Slashdot Mirror
Globalization
In fact, as British political scientist Anthony Giddens writes in his eerily prescient book Runaway World: How Globalism is Reshaping Our Lives, the conflict now underway between the United States and some extremist fundamentalists was inevitable. Cosmopolitans welcome technology and cultural diversity, while fundamentalists find it disturbing and dangerous.
In a globalizing world -- one of its cornerstones being the Net -- technology, information, culture, money, business and imagery are routinely transmitted across the world. Boundaries mean different things now, including the inescapable fact that they are highly porous. This enrages political, social and religious fundamentalists, as we are hurriedly learning. They turn to religion, ethnic identity and nationalism to build "purer" traditions -- and a few turn to violence.
So despite the fact that there's no consensus on exactly what globalism is (my dictionary defines it as the process by which social institutions become adopted on a worldwide scale), the questions torment us: is globalism a force to ease poverty and inequality, by bringing higher standards of living and new technologies to poor and distant regions? Or merely an unprecedented vehicle for promoting the greed, conformity, environmental destruction and profit-at-all-cost ethos of multinational corporations? Perhaps it's both.
Giddens' predictions are coming true before our eyes. The conflict is here, and we seem to be unwilling and unknowing combatants. We, along with our leaders, are astonished at just how much we seem to be hated out there. We see our popular and technological culture despised in much of the world. Fundamentalist extremists have declared a holy war against it, one that may continue for years with bloody and uncertain consequences.
It's not an oversimplification to say that technology is the prime battleground. Technologies from movie cameras to TV sets to the Net are the means by which culture and wealth travel from one part of the world to the other. Fundamentalists have declared war on technology as much as on anything. And from anthrax to passenger jets as missiles, they've shown a sophisticated grasp of how technology can be used to devastating effect against its creators, who revel in making it but not thinking much about it.
In this conflict what Giddens calls "the cosmopolitan approach" is the choice of the people who are reading this column and working in the tech universe. We value free speech, religious freedom, scientific exploration, open communications, cultural choice and diversity. Such tolerance is closely conected to democracy.
Yet democracy and fundamentalism are both spreading world-wide, two seemingly irreconcilable ideologies colliding head-on. As Giddens points out, globalism creates a paradox: democratic cultures are its most enthusiastic proponents, yet globalism doesn't seem to promote democracy so much as corporate profits and practices. In fact, you could argue that globalism seems to expose the limits of democratic structures: Can governments preserve the environment, keep work secure and equitable, ensure fair wages, control capitalism, distribute new technologies equitably, respect diverse cultural values, contain greed and restrict the imagery that Americans love but that frightens and offends large segments of the world population?
In Part Two: Have multinationals hijacked globalism? (Yes.)
The only reasons we seem to be surprised at how much we're hated out there is that we don't take the time to learn what our country has done over there, what past attitudes have been, past policies, past responses. Everyone knows America isn't well-liked in certain areas of the world... but precious few man-on-the-street Joe Average Citizens can tell you -why-. That, in a nutshell, is what the problem is. If people knew -why- we were hated, if they took the time to learn about the past instead of repeating it, maybe we could find a way out of this that doesn't involve a billion dollars worth of explosions.
What type of government could possibly wrap itself around globalization? That is the major stumbling block that I see. The UN has bumbled its way around enough to know that it isn't the answer. Perhaps smaller regional governments (The EU, Pan-African Congress, OAS, etc) are the first answer to get around the poisonous ethnic problems that have caused the latest conflicts in the world. After that, let the global government figure itself out.
globalism can be a boon or bane. social threefolding provides a framework for sustaining rights within a global economy: http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Articles/St einer-Social.html
This thesis has also been bandied about by Thomas Friedman in The Lexus and the Olive Tree.
[Warning, liberal rant below]
I believe that the forces of integration are long-term stronger and more stable than the forces of disintegration. I believe that the reason that the fringes of cultures are radicalizing is because the centers of cultures are drawing together.
I am a giant proponent of the theory that ideas clash in a marketplace of public discourse and I believe that globalization is merely expanding that marketplace, and that the discourse that results will be beneficial. We're bound to have some bumps along the road. Heck, we're probably bound to go down some blind alleys, but in the end, increased communications and integration will help us all respect each other individually and discover what makes us all human.
[End of Liberal Rant]
Of course, I also believe that the free market is best in 90% of circumstances because it forces individuals to evolve and have goals. My biggest worry is that the concept of individual freedom will be found wanting in the global discussion.
IMHO. HAND.
It hasn't been shown to any degree of conclusiveness that the anthrax attacks were perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists or fundamentalists of any sort. For all we know so far, it could have been some disgruntled biotech industry worker.
JonKatz has an axe to grind; The Economist doesn't. JonKatz will certainly feed your paranoia that the big bad multinationals are out to get you, The Economist will provide a fairer, ballanced set of information.
Iraq - supported against Iran during the Iran v Iraq war, seen as an ally of the west and an aid in getting cheaper oil and controlled oil prices... invade Kuwait (dictatorial regime) and the west turn against Iraq (with "democratically" elected president) because of the risks to oil revenues.
Afghanistan, supported Taliban and Mujahadin against the Soviet Union when they invaded, pushed as "freedom fighters" and "liberators". Soviets leave, so does all of the assistance from the west. Saudi Arabian national accused of leading a group on terrorists in which several (all non-Afghans) commit dreadful attrocities. West decide to invade Afghanistan and attack not the terrorist leader but the previously supported Taliban movement. This of course is unrelated to the desire to have access to the Caspian Sea oil without having to pay Russian pipeline charges.
It might sound a harsh judgement but these are still the facts. Both of these now supposedly "evil" regimes were previously funded and supported by the very people now set against them... the opinions and views of the Taliban and Sadam Hussien have not changed. It is just now politically and economically sensible to take these views.
Having a recession..... start a war, increased employment, increased public spending (defence), flag-waving support to gloss over your lack of leadership.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
The western democracies carved out a place where there could exist such a thing as a middle class. Where a working man could make a living for himself and his family. The western democracies are a haven for capital: they are stable and work by the rule of law.
So that is why there is work here.
We compete on the gloabl stage for work. We offer a business advantage over third world competitors in that we are stable and are run by the rule of law. And because we have this advantage over 3rd world, that is the only reason why we have work here at all. Otherwise we would have no work here because we CHARGE HIGH WAGES.
People, that is a GOOD THING! WE WANT HIGH WAGES!
WE DON'T WANT LOW WAGES!
But big corporations want both stability/the rule of law AND low wages. So therefore "open borders immigration" and globalization is what corporations want because it LOWERS WAGES!
Our politicians want to give them that because the corporations PAY THEM.
Can you please see that this is a process of negotiation! That there are CONFLICTS OF INTEREST between corporations and the citizens of western democracies?
When you go to buy a car and the salesman says he wants 100K, you don't just pay him, do you? YOU NEGOTIATE!
The problem is that corporations have poured so much money into propaganda through so many means that people like Katz beleive the pro-globalization propaganda. Or maybe, Katz is being paid by business lobbies to write pro-globalization propaganda.
Jon Katz, do you take money from corporate lobbies?
Sig:
Navy nuke sub lifestyle?
Yes, as long as we retain our sovereignty and don't turn that over to a multi-national body. I think it would dangerous to allow a multi-national organization like the U.N. to have final say in matters of law and of military over the U.S. We have the longest running democracy of any nation, and it works. Thus, I think its dangerous for countries like Britain, with long-established laws, to turn over power to multi-national institutions like the EU. Let each country govern itself and come to agreements with other countries, but never turn over power or the right to have final say to these organizations. Doing so is a recipe for disaster; it places more power into the hands of fewer people, it makes it more likely for a despot to control more lands, and it takes away from people the ability to govern themselves. The right to self-govern is supreme in the U.S. and hopefully will remain so.
By doing so, we ensure our government responds to us as a people and has control of the military. As long as we have an elected government that controls the military, we don't have to worry too much about the power of other countries, and other multi-national organizations. But if we give up any power to multi-national organizations, we lose ability to govern ourselves, and we lose the freedoms we have worked for over 225 years to create and preserve.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Not quite.
Many anti-globalists are in fact in protest against the prospect of the Disney Planet, McEarth, and the Microsoft World. They are in protest of the potential economic, political, and social rape of the economies and resources of people around the world for the mere financial profit of a few corporations. They are against the corporate democracy where only they voices of the corporations count, and yours do not.
If you are fighting against Microsoft, you are to a certain degree fighting against globalization. This is a much bigger and more complex picture than so quickly sketched above.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
In the last 20 years, we have seen Europe replace its cafes and coffee shops with McDonalds and Starbucks.
The only Starbucks stores in Europe are in the UK and Switzerland. Besides, if you think Americans enjoy that sort of thing, you're mistaken. We have citizens that are just as upset that Wal-Mart is replacing local hardware stores, and Barnes & Noble is bankrupting local booksellers. Nobody's excited about that kind of globalization, not even us.
The real problem of globalization is the American attitude which puts individual freedom above just about every other principle. In Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South America, Japan, Russia etc our values are different. We put family and religion first. We do not care about your profit motive.
Huh? In one sentence, you say that we put freedom over every principle. In the next, you say you're different because you put family and religion first. I'm not sure how you can choose your religion without first having the freedom to choose it - unless, of course, you're in favor of state-sponsored religion that enforces your personal choice. The freedom of religion was the whole point over here in the US, and the driving force behind our nation's founding. If you see freedom as a value that jeopardizes family and religion, you don't understand freedom. The whole point over here is the freedom to choose your religion, your friends, and for that matter, the brands that you buy.
We will eventually win, because we will eventually stop buying into your culture of greed. It may not happen today or tomorrow, but it will happen.
What's stopping it? You're the ones buying our products. Nobody's holding a gun to your head at the Gap and making you buy their t-shirts. It's not like you don't have your own products to choose from. McDonald's isn't the only place to buy hamburgers, and Starbucks isn't the only place to get a cup of joe.
What's your damage, Heather?
Either way, September 11 makes it clear that globalization - pitting fundamentalism against cosmopolitan tolerance - is the biggest, most important story in our lifetimes
Global Warming is by far the biggest, most important story in our lifetime. We'll all learn that soon enough.
It was discovered that one of the great causes of discontent and unrest in Central America in the 60's was unintentional, where Peace Corps workers left out magazines, loaded with american advertisements, where locals saw them. The indiginous people, uninitiated to the ways of Madison Avenue, would see what american had, what their country and culture lacked and it erroded their faith in their own noble cultures. They had to have cars, they had to have women with come hither looks, they had to drink Tanqueray, they had to have a Timex! Discontent breeds revolution, revolution creates upheaval and all the ills (hunger, disease, orphans, maimed bodies, etc.) Enter the "fundamentalist", whether it's Daniel Ortega spouting the promises of Marxism and reclaiming the land in the name of the people, or some Mullah in Afghanistan preaching a glorious afterlife littered with nubile virgins to people desperately poor, the appeal is the same: Anything is better than what we have now.
The bitterness of people in the middle east has been a long time simmering. From european colonialism to corporate colonialism to the shameful double standard of Israel vs. Arabs (and yet these people come from the same blood, but tell them that.)
Now the West loses billions of dollars in upset commerce, tourism, etc., and it's the poorest people on earth the US is pitted against in a war which consumes even more billions of dollars. (With hopes from some that war will stimulate the economy(!))
Jimmy Buffett had it right, if you ever have listened to the Feeding Frenzy CD. Drop a bunch of money on these people, then drop a bunch of catalogs, for the cost of one B-1 bomber we could have full employment, they could have all kinds of toys and we'd have peace. Well, peace if that bully in Israel would stop the acts of war against the palestinians.
My $0.02 anyway...
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Of course people voted for it. Every day they buy a coffee at starbucks they are voting for it.
If the majority didn't want it, it wouldn't happen.
no taxation without representation!
Please speak for yourself? For some reason religiousnous is a lot stronger in the USA than it is in many European countries and you better be glad it is because that way lies fundamentalism. I assume that since you read the text that you know what fundamentalism begets...
Don't forget that a mere few hundred years ago Europe had it's inquisition and a few other religously founded nasties. What we are seeing now is the rest of the world catching up in a hurry and not very willingly.
Globalisation in my book means that more people get to talk to more people. Everything else follows from that: trade, wealth, crime, etc. The thing is that above a certain amount of links to other people per person a society changes. That change is irreversible bar some global catastrofy.
I can only hope we'll shake off religion as another bond to our primitive ancestory and move on. The only thing that wars have been ever fought over were economics and religion. We found out the hard way that it doesn't make economical sense for a democracy to wage war. We found out that it doesn't make sense to wage war over religion as well but for some reason the religion gets in the way with that argument. So Globalisation will work out but as said it will have its ups and downs. In the end I trust it will bring what it promisses: 'wealth' to go round for _everyone_.
I'm not so much afraid of fundamentalism in its current form, in my view the _real_ threat to such a brilliant future is _corporatism_. That fight has it's own problems, mainly in visibility of the problem. But I digress.
Karma? What's that again?
Karma? What's that again?
We preach about free trade, yet Shrub gets his panties in a bunch when some country can sell us steel for cheap.
Our companies fight tooth and nail for the ability to sell to the entire world, yet want people in the US (the richest general population on the planet) to only buy products domestically (no buying cheap drugs from Canada, region-enforced DVD players, etc.).
We, as a society, can't have it both ways, yet we try so damned hard to have it that way. We dictate to the world our standards which enrich our corporate world (NAFTA, WTO, intellectual property right protection, etc.), but balk at the idea that someone else may produce a better mouse trap for less.
It sickens me, really.
Method of processing duck feet
You don't have to be a religious nut harbored by a goverment abroad to be a fundamentalist. In all this hype against Islamic terrorists there appears to have been a careful glossing over of the 2nd worst act of terrorism on US soil.
Why wasn't a war declared on the sort of organisations that McVeigh belonged to, and the sort of anti-goverment far right views that are regularly expressed on right wing talk shows ?
Right now I'd say the smart money is on the anthrax being produced in the US, not in another country. And on the US most wanted terrorists one of them was born in Indiana. If this is truly a war on terrorism then we can look forward to seeing the CIA, MI5, French Secret Service and several others all being labelled as such.
After all what would you call someone who bombed a Red Cross depot ?
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
So far when we speak/write about globalization, we're talking about the corporate side of things. But if you really look at it, globalization is little more, and nothing less than an ability to transcend national boundaries. This has historically meant travel, expensive travel, restricting it to the Rich and corporations. Hence that's where we focus our rants on globalizations.
But two things have happened. First, transportation has gotten cheaper, so it isn't the province of merely the Rich. Second, the Internet has given us Virtual Travel. These changes ease globalization for all, including bringing it into the price range of more people/groups.
So one can argue that globalized corporations are Evil, though others would contend against that.
Most would argue that globalized institutions like the Red Cross are Good.
Then how about other globalized groups like the Mafia and El Quaeda?
Globalization isn't just for corporatization, any more.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The battle isn't changing - only the battleground is.
The real fight is the ongoing friction between ever-larger units of society - the individual, the tribe, the nation, and now global society. Individuals chafe against the constraints of their own culture. Then as representatives of their own culture, they struggle against the crush of nationalism. Beyond that, the nations are fighting the coming globalism. This is not a fight that will ever be clearly resolved.
I think by nature humans are individualist and tribalist. However, the lines of those tribes are becoming more and more fluid. I belong to several tribes - SF fandom, Open Source programming, Unitarian Universalism, etc - that overlap some, but are really separate groups, each with their own struggle. As an Open Source advocate, i'm fighting against globalist corporatism on one level. As a Unitarian, i'm fighting against it on another. And against my own tribes, i'm fighting to protect my own identity.
Our tribes give us our connection to society. That connection is what gives us meaning and purpose, beyond mere survival. Nationalism and globalism simplify the survival question by improving our standard of living, but they don't give us much to feed our spirit. And both nationalism and globalism work to crush our tribes, which get in the way of convenient homogeneity.
As for the Middle East, look at what they're getting. They see the worst of globalism - Coca-Cola and Britney Spears - while getting nothing of the best of it, like freedom of speech and a growing economy. And we're crushing the strong and beautiful tribe of Arab and Islamic culture. No wonder they are fighting back! However, i don't think the medievalists like bin Laden can win in the long run, either, because they don't offer anything BUT tribalism.
There's a key... globalist culture provides huge economic incentives to participation, but you pay with your soul. It's great to have a Starbuck's everywhere so you can always get good coffee, but it sucks that Starbuck's is putting the funky individualistic cafes out of business. T-shirts are wiping out tribal dress because they're cheaper (unless you're a geek like me, where the t-shirt and its logo IS your tribal dress. I'm wearing a Klingon Kultural Ekchange shirt under my business casual).
I could go on. Does any of this make sense?
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
You need to define your terms better - your article, as it stands is gibberish.
You confuse at least two types of "globalism":
little-g "globalization" could conceviably take place without Big-G "Globalization", I suppose, but because "globalization" currently comes along with US and Western Europe coporate entities (Ford, Microsoft, British Petroleum, Duetche Telecomm) and US-oriented Popular Culture (Coca Cola, blue jeans, Britney Spears, Hollywood movies), and "Globalization" derives its names and ruling class from US corporate entities, it's easy for some folks to confuse the two. Apparently, you (Jon Katz) haven't made this distinction too clearly.
The London School of Economics is giving a Free course called "The Globalisation Debate" at the onlineline University course clearinghouse "Fathom.com. Their system doesn't permit direct linking, so you will need to search on Globalisation, or the school. Here's the course description:
Globalisation is a fervidly contested and often misunderstood concept. It has occupied and divided economists, sociologists and anti-capitalists alike. Anti-globalisation protestors have regularly and successfully picketed World Trade Organisation summits as part of their stand against the might of globalisation. Yet, many economists tout the benefits of increased trade, sophisticated telecommunications networks and cross-border investment to developing countries, pointing to the gains workers and unions throughout the world stand to make from closer integration.
Most people seem to know whether they are for or against globalisation, without pausing to consider what exactly it is and where its effects can be seen. Globalisation might be a term too slippery to be closely defined, but it is a vibrant debate worth engaging in.
In this seminar two major sociologists put forward their versions of globalisation. For Anthony Giddens, it is a phenomenon characterised by fundamental changes in the world economy, the communications revolution and trade between nation-states in physical commodities, information and currency. For Leslie Sklair, globalisation should be seen as a new phase of capitalism, one that transcends the unit of the nation-state. In an interview, he introduces the globalisation debate and stakes out his position within it. Sklair builds on these arguments through a flash image gallery, which explores how the idea of globalisation is used by transnational corporations.
The course is taught by Leslie Sklair is a reader in sociology at the London School of Economics and Political Science and is responsible for the doctoral programme in the sociology department. He has been a visiting professor at New York University, San Diego State University and Hong Kong University, and has lectured on globalisation all over the world. His Sociology of the Global System (1995) has been translated into Japanese, Portuguese, Persian, Chinese and Spanish. He has conducted fieldwork on transnational corporations in Mexico, China, Hong Kong, Egypt and Australia, and in Europe and North America.
The real thing to examine is this: Is globalism really good, or is it similar to Socialism and various other ideas in that is looks excellent on paper, but in practice, never seems to work out just right. There are many ideas like this that appear to be the solution to everything, but when put into practice, become a big mess. My thought is that many of these things deserve a closer look before being put into practice so that we can avoid slogging through a mess.
Ed
(insert attempt to be witty here)
The increase in religious fundamentalism is, in my opinion, the result of the spread of Western liberal culture through the Internet, television etc... The liberation of women from their historic roles, secularism and commercialism are anathema to many religious groups; including not least Christian fundamentalists in the United States.
Globalization is primarily a commercial function, and I don't believe it has a thing to do with the radicalization of opinions in the third world. Most people are happy to work for next to nothing for a rapacious Western conglomerate because their only other choice IS nothing.
Anti-American feelings in the Islamic world is primarily a response to U.S. support for Israel. Finland has some global corporations and you don't here people screaming "Death to Israel, death to Finland!".
Finding a way to reconcile Israel with her Arab neighbors would be a good start in reducing radicalism in the Islamic world. Religious fundamentalism is something we should not worry about, hell, maybe they're right.
Economic globalization is a fundamental choice that each nation is free to make, and again is none of our business.
Religion has historically been used as a motivator for war. From the Inquisition to the Holy wars in Turkey it has been used to get men to fight, but it has never been the reason to fight.
In this case as well you are seeing a reaction to rampant captialism (globalization) wrapped in the wonderfully motivating skin of religious fundamentalism.
Middle Easterners do not hate the working man in America. They hate the huge multi-nationals and their US military police force that secures them further profit at the expense of lives and sometimes countries.
This country has been living off of the fat of the rest of the world for 2 generations or longer. Wouldn't you resent a country that swoops in bombs and kills many of your population and then sets up your government for you, all in the name of oil profit?
How come there is no Italian or Japanese military base on US soil? How come there is NO other countries military base on US soil, yet we have 60+ major military installation in other countries in the world?
Globalization is the problem not the solution.
For a better view of why we're hated, consider the USA's actions after WWII and contrast them with our conduct during the Cold War.
After WWII, we learned from the mistakes of post-WWI and helped both Europe and Japan rebuild. We were taking what we talked about with the American Dream and helping others achieve it. Let's ignore for the moment whether the American Dream should be exported or not - that's not the point. The point is that we were doing what we were saying.
During the Cold War that all changed. While talking American Dream, our conduct was "Enemy of my enemy is my friend." We turned a blind eye towards their bad habits, and supported them if they were against the communists.
Defining yourself by what you are not is a terrible way to live a life, IMHO. That goes for a person, an organization, or a country. Perhaps we had to pursue our anti-communist foreign policy, but to have done so in so single-minded and negative a fashion, without similarly acting on our own positive beliefs was unwise. The aftereffects of our negative foreign policy are coming back to roost.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
...for people to come out and lambaste Katz, but it's unusual for me: I prefer to do my Karma Whoring in more meaningful ways, like occasionally posting useful information.
But not this time! Katz, you have clearly gotten in over your head. The non-sequitor upon which this essay is based is an utter disaster. How can you conclude there is ANY relationship at all between a cosmopolitan world-view and acceptance of free trade? I can think of several respected scholars (former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, for one) who firmly believe that the notion of national identities, particularly in business, are passe, but still support the use of tariff mechanisms by nations to protect their domestic social institutions. Read The Work of Nations sometime for insight into Reich's concept of "Strategic Trade."
I realize that the two columns you do here are only a small component of your journalistic work week, but it would behoove you to contemplate that before undertaking an essay on the interrelationship between societal openness and macroeconomics, when you obviously didn't have the opportunity to thoroughly research the macroeconomics piece. What eludes me is how the views of such prominent a figure as Reich could fly under your radar!?
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
Not only do people not want our way of life, they are not in a position to accept our way of life. It is well known, within political science, that a republic must have a strong middle-class and third world countries do not have one, it is part of the antiquated definition of being third world.
However globalization is doing something that the world's poor like and the American middle-class hates, it is equalizing the wealth. Poor countries, like Singapore, are getting western blue collar jobs dumping sizable amounts of wealth into those countries. While on the other side of that it is making all blue collar professions in the west all but disappear and as this happens the only thing for blue collar workers to do is get better educated and find a white collar job. While they do this they flood the market driving the wages down for what use to be a staple for middle class life. Now both the middle and lower classes are both in white collar jobs making the destination all but nonexistent.
The disappearance of the middle class in America and the west is a frightening but all too real consequence of our global economy. No longer will we have an American upper, middle, and lower class; we will not have an Egyptian upper, middle, and lower class, or distinct classes for Europe or China or anywhere else. We will have a World upper, middle, and lower class. This means that the much of the world's poor will be brought above the poverty line at the expense of the West's affluent middle class. And this is a threat to the stability of our Republic that nobody relizes.
-Grant
|grant.henninger.name|
And yes, we can and will kill all the terrorists.
Actually, you won't. Because killing them will just make their neighbours hate you more and turn them into terrorists.
My Journal
You miss the point that even if we 'kill all the terrorists', more of them are created every day. You say they hate us because we're powerful, wealthy, intelligent etc. If that is the case, then there are only a few future paths for the U.S. 1) Continue business as usual, and be prepared to deal with the fact that we will always be hated, and will always be the target of violence. 2) Give up our power, wealth, education, etc and turn ourselves into a third world country. 3) Try to spread our wealth and success to the rest of the world.
Most of the brainwashed American masses think that option (1) is the patriotic option, despite the fact that it puts us in the losing situation of trying to fight the whole world and will probably end up in option (2) in the long run. A true patriot would realize that the only long-term path with any semblance of national security is (3). Note that (3) is not what most corporations think about when they are going overseas. They are most certainly not interested in exporting any of the things which make America a very livable place, such as environmental protections, labor laws, etc. Rather they are looking to avoid all of the pesky government 'intrusions' that try to make them act the least bit responsible or decent. They want the 'right' to pollute as much as they want, pay the lowest possible wages, and run like hell taking all of their capitol as soon as the next country looks like it will accept more pollution and even lower wages. Or as soon as they have extracted all the natural resources. Then people like you wonder why the masses in these countries aren't grateful that we gave them our pollution and paid them slave labor wages and strip mined their country.
That's why 'globalization' is such a hot topic. Corporations talk about a level playing field, but what they are really looking for is a way out of the basic regulations that keep America from being a 3rd world country. The Blame America First Club, as you like to call it, wants globalization to mean exporting our labor and environmental laws, our democratic government, as well as capital investment. Corporations are interested in maximizing profits by avoiding labor and environmental regulations. Usually this means avoiding any true democracy as well, since most people actually like things like being paid a decent wage and having clean water to drink and vote accordingly.
When
I never said I hate anyone. I didn't say anything specifically about Afghanistan. We didn't "hate" the German people when Nazism threatened us. We didn't "hate" the Japanise either.
The simple fact of the matter is, the controlling factions of Afghanistan have committed an act of war, a war crime at that, and we must respond. If you disagree with this, I have an exercise you might try. Have someone hit you. You don't hate them, so you won't retiate. They hit you again, only harder. You don't retaliate, again, because you don't "hate."
Eventually one of two things will happen. You will defend yourself at the expense of someone you "don't hate." Or, you will be very seriously injured. This is no different. We can have a few dozen Afghan innocents die, or just keep letting Americans die. I'll take the former. If you think war means hate, I suggest you go sing "Give Peace a Chance" around a bond fire with some middle east militants and see if how long you live.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
Dear, sweet Lord. Never in my most imaginative, feverish nightmares would I have dreamt that someone would actually accuse Jon Katz of being a pro-corporate shill.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
I believe that most (if not all) of the downsides of globalisation stem for the way that most big corporations take no responsibility for the environment and human welfare. Their remit is to maximise shareholder value, and that's what they do.
IMHO, governments should bring the corporations back to an ecologically and sociological responsible position through regulation. This way their duties to the shareholders would be leveled with duties to the environment and society.
I'm not against commerce and the synergies available in large companies, but there must be a way to get those large companies to help distribute the benefits to _all_ the stakeholders - rather than just the senior execs and major shareholders.
Just because you can't, doesn't mean you shouldn't.
bombing the afghans is like bombing sicily
to get rid of the mafia...
why their wealth, their entertainment, and their freedoms have made so many others unhappy.
Oh yes. Your argument makes so much sense. Now I understand. America is hated because the rest of the world is jealous.
Of course! That's why everyone hates the Swiss! They have the highest Earning Power (GDP per capita) in the world. All that fresh air and beautiful scenery too! And their public services are so efficient. Bastards! The only thing I don't understand is, since they obviously must be really hated, why haven't they had any terrorist attacks yet?
The UK doesn't exactly look too good here, 300 years or so of buggering up the country makes the US' 30 years look pretty small cheese in comparison.
The point here is that it is important to do things now with a _clue_ about where it could end up.
Right now is a classic example, the "Northern Alliance" who China regard as supporting terrorism in China. Are a bunch of nutter thugs from whom the Taliban split because the Taliban are religious nutters not just straight nutters. Do we want those people in charge ? No thank you.
How about using a sensible concept in a country like that like "democracy" and "subsidy". Help to build a democratic goverment and build all those cheap Nike factories in Afghanistan. Make sure the oil revenues are evenly distributed rather than just to the rich elite.
In Kuwait the west defended a dictatorial regime with a poor human rights record, especially against immigrants from the 3rd world, and replaced it with... exactly the same regime.
How about replacing a bunch of nutters with a demoncratic goverment.... that _we might not always agree with_. But that has a vested interest in peace.
Option 4) Work _with_ the other countries in the region, have Pakistan involved in determining the make up and format for elections (I know miltary dictator setting up a democracy), have Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Syria et al involved in this process.
Remember this was a war against _terrorism_ NOT against the Taliban, their crime is harbouring a terrorist... who they OFFERED to handover to a neutral country (ala Libya and the Lockerbie suspects).
Bombing the Red Cross is _not_ the sort of act that will increase stability in the region.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
For those of you who can't stand being enlightened, avert your eyes. Here's some truth for you:
The fundamentalists hate Western culture and they want everyone who lives a life any different from theirs to die. They want Western culture destroyed and will willingly put themselves to death to further their cause.
Why? Because the want their culture to be the dominant one, that's why. It's as simple as that. When one Northern Alliance soldier was asked why he was fighting the Taliban, he said "Because they are not from my tribe." Tribes. That's all this is.
We, and by we I mean the whole of Western society, are a tribe. That's all we are in the eyes of those who want us dead. We are a tribe and the fundamentalists can never belong to our tribe because our way of life is incompatible with theirs. But the fundamentalists can't slow down the spread of our tribe because people the world over and absolutely dying to become part of our tribe. The fundamentalists have been passed over and left in the "has-been" section of the primitive world. And, because of fear, lack of understanding, desperation, whatever, the fundamentalists seek to tear apart the society to which they can not belong.
As I look around the room where I work, I see people who wouldn't assume that they are the same as me. We've got different color skin, different religious backgrounds. But to these terrorists, these religious extremists...we are the same. And we are not them. And thus, we must die.
I want to take a moment to address another couple of statements I read in this thread, without bothering to make multiple repies.
Yes, we've most likely killed more Afghan civilians than whoever is putting Anthrax in the mail has with their attacks. From all accounts, that still leaves more than 5,000 civilians on our side. If you want to draw parallels between agressive acts, you'd better include all of them.
Violence creates more violence. Indeed. But what choice do we have? It is obvious that there are people in the world who hate us so much, they would like nothing better than to kill our people. No political or humanitarian acts will ever stop this way of thinking. The very existence of our nation is a threat to the way of life for extermists such as the terrorists holed up in Afghanistan. Therefore, the only choice we have is to make an example of the Taliban. An example that illustrates a point to other governments: "If you don't keep it under control, you won't stay in power."
Back to globalization. Pay close attention to this, because it's 100% pure truth. We can't stop globilization of Western culture. Why? BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE WANT IT! The Japanese imported music, movies and baseball just to be more like us! Envy for our success and relatively secure life will drive other cultures to want to be like Western cultures. We don't have to be active in the globalization of Western culture...it'll happen without us.
My sigs always suck.
We compete on the gloabl stage for work. We offer a business advantage over third world competitors in that we are stable and are run by the rule of law. And because we have this advantage over 3rd world, that is the only reason why we have work here at all. Otherwise we would have no work here because we CHARGE HIGH WAGES. People, that is a GOOD THING! WE WANT HIGH WAGES!
High wages for Westerners. Screw the poor elsewhere! They want to work for us but don't let them! Let them starve instead. We want them to work for us to lower the price of our goods. But don't let them! Let's have our products be overpriced instead! The most important thing is to protect the wages of the middle class.
Even if a person were as short-sighted and narrow-minded as that, it would still be no argument against globalization. The economics of the situation are that when we send money abroad those people become consumers and they buy stuff we make like K-rad computer games and Intel processors. So they can escape poverty, we get cheaper basic goods and we get paid to do more interesting work than working in a t-shirt factory. What a ripoff, eh?
If you don't believe the economics, just look at recent history. Ross Perot claimed that NAFTA would send tons of American jobs to Mexico but until the recent slowdown there was virtually no unemployment in the US. We know that low-end jobs did move to Mexico. But we also know that new, high-paying jobs have been created in the tech sector in the last several years. That seems like a good trade to me!
The reality is quite different. Although there are all sorts of groups among the protesters, including, for instance, union members protesting loss of jobs in this country, the general view of the anti-WTO crowd is NOT anti-globalization. Most agree that free trade can be a very good thing. What they are protesting is the MANNER in which free trade is being pushed.
With trade organizations taking precedence over local government regulations, environmental and labor laws are being pushed aside in the name of free trade. In such a case, there will be some people in those third-world countries who will benefit, while many common people have it even worse. Think of the child laborers making Nike shoes, for instance. The owner of the factory is doing quite well with free trade, but that 8-year-old working the machine in the corner is not having such a nice life. So the protesters are basically saying, 'Have free trade, but do it in a socially-responsible manner that upholds the worth of the individual.'
Since capitalism and free trade in a pure form doesn't really care about the worth of the individual except as the individual provides work or cash, the media lies about the situation to color people's perception of this debate. They reduce the complex arguments down to "Free Trade Bad," which is not at all the message being argued.
________________
Private Essayist
"What's stopping it? You're the ones buying our products. Nobody's holding a gun to your head at the Gap and making you buy their t-shirts. "
Our kids are. Metaphorically of course.
They are some what more sensitive to the propagandising of the the various corporate interests.
Freedom is a fairly specious notion. When we had a King most people thought that we were free because we had a king, and hated the notion of democracy. Did they chose to have a king. Well in a sense. At least until we got around to cutting his head off.
I think its over simplified to say "it exists, therefore we choose it". Clearly we have had some choice in the matter, but the choice is not made in a vacuum.
Of course unlike some I don't see this in terms of American cultural imperialism. Most of the population in American were not asked any more than most of the British were during the time of our empire. It seems to me that there are a few who are profitting mightly from the situation, whilst most of us get on with the struggle to survive.
Phil
There is no difference.
The real greed is on their side. While we seek only money, the seek power and to take freedoms that others have as proof of their power.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
violence begets more violence - he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword
John, did you notice that a lot of people who don't live by the sword get killed by those with swords? I hate to suggest you might be a bit naive, because I suspect that perhaps you understand this truth but if all of us sheep were to disarm, you think the wolves would disarm too? Sorry, but I have to think not.
I am in agreement that we must understand the nature of the problem on a deeper level than most people seem interested in thinking about it. Only then can we address some of the issues that give the bin Laden's of the world a fertile ground to recruit terrorists from - the dispossessed, the downtrodden, the hopeless. I also agree that certain parts of this 'war on terrorism' could lead to a widening of the conflict... up to and including a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan.
But to suggest that we can allow 6000 murders to go unpunished or unprosecuted is equally reprehensible. I don't (frankly) care what excuse bin Laden has (or the hijackers) - 6000 murders is still 6000 people slaughtered with malice of forethought. The kind of individuals that could do this won't hesitate to do it again and they're far enough gone that attempts at "understanding" will only give them time to work more of their evil. Similarly, waiting for the UN to accomplish anything (ha ha, World Court, good joke...) is pretty utopian and also allows these villains to work their evils.
It boils down to this: If you are a human being, you have some right to life. Those who would abbrogate your right to life for whatever cause are probably evil. They need to be brought to account. Is that all that needs done? Not by half. Afghanistan and a few other places need rebuilt. They need rebuilt not to make them anti-Islamic or to make them capitalist, but rather to make them a place where the women are not oppressed and where reasonless fundamentalism doesn't reign and where terrorists are made unwelcome. That is why we must dismantle their government and their terrorist networks and seek to bag bin Laden.
Innocents will get killed. Some new bad feelings will be created. But appeasement or ignoring the problem because the solution might be costly (as we saw clearly in several historical periods) has lead to more death and destruction than a lot of forthright actions. The horror of war is a universal constant, but the horror of the Taliban and Al-Queda is greater.
And instead of focusing on the few civilian deaths (yes, they are rotten...), try to focus on this: This is probably one of the few wars in history where anyone has TRIED to distinguish between civilian and military targets. No firebombings of Hamburg/Mecca. No Nuclear bombings of Hiroshima/Kabul. There is a conscious effort NOT to hurt those already brutalized by war. Will some be hurt or killed? Probably. But not all that many and the Americans should be lauded (along with their allies) for at least making a firm attempt not to kill those who aren't involved. Ask the Taliban to stop parking military vehicles and HQ inside of civilian neighbourhoods if they value their people. And if they don't, this is further evidence they need removing. I notice Al-Queda and the hijackers don't distinguish between civilian and non-civilian targets. Bin Laden himself said all Americans (and by extension, the rest of us in the civilized capitalist democracies) are his enemies, whether we carry a gun or pay taxes.
I don't know about you... but when a man declares me his enemy without ever meeting me just based on his assumptions about me, and is willing to kill me for that, I'm more than willing to see him prevented (permanently) from doing harm to me or others like me. He is willing to assign my life and the lives of those he uses as pawns a value of zero or less... so I am forced to consider him a fundamentally broken mind and an evil the world can do without.
Thomas B. Canada
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
Jon,
I think you kind of misjudge that globalization has been a recent trend.
I say that is completely wrong. After all, during the zenith of the Roman Empire in the 1st and 2nd Centuries AD the entire Mediterranean Sea was under Roman control, so Roman culture homogenized the culture of that part of the world. The same happened when Islam spread starting the 7th Century AD, which by 1000 AD created an fairly homogeneous Moslem culture that went from southern Spain to the west, down the east coast of Africa to the south, and much of central Asia to the east. And Arab merchants based in the Arabian Peninsula in those days became extremely wealthy, just like the multinational corporations of today.
In short, the globalization of today is just repeating what happened 1000 to 2000 years ago, only we have faster means of goods transport.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
I can only hope we'll shake off religion as another bond to our primitive ancestory and move on.
I concur, completely and wholeheartedly.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Life and Debt, an interesting documentary (haven't seen it yet) about the globalization process effects on Jamaica, with special emphasis on the IMF. Turning it essentially into nothiung more than a tourist trap, with all local industry disappearing and a huge debt load. An example - IMF policies require you to end farm subsidies, while the US can (and does) subsidize farm products. Local farmers can't compete go out of business.
The International Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders represent a different kind of "globalization", for which we used to use the term international. For example, many people make the claim of being an "internationalist", which means that they are loyal to no flag and their ethics are inclusive of the entire world population (but not necessarily a "one-world-government"). I wager that Doctors Without Borders would prefer to be called Internationalist rather than globalist.
Most opponents of "globalization" are not isolationists (a common straw man of neoliberals). If anything, they want to see even less restrictions on movement, communication, and goods than multinational corporations lobby for, but as a means of feeding people, not extracting profit. Central to this view is the idea of open borders--free and easy immigration for all. Anyone notice how long those people were marooned off the coast of Austrialia? Or how long refugees rot in camps in the U.S.?
The reason that multinational corporations oppose that kind of globalization, the globalization of population movement, is that they would lose the very profitble factor of geographic advantage -- the ability to pay a sweatshop worker in Burma $0.12/hr rather than a union worker in the U.S. $9.00/hr. So multinational corporations form PAC's and fincance politicians that want to lower trade tariffs while restricting immigration at the same time. And let's not forget IMF policies forbidding the nationalization of industries (or forcing privatization of State industries), cutting of social services, and leveraging loan promises against environmental protection.
As much as politicians make pretty speeches about "the New World Order" and globalization's bounty of technology and prosperity, the fact is that they are being bankrolled by multinational corporations. Listen closely and you'll hear that they are really saying nothing substantial at all.
If you start talking about Al Qaeda and the Russian "Mafiya" being globalized then you digress from the commonly accepted meaning of the word (and thus have an uphill semantic battle to fight). They are multinational organizations, for sure. The reason why those groups and corporations are multinational rather than international is that multi- signifies that they have membership/property in various nations, rather than having an ethical inclusiveness to ALL nations. Corporations and terrorist/crime organizations have selfish ethics (ie. a corp's loyalty is to it's stockholders, mafia's is to it's family, a terrorist network is loyal to their cause, etc.) Internationalists are loyal to the Earth and it's inhabitants, regardless of whom they are.
[pink beam of light]
In Part Two: Have multinationals hijacked globalism? (Yes.)
Great! Glad you answered that one. Now I don't have to read the second of two parts.
JonKatz, here are some "Great Rules for Writing" from William Safire in the New York Times:
Do not put statements in the negative form.
And don't start sentences with a conjunction.
It is incumbent on one to avoid archaisms.
If you reread your work, you will find on rereading that a great deal of repetition can be avoided by rereading and editing.
Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do.
Unqualified superlatives are the worst of all.
De-accession euphemisms.
If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.
Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.
Never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
Also, avoid awkward or affected alliteration.
Last, but not least, avoid cliches like the plague.
[
Hiding behind the UN security council is futile. The US and the UK have been responsible for rejecting any proposed changes to the blockade.
While the US position has some justification, pretending that the US is not the principle mover in the matter is the type of behaviour that discredits the US abroad.
The concern I have is that by insisting on continuing the blockade long after it has proved to be failure the US has made it much harder to get the security council to approve future actions.
The UN is very valuable tool for US foreign policy. It is the only organization that can deflect the criticism of the US acting as a rogue superpower, unaccountable to any authority.
Unfortunately some of the US right do not like the UN because they dislike the idea of any fetters on US power. So they have picked stupid quarrels with the UN and severely weakened US influence.
While it my make the US right feel good to wave their flags in other countries faces it is not the type of behvaiour they tollerate when other countries engage in it. The same senators that blocked payment of US dues to the UN lathered themselves up into a fury of self-righeous indignation when they lost their seat on the human rights panel to France. The statements made at the time were entirely ignorant of the fact that the term 'human rights' actually orginated in France based on the work of Voltaire, Rousseaux etc. Also conveniently ignored was the fact that the seats on the commissions are allocated geographically, the US was not eligible for the Africa seat taken by Sudan.
Desert storm was a success largely because the US took great care to operate behind the shield of UN resolutions. Even Bin Laden has not complained about the US driving Saddam out of Kewait, his complaint is that the troops remained in Saudi where they are propping up the regime against internal dissent.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
> the controlling factions of Afghanistan have committed an act of war
Really ? There were 0 (count em) Afghanis involved on Sept 11. Maybe you refer to their refusing to hand over the chief suspect without evidence, or at least refusing to hand him directly to USA. They offered to turn him over for trial to the UN, but this offer was rejected. Is this the act of war you are referring to ?
The Taliban are assholes. Unfortunately the bombs have strengthened their grip on the country. Foreign aggression always has that effect. For instance, the USA didn't rise up against Bush as a result of attacks. Even if the fundamentalists had dropped curried goat as well as plane-bombs on the US, I doubt they would have won our hearts and minds and inspired us to overthrow our unelected government.
> We can have a few dozen Afghan innocents die, or just keep letting Americans die
If it were this simple, I would respect your logic if not your principles. Unfortunately there are c. 1,000,000,000 muslims in the world, most of them do not live in Afghanistan. Many of them see this action as an attack on their spiritual bretheren. It is very likely that 100000-1000000 innocent people will starve as a result of the US action (the deaths through bombs are likely to be relatively low). Maybe you don't care about these people and think the price is worth it, but there is a good chance that some other people in the world don't care about you (and me) either, and think that killing more Americans may be the only way to express their distaste for this action. After all, it's the only language we seem to understand.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
I don't think that the underlying issue is fundamentalism vs democracy at all. Or even fundamentalism vs technology. Access to technology and distrust of globalisation are issues here in the West too. People that can't afford a good education or computers are scared. They know that they are competing at a strong disadvantage in our economy. This makes them, and the large number of people in many industries who have had stagnant wages over the last 20 years, (justifiably) afraid of globalisation.
But, take it a step further. If you are living in a place where you don't have decent access to clean water, let alone the internet, how will you react to globalisation? Remember, the message you will hear is the importance of technical skills and knowledge -- things you don't have and can't get. Any rational person (or even not-so-rational) will be afraid. Especially if you feel powerless to do anything about your situation.
This is where fundamentalism kicks in. Its leaders offers two things these people want: easy answers and a voice -- a way to express their frustration and fear to a society (the West) that they perceive (largely correctly) as indifferent to them and their needs.
Democracy (or lack thereof) is irrelevant in this situation. The issue is fear and poverty. Why would you ever support a program (globalisation) that you feel is against your own interests? If you felt that fundamentalism would help defend you from it , wouldn't you support it?
The question for Westerners is twofold. First, are they wrong about globalisation's effects on them? And second, what are we willing to do address their (real and perceived) concerns.
If globalisation is to be a good thing, all parties need to benefit and feel that they are benefitting. Otherwise, we are having a discussion about imperialism and exploitation: which is exactly what many of these people feel we are discussing.
As for He/She/It, I am an American He with no excuses or apologies for my culture.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
That's why we aren't targeting the Afghans.
I'd actually say that the whole globalization movement has it's genesis in multinationals -- i.e., chartered corporations like the Dutch East India company. So, has it been hijacked by them? Not really, it's been their cause all along.
I don't see that any of *our* institutions have successfully promoted abroad. And I think it's fair to say that our State department, and the various commercial interests that lobby our government don't want to see a replication of this country's freedom (limited as it is) in the developing world. Free people are too interested in their own welfare and promoting their own interests. Global corporations want things like: cheap labor, cheaply extractable natural resources, captive import markets, etc. Freedom interferes with these things, because people naturally want to maximize their own country's autonomy.
From what I can see, Globalization in practice amounts to exporting unproven economic theory, and forcing developing nations to be the laboratories of capitalism, whether or not it serves their interests.
I'd be interested to hear counterexamples, if people can think of instances where the transfer of Euro-American social institutions has produced the kind of relative stability/prosperity that we enjoy.
-w
One of the major problems of traditional globalism is that it opens the borders to investments, allows goods to be shipped easily across borders, etc. In other words, it's easy to move production to areas with low labor costs, little or no environmental protections etc.
On the other hand, it does not allow labor to easily cross the borders. Globalization will allow American companies to build factories right across the border in Mexico. All the dollar-a-day jobs you can handle. However, if someone doesnt want to work one of those jobs, they're NOT free to cross the border to find a higher paying job.
-J5K
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
Unfortunately Conservatives appear unable to think once about killing people.
It was not a liberal who wrote 'war is diplomacy by other means'. The easiest thing to do is to start a war, the hardest is to stop one.
If you want to see what pig headed aggression achieves look at the result of Sharon's policies. Since taking power he has ordered the assasination of almost a hundred Palestinians. As a direct result the Palestinians are now assasinating cabinet ministers.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
(A) Neither are they. do you really want to live in a country under siege?
(B) It doesn't take either. Look at the trouble the Irish paramilitary groups caused Britain over the last 30 years.
My Journal
I'll support your argument!
Here, in my home town, a town which prides itself to it's unique identity, local stores, culture and flair, we had a restaurant chain come in and put in a Carl's Jr.
Prior to opening, this store was vandalized, most likely by local college students part of some anti-globalization movement.
Then the store opened, and you know what? They went out of business in 6 months, because people simply did not eat there. It wasn't part of the cutlure of this town.
Even though it was the ONLY place downtown where you could pop in, buy lunch for $4, and get back to wherever you were working - all the other restaurants were locally owned, priced higher, slower service models. And they won out. The people's choice won, the market hath spoken.
Carl's Jr. did not hold a gun to anybody's head. Sure, I bet they greased a few palms at City Hall to get a spot there. But they're out now. Tough titties. Find me a global store chain that can cop a local charm and appeal. It won't happen, as long as people are educated and aware of what's really important to them.
Of course, no local organization sent agents to go blow up Carl's Jr.'s corporate headquarters either.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Of course what Katz' is calling Globalization is in fact Americanization. Dropping McDonald's in Red Square or in a cave in Kabul. The pervasiveness of our media. Baywatch, Starwars, AOL, yadda yadda.
Many see this as evil, or imperialistic. How can we (USA) impose ourselves on the rest of the world? we don't respect culture (hey, we renamed our war didn't we?) and we trash all that we (USA) do not hold dear.
You mutilate your women by cutting of their clitoris -- we condemn you. You beat women who show their ankle -- we condemn you. You cane people who spray paint cars -- we condemn (and sue, and force you to change your local laws) you.
Guess what... USA is the biggest, loudest, strongest, wealthiets, fattest, healthiest, best looking country in the world. We do what we want. You can follow if you like, you don't have to, unless you want to do business with us. Then you'd better learn English (American) and get ready to know that 36 inches is a yard because we don't like the metric system.
Large, loud people often get noticed. People who get noticed tend to garner followers. How do we tell the Japanese not to be just like us when thy want to be just like us? Or the Mexicans, or the Russians, Germans, Brits, etc.
People want to be Americans. They want to be movie stars. They want to hit homeruns. American culture is cool, and glamorous, and proabably a better way of life than they have.
The thing of it is is that the Globalization isn't being forced down anyone's throat. Sure the American way of life is portrayed, in our media, which is the conduit for its expansion, as better than it really is but America practically invented Marketing; what did you expect?
The funniest part of this is that America is essentially still isolationary (is that a word?) but we tend to get dragged into things. The fact is that a lot of people want to be American. It looks good.
My argument is not dissimilar to people who say that cigarette ads don't make people smoke. They don't. So America is well marketed, and people want to be a part of that.
Whose fault is that?
This
Hey, let me remind you that Stalin and Pol Pot didn't have "primative religion" as a means to justify their genocides.
I think that people looking to blame religion as the cause of all of humanity's problems really ought to look at humanity itself first.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
It's not about 'giving up' on Israel. No one in their right mind is calling for that. It's about Israel maturing and being encouraged if not eventually forced to deal with the Palestinian crisis in a constructive manner rather than endless cycles provocation, attack and retaliation.
**>>BELCH
It won't happen. As long as humans are emotional beings, there will always be many who will look to some sort of a spiritual escape from the rational, material, factual world.
...I'd be the first in line to experiment with this.
/. on Sept.11, my attitudes towards religion became a few degrees less hostile. Although I'm still embarrassed by God Bless America slogans, I see nothing wrong with other, less fascist religions like zen and theravada buddhisms. (although, whacking zen students with a paddle during meditation seems as fascist as church-sponsored genital mutilation, so maybe i'm on a limb...)
True, indeed. People are emotional. Personally I believe in a world where one day science will answer everything, and even be able to understand how our brains are capable of limitless creative query. However, even if science can explain the spritual part of the brain, we will still feel spiritual involuntarily. Unless it can be turned off, like a lobotomy or severing the optic or aural nerves.
After some good discussion on
I think globalization under the guidance of Nader would bring us a safer more closely night global community. OF course, Mr. Nader would probably disagree with my desire to use him as the point-man to lead the globalized free world.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
I think the AC was making a joke. You can't hear it but there are some people in my office laughing at you right now.
This
I think that one of the issues of globalization is that corporations, having no ethics, are quite happy to run along and move their organization to anywhere that they can get the best return on investment.
If this means taking advantage of a cheap workforce, no labor laws, no benefits, then so be it.
Globalization actually makes it possible to enact labor laws, benefits and so on, on a world-wide basis. If all you can see is a Nike shoe factory moving to a 3rd world country, depriving us poor Americans of good paying jobs while exploiting the locals, well, I'm sorry to tell you but they're doing that already. Globalization will provide an interface with which to address those concerns. Right now there is nothing.
And I'm still not clear on the anti-global trade folks' position, is it the seeming loss of American jobs you decry, or the seeming abuse of foreign work-forces? If corporations spreading world-wide brings about the sort of disasters you protest-addicts seem to envision, who will buy their products? How will they survive? Who will profit, and then what?
**>>BELCH
Bin Laden actually doesn't care about the Palestinians or Iraq or any of that. He wants the world remade in his view--he points to the Taliban as the ultimate form of society. In an interview a few years ago, he said his ultimate goals were not to get the US out of the mideast, but to have a jihad in Egypt, a jihad in Israel, a jihad in Bosnia--basically a Jihad everywhere that will replace all governments with a fundamentalist Muslim one such as the Taliban. It's a different kind of globalization, really.
That's not globalization. He doesn't want to remake the world in his view, and he doesn't want to take over the world. He wants Muslims to retake the Muslim world, which he sees as having been colonized by the West. He really doesn't care what happens to us in the West, so long as we leave Muslims alone.
Again, no amount of understanding the root of the problem will make that go away. The only thing that these people (the terrorists) understand is having a bomb dropped on them so they can't do anything anymore.
But you're saying this on the basis of your own understanding of the problem. If that understanding was proven incorrect, then I presume you would revise it. So crack open a book, and maybe you'll learn that your CNN black-hats-white-hats view of the world doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny.
It's a sad commentary on humans, but its the truth--do you think enough understanding would have prevented Hitler from attempting world domination? I doubt it--ask Neville Chamberlain.
You're talking about "understanding" after the fact, but you're neglecting the understanding of bad situations before they turn into wars. A better understanding of Germany after WWI would have meant a less onerous Treaty of Versailles being imposed, preventing the perfect conditions for an extremist nationalist rising like the Nazis.
Similarly, better understanding of what a pile of shit the US has made of its foreign policy in the Muslim world will prevent future Bin Ladens from rising. It's called "fixing the roof while the sun is shining". No-one is asking you to understand the rain in your living room better, only to understand that if you had fixed the roof last week when the hole was pointed out to you, it wouldn't be there now.
Of course Bin Laden would still exist, even if we had understood the problem better. But he would not have had the army of supporters, both passive and active, that he now commands. Further use of your "bombs are the only language these people understand" analysis will lead to an unending stream of them, more than you and your gov't will ever be able to find, let alone bomb.
Globalism is not and has never been a political movement. It is no more than a social and political trend that began with the Industrial Revolution. Geography is less of a constraint than it was in past. Airline travel, the telephone, satelite TV and the Internet mean that you can live in one country and have the same communications access as if you lived in another country on a different continent.
Anti-globalism is a political movement of sorts. There is no real cohesion between the aims of the various factions however. In many cases the aims are completely opposed.
Bin Laden is not an anti-globalist in any meaningful sense, he is anti-US but his political aims are global. He wants to return the world to the middle ages one country at a time, starting with Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Palestein but continuing on to Andaloucia (Spain), Africa etc.
Some of the anti-globalists are anti-democratic tin pot nationalists who want to declare independence for their little fragment of a nation state so that they have a better chance of getting power themselves.
Other 'anti-globalists' are tin-pot union leaders looking for some form of protectionism that will discriminate against goods produced by foreign workers.
Most of the 'anti-globalists' are not protesting about the process of globalisation however but the limited form in which it is taking place. As they see it the West is busy exporting the working practices and political structures of the nineteenth century while trying to deter democratization that might threaten Western interests.
As a political critique it was far more accurate in the 1970s than today. The list of dictators supported by the West and in particular the US is very long. The US subverted democratic governments in Chile and the Congo and replaced them with mass murderers.
US administration policy since the cold war, and in particular since the Clinton administration has been to end support for most of the worst regimes. Marcos, Pinochet, Suharto and the rest have been consigned to the dustbin of history. It is therefore somewhat strange to start an unfocused 'the US can do no right' movement at this time. There are several areas where the US is standing on the wrong side of history, proping up the gulf dictatorships for example, however US foreign policy is much reformed.
The biggest problem of globalism is ex-patriate meddling in their former home countries, particularly in the second and third generations. Sean Connery's calls for an independent Scotland made from a Spanish golf course are ridiculous and harmless enough. The funding of the IRA by Irish Americans or the Sikh separatists in India by Bradford shopkeepers was not. The problem with ex-patriates is that they can believe all the propaganda they like, they can fund all the murder they like and live in perfect safety far from the consequences of their meddling.
The funding of Israeli settlements by US Jews and the funding of extreemist Madrasah schools in Pakistan by Saudis are just another example of a type of meddling from a long distance that is hated by the majority in the countries that are subjected to it.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
The fact that the peole of Europe are pooring there money into buying Starbucks, McDonald, ect proves you wrong.
There would be no Starbucks in Europe(or anywhere) if people didn't spend there money there.
We will win because we cater to peoples greed. If the cafes where cheaper then starbucks, then they could compete, but there not. Bottom line if a really good cup of coffee costs 5 Units of Currency, and a mediocore cup of coffee costs 2 Units of Currency, the Mediocore coffee seller will dominate.
OTOH putting religion first has brought us so many wonderfull things, dark ages, crusades, war, overpopulation, just to name a few.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Please stop spreading this stupid rumor.
It's almost as bad as the Nostradamous non-sense.
It was started by an article written by "Robert Scheer", and it's factually wrong.
Did the White House give the Taliban $43 million?
> Eli Lake, who covers the State Department for UPI and who wrote an accurate report about the $43 million grant last May, calls the notion that the White House gave the money to the Taliban as a reward for their anti-drug efforts " just absurd." He notes that one of the Bush administration's first actions upon taking office was to shut down the Taliban's mission in New York, in compliance with UN sanctions.
- sigs are for wimps.
Fathom.com which is trying to be the international university course clearinghouse has a FREE onlie course called "The Globalization Debate". Maybe some of you are serious enough about this to take the FREE course and see some examples of well considered and balanced opinion on globalisation.
Here's the course description that I include here because the Fathom site would not allow internal links:
Globalisation is a fervidly contested and often misunderstood concept. It has occupied and divided economists, sociologists and anti-capitalists alike. Anti-globalisation protestors have regularly and successfully picketed World Trade Organisation summits as part of their stand against the might of globalisation. Yet, many economists tout the benefits of increased trade, sophisticated telecommunications networks and cross-border investment to developing countries, pointing to the gains workers and unions throughout the world stand to make from closer integration.
Most people seem to know whether they are for or against globalisation, without pausing to consider what exactly it is and where its effects can be seen. Globalisation might be a term too slippery to be closely defined, but it is a vibrant debate worth engaging in.
In this seminar two major sociologists put forward their versions of globalisation. For Anthony Giddens, it is a phenomenon characterised by fundamental changes in the world economy, the communications revolution and trade between nation-states in physical commodities, information and currency. For Leslie Sklair, globalisation should be seen as a new phase of capitalism, one that transcends the unit of the nation-state. In an interview, he introduces the globalisation debate and stakes out his position within it. Sklair builds on these arguments through a flash image gallery, which explores how the idea of globalisation is used by transnational corporations.
Leslie Sklair is a reader in sociology at the London School of Economics and Political Science and is responsible for the doctoral programme in the sociology department. He has been a visiting professor at New York University, San Diego State University and Hong Kong University, and has lectured on globalisation all over the world. His Sociology of the Global System (1995) has been translated into Japanese, Portuguese, Persian, Chinese and Spanish. He has conducted fieldwork on transnational corporations in Mexico, China, Hong Kong, Egypt and Australia, and in Europe and North America.
Sklair's latest book, The Transnational Capitalist Class, aims to provide the first systematic, research-based sociological analysis of the relationships between processes of globalisation and the major transnational corporations that are widely considered to dominate the global economy. Using the Global Fortune 500 as an example, the book focuses on the extent of globalisation in these corporations.
Anthony Giddens is the director of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). He started his academic career at the University of Hull, and went on to study for an M.A. in sociology at the LSE; by 1976 he had completed a Ph.D. at Cambridge University.
Giddens has held numerous teaching positions within sociology, including at the University of Leicester and the University of Cambridge, and has lectured extensively at many overseas universities. He has received 10 honorary degrees throughout his career. More recently he was the BBC Reith Lecturer in 1999.
Giddens is the most widely read and cited social theorist of his generation, authoring 34 books and countless articles and reviews. He co-founded the academic publishing house Polity Press in 1985 and still stands as chairman and director of Polity Press Ltd. as well as the director of Blackwell-Polity Ltd. He also stands as the chairman and director of the Centre for Social Research.
Giddens is well respected for developing the theory of structuration, and has been at the forefront of developing ideas in left-of-centre politics, helping to popularize the idea of the "third way," and travelling to many countries around the world to talk to political leaders and heads of state about the development of third way politics. Frequently referred to as "Tony Blair's guru," Giddens has also made a strong impact on the evolution of New Labour.
As a general rule, assertions that humanity is progressing and that expanded integration among people is good are considered liberal.
Note, in this context, liberal applies in both its 19th century and 20th century sense.
This is different from liberal polices (labor standards, environmental regimes, etc.) which are responses to liberal idea(l)s.
Smart. After the events of the last two days, the Red Cross needs to be eliminated as a criminal organization. It has taken $100 million of the $550 million donated to it for 9/11 recovery and decided that American victims of the 9/11 ATROCITY don't deserve it. Children in my neighborhood scrambled around, hitting up every person they saw for money for the Red Cross. Its sad to know their hard work and heart felt desire to help was for nothing. Now we find out that the Red Cross is going to misappropriate that money for other purposes. If you or I took $100 million and diverted it for purposes other than the intended, I think we would be in deep trouble. What is even worse, there is no guarantee that the Red Cross will use majority of the money donated for the 9/11 Atrocity will be used for the victims. Very disturbing to say the least!!!
<SARCASM> Also, painting BIG RED CROSSES on your buildings tend to make them easier to hit. </SARCASM>
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
If you're at least capable of watching the latest Disney travesty while munching on your favourite mass-produced soy beef surrogate while browsing porn on your laptop, then chances are pretty good that
A. You're not starving
B. You're not being shot at
To a college age budding intellectual, it must surely seem that starving and being shot at is hugely preferrable to a Microsloth McWorld. Thing is, you're already there in your McDorm fomenting acts of McDissent curtesy of the hard-earned McDollars of your McParents. Those who really are starving and/or being shot at might relish the idea of a chance at that which you are so eager to dismiss.
When Palestinians and Israeli's can argue religious ethics over french fries in a middle eastern community college before the start of their Film Survey class in which they will deconstruct the socio-political undercurrents of Dumbo, then we can ask them if they'd like to give it all up to become rock-throwing McAnarchists.
**>>BELCH
Moving to a place where my values are represented.
It is the lack of ethical growth, particularly outsde of the country's borders, that causes us to be ashamed.
You are right, it is so unethical to feed the world, assist other countries in times of natural/unnatural disaster, provide medical treatment for the world, defend weak nations against rogue nations, etc. Its amazing how often people completely refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming good that comes out of America. I don't understand what perverse thrill you must get to hate your country and your home.
If America is so horrible and evil, why hasn't the UN moved out?
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Jon, you can't have equitable spread of anything and a free-market economy unless you have a really strange definition of equitable (most dictionaries will not include 'I got mine' as a definition).
Economies are inevitably controlled in some fashion- one term for this is 'dirigiste' (sp?) which means 'directed'. One result of this is the evening out of the ungovernable boom and bust cycles of free-market capitalism. There is plenty of reason to think that a worldwide ungoverned boom and bust cycle would be a bad thing.
Globalization does not have to mean uncontrolled freemarket Chicago School capitalism- it is just a convenient label for this, as uncontrolled freemarket Chicago School capitalism pushes for a global boom (as was once, foolishly, written about in Wired, in the 'Long Boom' issue) without a moment of thought for the resulting global _bust_ that will follow.
Equitable spread of technology yes- but free market economy is the last way you're gonna get that.
Noooo! I woOOOooOoOooOn't listen! Feel my pent up, middle-class trust-fund hippy wrath in AAAALLLLLLL CAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPS!
YAAAAAGGGGHHHHHHH! (bamf)
Er, sorry. I'll go now.
**>>BELCH
In your vehement assertion that corporations do not kill people through malice or negligence, don't force obedience through criminal or economic pressure, and that they obey the law even when the local law may be bribery or 'negotiable', do you get your proof...
I've read a goodly number of the responses to Katz's article today. The only thing I can really say is that most people responding to this thread probably need to brush up on the recent middle east history. I would start at about 1900 and work my way forward. Take a look at it with an uncritical eye and see what you come up with.
The number of factual errors propogated by people who are absolutely convinced that they are right is astounding.
Two things need to be said though, and they need to be said at as a global point of discussion.
The first is that while the US has, in a lot of cases, really botched things in certain areas in the Middle East. They are not now, nor have they ever been at the root of all that is evil in these countries. A Good number of these countries have governments more closely resembling the Catholic Church during the Spanish Inquisition and it is unfair and incorrect to assume that this has anything to do with US policy in the Middle East.
Second, the US supplies a good majority of all relief to all disastors that occur anywhere in the world. In most cases, civilized countries will welcome that aid and that relief, even if they don't like us very much. In the middle east and in France they will take that relief and then spit at us as we leave.
So, before you all resume your American Policy bashing please do two things. Brush up on your history and please remember who is paying for the food supplies being dropped in Afghanistan even as we bomb military targets.
Keep in mind two questions as well. First, if Bin Laden had decided to bomb the Kremlin would Afghanistan even exist now? Two, if Bin Laden had decided to bomb the Forbidden City would Afghanistan even exist now?
Beware the wood elf!!!
If you can get cheaper labor in another country by moving jobs there and then tactfully overlooking conditions for work that exist there, you get cheaper labor: the 'slavery' is technically done by somebody else, and you don't ask how it's done. It's a proxy, and the people can lie inventively and say that they meet OSHA regulations or some such thing, but who is checking? Certainly not the company that benefits more by _not_ asking inconvenient questions.
Wrong-o, pal!. Warts and all, we're THE leading (if not the sole) exporter of freedom and liberty in thought and deed in the modern world. We're it. If you feel down-trodden now, wherever the heck you are, we're the only chance you have.
Nazis! Hmph. Indeed...
**>>BELCH
Americans and oil... Someone posted elsewhere on this thread about SUVs and Starbucks and MacDonalds, and one reply said "yeah, SUVs haven't taken off in Europe, but that's because gasoline's expensive there".
You ever wonder why our fuel's expensive, when we're so much closer to the main source? Possibly deliberate taxation policies, to make the alternatives comparatively cheap and encourage research into them? European governments tax oil for a reason. It's not going to last forever, you know. (Estimates of the number of years' worth we have (at current usage) vary, but rarely have 3 digits in them; and by "we" here I don't mean Europeans, I mean the world.)
Observe huge strikes and blockades of refineries by UK truck drivers last summer, in protest at fuel tax rises. These basically stopped the UK for several days, but had precisely no effect on tax levels. If the government here just wanted the money, they could have dropped fuel taxes a bit and taxed something less conspicuous (or lots of less conspicuous things) instead; but they didn't. Does it sound like they want to hold on to that particular tax, for reasons other than just getting the money?
Yes, cars are part of The American Way Of Life. Yes, in a country that big, I suppose they have to be. But that's no reason to be excessive about them... it is possible to live in a fairly American-ish way while not using as much oil (see: UK, France, Germany, I can't be bothered to list the rest of western Europe but you probably get the idea).
The IRA is the organization that just disarmed itself [newsday.com], right? You were saying?
That would be the organisation that disarmed itself because
A)The Brits stopped shooting and started talking
B)Ireland is no longer in an absolutely terrible economic situation which was blamed largely on the British.
Back when the Brits were shooting the IRA, each one they shot caused 3 more to step up to take their place. Believe it or not, when you kill someone you alienate their friends, family and pretty much everyone in the surrounding area.
My Journal
It is called diplomacy. Colin Powell and Madeline Allbright are good at it. George W. Bush and the Republican right are lousy at it. Fortunately Bush appears to have started to understand that there is a positive value to diplomacy and that unilateralism only damages US interests in the long term.
The US has the worlds largest arsenal, in fact with the latest increase the US spends more on arms than the rest of the world put together - including all the Nato allies.
There is a limit to what can be achieved by arms. Brains are much more effective. Bin Laden's strategy is actually very similar to that of Saddam and Castro. If you can survive despite the best efforts of the worlds only superpower to destroy you, you gain credibility, nobody will oppose you rule at home.
What Bin Laden does not understand is that Castro survived because he had the protection of another super power. Saddam survived because the cost of deposing him was too great for the dubious benefit of installing a different dictator. Bin Laden will be destroyed because he has antagonized every one of the major powers (US, UK, Russia, France) and every one of the local powers.
I'd like some opinion beyond the after the fact, 20-20, "that thing you just did was wrong." I want to know, what should are country be doing?
First, stop using rhetoric for domestic consumption when you are abroad. Foreigners do not like being told that the US is the inventor of freedom, the only country that believes in freedom or the only country that God lives in. The US has made significant contributions to the progress of liberty, it is not unique in doing so.
Second, do whatever it takes to settle the festering disputes with Cuba, Iran, North Korea, etc. The 40 year dispute with Cuba is simply demeaning to a great power. End the sanctions, open the boarders and Communism in Cuba will go the same way as the USSR. Iran has two governments, a democratically elected one that is moderate and progressive and a self perpetuate Shite version of the Taleban. The West has to seize the opportunity to support the democratic moderates. North and South Korea had already begun a reprochment under the Clinton Administration which the Bush administration choose to disrupt because they needed the spectre of a North Korean attack to push their stupid ABM scheme.
Third and most important, the US must become an advocate for democracy abroad and not just at home. Too often the US uses the rhetoric of democracy as no more than a cover for its own interests. In many cases the US has attacked and subverted democratically elected governments which it beleived threatened its interests.
The case for democracy that needs to be put is that it is a much more stable form of government than any of the alternatives. Political stability and an honest civil service are the two most important factors determining the economic situation of countries.
Jimmy Cater may have a limited reputation at home, but he is by far the US president most widely respected abroad since WWII. He had the bad luck to have to handle the oil price shocks and the Iranian Embassy seige but he was intelligent and honest. He achieved the first peace settlement in the Middle East. Since leaving office he has helped a large number of the countries that have made the transition to democracy.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
But what does Stiglitz have to say? Well, feel free to read the whole article (linked below), but here's a quote from it:
More than ever, given the current context, the United States should focus on fiscal policies and aim government spending at combating the effects of the terrorist attacks. The recovery of the economy, which could take a long time, depends on effective stimuli from the government, he said.
Globalization, in its fully implemented form, would take government out of having any role whatsoever in controlling such things. Thus, the money-bearing entities would truly control the world. In essense, we would also be dissolving ourselves of an active role in our own government, as well, as we would be placing power in corporations (which are not democratically controlled by us) rather than the government we purport to democratically elect. Erazim Kohak has some interesting words to think over, as well (from Voices of Democracy, see below):
"The demands of the privileged on the finite resources of individual societies as well as of the globe as a whole have accelerated the pauperization of the underprivileged... In the days when populations appeared finite and resources infinite, the affluent north and west of the globe dismissed the problem with the consolation that increasing prosperity of the prosperous would marginally generate prosperity for the deprived. Popularly this came to be known as the 'trickle-down' theory which John Kenneth Galbraith is said to have described as feeding the bird by giving oats to the horse. Unfortunately, that theory has worked only to assuage the consciences of the privileged, not to alleviate the lot of the deprived. In the past fifty years, the gap between the haves and the have-nots has increased precipitously. The global south today is desparately poor and getting poorer, the affluent north is opulently affluent and becoming more so... We can't run a world polarized between incredible wealth and desperate poverty."
I would encourage people to look at the other criticisms that have been proposed, both of globalization raping the already destitute nations to further enrich the rich and of its effects on a true sense of democracy for any nation, including the United States. Some recommended reading:
"Try that in Windows!"
Do you know what the most popular restaurant in Paris is? McDonalds.
Do you know what the most popular OS in NYC is? Windows.
Flawed logic? Yes. Serving shit for a low cost will get you many customers who want to fill their bellies (as opposed to, say, 'have dinner'). Perhaps defining 'popular' as "whee, I'm hungry but on a low budget, let's enter there" as opposed to, say, "Okay, I'll meet you guys at that place across the town, it's worth the trip, you'll see" is an interesting bias in itself. Globalized shit may look popular because it's globalized, but the culture thus invaded WILL see it as shit first and foremost. Mind you.
Stop applying American logic to other cultures if you don't want them to hate you.
Bleh, and the worst is that I know this post will be modded (-1, flamebait) in less time it takes to say "Two royal cheese and a big coke please". Oh, to hell with it.
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
I like universal brotherhood, too, but not when medieval theocracy has anything to do with the game plan.
It is very likely that they would have starved anyway. I don't know if you heard, but the Afghans have been waging a civil war for a decade, there's a horrible drought, and even their sympathetic Muslim neighbors in Pakistan don't want any more of them coming in until they get their shit together and stop behaving like medival thugs.And who has delivered the most food aid to Afghanistan? Their "good Mulsim" oil sheik brothers in Saudi Arabia? No, they're too busy drinking jack daniels and cavorting with eastern european whores while they cry about the corrupt west and fund terrorists by leaving money in paper bags at the service entrance. The United States has been sending the most food aid to Afghanistan.
We also understand rebuilding nations we didn't destroy, letting people practice and preach whatever religion they choose, and allowing individuals to participate in the political process. Fuck you, twit.Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Guys, the reason the US is hated in the middle east is not because the rest of the world hates freedom (sorry Dubbyah) and it's not because the US has lots of modern technology (sorry Katz). It's because US foreign policy has been a kind of terrorism on the middle east.
US funding of Israel and the US habit of vetoing the hundreds of UN resolutions that otherwise would have been passed against Israel have both funded and ligitimised the loss of countless Arab lives.
I would guess that a lot of the rest of the world (I'm a New Zealander BTW) would be unimpressed at other bits of US foreign policy: ignoring the world court when it finds against them (e.g.: bay of pigs), the treatment of Cuba (the Red peril is past, okay?), the unjustified bombing of the pharmaceutecal capabilities of the Sudan (which supplied 90% of the anti-malarial drugs in that country), using trade as a weapon (that why New Zealand was drawn into Vietnam, for example)
I am amazed and saddened by the lack of insight Americans have into the misery caused by American foreign policy. I'm not saying that everything American is bad - far from it, I'm all for the global village and US technology has had a lot to do with making that happen. What I am saying is that Americans should wake up. To say that someone would attack you because they either hate freedom or are jealous of big American cars is either dangerously naive or willfully blind.
Wake up! Read ZMag for some insight.
Then all I ask of these people that feel that America has done wrong by them is to immediately cease all contact with American foreign aid and American products.
There was no excuse for the atrocity of 9/11/01 nor was America in *ANY* way responsible for the terrorist attack. Trying to point the finger of blame at the US for these ISLAMIC terrorists is completely deluded. This was an act of hate and America was the victim of the crime. Its like blaming a woman for being raped because of the clothes she wore.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Many of these issues came up during the 19th century. I chose 1844 as the starting point because that was the invention of the first world-wide-web, otherwise called the telegraph. And around that time came the railroads with that caused the modern form of the corporation- an economic organization that could manage something that large. Close behind followed banks, steel, petroleum, and so on.
Europe was at relative peace between Napolean's defeat in 1815 and 1914 except for a skirmish here and there. Likewise America found peace after 1865 and became a global force. At the turn of 1900 economist were talking about the end of real war. International trade was at levels not seen until the 1980s. This was the golden age of those silly Ivory-Merchant films.
Then came the one-two punch of the Great World War and the Great Depression almost eliminated global trade. People couldn't believe that this could happen after the glorious start of the 20th century. Will the 21st century begin with a global collapse too.
As Santayana said, ignoramouses like Katz are doomed to repeat history?
If Western Civ, Capitalism and America are Flamebait and Troll food, how about we ship these moderators to Afghanistan and so they can hide in the caves with the noble anti-western Taliban. Get a feeling what life without Western Civ is like. Hopefully, they will get a virulent infection in their multiple body piercings during their soul searching.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
In Osama Bin Laden's message to the American people, which the White House asked newspapers and television to not show, he said the primary reason this happened is because the US military has been occupying his homeland, Saudi Arabia, for a decade. This is usually breezed over in American media, if mentioned at all, but it's what set him against the US to begin with. This is a quite rational, political reason, in fact he got kicked out of Saudi Arabia by the US-friendly monarch of Saudi Arabia for advocating American withdrawal. This makes a lot more sense than the loopy reasons being thrown about here and elsewhere. The people who talk like that have counterparts in the Muslim world, who say we're "evil crusaders bombing Afghanistan because we hate Islam, and no matter what anyone does, the US will always hate Islam and arabs". Someone made a reply here in which they cynically said that OBL never mentioned the Palestinians before 9/11. They have a decent point, this may be so, and many leaders in Islamic countries have used the nexus of Israel and the Palestinians to try to rally broader support from the Muslim world.
Regarding Katz's statement - first, I'm set back by his arrogant view that America is the torch-bearer of cosmopolitan enlightenment, and the world is blessed by the spread of our enlightenment. This is the same kind of manifest destiny, imperialistic, colonial idea that America and the European powers held in centuries past - what results from this type of colonialism? South Africa. The Vietnam War. The antagonisms between Hindus and Muslims on the Indian subcontinent that the British antagonized.
Katz's view on the benevolence of multi-national corporations, capitalism and technology are repulsive to me as a working class American, who knows what reaction a third world nation, who's corrupt bourgeoise politicians borrow from the US and Europeans in the name of the country, only to have the WTO turn around and demand that the country pay up for the money the corrupt bourgeoise of the country stole. What do you think the money borrowed by Pakistan and other countries went towards, building roads in poor, rural areas? Ha! Then the WTO comes in, and has the government privatize all the public utilities (which means that they all become owned by foreign corporations), do away with social welfare programs and so forth.
That's to say nothing of the laundry list of things multinational corporations have done in third world countries, I wouldn't even know where to begin. Perhaps Dow Chemical Union Carbide's gas spill in Bhopal, India which killed thousands and injured hundreds of thousands. I can't educate people as to what the US media has not been educating it's citizens of US involvement around the world in in a short post. You'll have to check out the role of Shell in Nigeria, Nike in Indonesia, Phillip Morris in Thailand (making the US use GATT to sell it's deadly tobacco drugs - and without warning labels, and too children, just like it did decades ago in the US). It's a laugh that the US is sending $1 billion to Colombia to fight drugs - how come we're not spending $1 billion on other drug-producing countries? Hell, the head of the US army "anti-drug" force was caught red-hand trafficking drugs into the US. The US began by stealing the Panama canal a century ago, funded the Colombian military for prior decades because it was "fighting Soviet communist proxies". The Soviet Union folds, but the same money and military support keeps flowing, but now the US military's PR department has changed the reason to "fighting drugs". I could go on and on forever.
It's funny how the US is going to rid the world of fundamentalism when polls show that the US is the most religously fundamentalized country in the industrial world. If the federal government lifted church/state restrictions, the South and the West would put back creationist science, prayer in school and so forth quicker than you'd believe.
A Christian nation like the US should know the bible verse Matthew 7:1-5
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
I suggest that you read Barbara Garson's book, reviewed here by Salon.
In it, she argues that no world government can regulate the financial industry. Every attempt leads to offshore loopholes. The financial industry actually regulates world governments. Every time a government votes to increase spending for health, education and other social services, the financial centers vote by sucking their money out of that country. Since capital is so concentrated these days thanks to mergers and consolidations, the effects are immediate and chilling.
Many times, people are living in wretched conditions because their governments promised to secure loans given to private corporations that end up failing. Indonesia, for example, closed 250,000 clinics, 6 million children dropped out of school, and the infant mortality rate has risen 30 percent, in order to raise taxes to pay back bad loans.
You can't help but think that that is going to have an effect on our ability to function as a civil society. People should have education and health care, it leads to technological breakthroughs and satisfying lives. Money should have a social cost associated with it. If that makes me a pinko commie, then so be it.
It seems to me that our foreign policy in the last half of the 20th century was to secure low wages for industry and keep democracies out of power in Central and South America, SouthEast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. It's only fair that what's good for American citizens should be fair for our global brethren.
Ghandi said, "There are many things I'd die for, but nothing I would kill for." The terrorists would act differently if they truly had social justice as an end and not chaos, but they'd have a lot less sympathy around the world if our monetary policy were different. I think there are other ways to solve imbalance than crashing a plane into a building. I just wish someone would point them out to me.
I'd also suggest reading Warren Wagar's Short History of the Future, in which he argues that a corporate global economy is eventually superceded by local government/ communal anarchy. Many of his decade-old predictions have already come true.
I don't mind Katz. I don't hate his stories. Sometimes I read them and ponder them.
But there is no doubt (at all) that his stories run perpendicular to the rest of Slashdot. The usual Slashdot story is a reaction to and an invitation seeking the readers reaction to some product, policy, or controversy. There are other things, too, but mainly this is a "hey, there's a story over <a href=....>here</a> so make comments".
Katz, though, creates a controversy or discussion point himself. That's very different. Actually, that requires a little extra. His stories aren't pointers -- they're the base.
Anyway, who else would write a story about Globalization?
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Bravo! Could not have said it better myself
www.enthea.org
He may have been morally dispicable, but Theodore Kazinsky had a lot to say on the matter of globalization (or, more generally, the negative effects of industrialized society). Although the Manifesto was published in several major newspapers, not too many people really paid attention to what he was trying to say.
I guess that's understandable, given that he was into blowing people up. Draw the parallel to the terrorists. The mass media is mostly dousing any legitmacy they may have in their criticism of the USA (mostly unvocalized criticism, but look at their target). Which is unfortunate, because we could learn a lot from our enemies.
The corporations that now drive our industrial/technological society and gain the most from it are the key to understanding the fringe's criticism and hatred of the US. Rather than simply dismissing Kazinsky as a Luddite, consider that he and other dissenting voices may actually be trying to tell us something genuinely important.
This isn't a troll. Read the Manifesto, and momentarly set aside the fact that Ted was a bomber (although, appearantly not insane). Well you are at it, set aside your attachment to your confortable lifestyle and try to look at the bigger picture.
And if you really want to have some fun, take this Al Gore vs. the Unibomber Quiz.
Good luck.
I tend to get sidetracked in these discussions.
You are right in one respect, but wrong in another.
Had the treaty after WW1 been softer, WW2 would probably not have happened. Germany underwent a lot of hardship after WW1, and that was the breeding ground we provided for Hitler. Germans felt unfairly treated.
So, in a way, Chamberlain was doing the right thing - he was being understanding, for Hitler had reason to be outraged.
Today, bin Laden arguably has reason to be outraged, too.
The problem is that in both cases, the mistakes had been made and the process was beyond the point of no return. America can learn from this, and should immediately. Right now, you are upsetting the world, and the world probably will come knocking again and again until you learn your lesson.
If you're gonna be a world leader, think and act globally. Stop your president from saying outragous, silly things like "wanted, dead or alive" and "either your with us, or you're with the terrorists". Granted, he's learning, but I only think he's learning how to restrain himself. Oh - and that's your misconception to correct if I'm wrong.
When you occasionally travel abroad, bother to learn a few phrases in the local language - "thank you", "please", "hello", "yes", "no" and "do you speak english?" for starters.
The list goes on and on. Your nation has an attitude problem almost as big as mine. Maybe it's about time you started doing things right?
Stop the brainwash
As long as I am mayor of this city [Jersey City, New Jersey] the great
industries are secure. We hear about constitutional rights, free speech
and the free press. Every time I hear these words I say to myself, "That
man is a Red, that man is a Communist". You never hear a real American
talk like that.
-- Frank Hague, 1896-1956
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Oh yes, that's a good logical argument. Do you know anything about the current state or history of the region at all? Palestinians regularly attack Israeli civilians and Israeli tanks regularly roll into areas where Palestinians live. Your analysis is beyond facile, it's not worth responding to. Get a clue, come up with a good solution and until then shut the fuck up.
As I said people have some choice. But its an oversimplification to say "it exists therefore we choose it". Straightforward enough.
I live in Europe too. What does that have to do with this?
Phil
Yes, this is quite true. They are distorting it. One of the problems is that the elite, the fat cats like Bush et al are presenting their opponents as if they were the same as the al-Queda group.
They're not. A lot of people protesting against the WTO are people who have quite a few assets. Like me. We own stocks, we invest. But we see the dangers of the so-called "Free Trade" groups, and the implications of the laws to promulgate them.
Sure, we want fair trade, equivalent transaction costs. But we don't think that we should be promoting lower labor standards or environmental standards on other countries. Because that is what is implied by groups such as the WTO.
One good source for information on the objections to this "Globalization" would be ATTAC, an organization which crunches the numbers and has a number of much more informative publications on this subject. I've read some of their works when I picked them up in the original French on visits to Paris, but they have English and other language publications as well.
Will in Seattle