked and bleeding. Several people have been held in isolation, including those identified as organizers, and are being given more serious charges. The medical needs of some of the arrestees are not being met, including the withholding of asthma inhalers and medication for hypoglycemia."

"Valocchi [a journalist arrested while covering the protests], still wearing a red jailhouse wristband, said he did not get food for 24 hours, and did not get access to a telephone for 48 hours, even though he cooperated fully with police. In all, he was held for 49 hours. "I hear my girlfriend's been looking for me for like three days," he said. He also said there was one man in a cell near him "vomiting profusely for at least an hour before he got any medical attention. And when he did, that medical attention was a cup of juice and a sugar pill."

Valocchi said he was not the only innocent bystander thrown into jail. "There was a jogger who got yanked in. He was just a scared mama's boy in running shoes and a security shirt. I heard him on the phone with his mom, and he sounded completely terrified, telling his mom they were treating us like pigs."

"As a journalist, I've always been a big defender of the Philadelphia Police Department in general," he said. "But no more. They were completely out of control." "

If you think that the technologically knowledgable are not interested in real issues, then how do you think that the current movement is coming together?

How is it that the Seattle WTO protests were the largest in history when a year ago nobody even knew what the WTO was? Could it be because of the rapid spread of information over the net? And also becaus of the ability to organize and meet up with people from all over the world instantly?

Nah...

You should be aware of discrediting the growing movement. The damage you do could worsen your own situation. You're just adding to the mainstream media's din and ignoring the reality of america today. Here's something a little more hopeful from Howard Zinn a famous _historian_:

I think that the public in the United States is ready to listen to ideas about a new way of ordering society. I say ready because I think there's a general dissatisfaction with the american political system. There's an understanding among americans that the political system doesn't work. That's why fifty percent of the electorate does not go to the polls. And of those that do go to the polls, there's a distinct lack of enthusiasm. There's an understanding that the domination of the political process by the two major parties in the United States doesn't allow for different kinds of opinions, different kinds of voices, different kinds of political alternatives. Understanding of that. If you look at public opinion surveys in the United States over the last five or ten years, you'll find an interesting thing, and that is that public opinion surveys show that the american people as a whole are far more progressive than either of the major parties. You'll find again and again that the american public wants the goverment to intervene in the economy on behalf of people who are in need. You'll find that they want the goverment to tax the rich more heavily, that they're opposed to reducing the taxes on capital gains which benefit the wealthiest portion of the country. Again and again, the public has said , in these polls, that they would like to see a new independent political force other than the Democrats and the Republicans enter the contest for political office. So the system on the one hand, which goes along concentrating more and more wealth at the top and more and more power at the top and then on the other hand, there's this reservoir of opposition in the country which has not yet organized itself into a political force. And I think that i will take a lot more education and a lot more connections made among the millions of people in this country who want to change before something important and dramatic happens....

I think what sustains me is that I'm in contact with a lot of people around the country. I go around the country, do a lot of speaking, I go to all sorts of places all over the United States and wherever I go, I see people who are trying to do something about justice. Wherever I go I see people struggling: women struggling for equal rights, people working against racial discrimination, I see gay and lesbian people organizing for their rights, I see people protesting against foreign policy. Wherever i go I see this. And wherever I go I meet wonderful people and however small is the town that I'm going into, there's always a cluster of really good people who've devoted themselves to social change. Now this encourages me, this keeps me going. And this is in the immediate sense. But I think what also keeps me going is the kind of sense of history. There's a recognition that although cynicism and pessimism are sort of natural feelings when you look around at any given moment and see that things don't seem to be changing in the direction. That feeling of cynicism and pessimism has existed all through american history, in every period. And yet, at certain moments in history when people begin to speak up, when people begin to get together at certain moments of history, suddenly, there's a breakthrough and something happens. It happened in the thirties with the rise of the labor movement, it happened in the sixties with the civil rights and the anti-war movement and women's movement. And I think a little historical perspective would dispel some of the pessimism. People would realize that in the years before the rise of any of these movements, everything looked gloomy and then suddenly, things began to happen. Things can happen very fast when the indignation of the people overflows and when they begin to get together. I'll say just one more thing. And that is, one of the things that makes me continue to sort of speak out and to try to be active and involved is simply that it makes life more interesting and life more enjoyable, life more worthwhile. I think of Tolstoy and his story of the death of Ivan Illich about this very successful man on his deathbed who asked the question: "Have I done all the right things? I've become prosperous and successful and respected by the society. Why am I dissatisfied?" Because he hadn't really done anything important to change the world. And I think people who are involved lead more fruitful and more fulfilling lives. So that's what sustains me."

___________________________
Michael Cardenas
http://www.fiu.edu/~mcarde02
http://www.deneba.com/linux

Perhaps the real issue here isn't so much open and closed media, but that the person paying the bills has the say.

And just for fun, and because it might actually be relevant, a link to Necessary Illusions by Noam Chomsky, a guy who makes reading Jon's stuff feel short and refreshing.

Perhaps the real issue here isn't so much open and closed media, but that the person paying the bills has the say.

And just for fun, and because it might actually be relevant, a link to Necessary Illusions by Noam Chomsky, a guy who makes reading Jon's stuff feel short and refreshing.

Question:
Can we realistically say that the internet is making a difference in the political process? Can a basically unknown candidate like Ralph Nader get a resonable number of votes thanks to just his web site? Or are people really just going to the web sites of the candidates they hear about on television? In the closed capitalist mind space we inhabit, big monetary interests determine the range of possibilities people think are viable.

According to a recent IBM/Altavista study, even on the net the big money sites like Yahoo "basically control the flow of information". So can we really think that the net is going to suddenly bring us democracy despite the nondemocratic nature of our entire economy/political system?

Vote for Ralph Nader. Period. thanks! his web site kicks ass too.

michael

___________________________
Michael Cardenas
http://www.fiu.edu/~mcarde02
http://www.deneba.com/linux

Question:
Can we realistically say that the internet is making a difference in the political process? Can a basically unknown candidate like Ralph Nader get a resonable number of votes thanks to just his web site? Or are people really just going to the web sites of the candidates they hear about on television? In the closed capitalist mind space we inhabit, big monetary interests determine the range of possibilities people think are viable.

According to a recent IBM/Altavista study, even on the net the big money sites like Yahoo "basically control the flow of information". So can we really think that the net is going to suddenly bring us democracy despite the nondemocratic nature of our entire economy/political system?

Vote for Ralph Nader. Period. thanks! his web site kicks ass too.

michael

___________________________
Michael Cardenas
http://www.fiu.edu/~mcarde02
http://www.deneba.com/linux

I have a summary analysis here.

I have a summary analysis here.

The simple reason is that they are mis-informed about both issues. PNTR advocates falsely state if the United States does no grant PNTR to China that they will not have all of the trade benefits that China will extend to other countries, most notably WTO benefits. The US and China made an agreement in 1979 that clearly states that China must extend any trade privileges to the US that it gives to other countries. This agreement still applies if the US does not grant PNTR to China, in fact, the US gives away nothing if it does not grant PNTR to China. Anyone who states otherwise regarding this agreement either has not done the proper research or is trying to skew the facts. Quite the opposite is true if the United States does pass the bill for Chinese PNTR. The first thing that the US gives away is its yearly review of trade with China based on Chinese violation of US laws such as labor laws, human rights laws, and environmental laws. The second thing that the US gives away is the ability to enforce any domestic laws relating to labor, human rights, and the environment. This is because if the US grants PNTR to China, it will have to recognize a full WTO relationship with China. As we have seen many times before, the WTO overturns domestic laws that it deems "detrimental to free trade" and would cripple US ability to sway China based on trade. Not to mention that China is a potential threat to US national security. The United States is responsible for 42% of Chinese exports, and is in essence funding China's military mobilization. If China invades Taiwan and the US enters the battle to support them, China has indicated that it would strike out against the US. US importing of Chinese goods would only increase if China were granted PNTR. Why would the US even consider doing this?

Enter multi-national business interests. Until now, many corporations have held back on opening up factories in China because if the US were to restrict Chinese trade, they would stand to lose a lot of money. If PNTR is granted to China then there is a free ticket for these corporations to open up shop in China. With the lax Chinese labor laws, many companies will close manufacturing plants in countries that have better worker's rights to move to China and increase their profit, leaving many unemployed in countries with labor standards. It seems that everything pertaining the the US government these days is wrapped up in big business. It is also these big businesses that limit access to the truth about these issues. They all spread around the same lies that the politicians believe because they are paid to. It seems that Marx's predictions about capitalism are becoming a reality in the very times in which we live. It saddens and embarrasses me that the experiment in democracy that is the United States has been turning into nothing more than a corporate illusion almost from the nation's beginning.

The embargoes against Cuba are another matter altogether. The United States has tried everything it could possibly to do remove Fidel Castro from power. Yet he is still there, out lasting eight, soon to be nine, US presidents. This reflects the general attitude of the US towards Cuba since Cuba fought Spain for its independence one hundred years ago. That attitude is of control without ownership. The US wants control over the Cuban economy and will try anything to gain it. Cuba has set the dangerous precedent of having an economy and government that benefit those in need, an idea that the US can not reconcile. Those who deserve help the most in Cuba receive it, unlike our backwards system of further rewarding those who repress others and already have too much.

This is just a brief analysis of these situations as I see them from various resources that I have come across. Here are a few of the better ones:

• ZNet search for Cuba or China
• Public Citizen

Finally, I believe that this is a big issue right now because Bill Clinton feels that he has to leave some sort of legacy. So far the only thing that he will really be remembered for is scandal and he knows it. Clinton has been a major supporter of PNTR and would love to see this pass and be the final major contribution of his presidency. I believe that if PNTR is granted to China, the US will come to regret it and Clinton will be seen for the liar that he is. Many of the people who voted for Clinton did so because of his policies on gay rights and China. Since entering office, he has changed his stance on both. It is high time for the people of the United States to begin to put their government back where it belongs, in the hands of the people. On November 7, 2000, I urge the people of the United States to elect Ralph Nader as president. Only after we take back our government and force it into democracy can we begin to make meaningful change.

First off, there were a couple of grammatical errors in the article. Is anybody proofreading this stuff?
"And they?re making it happen." - You can't start a sentence with and, isn't this a fragment?
"Intel actually topped Ford's better idea by providing PC's plus Internet access for its employees." - topped ford's better idea? Was that a mistake?

Also, we need to look at the real reason these companies are doing this. Is it really some kind of moral, goof for your family, we love you kind of thing? I don't think so. How about these reasons:

-Every computer user could shop globally, every retailer sell all over the planet. - That sounds like a good one. Push consumerism even farther. Make people buy buy buy more and more. What corporation doesn't stand to benefit from that?

- Although only a handful of companies have yet offered their workers full Net access and computing equipment, it seems inevitable that others will follow - this seems true. I wonder if intel could benefit from corporations all over the world buying their employers computers? Hmmm...

-if for no other reason that to stay competitive in a tight labor market - From Z magazine - A front page article in the New York Times was entitled "Markets Surge As Labor Costs Stay in Check" (April 30, 1997), featuring the conflict between wage increases and "market" prosperity. The emphasis on labor as a cost of production and excessive wage increases as a threat is a throwback to mercantilism; workers are seen as a means, not an end. This point is reinforced by establishment attitudes toward the growth of worker insecurity. Alan Greenspan was quoted recently as saying, very matter-of-factly, that "job insecurity" was the most important factor explaining why wages were not rising. But insecurity is a serious negative factor in people's lives.

This is just anther way companies can keep wages down. "We're giving you a free computer! (and your starting salary will be $2000 less)" but let's not mention that the coomputer cost us $400...

I have to say, this article from Jon today sounds a lot like something we'd read in newsweek, or some other mainstream arm of the media, hwo specialize in newspeak and expressing the views of the oligarchy, not on slashdot. The only reason I can see that Jon wrote this article was that maybe he got paid by enramp to include that one link, heh...

Also, I don't this this is "an enormous political idea". An enormous idea will be when the hugely rich corporations of the US decide to create a tiny bit of economic equality by implementing broad profit sharing programs, not by giving people $400 PCs, or even $1000 PCs.

___________________________
Michael Cardenas
http://www.fiu.edu/~mcarde02
http://www.deneba.com/linux

First off, there were a couple of grammatical errors in the article. Is anybody proofreading this stuff?
"And they?re making it happen." - You can't start a sentence with and, isn't this a fragment?
"Intel actually topped Ford's better idea by providing PC's plus Internet access for its employees." - topped ford's better idea? Was that a mistake?

Also, we need to look at the real reason these companies are doing this. Is it really some kind of moral, goof for your family, we love you kind of thing? I don't think so. How about these reasons:

-Every computer user could shop globally, every retailer sell all over the planet. - That sounds like a good one. Push consumerism even farther. Make people buy buy buy more and more. What corporation doesn't stand to benefit from that?

- Although only a handful of companies have yet offered their workers full Net access and computing equipment, it seems inevitable that others will follow - this seems true. I wonder if intel could benefit from corporations all over the world buying their employers computers? Hmmm...

-if for no other reason that to stay competitive in a tight labor market - From Z magazine - A front page article in the New York Times was entitled "Markets Surge As Labor Costs Stay in Check" (April 30, 1997), featuring the conflict between wage increases and "market" prosperity. The emphasis on labor as a cost of production and excessive wage increases as a threat is a throwback to mercantilism; workers are seen as a means, not an end. This point is reinforced by establishment attitudes toward the growth of worker insecurity. Alan Greenspan was quoted recently as saying, very matter-of-factly, that "job insecurity" was the most important factor explaining why wages were not rising. But insecurity is a serious negative factor in people's lives.

This is just anther way companies can keep wages down. "We're giving you a free computer! (and your starting salary will be $2000 less)" but let's not mention that the coomputer cost us $400...

I have to say, this article from Jon today sounds a lot like something we'd read in newsweek, or some other mainstream arm of the media, hwo specialize in newspeak and expressing the views of the oligarchy, not on slashdot. The only reason I can see that Jon wrote this article was that maybe he got paid by enramp to include that one link, heh...

Also, I don't this this is "an enormous political idea". An enormous idea will be when the hugely rich corporations of the US decide to create a tiny bit of economic equality by implementing broad profit sharing programs, not by giving people $400 PCs, or even $1000 PCs.

___________________________
Michael Cardenas
http://www.fiu.edu/~mcarde02
http://www.deneba.com/linux

The most troubling thing I see about these certifications, is that they feed young 3133t h4x0r's egos. It's bad enough that tons of people think you can be a good software developer without any education, but to add to that, I've met people who have an mcse, and are 19-21 and think they have an engineering degree.

I'm almost done with my computer science degree, and while it's true that I learned a huge amount working as a programmer, without the basis I got from my degree in math, problem solving, and a variety of programming languages and techniques, I would not be nearly as good a programmer. (or so I think) I mean, I'm sure working on open source projects at 13 helps you learn a lot, but there are design fundamentals and lots of underlying knowledge necessary about compilers, and assembly, and hardware, that you need to have to really understand what's going on. Hopefully, our economy will improve enough so that more people can get a quality education. Or, to be more acurate, hopefully our entire economic paradigm will shift enough to allow everyone to get a decent education.

I've never taken a certification class though, so maybe they're better than I imagine.
The review of this RH class just confirms what I've thought all along, that you can't learn anything in 8 hours. Or in 24 hours in 3 days. He states that he didn't really learn much from the class, just a few tidbits. It was his previous knowledge that allowed him to pass the exam.


___________________________
Michael Cardenas
http://www.fiu.edu/~mcarde02
http://www.deneba.com/linux

The Italian state under Mussolini was the first to be called "facist". This government supported rich people and capitalism and crushed labor unions and any independent political activity. They put all citizens to work for the noble task of making wealthy tycoons richer. I believe they used torture chambers to do this.
Why do I bring this up now? Because another common name for this facist governmental system was "estato corporativo" ... in English, "corporate state"!
If you think that corporate capitalism since WWII history has been less violent than during facist Italy or Germany, just look at the histories of U.S.-backed governments in Indonesia, Chile, El Salvador, S. Korea, Haiti, Iran, etc....
For daily news from a progressive viewpoint Common Dreams
For a huge amount of good political and activist info (I especially recommend the Noam Chomsky archive, which you can find from the main page, and which another poster linked to above) Z-Net.

Um, excuse me, this was not a petty issue. Although it was very symbolic, and sends out a message that even one of the most conservative of constituencies isn't willing to tolerate this kind of control on access to information.

Here's just one reason why it's important, even if you are very pessimistic about representative democracy (as I am): One of the notable things about the demonstrations in Seattle was that ethnic minorities were under-represented among the demonstrators. It's not entirely clear why that was, but some reasons that have been suggested are:

• Many ethnic minority people (as well as white people) didn't understand what the WTO protests were going to be about, or how it would affect them - or they saw more pressing issues to organize around.
• Some "progressive" groups display either implicit or explicit psychological barriers to the entry of ethnic minorities (sometimes this can be as simple as the fact that there are few non-white faces in the group, discouraging non-white people from joining.)
• The internet - particularly low-tech stuff like email lists - was a big help in organising the Seattle protests, even without there being any kind of overall controlling organization. (In fact, this latter factor probably swelled the numbers, as no-one group felt unable to stand behind a "co-ordinating" group). But many ethnic minority people and groups simply don't have very much, or any, access to the Internet. So again, they didn't get to know how dangerous and relevant the WTO really is.

The Internet, particularly with sites like ZNet and Free Speech Internet Television, is a brilliant place to enlighten yourself. I don't call restricting access to the Internet, especially when these restrictions are blatantly designed to censor alternative political views, in any way a "side issue".

And yes, it is a "fight", in a very real sense - not curious terminology at all - it is a psychological battle. As the elites of this world have known for centuries, winning the psychological battles are usually even more important than the physical ones. (Cruise missiles, for instance, are very useful at psychological distancing - not even the soldiers deploying them, let alone the public, have to see the bloodied bodies of their victims any more - a major PR aid.) Behind the rhetoric, if you look at the business pages, the elite and their spokespeople can be very candid sometimes amongst themselves about the very real Class War being waged by the rich elite against working people around the world (though they don't use those words, of course). They know it's war - we should recognise that too.

The worst scenario I can see is:

* Jon gets tried

* Jon gets aquitted because reverse engineering is legal.

* US trials note that the code was reverse engineered legally in Norway, therefor the "trade secret" is not a secret anymore.

The World Trade Organization strikes the Norwegian laws allowing reverse engineering preventing any future jeapordizing of trade secrets in this fashion. If you haven't been following the WTO, now might be the time to read up on them...
http://zmag.org/CrisesCurEvt s/Globalism/GlobalEcon.htm
http://www.indymedia.org/

He tends to write stuff for http://www.zmag.org/.

I agree that violence is not absolutely wrong, but defending people within the U.S. who are being attacked is much different than defending the property of U.S. corporations. Especially when the people in these countries live in poverty while Western corporations make lots of money off their resources. The threats the U.S. military has defended against have been the threats of people organizing to keep their own countries' wealth to themselves!
The U.S. hasn't been attacked by a military power since Pearl Harbor, as far as I recall. Since then there have been plenty of CIA and military actions to protect the interests of wealthy Americans - see William Blum's "Killing Hope".
Your point that the Internet is an army project is worth mentioning. Many who preach the wonders of laissez-faire capitalism forget that the computer industry (and many other industries and the roads) are a product of government-industry cooperation.
In fact we already have a type of socialism, except most of the profits are given to a few private rich investors, much less profitable but still-good jobs are given to a larger number of workers, and the rest of the benefits are left to "trickle-down" to the rest of us (the poorer Americans are still waiting for computers and the Internet to trickle down to them). Then we all pay to clean the environment of industries' mess.
Noam Chomsky said some interesting stuff about this, and I recommend reading his interviews and writings from the Chomsky Archive. He explains that the U.S. economy went from the Depression period to a period of fantastic growth when the government started coordinating industry, supplies, wages, etc. during the WWII effort.
According to him, when WWII was over U.S. elites wanted to continue this economic success by continuning to coordinate the economy through the government. They realized they could either coordinate the economy around social investments, like roads, schools, hospitals, etc., or military investments, i.e. the military-industrial complex. According to Chomsky, you can go back to the business journals of the era and read the debate.
The elites decided in favor of the military-industrial complex because spending money on education and social investments would lead to people expecting the government to serve the interests of the many, as opposed to the interests of the very rich. If you think this sounds crazy and un-American, go back to James Madison, one of the fathers of the U.S. Constitution. Madison said a primary responsibility of government was "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" !
Forgive me for expanding from the original subject

This is off the original topic but I'm responding to this one post.
Check out Cato's opinions, but be aware that Cato represents corporate-style libertarianism.
In this article by the media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, you'll see that Cato is funded by big oil, pharmaceutical, tobacco, and other big corporations including .... MICROSOFT!!! (check out the list in the article).
I recommend the foreign policy sections of Z Magazine's web page for analysis of defense matters and to learn what ordinary people are doing for peace.
Still, when people say that it is good to cut defense spending and stop imperialist military actions, I will agree with them, right or left.
These conservative think-tanks get quoted all the time in the media, without mentioning who their funding comes from. One of their latest projects is to "reform" Social Security. This means to convince people that Social Security won't be there for them when they retire and that we need to be able to invest the money in the stock market instead. The major funding comes from ... surprise, surprise ... brokerage groups, who want to cash in on the increased commissions. Here is a great article from The Nation about this issue.

I can't answer your question but I wanted to mention (for those that missed it before) that one of the items the WTO planned to discuss at the recent Seattle meeting was software patents. The corporatists want to expand patent protection worldwide. They also want to patent genetic code as well, and make sure that people in poorer countries have to pay up for the pharmaceutical research done in richer countries (much of it at public expense).
Hereis an informative article about the WTO from ZNet, which has a whole subsite dedicated to the (worldwide) WTO protests and the issues involved, covered from a populist point of view.
For what it's worth, I've also emailed Amazon announcing my boycott.
P.S. Anyone have a better word than corporatists?

I can't answer your question but I wanted to mention (for those that missed it before) that one of the items the WTO planned to discuss at the recent Seattle meeting was software patents. The corporatists want to expand patent protection worldwide. They also want to patent genetic code as well, and make sure that people in poorer countries have to pay up for the pharmaceutical research done in richer countries (much of it at public expense).
Hereis an informative article about the WTO from ZNet, which has a whole subsite dedicated to the (worldwide) WTO protests and the issues involved, covered from a populist point of view.
For what it's worth, I've also emailed Amazon announcing my boycott.
P.S. Anyone have a better word than corporatists?

Well you know, normally I'd be glad to support this (hey, if the stars are my destination why I am not there yet?), but then I saw Manufacturing Consent last night and realized I don't have to.

I hope that many Slashdotters, whether they love or hate him, are familiar with Noam Chomsky but briefly, he's an MIT linguistics prof (who originated the idea of context free grammars!) and a leading anarchistic social dissident whose primary thesis is that America is ran by power elites who subvert democracy through media control.

One of Chomsky's more interesting ideas is that military spending is primarily a way of subzidizing scientific research (a subtle departure from the usual military-industrial-complex-tyranny-theory or the necessary-external-enemies-theory!).

Thinking along these lines suggests Martian exploraiton by the United States, whatever the direct benefits, must be very appealing to the Secret Masters of Government because:

- Intellectuals (both 'left' and 'right') and other potential trouble-makers tends to like the idea

- It gives the rest of the population sometime to be patriotic about, which makes them generally more pliant politically

- It gives us a new way to spend lots of money on scientific research... which is badly needed since the Soviet block imploded.

Now I hardly agree with everything Chomsky says, but I do find this sort of logic pretty compelling... which means that even if Mars-loving geeks like me step aside Martian exploration in my lifetime is pretty inevitable anyways.

Cheers,
~yair

I must disagree with you:

The WTO is meeting to try and lengthen its already far-reaching ability to lessen our quality of life in the name of free trade.

Try here. It contains many thought provoking ideas and informative (not disinformative) links.

The WTO is closed in the sense that average citizens have no say whatsoever in what policies the WTO should adopt.The organization exists to carry out the will of large multinational corporations.The only voice that you and I have is to protest (Seattle).All of the WTO's decisions are made in secret!

I would think that the trade minister would have more of a vested interest in the concerns of corporations rather than in the welfare of the Earth.

See my previous response.Seeing as he is a co-chair of the event, I believe that it would be in his best interest to attend.

You ask "What do those rioting people rage against?"The short answer is
that the protesters in Seattle are fighting against a body that exists outside of
any nation's government for one purpose: to create globalized free trade for
multinational corporations to increase their profits at the expense of the
citizens of the world.For a more in depth analysis of what is going on in Seattle,
try ZNet for starters. I truly believe that everyone should be concerned about the
WTO's power due to its ability to drastically alter our lives without us having
any say whatsoever.

I am a bit suprised to see this on slashdot, but since it's here I have a few things to say :)

I posted this link earlier on the "cyber-sit in story" or whatever it was called. I'll warn you this time that it is a very left-wing site, but don't worry, it won't kill you. In fact, you might learn something. It's a good addition to mainstream coverage that doesn't talk about the WTO at a particularly intellectual level.

Z magazine WTO coverage

I didn't think so many people would end up protesting. This is good because it gives the issue LOTS of attention. As usual the media has overblown the violence, looks like a few bonfires and some broken windows. But it looks like its getting a lot uglier. It's been mostly peaceful from what I've seen other than blocking traffic and enterance to the event. Hopefully people from Seattle will keep us up to date.

The WTO applies to the computer and sofware industry the same as it does to every other industry. The WTO is, in my opinion, a government by and for corporations. They don't have any accountabilty to the public. They can overturn laws in any member country that are deemed unfair to competition. The most common example I have seen is that countries in Europe were cited by the WTO for not allowing the sale of American beef products because the cows were treated with hormones. CNN.com has a few other examples in their coverage.

I think the WTO is an extreme form of capitalism that REALLY puts money before people. It takes control away from local governments and the people.

Globalization definately has its benefits. I think most people reading this can see them as far as the hardware and software industry, especially our trade relationship with Asian countries. I see it as a step twords global unification (well, a really small step). But when labor rights and the environment aren't put first, no one wins, and the gap between the rich and poor gets wider. I think this is why so many protesters have descended on Seattle. Corporations have gone too far this time. The establishment better be careful or the next decade could end up being a rehash of the 60's with globalization as the central issue.

At any rate it's an important issue that everyone should try to learn about.

I sincerely suggest that you research what the WTO has stood for in its past actions.It serves the interests of huge multinational corporations above and beyond anything else.There are many examples of how the WTO is the weapon utilized to force unsustainable and detrimental policies upon sovereign nations in the name of "free trade"From 1988 until August of this year, Europe banned the import US beef because it contains growth-enhancing hormones.The WTO declared the ban illegal since it was detrimental to free trade.Regardless of whether or not you feel that injesting animal hormones is safe can you honestly say that it this is fair?Is it really the responsibility of the WTO to decide that it knows what is best for the health of the European people?I definitely do not think so. It is because of decisions like this that the WTO is "getting in the neck" and rightfully so.

I agree that a denial of service attack against the WTO may not be the most productive form of protest possible, but I am confused by your statements in the third paragraph.It seems to me that you are stating that the WTO is somehow unlike allowing "the most powerful nations, such as the US and power blocks such as the EU, to carve up the global economy behind closed doors."In truth, the WTO is much worse.Since the WTO is the puppet of short sighted and self minded multinational corporations that are generally aloof from the citizens of the world, the only say that we have is through protest. What kind of freedom is that?To suggest that the only alternative to the WTO is a Cold War is misinformed.The WTO is operating behind closed doors, and it is the goal of the protesters to try and inform everyone of this and to ensure that the WTO does not increase its already disturbing amount of influence over our lives.

Here are some links that should help arm and inform:

• Greenpeace USA
• ZNet
• WTOWatch.org

As a service to those who are bad at cutting and pasting:
http://www.zmag.org/Cris esCurEvts/Globalism/GlobalEcon.htm


The Kulturwehrmacht

The WTO represents a serious change in the way nations and global corporations interact. It is the concentration of power in an unelected international court to inforce the rights of capital. It is a world court to which national and state laws can be overturned with out appeal. Please read up on what the WTO means to all of us. The growing power of the WTO is going to be one of the defining features of global economics and politics in the 21st century.

Consider, in the future you may not be able to pass a law which protects the environment, enforces minimum wages, or any number of other 'anti-free trade' laws.

There are lots of sites about what people are doing to counter the WTO, such as N30.org. You should also read up on the background of the new global capitalist order.

Perhaps another example will illustrate the orginal point. Ireland, population 3.5 million, is the second largest producer of software in the world, second only to the US, population 268 million.

The quote you used from the BBC report refers to total productivity. The point of the report is that despite working fewer hours, total productivity in Europe is almost that of the US and the gap is closing. Look at the infographs. In other words, hourly productivity is higher in Europe and has been for some time. European biz is getting more bang for it's buck and European workers aren't wasting all their waking lives in cubicles either.

I think you have it backward when you say "Europeans are discovering that longer hours does not mean more production". I think Europeans have been aware of that for a long time. I think that penny is only just beginning to drop on this side of the pond, but not in a widespread fashion thanks to the sorry state of US trade unions and the economic interests who are happy to see it stay that way.

I think people are missing his point. His key example was a mother who even though she had no objection to her children seeing the movie had the right to decide taken away from her by the theater. What that is, is people right being arbitrarily taken away at whim because of basically powerful lobbying groups. If people could get read what he is saying, although a bit verbosely is, this is not a singular event and nothing prevents other rights from being taken away virtually by these powerful lobbying groups. Unfortunatlly we really don't live in a free country are rights are seemingly control not by the constitution but by the powerful and even worse in many times a whimsical fashion. In the end it is the non powerful people (read: us) suffer and have to deal with this. What, just because in this instance it is children it is not as important? In most cases these children are going to see these movies with the full permission of their guardians who are in the end who are responsible for them, mainly since they realize that what they are seeing in the movies, well is nothing new to them, any parents that believe otherwise should open their eyes. Yeah children are going to be upset, this is arbitrary and silly if if you bothered to read what many of them wrote they made pretty damn mature points, but it seems so many of you just want to see them as whinning children. It is sad that people wish delegate their rights to whatever powerful lobbying groups wish to control them. This is supposedly a country for the people by the people but in reality it is a country of many controlled by the few. If none of you can see that was mainly his point then you are sadly blind to the world around you. Instead of seeing his point, people have choosen to take the common media presentation of this subject, that the people that are complaining are children that are just upset they can't see the movies, this is a capatilistic free soceity and if you don't like it don't go to the movies and of course since the movie business is not going out of business from people not going then these people complaining are radicals or bratty kids. How can argue with that logic? But this is not simply a text book capatilistic or even a free soceity so the basic premise is already false. For more information read Noam Chomsky , although he does not really talk about issues like this he does talk about how the US soceity really works.

But that is part of the problem the goverment doesn't want the "hundled masses" to participate. In fact they fear our participation because they are the elite and we don't know what are the right decisions and if we make our own decisions we will be doomed. Although this is not all of goverment it is enough of it. To find out more read Noam Chomsky especially Necessary Illusions and "Manufacturing Consent"

But that is part of the problem the goverment doesn't want the "hundled masses" to participate. In fact they fear our participation because they are the elite and we don't know what are the right decisions and if we make our own decisions we will be doomed. Although this is not all of goverment it is enough of it. To find out more read Noam Chomsky especially Necessary Illusions and "Manufacturing Consent"

The fact is, the government and corporations have LONG been stepping and crushing people, but it's always been the poor. No one cares about the poor! Now they're invading your space. The middle and upper middle class. Crushing your rights and freedoms. Recently large numbers of people have been protesting things like the G8, and in November, the WTO in Seattle. University students protesting against sweatshop labor. Thousands and thousands of people. And they're all involved in these things DESPITE the fact the corporate media never mentions them at all. Somehow, people are fed up and have discovered ways on their own, to try to fight back. Right now the largest community run microradio station, KPFA, is protesting against Pacifica because Pacifica wants to sell KPFA because of it's large audience! People have been outraged and massive protests have been going on there.

Our government hasn't just now decided to become corrupt, it has long been so. it is just now invading the "freedoms" of the middle/upper class of the country, where as before it was only hurting the voiceless poor and people of other countries (and still is I might add).

From killing off native americans in the past and now, to using slave labor in the country, and now using slave labor in third world countries, raping the earth's resources for profits and to feed our addictive consumption rates, suppressing the rights of women, and long promoting right-wing Christian fundamentalism...how can it not be clear the US isn't perfect like they lie and make you believe? The US is f-cking evil...and if you don't believe me now, you will soon enough...when they limit your freedom, or put you away.

http://www.savepacifica.net
http://www.infoshop.org
http://www.protest.net
http://www.commondreams.org
http://www.zmag.org
http://www.fair.org
http://www.foodnotbombs.org/
http://jya.com/crypto.htm
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointel.htm
http://www.urban75.com
http://www.oneworld.org
http://www.mediafilter.org


There you go. Arm yourself with information. Don't believe the world is perfectly all right. Now apparently the short-sighted people are beginning to see they were wrong. Don't think you're alone for thinking something is wrong, there are millions out there who know it already. From those educated on the subjects, to those experiencing the abuses caused by this horrible corporate owned world, and their servant governments.

Well you can start by understanding the system by which the goverment and media controls information and attitudes. I would strongly suggest reading Noam Chomsky , I personally recommend reading The Chomsky Trilogy, Deterring Democracy and Manufacturing Consent

this is the link to the article

There's also the suggestion that the general press didn't give this story the airplay and column-space that it deserved because of some self-serving interests

i often wonder about this. If your old enough to remember the East-Timor invasion by Indonesia, you also might remember the lack of press coverage about it. Noam Chomsky ~ manufacturing consent (Noam Chomsky on Journalism By Peter Cronau January 1995) also made a nice about how journalism and power can serve against the truth...

Chomsky views the media as an ideological system serving the powerful elites in society. He explains how governments get away with lying, how academics and intellectuals manufacture consent to the actions of government, and how the media confine debate to the conservative middle ground.

Chomsky argues the Western media have neglected their questioning role, instead repeatedly giving primary access to intellectuals who defend the role of Western governments. He sees the media's role as producing consensus amongst the public towards the ruling elites in government and business.

"The [media's] current mission is to ensure that any thought of controlling their destiny must be driven from the minds of the rascal multitude," he has written in, Year 501: The Conquest Continues. And, in Deterring Democracy, he writes: "The goal is to eliminate public meddling in policy formation".

Probably Chomsky's most known book in this country is Manufacturing Consent: the political economy of the mass media, which he wrote in 1988 with Edward Herman, a professor of finance at the University of Pennsylvania.

The Propaganda Model sketched out in this book describes the structures and influences that Chomsky believes produce systematic propaganda in the media.

"It traces the routes by which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalise dissent, and allow government and dominant private interests to get their messages across to the public."


it's only an opinion, but it's interesting to note the context in which this article describes censorship.

Are we both talking about Bill "I just levelled a country to get them to agree to the same peace terms that they would have before we bombed them" Clinton? I thought so.

Getting somewhere without compromising your ideals is a lot harder work than getting that law degree and entering politics, but the final result is a lot more desirable.

Clinton is certainly not the guy I'd use to support your argument. The fact that he "didn't inhale" (and if you believe that... but anyway) suggests that at one time, he wasn't too anti-drug. This attitude sure doesn't show up in the current War on Drugs, where a hit of acid will land you a mandatory 5-20 years (correct me if I'm wrong). There are countless other examples.

BTW, If you'd like to read some well-informed critiques of American foreign policy in Kosovo and elsewhere, check out the Z Magazine Network.

The robots piece could easily be re-written in stuffy academic style with a title like "On Post-Industrial Technological Fatalism" and they'd have like 10 readers, 9 of whom wouldn't get it. The Onion's biting satire gets to the heart of things much more effectively than all the editorial/news pieces in the world combined. What makes it so funny is the core truth of it all. You can write a long tedious piece on the breakdown of family and moral values and their relationship to child abuse, or you can write the same piece as a single headline: "New York to Institute Baby-Only Dumpsters".

This isn't to say that the normal news is completely worthless (although, admittedly, it is massively distorted and thinly veiled corporate propaganda), but The Onion is just so much better.

At present, I'd have to say the three best publications on the planet are: The Onion, AdBusters and Z Magazine . If you like The Onion's irreverent Left flavor, you might want to check out the other two.

--

Let's talk about something a little more interesting. Why are we putting up with this current system? Instead of talking about the broken slander laws let's talk about the fact that corporations have the rights of citizens. (Non Humans have the right to free speech.) Microsoft has the right to create FUD. (There's no FUD law yet!)

If anything is holding back the evolution of the human species it's FUD!

Stop FUD Now!

If you're not familiar with Noam Chomsky. These Ideas tend to relate to what he's written...
More on Chomsky here