Slashdot Mirror
Globalism Post 9/11
We seem to be running away from the world, and much of the world hates us for it. Such forces make America not only the world's leading superpower, but probably its most feared and hated nation. As the U.S. evolved rapidly from an industrial to a data-based economy, much of the world hasn't come along, or doesn't want to.
Our technology is running away from the rest of the planet, from genomics to supercomputing to bio-tech research to weaponry. Globalism, arguably the single most significant political issue on the planet even before 9/11, is even more critical now, even though there is little consensus on what it is or how we should feel about it or even define it. Deep-thinking billionaire philanthropist Soros jumps in with a significant new book -- George Soros on Globalization -- in which he advances some exciting and startling ideas about the future.
Anti-globalization protests have become a staple of international summit meetings, Soros points out, a sort of "fragmented potpourri of laments about life in the modern world." A ferocious advocate of open societies, he takes on what's good and bad about globalism, and how we might put it to better use. We'll take up that discussion here.
As Soros points out, 'Globalization' is a much overused term with a wide variety of meanings and contexts. Soros uses it to mean the development of global financial markets and the growth of trans-national corporations, along with their increasing power over national economies. "I believe that most of the problems that people associate with globalism," writes Soros, "including the penetration of market values into areas where they do not traditionally belong, can be attributed to these phenomena."
One could also blame the globalization of information and culture; the spread of television, Internet and other forms of communication; and the increased mobility and commercialization of ideas.
But Soros understandably concentrates on economic issues. Globalization as he defines it, is new. At the end of World War II, most countries strictly controlled international capital transactions. International capital movement accelerated in the early 1980s under Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and financial markets became truly global only in the early 1990s, Soros says, after the collapse of the Soviet empire.
That period also happens to coincide with the most explosive growth of the Net and the Web, perfect engines for the new data-driven economies and systems for the rapid movement -- literally -- of capital.
By contrast, as we can see on the evening news most nights, while governments may not be able to restrict the flow of capital, they're still fairly effective at controlling the movement of people. (Although even there, the Net ultimately makes that more difficult, at least in terms of intellectual property and ideas. This kind of content is liquid, no longer confinable within territorial boundaries.
Since capital is the essential ingredient of contemporary production and economies, countries compete to attract it. It's no accident that nations who can't or won't are also incubators for political discontent and terrorism. Globalism has transformed our historic economic and social arrangements. Since capital can move anywhere in seconds, any nation-state's ability to exercise control over an economy has been radically undermined. This was a huge club the British held over the Chinese government during negotiations over the transfer of Hong Kong. The Chinese were forced to be somewhat more democratic when, with the stroke of a key, billions of dollars in capital could have fled Hong Kong in a micro-second, even if its people couldn't.
"The globalization of financial markets," argues Soros," has rendered the welfare state that came into existence after World War II obsolete, because the people who require a social safety net cannot leave the country, but the capital the welfare state used to tax can."
This was no accident, he explains, even if few Americans had any idea it was happening. The Reagan administration (along with Thatcher) was determined to reduce the state's ability to interfere in the economy and, helped enormously by globalization's rise, it succeeded.
So, exuberantly costumed demonstrations aside, globalism is not about to evaporate or even weaken, not any time soon. Quite the opposite: nation-states and their constituents now have to choose between globalism (and its attendant prosperity) or religious fanaticism. This leaves us with the central question:
Next: Is Globalism good or evil?
The real question is :
Is Jon Katz good or evil ? Or just plain irritating ?
Rapid Nirvana
can someone give me a recap of what he said.
It was so damn boring and pointless that i didnt manage to read it before i got bored.
It's no accident that nations who can't or won't [attract capital] are also incubators for political discontent and terrorism
Oh - you're right. Poor Saudi Arabia.
The only good weather is bad weather.
Never in the history of journalism have so many words been agglomerated to so little net effect.
Hey editors, if you're hurting for money (see also: subscriptions), maybe you should tell Katz that either he comes up with original material or you're taking him off the payroll.
My eyes glaze over.
Seriously, I can't get halfway through a Katz paragraph without halving my attention span.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
Anyone else think that the same guy has overplayed and overplayed this joke way too much. When it pops up in every single article, it is too predictable and quite dumb. Besides the fact that the article contains no links, which was about the only source of humour that I found in the mirror this time. And get a new mirror too, that one keeps going down and is showing signs of aging from too much use.
Anti-Globalism
Pro-Libertarian
Anti-Microsoft
Could it be argued this is the next stage of human evolution? Perhapse evolution isn't the right word for this. But if we're changing over our society, from the primitive economic structure utilized by the rest of the world towards a more advanced, digital society in general...isn't that the next step? If what we do truely proves to be superior in the next few years, won't natural selection then come into play with other parts of the world who are resistent to the changes come about? If they don't evolve they are at risk of dying out and being overcome.
Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
"Six months ago, most Americans were stunned to discover how differently others in the world regard us from the way we see ourselves."
wow, so you just recently removed your head from your ass...its about time you joined the rest of us...
...now move on.
dude.
Much of the world hated us when we weren't running away from it.
For example
Best Slashdot Co
We seem to be running away from the world, and much of the world hates us for it.
Funny, I thought they hated us for sticking our noses in their business.
We seem to be running away from the world, and much of the world hates us for it.
sorry running away? you have a culture that by its nature invades and polutes every other. how are you running away from the rest of the world? in fact i would say its quite the opposite. for years the government of your country has meddled in the affairs of others. that is why Osama is pissed as well as many many other countries. The USA is a bully and the last thing bullies do is run away from a fight.
-
What we are seeing is that fair, open systems with industrious citizens are much more successful that corrupt or backward regimes with lazy citizens. Much of the world resentment is derived from this success. It's obvious that the Muslims see it as invalidating their religeon. The United States exists as a refutation of Islam. Additionaly much of Europe restents us for our work ethic, they refer to it as "ruthless efficiency" on the BBC. Italy is the perfect example of how a generaly "lazy" culture that encourages unemployment and low levels of output is falling futher and further behind the rest of the world. The message to these other ultures is clear, their reaction hasn't been paticularly prudent.
For all their oil, neither their GDP ('bout US $9000 per capita as of 1998) nor massive budget deficit (expenditures $44B, revenue $32.3B => exceeds revenue by ~36.2%) is impressive.
But then, that's not surprising in an economy so full of patronage that 40% of the labor force is in government.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
If globalization is such a problem, then just localize all the variables where they are needed or passed and only use two global functions per file. Geesh, what kind of coffee did you people drink?
"It was penguin lust...at its worst." --someone
When we went to fight for Saudi Arabia, or our oil interests, whichever you prefer, we were very carful not to offend anyone. Soldiers were told to drink only in their tents, and avoid the girl lovin' yeehaw cowboy attitude of America. But wait a second? They invited us! The politicians didn't care, and the rules still applied so we wouldn't alienate them.
But just because "they" may not like our ways, doesn't mean it's a bad thing, in some places there are no womens rights. The women might not even care because they've had it drilled in to their brains all their lives that they were meant to stay at home and not vote. It's been part of their culture for centuries, what makes the US right all of a sudden? Nothing really, but that doesn't make it easier to sit back and watch the women be oppresed and say "oh, they don't mind." So it's kinda, might makes right, and the US has the might.
There is the myth that church and state are seperated in the US. But none of the constitutional rights go against the ten commandments and we're one nation "under god". Why? Because we had to go by *something*. We couldn't make laws to make everybody happy, so we decided on "Christian" laws. We choose that adultery is bad, but in some parts of africa, it's expected to give your wife to company. Again, what makes the US right? Well, we have the aids problem a little more under control, but the only moral reasoning is that it comes from the bible. Still, in the US it's illegal.
What I'm trying to say is, we can't decide for people what is right or wrong. But if another culture sees our culture and likes it, why stop them from joining? Where does it cross the line from preserving their culture to oppressing them and isolating them from the outside world?
The primary enduring effect is that we now have a whole bunch of crackpots who keep insisting that some mysterious changes have taken place tranforming the whole world. These changes are a psychological phenomenon that factors only in *some* people's lives. Then there are those who don't perceive any changes, but simply repeat the message that there are changes without thinking critically, like the crowd of people in the well-known story about the Emperor's new clothes. Whenever a sufficient number of people claim to perceive something, there are those who pretend to also perceive it for fear of being seen as strange, stupid or lacking in perception. The net effect is a mass self-bullshitting.
The secondary enduring effect is that some psychotic, paranoid redneck idiots are using September's attacks as an excuse to increase their destructive interference in other people's lives in the name of national security, patriotism or whatever.
Although Katz didn't imply religion equals to poverty, this generalization is prevalent and incorrect. IMHO, religious fanaticism that is anti-technology and anti-equality keeps in place barriers to social/cultural and material wealth.
I think that social/cultural wealth is a must in any nation, but developing nations do not want or cannot accept in a rapid sweep the rise of material wealth.
In the short run, there is a definite argument for globalism to create material wealth, eliminating poverty. The long-run consequences, however, must be considered. What do developing nations do when suddenly they have a great amount of material wealth? The culutural change associated with socioeconomic class restructuring is staggering. It is important, I think, to adopt a respect for slowed growth in less materially developed nations.
As tech enthusiasts, Slashdot readers need to consider the effects of their work, and start guiding their efforts to be more humanistic, while still maintaining a *fair* amount of free markets. Explain, without boasting, the positive effects of improved technology, and explain the pros and cons of democracy/capitalism. The unbalanced explanations to many new adopters of democracy/capitalism/globalism have been unfair. If visionaries explain the future obstacles, countries will be better prepared to face change. Adopt other cultures' points of view if you want them to accept yours, and do not feel superior because your technology is.
Saudi arabia does not attract capital, they produce it in the form of a plentiful natural resource - oil.
And most of that is controlled by a very few number of people, and given that there is not much else there but sand to generate capital. I think you can all see the problems inherent in systems where power is held by the very few.
-BUT-
I think that also more than money figures into this, ie Religion, factors into the situation and may have much more impact in terroristic or politically motivated actions.
Osama, the Taliban, Hambali, Hamas, and many others fight for thier god and thier religion and THAT is thier cause for discontent.
-AND-
Can you guys and girls go one post by JonKatz without telling the rest of the world how much you hate him. Jesus, there is more Katz bashing (not saying wether i like him or not) than actual thoughtful responses to stories here. Be constructive of once.
"I am a warrior, and information is my weapon..."
Six months ago, most Americans were stunned to discover how differently others in the world regard us from the way we see ourselves. Globalism is a major reason.
So's state-controlled media in, say, the Middle East perpetually broadcasting anti-American (and anti-Semitic) propaganda to give their captive populations an external "enemy" to blame for the misery caused by their corrupt dictatorships. Maybe pervasive Internet access would end-run this, but it hasn't done the job yet, even in a ridiculously wealthy nation like Saudi Arabian royal dictatorship.
We might do more to suggest to those captive populations that they do what Americans did over two centuries ago: overthrow their dictatorships in favor of a constitutionally limited republic. Yes, there's downside risk, but is it that much worse than the current situation?
Why is Katz still here? Seriously, I can't figure it out. Everytime he posts an article, I don't read it... but I do skip down to the comments to check out what other people have to say. And I tell ya, 99% of the comments are just people flaming him for... well... being Katz and doing whatever he does. Occasionally a comment here or there will venture into discussing the topic, but even then the comment usually wraps up with a "Katz is a fool" cliche-type statement. And then there are the The Few. The Proud. who will push their way through the onslaught to heckle the flamers, telling them to turn off Katz articles, but the flamers... they only do what they are trained to do, and they flame the heckler back.
So I ask you, Katz, flamers, anyone - why do(does) you(Katz) still post articles here? Some desperate attempt to gain a deranged form of Karma? Is it an addiction? Is Katz being subsidized by the government? Why?
I'm so confused.
The pending clash between modern international capitalism and religious and ethnically based tribalism has been a familiar rant of pundits for the last decade or so. One of the more comprehensive studies of this phenomenon is the book (and article): Jihad Vs. McWorld by Benjamin Barber. In this treatment, Jihad represents any fanatic religious or ethnic movement (not just those zany Islamic terrorists!) and McWorld is the MTV/McDonalds/etc. imperialistic capitalism of the West. It's a little on the liberal side, but it's a good analysis of the trends that self-proclaimed experts everywhere bitch and moan about.
Chaos is a name for any order that produces confusion in our minds. --George Santayana
"We seem to be running away from the world, and much of the world hates us for it. Such forces make America not only the world's leading superpower, but probably its most feared and hated nation. As the U.S. evolved rapidly from an industrial to a data-based economy, much of the world hasn't come along, or doesn't want to."
Resistance is futile.
We will add your own biological and technological advantages to our own.
___________________________
I'm not a geek, but I play one on TV.
BUY GOOGLE ADS! - They have refused ads for firearms!
The point? Just as with things like arms control, there are some undisputable facts regarding the effects of globalization - both good and bad - but whether the effects are seen as good or as bad, or whether the good outweighs the bad, will become a difference of opinion.
For some people, discontent and upheaval is seen as a good thing - and not just by extremists either. It can be seen as a chance of getting rid of the old and bringing in the new. That's essentially what liberal and conservative economics alike propagated for with their 'chock therapy' method of fixing the east european economies.
The middle east has a huge problem with their oil reserves. If you think the west has an oil dependency problem, that is nothing compared to these big oil producers. The oil industry is the only large industry there is, and these countries stand and fall with the oil price. There are efforts to attract other kinds of business there, but there just is no intellectual or technological infrastructure there to really support it. Will they need fairly radical changes in their political and economic structures eventually? Yes, they do. If those changes come in the form of armed unrest or even revolutions, is there a big risk that they will regress and shut themselves off from the world like Iran did? Yes.
/Janne
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
While I know for a fact that most countries truly hate de U.S. (as much as most Linuxers hate the M.S.), I think the hatred is mostly directed towards the american way of life. Bush would call it "Freedom haters", probably because he can't admit that his country CAN be wrong on some issues.
Now, about globalism, I think it is a Good Thing . I don't think U.S. hatred should interfere with it because globalism is all about not giving the power to one country. I think people should start to see the bottom line in all this and stop complaining. Maybe I'm an egoist North-American (Canadian), but to my eyes, it can only help, and I don't see why it could hurt third-world countries...maybe I don't know the complete story about this, feel free to corect me.
So, exuberantly costumed demonstrations aside, globalism is not about to evaporate or even weaken, not any time soon. Quite the opposite: nation-states and their constituents now have to choose between globalism (and its attendant prosperity) or religious fanaticism.
And just as you imply the poorer the Muslim countries are a religious fanaticism, I would say the richer Western Countries of Mostly Judo Christian population are equaly Religious fanatics.
Its not about a model of economics, everything in this world is coming back to organized religon, before you know it, like it or dislike it, just look at the middle east, it will be like the Crusades of the Middle ages of a perdominantly Christian Vs. Muslim war.
Globalism hasn't changed the context of our global society, it has just allowed us to come to the same repeating conflicts faster than we otherwise would have.
Out of 52.
So JonKatz causes comments that are 50% "FUCK OFF KATZ!"
Cool.
This is where the Hong-Kong story is wrong, it doesn't matter what the British Government do or say, it is the markets themselves that will judge. A significant factor in the case of Hong Kong would have been the Bank of China that was putting most of its Forex transactions through Hong Kong. They would also have advised retaining the status quo, even though it would cost some face.
The issue though is the trans-national corp. Who regulates it? This is a separate issue to capital flow. Here the corporate HQ gravitates to the best tax/regulatory environment. Is that really correct?
I agree with Jon for the most part. Since septemb... sep..zzzz........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....11....zzzz.. yeah baby do it.... zz
I lived in London for most of 2001 (Detroit born and raised). People overseas couldn't understand how most Americans could go their entire lives and never have a passport, or never leave the country (except Canada or Mexico). For them, going from the UK to France would be the equivalant of us driving from Detroit to Chicago. And you need a passport at every border.
The fact that we're a 12 hour plane ride from most other countries creates a world mindset entirely different from and unimaginable to most Europeans. They think we're arrogant because we don't know what happened in France today, or in Syria yesteray. Imagine living in Michigan and not knowing what happened in Ohio. It's a perspective bridge.
My complaint about Dick Cheney:
May I be cynical for a bit? I hope you don't mind,
but with Cheney's latest barrage of
malodorous notions, I can't resist the urge to make a
few cynical comments. To get right
down to it, some of the facts I'm about
to present may seem shocking. This
they certainly are. However, it's time that a few
facts had a chance to slip through the fusillade of hype.
What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it
in the form of a question: Where are the people
who are willing to stand up and acknowledge
that Cheney, in his infinite wisdom, has decided
to destroy the natural beauty of our parks and forests?
On the surface, it would seem to have something to do
with the way that his whole approach is repugnant.
But upon further investigation, one will find that
by allowing Cheney to put mephitic thoughts in our
children's minds, we are allowing him to play puppet master.
As for the lies and exaggerations, Cheney's
epigrams are rife with contradictions
and difficulties; they're entirely maladroit,
meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited
for a supposedly educated population.
And as if that weren't enough, if Cheney is going to
obstruct important things, then he should at least have
the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, a
true enemy is better than a false friend. And
second, many people respond to his debauched vituperations
in much the same way that they respond to television
dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but
they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything
about them. That's why I insist we pronounce the truth
and renounce the lies.
Even people who consider themselves scornful
foolhardy-types generally agree that Cheney's slurs
symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion
-- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us
lose more than a little freedom. One might conclude
that Cheney is incapable of writing a letter without using
such phrases as "crapulous pop psychologists", "loquacious
exhibitionists", "oppressive personae non gratae", or
some combination thereof. Alternatively, one might conclude
that Cheney has a different view of reality from the rest of us.
In either case, if you're not part of the solution,
then you're part of the problem. His historical record of
fickle pleas is clearer than the muddled pronouncements
of his apple-polishers for a variety of reasons. For
instance, the worst sorts of inconsiderate Neanderthals there
are must be treated with political justice, not with
civil justice, as they are sincerely not real citizens. Let me
rephrase that: I wonder if he really believes the
things he says. He knows they're not true, doesn't he?
A complete answer to that question would
take more space than I can afford, so I'll have to give
you a simplified answer. For starters, if
we let him cause riots in the streets, then greed,
corruption, and tribalism will characterize the government.
Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens.
And lies and deceit will be the stock and trade of the
media and educational institutions.
Even Cheney's bedfellows couldn't deal with the full impact of
Cheney's refrains. That's why they created "Cheney-ism," which is
just a garrulous excuse to force square
pegs into round holes. He plans to drag everything
that is truly great into the gutter. He has instructed
his votaries not to discuss this or even admit to his
plan's existence. Obviously, Cheney knows he has
something to hide. Most of you reading this letter
have your hearts in the right place. Now
follow your hearts with actions. I have traveled the length and
breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can
therefore assure you that Cheney's artifices cannot stand on
their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate
artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that Cheney's
warnings can give us deeper insights into the nature of
reality. We can and we must protect ourselves by any means
necessary against the unrestrained bestiality
of stupid, quasi-macabre paper-pushers. And that's the honest truth.
Since when?
...globalism was simply G.W.Bush's recent realization that there are actual people outside of Texas.
It always gets my hackles up to hear our culture described as "invasive". Nobody's forcing people to go into the Moscow Pizza Hut or buy Coca-Cola in Beijing.
Miko O'Sullivan
For all their oil, neither their GDP ('bout US $9000 per capita as of 1998) nor massive budget deficit (expenditures $44B, revenue $32.3B => exceeds revenue by ~36.2%) is impressive.
In short, an Argentina/Enron wanna-be.
Your sister/mother must be very proud!!
sorry katz, but where the hell do you get "globalism (and its attendant prosperity)", anyways?
good to know that we can choose between the two opposites you propose, with, of course, no alternatives. "with us, or against us", eh?
your so-called article doesn't even mention that the prosperity american propaganda associates with globalization pertains mostly to those few who are already prosperous. gigantic multinational corporations and the big western governments they use as their handpuppets are the entities which will benefit the most from 'free trade'. this fact is well-known (outside your ignorant lump of a country) and not controversial in any respect. why do you omit it?
How morbid of you Jon. Picking a national tragedy as an opportunistic center piece for your article. I appluad you in your complete inability to grasp how shameful your writing is.
The Generation
I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
Honestly, is it just a bandwagon hatred or is there a legitimate reson?
I do not understand why everyone is esponding to the JonKatz post in such a negative way. This attitude is the reason that almost nobody in the world likes the US. Here in the US nobody wants to take a part in the world we live unless we are going to be in advantage of getting more money or power. Instead of doing more enemies, we should try to help other nations that could become our allies. By helping, I don't mean the way in the bad way we are doing. Everytime we "help" some nation, we always get something bigger in return. This is not always the right thing to do. I know we do not have the responsability to give help for free, but unfortunately we give help for such a high price. Still, we believe that we are the best helpers and that no one should mess with us. So, our politicians do not tell us that globalisation will starve to death millions of people. Instead they tell us it's a great thing. That with it, we are all going to do better business and even help other nations. Of course help them if they can pay the price, if not, then just send them all to hell. After all we are the strongest nation, so we should take advantage of it. I can not believe that nobody really cares about other people.. it disgust's me...
We seem to be running away from the world, and much of the world hates us for it. Such forces make America not only the world's leading superpower, but probably its most feared and hated nation. As the U.S. evolved rapidly from an industrial to a data-based economy, much of the world hasn't come along, or doesn't want to.
I think this attitude is the main reason America is hated by some people. Some Americans seem to think that America is better in any way than any other country, while they know very little about the rest of the world. There are countries with a better or equal economy or with better or equal technology.
Also stating that 'America is the world's leading superpower' sounds somewhat arrogant to me.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to offend anyone here, I just can't stand it when someone states that the US is the center of the world. It just doesn't work that way. America is not superior, it's just one out of the many nations on earth.
Zzzzzz....*cough* Sorry...you were saying something?
How about some CONTENT next time?
Does your mother know you talk about her that way?
The rest of the world is held back by their own socialist governments.
Consistently, everyone picks on and hates the successful entity.
The USA is successful.
Should the USA stop being successful so that people will "like" it? If the USA stoops to the level of most european countries, would it have more freedom, less taxes, a better economy, a better military, etc....??? The answer of course is no. Individuals would be be worse off, have less freedom, less privacy, and degraded ability to be who they want to be.
If the USA is so horrid, than why do mexicans and numerous other immigrants continually flood into this country, often risking life and limb to get here?
Why? Because they can actually leave a hopelessly corrupt, poor country where they have almost no chance of getting a leg up in life, and they can come to a place that gives them a chance, lets them decide their own fate.
The idea that the USA must lower it's standards to be on the same level with the other, not so successful nations, is utterly ridiculous.
This is the same as asking Microsoft to give it's money, time, and code to help Sun. It's against every form of competition.
Globalism is socialism; the idea that everyone can be equal. In order for this to work, I have to give up my rights and freedoms and conform to the weakest link on earth (China? Ethiopia? Cuba?). I wasn't born to be a slave of a government.
Gimme a break
</rant>
The price we pay for immortality... is death. Narnia The Great Fall
Destined for a BackStep to prevent a nuclear terrorist from destroying Washington D.C., a last minute error sends the sphere into the past without a pilot. The surprised NSA team now existing seven days earlier, realizes that it must discern what the mission was, how deadly, and how to solve the puzzle. Left without many clues, Isaac Mentnor recalls the aid of a young woman psychic he depended upon for a mission many years before, and presses her into service despite her emotional instability.
"We seem to be running away from the world, and much of the world hates us for it."
Ah yes, thank you for pointing that out. It's not because much of the world hates us for running into shit we should of kept out of and then exploiting everything around us.
We were truly "running away from the world" as the United States killed over 100,000 Filipinos in the 1899 Filipino-American War. (And consequently returning to the Phillipines in 1945 to defeat the leftist Huks and install a series of puppet presidents, namely Ferdinand Marcos who sucked the country dry of capital for three decades and then retired into Hawaii).
They most certainly don't hate us for the CIA's 1953 takedown of democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh in Iran and the subsequent installment of a repressing and torturing Shah.
Or the other takedown of 1953, Jacobo Arbenz, who was a democratically elected president and had such "evil" plans like land reform, civil liberties and nationalizing the Washington-connected United Fruit Company. More US political installments and US trained death squads leads to another 100,000 victims.
Or the US attempts to overthrow the Syrian goverment. Twice.
It's not that we're hated because we still, to this day, Israel with billions of dollars of aid, despite its harsh treatment of Palestinians and massacres in Lebanon.
Or the million or so who died as a result of 1957 Sukarno-Indonesia scandal (which had such tidbits like the CIA making a fake sex film to try to blackmail him).
Or Vietnam.
Or the '69 carpet bombings of Cambodia where hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians died. The end result being the US helping the genocidal manial Pol Pot to take over who declares "Year Zero," kills anyone with an education, or even wearing glasses, and sends everyone to the countryside to work in agricultural labor camps. More than two million die in his "killing fields".
Certainly, the world doesn't hate us for the infamous Congo/Zaire affair where a man calling for the liberation of Congo's economy and politics, Patrice Lumumba, is assasinated with the help of the CIA and then chopped into little bits and then burned in acid. Mobutu Sese Seko takes over, changes the name to Zaire, and begins one of the most corrupt and bloody dictatorships in modern times. Thirty years later, despite its rich natural resources, the people of the Congo are still dirt-poor, Mobutu is a multibillionaire, and the country is in chaos. In 1997, Mobutu is overthrown, and retires to the Cote d'Azur. The country slides into a civil war that has killed more than one million.
I guess that our "running away" consists of violence in Cuba, Chile, East Timor, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Colombia.
So Katz, before you point the finger to an "invasive American culture" as a cause of hatred from lots of the world, why don't you try pointing the finger at an "invasive America"?
As a 17 year old, I get enough of this "They hate us because we have all this good shit" on the news and at school. At least places like this news website should be reserved for some insight past what the media feeds us and into the real matters at hand.
Thanks to our myopic and narcissistic media and opportunistic, short-sighted politicians,
And how'd you get that, eh?
By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma
which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society!
As for the "culture war" between the West and the Islamic countries, it boils down to one simple truth - a closed repressive culture is being overrun by one that glorifies and even exploits openness.
These regimes are frightened by Western culture because they realize their rule cannot withstand open examination, but instead must be enforced autocratically or through religious dogma.
Page widening rocks!!!
Now why the Islamic cultures despise the West is obvious - their culture is in decline, their dictatorial and dogmatic structures cannot withstand open examination, and they seek to villify what they see as the agent of change, instead of recognizing and adapting to change itself.
Yeah, this is offtopic, and will get modded down... but...
Taco, if you are looking for a replacement for Katz, might I suggest the author of the parent post (Ars-Fartsica)?
Just check out his journal. Not only is it a nice set of original content that is well written, it is all technical and written for the "nerd population."
Personally, I'd much rather read what Ars has to say on the frontpage, than Katz.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
The United States system of fairness, work ethic, innovation and competition makes us extremely successful. The Arab world's general tendance towards backwardsness and corruption for the past 500 years has put them at a severe disadvantage. Anyone with half a brain comes to the US to be a GTA! These courtries see the US as completely invalidating Islam and are reacting accordingly.
Katz in 100 words
Modern Saudi Arabia wouldn't exist without the US sticking its nose very far into the Middle East. The regime is propped up with US aid and oil money, although paradoxically it is the Saudis funding most of the anti Western efforts.
The reason they hate the West is because the West, for all its trash culture, is a free culture, and their model of rule is a contradiction of freedom. Their culture is in decline, their power is eroding, and they know that if their own populaces were empowered, most of them would be executed.
7 Years ago a group of secluded nuts at Waco killed themselves. On a daily basis we see mainstream Arabs killing the enemmies childeren to try to force them to surrender. Must be why Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize.
"Besides all of that, what have the bleedin' Romans ever done for us?"
HOODED MAN IN THE BACK RAISES HAND.
"Oh, Piss off!"
Note also that the US has been a more gracious victor in major military struggles than the European powers. WW2 was a direct effect of French unwillingness to create a useful peace for Germany after the first war, meanwhile Americans rebuilt Japan and Germany after the second.
Europe thumbs its nose at the US, yet the US is the product of the best thinking of Europe's greatest intellectual period, and now the EU is pushing forward on a federal system on the continent that will in effect create the United States of Europe.
Thank you for pointing out that what lefties in the West perceive as grass-roots poltical banter out of the Middle East is simply the same message they have promoting for decades: the destruction of Israel, the destruction of the West, the imposition of autocracy.
Yeah 700 years is certainly a lot of decades, isn't it?
Now why the Islamic cultures despise the West is obvious - their culture is in decline, their dictatorial and dogmatic structures cannot withstand open examination, and they seek to villify what they see as the agent of change, instead of recognizing and adapting to change itself.
Their culture peaked and declined centuries ago. Now it seems that all they can to is cause trouble for the rest of the world, and think that they can return to their past glory days by violence and barbarianism. They keep accusing the west with ridiculous accusations and threatening us with total destruction. Well, up unitl now they've been a thorn in the side of most of the rest of the entire planet. Recently they've twisted that thorn. They're on the verge of getting the entire collective rest of the whole world royally pissed off at them if they don't soon straighten out and learn to fly right and quit causing sh*t.
Now compare this to the West, where standards of wealth for the average citizen have been improving for over a century.
And it always gets *my* hackles up to hear your way of life described as 'culture'. Sorry to be so harsh, but to me, all that technological and ethical superiority that the US is claiming to have is mostly just a bunch of crap. Things like 11 september prove exactly that. It was actually quite funny to switch from European TV channels to CNN and be amazed at the contrast between them while the whole thing was happening.
Oh but, I'm sorry, I shouldn't be criticising the US here. After all, Slashdot is a US-centric site and has the perfectly good right to be so. But hey, I'm the one typing up a post in a language that is not my own. If non-US surfers sticked to 'their' websites like US surfers do, we'd just get more mindless zombie posts and less critical ones.
There, that's a nice flame, but it's also my opinion.
I really hope this doesn't get modded down, but I have to say that the world itself is, well, pretty unchanged. Contrary to the belief of apparently nearly every American alive, America does not constitute the whole world apart from the Middle East.
America seems to have adopted the 9/11 tragedy as a tragedy for the world. It is not. It is a tragedy for those in the WTC. Of course we sympathise for those. I don't know the exact figures, but less than 4000 people died. How many people do you think there are who are starving, dying of famine, etc etc? I'm sorry, you do not merit our totally undivided sympathy.
Americans seem to think that they are so powerful that a terrorist attack on them is a terrorist attack on the civilised world. This is simply not true. It is a terrorist attack on America, and nothing more. What gives America the right to assume that the whole world is hugely affected by what happens to them? I can certainly say that absolutely nothing has changed here.
I hate to be so totally against America like this, but I cannot help but feel that you've got to realise that there's a lot of other non-Middle-East countries out there who remain unaffected and who do not have such a superiority complex about themselves as to assume that they reflect the feelings of the world. As for the Middle East itself, well they have their opinions too, and they're not so uncivilised as you might think.
Dose every damn story that comes from you have to mention 9/11 letalone mentioned in the subject! I don't mind people talking about it, but do you need every damn thing you say claiming to have been caused/affected by that day. Stop sodimizing the subject it's been poked to death already! (If you want to poke something this guy seems willing)
Soros helped plunge much of Asia into financial chaos when he pulled out of their markets. Seems that Soros is not an observer of Globalization, but rather an actor with great power and should be regarded accordingly. I believe he is sincere in his desire to make things better, but most meglomaniacs are.
At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this site is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
We talk of free trade and then enact tariffs to protect our industries from "unfair" trading. We talk of democracy and we support repressive, undemocratic regimes. We talk of justice and refuse it to innocent victims of our bombings. We talk of international rules but ignore them when it doesn't suit us. We talk of equality but treat all others as inferiors. We talk of freedom but want our "partner" nations to do what we tell them to do. What do you expect?
And who is to blame? We all are to blame. The media is to blame for ignoring their public responsibility, printing and broadcasting spineless mush (like this piece) that serve the interests of corporations and stability. The government is to blame for supporting coroporate profits to the exclusion of higher social and diplomatic goals. And we the public are to blame, for electing these bozos, for giving them high approval ratings when they do not deserve them, for not demanding better coverage of the foreign press and international affairs, for being content with our computers, our SUV's, our anime cartoons and our prosperity with no thought as to how these things are produced. We are to blame because we allow our government to continue to act hypocritically and we say nothing.
So don't give me that bullshit about "abandoning" the global arena. Globalization isn't the problem. It's our hypocrisy that is pissing people off. And it's pissing me off too.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
How can you claim or even think that globalization is evil. That's like saying choice is evil. The crux of the issue is that globalization gives more people more choices that what they had before and it scares people. It scares monopolies, it scares those who are rooted in power, it scare religions who control the state around them.
...cough the unclean into our country.
Just take a look around: You have three groups who generall dislike globalization.
In the industrialized world you have the same poeple who espose anarchy as a way of life bitching and moaning about globalization because it puts there idiotic ideas in the spotlight and gives their plight less meaning.
Then you have regligious zealots or those who are in control through religion. Religions in general don't tolerate other ways of thinking....yes even christianity...why do you think they go house to house. Globalization encourages alternate ways of thinking, so much so that if you are thinking of new, better ways of doing things you may get left behind.
Now you have the xenophob's. Globalization also encourages races to intermingle. The we rule and everyone else should stay out mentatlity is also against globalization as well because it might bring
Folks, globalization is about progress its about breaking down antagonistice barriers and destroying notions that keep people under control. In the long run and the greater picture...again it forces people to think big the world will be a better place. IF globalization continues you may very well see poverty beaten, regemes that can't provide will be broken down. Make no mistake though change takes getting used to.
An example at a macro level. I work at a fortune 500 company that has gone in the last 15 years from a smaller company to a very large and successful company. One were you could work happily for 30 40 years and then retire if you wanted too. Well the company is forced to change as globalization and central regulation is taking hold and folks who have gotten use to doing things one way for so long just can't hack it. YOu see them quit and retire early because they don't like change.
Our people, our world and our civilization depends on progress and change. The evironmentalist generally don't like globalization because it encourages progress which in the short term causes increase production. What there short sightedness is not seeing is that in 20-30 years time that increase consumption will be met with increased productivity, better recycling and superb environmental policies.
We just all need to move forward and be more tolerant
At 17 your convictions are a mountain from which you cast judgement on others, at 40, they're a hill to view your mistakes!
"promote the development and maintenance of open societies around the world. OSI does this by supporting an array of activities dealing with educational, social, legal, and health care reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues."
From what I understand, he is committed personally and professionally to helping ensure that globalization proceeds in an open, democratic (in a broad sense) manner.
sig my booty, check my website
Unfortunately one of the saddest chapters of the Cold War/ wars by proxy was the overthrow of Allende and the placement of Pinochet as a US puppet. What followed was a sad tale of oppression that truly betrayed the good intentions of American citizens.
A'ight
nation-states and their constituents now have to choose between globalism (and its attendant prosperity) or religious fanaticism.
First problem: These are the only two choices? What about socialism or secular fanaticism? That's the Bush, "Your with us or your with the terrorists." line.
Second problem: Globalism is not a choice of a constituency. Did you vote for globalism? I certainly didn't
Third problem: The focus of Soros' book is that goverments and the capital that drives them are inherently good if we would just use the governmental powers for good and not evil. Unfortunately, this has proven to be false. The nature of capital is that it has to keep expanding to survive. When a market is consumed the capital needs to grow to other markets (other nations) or that structure of capital will collapse. Governments based on this concept of growing capital need to do whatever is takes to continue the growth of that capital or the government will collapse. They have to do whatever it takes to "smoke out" the terrorists in the 9/11 case. To "smoke out" the people that disagree with expanding capital interests.
Katz is one of the reasons I won't subscribe. "Just don't read his stories" you might say. Well, for me it is a matter of respect. Why are his stories posted? It is bordering on ridiculous. I don't think it is just /. readers bias against Jon, it is the fact that it is repeatedly shown that he writes unthoughtful pieces of little substance. The fact that his stories are posted is almost mocking the readers here, goading them to respond. If /. cannot respect the readers any more than that, then I will never subscribe. It was cute and funny for a while, but now it is just pathetic.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
With the recent United Nations summit in Monterrey, Mexico, about foreign aid, Katz' comments are indeed valid. This article at the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/21/international/2 1GLOB.html) has more of Soros' comments. He certainly seems to be hittingly the nail on the head in terms of what's working and what's not.
Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny is an amazing book that discusses why societies and groups trend towards gloabliziation and increasing areas of influence arguing from the logic of game theory. It is a dry read for the first few hundred pages as it starts from early human hunter societies and navigates towards modern times but it has some very interesting and well supported conclusions.
I actually find this incredibly insightful, considering Jon Katz's general level of discourse.
They hate the US because Americans because they stick their noses everywhere it doesn't belong.
America is the only country in the world which prosecutes non-citizens for breaking American laws in countries outside their own. Two examples comes to mind: Dmitri Sklyarov with the DCMA (whom /. knows only too well), and James Sabzali for selling water purifiers in Canada to Cuba being prosecuted now in Philadelphia. (The funny bit is that there is a Canadian law (Canada's Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act) which prohibits Canadians from abiding by the American embargo -- meaning that while in Canada, James Sabzali was would be committing a crime if he abandoned Cuban sales due to the American embargo).
Wanna keep the world happy America? Consider your actions on the rest of the world. Stop the international policy of invading smaller countries because of US self interest (Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam... God does the list goes on and on). Abide by international treaties even the US has agreed to (UN fees, Kyoto protocol... hell, even NAFTA and WTO you disregard when it doesn't favor you). And by all means, rid the world of the idiot you put into power: Bush.
Yeah, troll me cause I'm unamerican.
First, I'm Canadian not American, and I *like* the USA. I watch American TV, listen to American music, and surf mostly American websites. I do not watch American news because it's got too much propaganda in it, but that's a different issue. I'm probably like a lot of Asians and Europeans.
At the same time, I don't dislike my own country and culture--and that's where the conflict with the American media comes in. US media companies lobby hard to push their way into foreign markets and the US government uses the GATT to knock down foriegn media restrictions and tarrifs.
The US has a population of over 250 million so it outputs a lot of media (plus it's a big export industry). Just based on economies of scale, the US media can swamp smaller markets like Canada and most individual European and Asian countries--and they do. In many countries domestic magazines, movies, and TV all have trouble competing for space with American products. We just don't have the population base to support as much output. Canada is lucky to make a few movies a year, for example.
Now add to that the fact that Americans for the most part just don't want stories about non-Americans or non-American values (nor should they, really). It's not the fault of the average American that their government and media flood foreign markets with American media products. Nevertheless, you have a lot of people in Canada, Europe, and Asia swimming in a sea of media and culture that is specifically, intentionally, not about them.
Most people don't give a shit: they just want pretty girls and big explosions, but they end up being alienated in their own countries. People like me who actually think about these things get pissed off (not that it stops me from watching Star Trek, The Simpsons, and South Park).
The thing is we all have this impression that Americans don't give a shit about the rest of the world because your media sure as hell does not. It panders to you like you wouldn't believe. We get the impression you're out to shove your values and ideas down our throats because your media does just that. We ought to realise it's nothing personal because they're just selling product, but it still sucks. Furthermore, we're all hypocrites because we buy the damn stuff anyway. Then we bitch about it.
It is a bit galling, however, for most of us to see our homegrown media struggling as it does, then to see protests in the US over foriegn influence in the media, or about productions in Canada, or about foreign ownership. Maybe it's because you don't know what your government and media companies do overseas, but it really smacks of hypocrisy, too.
Most Canadians, Europeans, and Asians are not like the terrorists. They may bitch about the USA, but they don't hate it. We all have our rude American stories (I once cruised down the Rhine in Germany listening to an old American guy loudly bragging how the US blew up this bridge and that castle and wondering when someone was going to deck him) and they're kind of fun to trade because they're something we non-Americans all have in common. Bitching is our way of reclaiming our own non-American identities back. There's a big difference, though, between bitching and hating. You can bitch about people you like.
Before you slag me off, think about how life would be if nearly every movie, TV show, magazine, and website was in German, about Germans, and hardly mentioned America. Even if you watched the shows and enjoyed them, you'd probably bitch about Germans (or whatever nationality you want--I happen to like Germans, too).
While movies and music may be some of the most obvious exports of American culture/values to the rest of the world, I don't think they are the problematic ones. I lived most of my life in Eastern Europe and American culture was always in high demand.
Without a doubt there are certain people/cultures that are upset over the invasion of Pepsi ads, but I don't think many people turn into suicide bombers after seeing a KFC sign. To some people, McDonalds and rock music symbolize everything they dislike about the American cultural imperialism, but they aren't the primary trouble causers.
For instance, an issue that came up recently in Indonesia was the US-dominated pharmaceutical policy of the WTO. Many people in Indonesia enjoy having access to American music and movies, but I think that few appreciate the fact that they many life-saving medications are unavailable or prohibitively expensive due to the policy.
Through the WTO, the IMF and other international organizations, the US has pushed a very restrictive and controlling set of economic policies on much of the world.
Many countries dislike the level of US interference in heated political situations such as the middle east or certain former Soviet republics.
Add to this the frequent US military involvement in conflicts throughout the world and the strong military presence the US maintains at key locations, and you can see how the US is view as aggressive and self-interested.
I think we need to start a "set fire to JonKatz" petition. Or maybe a "fire on" JonKatz initiative.
Thats what it comes down to isn't it? Currently our economy is criticaly dependant on Arab Oil. Iran and Iraq are both threating to choke the supply to punish the US for supporting Israel. I doubt that they will, but consider what the effects would be if Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and Iraq cut supply and we got $50 a barrell oil? Yikes
You know, I would just looove to talk about globalism as I know about every injustice in the world personally better than all of you. So I would like to say this... shame on you for not being so informed, not listening to me, and enjoying your lives.
I have important business to attend to. I have to be in front of a Starbucks in the next ten minutes to protest something so inconsequential that no one has ever heard of it. I invite you all to read my useless, over artistic leaflets that make no sense, invite you to feel bad about something, and then give you no solution. Come, share in my carefully crafted, over-thoughtful misery. DID I MENTION I'M AN ARTIST? Okay, I'm just artistic.
Sorry Katz, but no matter how many articles you write to get the punk rock chicks, you'll never be as "indy as me."
http://www.mcfrontalot.com/ Please note: MC Frontalot does not want you to go to his site.
"Since capital is the essential ingredient of contemporary production and economies, countries compete to attract it. It's no accident that nations who can't or won't are also incubators for political discontent and terrorism."
Is that so? Then please explain how Timothy McVeigh (sp?), or the Irish terrorists, or the FLQ in Canada fit into that description. I could continue and list many more such groups and people in wealthy countries.
Katz already answered his own question, "Is globalism good or evil?" by the very context of his remarks here. He pits globalism as the necessary evil against religous fanaticism by making the rather remarkable leap that countries unwilling to bow to the will of the modern market will undoubtedly spin out in a blaze of religiosity.
Antiglobalists, and Katz to some extent, fall prey to the currently very vogue deconstructionist view of the universe. In that sense, the only proposal of their vitriolic spew is to attack the organic unity of any tradition or political philosophy that the avante garde determine is their next target. The great problem with adopting a Derrida-esque view of the universe is that you aren't left with much but nihlistic fatalism and a sense of martyrdom. There's an article in the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs that points this out perfectly. The author (whose name escapes me at the moment) states that antiglobalists make the assumption that desconstructionism (a philosophical movement that sprung out of a reaction to formalist literary theory) should not be considered to be a more appropriate or humane or sanctified way of viewing the universe than economics, at least not a priori. His point is that deconstructing globalism doesn't necessarily get you anywhere, and its not even a necessarily appropriate thing to do.
So Katz secures his place in the vanguard of populist philosophy by lamenting the evils of globalism while recognizing its pacifying effect on populaces that, in Katz view, are likely to succumb to religious fanaticism. We all admire the irony and struggle in Katz' voice. Lets all have a quiet moment and think about what a great writer Katz is.
The only problem is that Katz' deconstruction of globalism hasn't left us with anything productive. The net gain to the universe is zero. No new knowledge has been propogated, no new thought inspired - just insipid moaning and ranting and raving.
All I'm asking is that when we discuss matters of such great importance that our goal be to synthesize some new rational thought that actually produces a net gain for the universe. If we discuss globalism, let's discuss ways of mitigating its faults rather than eloquently rehashing all of the arguments against it.
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, its too dark to read.
Nothing like a bad mix of George Soros and techno-futurism to come up with vapid social analysis.
We seem to be running away from the world, and much of the world hates us for it.
Americans are doing a good job of ignoring the rest of the world, thanks to the woefully narrow focus of most of our news media. The U.S. government, on the other hand, continues to get better and better at interfering with the rest of the world, often in ways we don't even hear about. How many ./ers know there are American "military advisors" (a la Vietnam) in Colombia and the Phillippines right now?
As the U.S. evolved rapidly from an industrial to a data-based economy, much of the world hasn't come along, or doesn't want to.
Mr. Katz, who do you think manufactures your sneakers? Your car? Your computer? Regardless of whether the U.S. now has a "data-based economy," someone has to do the producing. And, quite frankly, the fact that good-paying industrial union jobs in the U.S. have evaporated, only to be replaced with temp work for 13-year-old Indonesian girls earning a few dollars a day, doesn't strike me as much cause for celebration.
A ferocious advocate of open societies ..
No, Mr. Soros is a ferocious advocate of open markets. Big difference.
Since when does "people == content"? I'm all for the Net's revolutionary impact on intellectual 'property,' but it doesn't have much effect on whether peaceful people can cross borders freely. That privilege is reserved for capital.
nation-states and their constituents now have to choose between globalism (and its attendant prosperity) or religious fanaticism.
This is a false choice: Enron or Osama. I pick neither. Unfortunately for Mr. Soros, the romantic notion that ordinary people, not financial markets, ought to make the decisions that affect their lives, lingers in the hearts of many.Red All Over: Rambling Missives from an Aspiring Revolutionary
Natalie Portman, hot grits or petrification? If not, why am I writing this?
dimwit.
The United States system of fairness, work ethic, innovation and competition makes us extremely successful. The Arab world's general tendance towards backwardsness and corruption for the past 500 years has put them at a severe disadvantage. Anyone with half a brain comes to the US to be a GTA!
You had me up to this point and then...
These courtries see the US as completely invalidating Islam and are reacting accordingly.
What does Islam have to do with this? And how will the US invalidate it? Many people freely practice Islam in the US.
I'm moved in ways I didn't think possible
Dude, go read political theory, social theory and philosophy. In particular, pay close attention to chomsky and his argument about how consent is manufactured. As well as think critically about karl marx. Even though communism is/was a failure, marx makes some astute observations. Or read kermode, derida, neitsche, kant, wordsworth (even though he's not really considered a philosopher), walt whitman, aristotle, plato and socrates. The underlying struggle behind all these politcal jardons is the fear of change and loss of tradition. All the financial BS aside, people resent the US because our way of life is far from the Utopia and in may ways their beliefs are more sustainable. Or go read Contact, if you haven't. The only progress technology imparts is more greed and power to those who control the corporations.
Mod that up... That was great...
As a Canadian we have to live a breath the American influence... Trade between Canada and the US is in the worst state it has ever been. The US uses its massive influence and power to get its way... If Canadians stand up for what we believe we'd be considered terrorists and they would blow us to pieces...
It could be said that Microsoft is to the US and the US is to the World.
i just found this article on these protests from the point of view of an anthropologist who's also an anarchist.
"The New Anarchists"
i found it quite amusing, and also informative. it goes over a lot of misconceptions found in the media.
"The value of a man resides in what he gives,
and not in what he is capable of receiving."
--Albert Einstein
Globalism in and of itself isn't bad. Spreading American values of freedom, democracy, pluralism and free market capitalism is a Good Thing (TM).
If you want a term that really defines the problem that the "Anti-Globalism" protesters are hung up about, go with "Overextended Transnational Corporatism Usurping Sovereign Democratic Decision-making".
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Since capital can move anywhere in seconds, any nation-state's ability to exercise control over an economy has been radically undermined.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Just because Britain couldn't hold on to Hong Kong through finances doesn't mean it can't be done. The rules are different. But that doesn't mean that countries can't exercise control over one another. Standing armies don't work -- that's fine. Shut down the flow of money. Shut down trade. If said economy is freely traded, send their stock market down the toilet. Don't say it can't happen. To bring an obnoxious, overused post 9-11 reference (hey, he used it first!), look at the damage 4 planes did. It still happens, the rules just changed.
This topic is grossly overanalyzed -- perhaps instead of reflecting on how things just don't apply anymore, one would think about how things still do, and it what context...
A'ight,
That's what I'm talkin' about!
As it turns out, the other stuff wasn't what I was talkin' about.
A'ight.
Man, I'm Canadian and even I know American history well enough to know that.
So what do you care if Americans have guns?
And this is why I will never move to the States, I'd be fearful for my safety and the safety of my family.
I wish more people would adopt this philosophy instead of coming to America and tying to make it more like their home country. When you come to America know that we like our guns (among other things). Don't come over here and say "Back in my country...". If your country is so much better, then go back.
I have never criticized any other nation's internal policies. It is none of my business.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Not talking about petrification or hot grits?
Seriously.
What's the point if we're not? Natalie Portman would.
Next: Is Globalism good or evil?
... claiming otherwise doesn't really promote any healthy discussion.
Jon seems to be falling victim to myopia himself. I'm pretty damn sure globalism can be both "good" and "evil".
If things could be painting in only black and white, we wouldn't have invented colour TVs.
Everything is grey
Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
The problem with Globalization the way Katz/Soros defines it is that those in power are not accountable to the billions of people they are affecting. WTO, World Back, IMF, these folks can't be voted out, impeached, etc, and they are not worried about the next election. There's not even a real court or system of laws that has any real power over them.
No Power Without Accountability!
In light of that, who cares who did what 50 years ago or which religion wants to slaughter whom or who has pork in what project? None of that matters as long as those setting global policy and moving mountains of money can operate with total impunity.
P.S. - And unless you're a majority stock holder in a major international corporation, it's guaranteed those folks don't represent your interests or mine.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
If you are going to troll, at least do it in a technically proficient manner.
Globalism is a major reason. Invasive American culture -- from movies, music, fast-food -- have highlighted political and religious differences, from Europe to the Middle East and South Asia.
Invasive ?? I'm not aware of the CIA strapping Arabs into easy chairs forcing them to watch re-runs of I Dream of Jeanie - do you know something I don't on this subject. Seriously though, we aren't imposing our culture on others, if they don't like ours get their own.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Just when I though Jon Katz was the master of incoherent, non-sequiter, rambling cacophonies, an AC (when will /. turn them the hell off?) comes along. At least these idgits have taken a short break from Bush bashing to concentrate on a man who, for all intents and purposes, has disappeared to an "undisclosed location" for the last 7 months.
Guess you missed it.
Never trust a yank. They lie and cheat.
Don't believe me? Bananas & Steel
Bananas: The europeans preferentially imported bananas from small ex-colonies in the caribean. Many of the islands have economies that are 50% or more dependent upon bananas. Their costs are higher than the big central american banana plantations (unavoidably due to geography), but within bounds that the EC could handle by giving a small degree of help. America used GATT to force the europeans to cut their subsidies so that their would be a 'level playing field' - which in practise means that the caribean producers loose their markets to the benefit of the big american fruit growing corporations.
Steel: American steel is expensive because of high wages and other production costs. American jobs were threatened because foreign producers could deliver steel 50% or more cheaper than USA steel. So in direct contravention of GATT america pushes through 40% levies on foreign steel imports.
Never trust a yank. They lie and cheat. A nation of hypocrites who when the going get tough are more than prepared to swing their bloated weight around.
(and guess what grop all those small banana growers who the americans forced out of business are turning to? Yep, drugs)
Thanks to our myopic and narcissistic media and opportunistic, short-sighted politicians...
Here's where I stopped reading.
I'm all for media- and politician-bashing, but the media is myopic and narcissistic because the public demands it. Americans, in general, can keep focused on important issues only until the next time Britney Spears's belly button appears on TV.
Opportunistic, short-sighted politicians?? Put in office by opportunistic, short-sighted voters who are likely very happy with their choice, thank you.
Stop blaming the symptoms, start focusing on the disease.
Your post makes me even more glad I live in the US and not Canada. You don't like guns, don't live here. They've saved my ass once...I might not be here if it weren't for guns.
:)
Statistics show that areas with increased gun ownership (especially when those guns are carried on one's person) have significantly decreased crime rates (Florida for example).
Other areas (England) that chose to ban guns almost completely have seen a horrific increase in the rate of violent crime and murder. I actually know some older Brittish couples who feel they have pretty much been robbed of their retirement by the gun control. They have people breaking into their houses and making them feel VERY unsafe. The police are only reactionary (can't prevent crime, only punish it) and they are not allowed to protect themselves.
I don't look at the gun issue through clouded lenses of feelings, fears, and misconceptions. Guns are not evil, bad, etc...but some people, irrationaly, feel that way...and they are often portrayed that way.
Look at the facts and you will see the light.
Guns are just as good, if not better, than "free" software.
You forgot to mention religious holidays.
Personally, I don't see how Muslims could avoid being worried about the way globalism is likely to push christmas and other christian holidays on them. Many christians really get an attitude when you don't want to celebrate their religious holidays with them, and many of these people control the popular media which is being exported, increasingly, to foreign nations. It quite literally is a threat to the Muslim way of life, as well as the ways of life of other religious peoples, as well as atheists, some agnostics, and probably others too.
The question is not about "good" or "evil." The question is about the definition of globalism.
Corporations and the U.S. Government confuse globalism with corporate imperialism. Or perhaps they don't. It just sounds better. Corporate imperialism is what people hate, not globalism, except as the term is used by the powers that be.
To make globalism work, we need to give people control, including the power to move around the world as easily as corporations and capital. We need to respect the degree to which communities want their lifestyle altered by participating in the global community. And we need to give the people a real say in government, not Mickey Mouse elections based on sound bites and FUD, with a choice between grits and boiled pork.
Further, we need to see the exploitation of third world labor in the same light as the exploitation of mineral resources. When we ship labor overseas, to reduce cost, it must be accompanied by benefits such as education, not just the billowing bank accounts of a few dictators and corporate moguls.
Western countries and the U.S. in particular, must also start to walk the talk. All western political and corporate leaders are good at parroting free trade sound bites. But they are much less adept at letting the market work its magic. The current U.S. vs. Europe steel debacle is just one of the many examples. Take a look at all the regulations and restrictions limiting clothing imports into the U.S. You might say, that is to protect U.S. clothing manufacturers--so much for free trade. But then why not limit the export of programming jobs to India, or help television manufacturers in the U.S.? The reason, among others, is to keep third world countries in their place, and to protect the artificially inflated market of designer brands in western countries. As long as U.S. corporations are in control, everything is OK. But if it looks like control might shift to another country, then trade restrictions are imposed.
And finally, intellectual property law reform is badly needed. As it is, the IP laws are bad for the people in developed countries. But much worse, for people in developing countries they are just a further tool for indefinite enslavement, and in many cases, such as availability of drugs, they are a matter of survival.
The overwhelming hate Americans experience in many parts of the world is certainly related to these issues. As is a completely out of touch and unjust U.S. centric foreign policy, but that is the subject of another essay. Many of these people who hate the U.S. don't hate Americans, they hate what a select few Americans do to their countries and people. Remember when Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire?" Well, those same Russians are still there, but obviously not so evil anymore. The current administration believes that propaganda can help sell American values to the third world. But how do you sell enslavement and exploitation to the looser? Military force, of course, mixed with plenty of FUD and a little well place cash. The promise of a future more bleak than it already is. That is the theory anyway. September 11 should have been a wake-up call to yes, defend ourselves, but also to reevaluate our view of the world.
Obviously, all of this cannot happen overnight. The world's problems are not solved by moving three or four billion poor people to the U.S. or Western Europe. But there is no reason why the government should restrict the movement of the workforce between countries with a similar economic status. There is no reason why we can't develop a "free trade" system that benefits all parties. There is no reason why social responsibility cannot be part of globalism.
In the end, the U.S. Government and U.S. corporations (if there is a difference), must learn to ask and give, not to tell and take. Then perhaps, American values will be admired. And interestingly enough, this is also the recipe for unlimited wealth, because it is giving of service and value, that creates wealth. I should think the collapse of the Roman, Spanish, British, etc.. empire has taught us that much. Perhaps it has, but it is not relevant until after the next election cycle, or the golden parachute kicks in.
Talking about the world is interesting, but the first step must be cleaning up the mess at home. Would you hire an interior decorator who lives in a dump? It may be a surprise to Americans, but even Western Europeans ridicule the U.S. legal and political system. The U.S. may spend tons of money on medical care, but its infant mortality rate is among the world's worst. Social Security? Or do you mean social insecurity? Even with all the news coverage, it is always an eye opener to see the reaction of people from Europe when they catch a glimpse of U.S. poverty. Clean up at home, and lead the world by example. Just remember how well it worked when your parents said: "Do as I tell you, not as I do."
The bottom line is: Globalism is Good. Corporate (or State) Imperialism is Bad.
And you are helping America how by being an ignoratn putz? Don't get me wrong, it is your right, and I would never take it from you, but it doesn't help to be a mouth-breathing, foaming iddiot who eats up every lasy bit of crap fed to him.
I suppose that you think Slashdotters are communists too, because they support free software? Guess what buddy, communists are open now. We have them in government. There is no reason for them to hide.
"But of course not, they like their DVDs and Windows-only games too much."
This was a poorly-written troll.
Your argument about this being a stick used by the British is probably not strictly true.
Also, the odds that China would do anything to mess with HK are extremely low and always have been. They needed HK to prove that Taiwan could safely come into the fold.
What most people don't realize is that the final prize is regional dominance, not HK. This means bringing all of the past conquests into the fold. Chinese people, and the PRC government especially, are very proud. Their goal is ideological, not economic. Although it follows that economics will help them in their quest.
In summary, I think that even if the British took all the money out of HK that A) the Chinese would have taken it back anyway, B) there would have been a rather large impact on global financial markets, and C) Asian would have gone into a massive recession (thereby impacting the rest of the world).
Linux is UNIX.
As the U.S. evolved rapidly from an industrial to a data-based economy, much of the world hasn't come along, or doesn't want to.
The world is comprised of much more than just the mideast and the USA. Most nations are the same or even further advanced than the US.
amen to that bro!
i realy hate the way that america is acting in politics around the world. usa thinks it the gratest nation in the world, but is blinded with its own self.
i live in a country that has the most celphone connections per person, the most internet conections per person, free education(all the way...) , free medical help, unemploment asistance, working law-making systems, democracy, over 2 party's(closer to 5 in the "congress..") a woman president and 2rd most women in congres of all countries(or first, cant remember), nro 1 in competibility in the markets, the leader of the democratic party is daiting a key member(and a good looking member it is..) of his opposing party. the president is a old 70's radical... who got maried after being elected w her boyfriend. 1st or second country in the world to give woman the right to vote. lots of clean nature, and still a good urban enviromeant..
ok, so the taxes r a little bit high.
AND i still think this country isnt the gratest in the world. far from it. no country is.
nationalism is masturbation.
ps, ok, ill let u in on this one, the country is finland.
Wasn't there a Monty Python sketch about Finland?
Reality has a liberal bias
I really don't know what's more entertaining (in a "driving past the accident" sort of way), watching the slashbrats pretend they understand how markets work, or watching Katz pretend he knows how anything in the real world works.
i hate katz
The United States system of fairness, work ethic, innovation and competition makes us extremely successful.
Don't forget legislation. When the above doesn't work to your advantage, you always resort to legislation. 20 years ago, the major forest product companies in Canada recognized a major lack of productivity in their sawmills as compared to the U.S. They embarked on a multi-billion dollar upgrade which now makes their processing capability second to none in the world. Through modernizing their industry, they were able to produce more wood more efficiently than any other country in the world. Compare this to the U.S. companies. They were content to keep pouring diminishing amounts of raw lumber (already cut it all and never bothered to replant) through very antiquated, labour-intensive mills. The result: a lack of raw lumber and poor productivity and high cost products. The solution: 29% tariffs on finished lumber from Canada and welcoming shipments of raw logs from Russia and Europe.
You might want to rethink the "fairness, work ethic, innovation and competition" part of your thinking. Don't forget that Canada is your number one trading partner and friend. Just imagine what your "Department Of Commerce (Protectionism when we can't play fairly) has done to your ENEMIES!!
I choose to disregard the rest of your post as intolerance. But then, given your innovative education system, what more could I expect.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
Folks,
I find it remarkable how contradictory the two streams of advice about how the US should change its behavior are. One one hand, there are those who say we need to be less involved in the rest of the world - no global policing, no liberation of Kuwait, leave Iraq alone, leave Bosnia alone, no more support for Israel etc. Others say we need to be more involved - impose a Palestinian/Israeli settlement, neutralize Iraq, increase and improve foreign aid, make freeer trade, etc.
Neither side is essentially wrong - what they all want is for us to do the "right" things, and not do the "wrong" things. Of course, which is which is far from obvious.
As in all things, Stan Lee said it best: "With great power comes great responsibility." Spiderman's greatest failure wasn't what he did, but what he didn't do, allowing a criminal to go free and kill his Uncle Ben. As semi-facetious as the argument may sound, the US has been bit by that radioactive spider, and we need to accept the fact of our power, and figure out how best to use it.
Due to a combination of excellent geography, a successful culture built by waves of immigration, and dumb luck, the US has the ability to Make Things Different in the world. We can make changes. But while we're powerful, we aren't prescient, and can't predict the long-term ramifications of what we do with any accuracy.
But choosing not to act is still an action - was not intervening in Rawanda any better than invading Iraq would be? Our power means we have to make these decisions, and sweat them, and argue about them endlessly on talk shows, and then, gut clinched, try to do the right thing and hope it all works out.
Many of the examples of past US evil are from the cold war. I think we can agree that a good number of the things we did were not only not effective for our goals, but hurt them in the long term. But do you think that, with what they knew at the time, the people who made those decisions knew which were which? Does this mean we should have let the Soviet Union have a free hand all over the world? No.
The US needs to be engaged with the world, and we have to know it's going to be a messy business that will make us enemies. So we need to do it in as smart a way as possible, with a long view, with clear-eyed compassion, and with as little attention to our trivial domestic politics as possible.
For a recent example of us NOT doing this right, we failed to drop textile tarrifs for Pakistan. Pakistan's leadership, whatever their faults, have been a surprisingly good partner in our current conflict. And they're dirt poor, which helps terrorists, and hurts the development of a healthy society. Pakistan makes a lot of textiles, and could important a lot more to the US, helping develop a better, non-aid-based economy. But, in order to not risk the Carolinas in the mid-term elections later this year, and his reelection in 2004, Bush refused to lower tarrifs or increase Pakistan's quota for textiles. I know it sounds like a small deal, but getting this kind of stuff right could help enormously.
Anyway, there is nothing we can do that will keep people from hating us. We have the power to pick winners and losers, and so we'll be resented for what we don't do just as much as for what we do. So we just have to do the right thing as best we can, and give the world as few VALID reasons to hate us as possible.
My video compression blog
Mmm, yes, so the point of this article is that George Soros just came out with a new book and Mr. Katz is quite in agreement with it. Fine. But that does little to illuminate the argument does it? I'm a perturbed by the whole fact that this is nothing more than a long-winded advertisement/book review for George Soros on Globalization? I'm not a Katz hater, anyone who creates as much ire and flaming in one place isn't necessarily bad thing. At least it gets people thinking.
However, the whole weight of this argument seems to be based on one-person's conclusions: Soros. My professors would have laughed me out of school if I had tried to construct an argument with one source. And Katz doesn't even really take a stand on the issue (though I think we all know how he feels about it) and what's the deal with the to be continued...that in a Democracy, we will only get a government as good as its people. So quit griping about "America did this" and "America did that" as if "America" is this nebulous group of black hats running around causing global mayhem. The American people elect every person involved in federal lawmaking, as well as the comnmander-in-chief of the military. Anything in America's past that you don't like lies squarely at the feet of its people.
Although Jon Katz has not really caught on yet, the biggest impact of post-9/11 on his life is the fact that he is so much more obviously irrelevant and unnecessary in our new world. George Soros is a phenomenal person, and I am sure his book is worth reading for its thought provoking ideas. Pity that Jon has taken Soros' recent book and warped it to his own inscrutable ends.
As someone who is twice his age I agree with most of what he said. AND, more importantly, I think his arguments hold large amounts of truth. To respond to you directly:
Blaming everything that has happened between 1943 and 1989 on the Cold War is a bit silly. The Cold War is a symptom of something else. It's the result of power struggles. Power struggles and the control for dominance is just that. And, IMHO, it's hardly ever justified. It's basically a form of mental masturbation and usually performed by insecure little boys who haven't figured out how to deal with their own personal problems. The reasons, however, are usually couched in some kind of rah-rah about protecting the world or some other such trite crap.
Surprisingly, I agree with you about the Jewish constituency; however, you ignored some things. I'm not Jewish and I am, frankly, quite sick of American Jew's support (those that do) of Israeli behavior. Israel is the South Africa of this decade. There is no excuse for the ongoing institutionalized indentured servitude (really slavery if you don't want to mince words) and mistreatment of the Palestinian peoples. It's very much akin to the justification of South African slavery. Did you know that Nelson Mandella and the ANC were classified as "terrorists" by both the South African and American governments in the early 80s?
Your last argument is the most ridiculous and clearly shows that while the rest of your article is appears logical that you are operating on the basis of emotions for your deductive reasoning. In a huge number of cases the "dictator" in question that you refer to was backed by the U.S. Liberty, human rights, etc. are for American people, not people in other countries. Aren't you paying attention to the what the U.S. government does as foreign policy as opposed to what they say?
I doubt you have even been overseas. Having spent a fair bit of my time overseas I can say that A) your claim of how the propaganda machines function is exaggerated and B) people in other countries are frequently understanding of the difference between American people and the American governmen, and C) you have totally ignored that where there is a propaganda machine in place it's probably a small flame next to the might mechanisms of the American mass media which affect the globe.
Anyway, mod this down as a troll, but you clearly needed a clue. Here it is. Take it or leave it.
Linux is UNIX.
BTW, you would have to fly a plane into a building for spite, or strap a bomb to your chest and blow your self up in a crowed place, to be considered a terrorist. The definition of Terrorism might be hard to clarify(think about the fire bombing of Dresden in WWII), but it isn't that hard to suss out.
As for hypocrasy, Canadians puhlease! They futz around with a useless language like French, just to pretend that they aren't really just the american-wannabees that they are. The slaughter Inuit like farmers kill prarie dogs, and then act like liberal bleeding heart europhiles. Can I get another PuhhLease!!
-- I am not a fanatic, I am a true believer.
So no wonder he thinks Soros, widely viewed as a joke in his philosopher mode, is facsicinating.
I have never seen someone successfully defend their right to arms. Your NRA statistics are wonderful, but flawed. It is also worth noting that Florida has some of the nations' worst road rage and violent crime rates. It's true that in an armed society, petty crime is reduced, but only because petty theives fear for their lives should they rob a store, for example. Of the same token however, with so many guns close at hand, more disputes end in violence.
The older Britons that you claim to know are certainly the Hestonite minority. How the fuck can gun control ruin your retirement? It should not come as a surprise that the US has the highest violent crime rate in the developed world and they have the most relaxed gun laws . Please don't take made-up views and smear them around. I've never met someone from the US travelling outside America that wasn't amazed by the lack fear on the streets of foreign countries. If you like staying inside at night or worrying about your girlfriend's safety, I leave you to it with all your uber-capitalist views.
Go back under your bridge you bastard troll.
Do you want to remove linux?
Imagine, an entire empire based on putting your feet up!
Man, you almost had me going with this April Fools post, pretending it was by Jon Katz.
...
You really nailed his style - long, overflowing words instead of crisp, concise statements - and the tendency to pontificate on things he knows precious little about.
But
you blew it by not including how this article links to ubergeek techno kiddies. That's when I figured out you just forgot to submit the story yesterday as an April Fools post.
Face it, if it doesn't go on and on and on talking about how the "new generation" of technologically-savvy cyberkidlings are subverting the paradigm, it ain't a Katz story.
Good one, though. You almost had me there.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
"I have never criticized any other nation's internal policies. It is none of my business."
Exactly. Maybe if the people in US goverment behaved this way we could be still seeing the Twin Towers in the NY skyscape.
But wiht the current pollitical lazziness (sp?) of american citizens, this will not happen anytime soon.
It is really quite simple: The United States is full of "Haves", and the rest of the world is full of "Have-Nots". When globalization finishes balancing it all out, how much wealth is the United States really going to have left?
Globalization = Good for 3rd world countries.
Globalization = Bad for 1st world countries.
Here's what's funny: This argument has probably been used since the founding of the country. It's particularly funny that the U.S. government's piss poor actions all happened in the past. Riiiiiiight. The U.S. government no longer makes bad decisions on a regular basis. I've got a bridge to sell you . . .
Here's what else is not clueful about it:
It pre-supposes that others bad actions are justifications for our bad actions. NOT.
What kind of reasons do you need to hate someone? Maybe they are supplying the weapons that are being used to eliminate your friends and neighbors? (U.S. is the biggest arms dealer in the world). What else? Maybe there is a brutal dictator that was put in place of a more reasonable leader by the U.S. government? I mean, you can't even argue this isn't true. It's happened so many times I am not even going to try and justify my assertion. These aren't good enough reasons to hate the American Government ?? The problem here is that American's get all uptight because they think they personally are at fault, instead of taking responsibility for supporting a government that performs these actions. And the next time the U.S. gov is doing something questionable you probably won't get up and exercise your right to free speech either. Pathetic.
Let's take good old Osama as a final example. Trained and funded by the CIA to fight the U.S.S.R. in Afghanistan. We created him and then we act like it's a big surprise when a created and particularly brutal monster turns on us. It's like keeping a wild animal and then being surprised that regardless of the training it still acts like a wild animal.
CLUE
Linux is UNIX.
No it isn't. Guys like Katz and Soros that are the problem.
Seastead this.
And we're supposed to care why? Maybe they should send Katz (who uses the imperial "we" instead of "I" far too often) over to the unhappy countries and let him drone on for a while. Until they do the right thing, of course...
Have you noticed how he always cites events and topics that are so last month? (Or Six Months)
Way to continually play it safe. Heard from your own brain lately?
No sig for you!!
"Back in my country, we did a few things really well. We were willing to invest in unproven technologies so that some of them could become proven technologies. We had a general and strong sense of the power of democracy. Now that I live here, where you have different strengths, I see that perhaps these things I tell you about could make your country, my country, even greater."
It's perfectly acceptable to criticize a country that values free speech when you get there. You like it enough to emigrate, right? It's already that much better than the old country. How else, but by open and public dissent, are we ever going to improve anything?
Some ideas will succeed. Some will fail. If we do this right, the right ones will succeed more often.
[|]
History records their deaths as largely due to the assault of SWAT, BATF, FBI teams, along with tanks. It was the type of tear gas (flammable) and amunition (tracer bullets) that kicked off the hottest fires, and the fire fighting equipment ringing the area was restrained from doing anything to protect the children. Suppose it was your family that was surrounded by forces intent on your destruction, how would you handle that? Wouldn't that make you nuts?
American weapons, military and police training, Amercian intelligence, and billions in aid goes into several armies in the Middle East. The poor Arabs routinely end up viewing these things from the wrong end. There is no innocent party in the region. The blood revenge ethic goes back generations and millenia on all sides.
Something stronger than either Israel or Palestinians would have to occupy the entire area in order to stop the cycle of retribution. Perhaps a very forceful dictatorship impsed by the U.N. One that would support religious freedom of worship, liberation of women, freedom of speech, freedome of assembly, etc. It would have to force Israel and Palestinians to share the land together, as a global spiritual resource. It would have to totally disarm all citizens of the resulting area. There would have to be international disavowing of retribution and blood revenge forever.
Your ignorance is rampant, you remind me of the people in the mideast who hate America but have never been here and no nothing except what the media has told them. Who are you to tell me that I can't own a gun and I shouldn't be able to. I have never met you and never will. If you don't want to own a gun fine. Don't buy one. But people like you who think they can just tell everyone else how to live are just wrong.
The second amendment was not put in place to prevent a british invasion. It was put in place to allow citizens to keep their personal firearms so if needed they could be called on to form a militia to defend the United States in case of any invasion or so the people could rise up and overthrow the government if it became corrupt and started to trample our rights.
If half the Russian people under Stailin would of had guns do you think he would of been in power long? What if the jews hadn't given up their guns to the Nazi's before WWII, then maybe they could of defended themseleves when the SS came to round them up and take them to the gas chamber. What about the Israilis?
If noone had guns there how long do you think it would take for the Palestinians, Syrians, Lebenneese, Egyptians and Iraqi's to kill them all off?
Just because America is a great power today doesn't mean it always will be. Thus we need our firearms.
I own firearms for Hunting and to protect my girlfriend and myself from criminals. You will find that 99.9 percent of Americans own them for one of the above reasons also. I also like to go shooting with my friends and family. I will not depend on the police to protect me and you are not helping your family by depending on them to help you.
It's not the OS it's the user that sucks. If it's user friendly, you get stupider people. - clinko
When replying to this editorial, the actual text of it doesn't matter.
After all, it's written by Jon Katz!
*Globalism, sounds interesting... oh wait, it's Katz, better just skip down and start flaming*
Osama, the Taliban, Hambali, Hamas, and many others fight for thier god and thier religion and THAT is thier cause for discontent.
They do not fight for their god or their religion. What their actual reasons are are immaterial in this scope. Their god and their religion is what they use to dupe tools into blowing themselves up to further their own ends. The low ranking members might fight for god or religion, but the leaders of religious groups don't really believe, they just use belief to dupe the ignorant as has always been done.
bullshit. sweden REQUIRES every household have a full Assualt rifle, afterall evryone spends time in the militia. do you see thier violent crime rate going through the roof? no you don't Gun ownership has nothing to do with the US violent crime rate. The fact the most European nations have a population that mostly gets along and has mostly one culture in a given area.(exceptions noted)
However the U.S. has damn near every frigging culture in the world lumped into one place. And you think it is because of guns? think for a min. do you REALLY belive that all of these cultures and religions are going to play nice with each other in the sandbox? not a chance.
Religious tension, racisism, cultural differences and intolerance THAT is why the US has such a high vilolent crime rate, and will long into the furture even if you ban all guns, it will be done with bats or whatever.
Once you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.
Read this and be enlightened
if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
...to a tiny fraction of the US rate. And I'd point out that at no point in the last 100 years have firearms been generally permitted to the populace.
The only change was a tightening of the rules after March 13, 1996 when Thomas Hamilton armed with four legally held handguns and 743 rounds of ammunition walked into a school gymnasium in Dunblane, Scotland, and without warning opened fire on Gwen Mayor and her kindergarten class. Within 3 to 4 minutes Mrs. Mayor and 16 children were killed, and 17 other children and teachers were wounded.
The Government report on the massacre recommended tightening the gun control laws, but stopped short of an outright ban on guns favoured by many.
Are all NRA supporters so ill-educated and ill-informed?
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
We may have the most relaxed gun laws. I'm not sure, it depends on which state you're in. However, we also have the largest population over the largest land mass in the FREE WORLD (India is not free, thanks to the caste system). Law enforcement is difficult, unless you have your populace under the boot-heel of the military as in China. Wonderful China, the most politically correct genocidal, oppressive, reactionary regime in the world.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
--Mike--
"while governments may not be able to restrict the flow of capital, they're still fairly effective at controlling the movement of people."
Considering the events of 9/11, and similar events preceeding it, I can't say I agree...
I just love how people ove to point out all the mistakes the US has made, but never once mention any of positives.
How about the Marshal Plan, or food drops to famine stricken people. What about the other loans the US has made to 3rd world areas, and then wrote them off. How about the positive side of freeing Kuwait... Besides the Oil...we gave them their country back. We could have left Iraq keep them and glossed over the 'humanitarian issues' like we do with China.
Kuwaiti's got their towns, houses, etc back. We didn't install any bogus gov't.
I'll agree that the media is shitty at reporting. But jeez, give the country some credit. I'd still rather be here in the US than anywhere else, even with the DMCA, FBI, CIA, NSA, Carnivore...yada yada yada...
As I truly believe, "If you don't like it here in the US, then get the f*#$ out."
"Hmm. I am to metaphor cheese as metaphor cheese is to transitive verb crackers!"
I just LOVE Katz's articles. Always so well researched and profound.
Huh, it's not April 1st anymore?!?! Crap!
Homer>Undo, undo!!/Homer>
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Ben Barber was a professor of mine at Rutgers, and I found his theories as expounded in both his lectures and writings to be over-simplified and wrongheaded. Additionally, the man is a putz.
I say we all stop posting below any of JonKatz's "articles". That way we show Slashdot that we are not interested in his fluff. Maybe someone thinks we like to hear the fluff so we can rant and flame about it. And perhaps that is actually true for a lot of people here. Really, it just kind of irritates me.
Please help! I'm stuck inside my virtual reality headset!
Islam is the fastest growing culture! You will be assimilated! But seriously, it is the fastest growing culture. And, you per chance are not in a culture influenced by American culture, and as a result those companies which promote what we consider to be American culture. When is the last time you took a road trip and ate in an independant diner. Of course you have to find one first--good luck! No, we Americans would rather pay a buck less for something or be convenient in our purchases and thoughts than actually work. It will get worse...
Let's just nip this tired old saw right now - how much of "American" culture is made up of Chinese restaurants, Italian sausage, Danish pastry, French Fries, etc etc etc. Look at how governer races in Texas are now being held in Spanish. Every ATM machine I go to now is multilingual - and you people have to chutzpah to say US "culture" (which, if it exists at all, is pretty disposable) is invading - Heck we American feel like WE are the ones being invaded by 3rd world low lifes and mouchers.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I don't buy the "lack of money is the root of all evil" bit some people seem to suggest. Is Bill Gates more moral becuase of his wealth? Was Jesus or Buhda some how less moral due to their penury? Now, people get desperate when they don't have food, and will do whatever it takes to get it. At the same time, despots and mafia have plenty of food, but still do desperate things to maintain their money and power. The 9/11 attackers were from wealthy families compared to me. I think most of the problems are due to the greed and corruption of the people running the country. I had a roomate from Peru. He had a chance to visit the mansion of a financial consultant who had made millions. (incidentally, he and his wife had also adopted something like 9 kids and was one of the most generous people around) He said that his mansion paled in comparison to the houses of the customs officails in Peru that acquired their money through bribes. It doesn't matter how much forign aid some contries are sent. The problems won't be solved until they get somewhat honest people running the government, and the checks and balances to keep the rouges at bay.
We did not "discover to our surprise" the attitudes of muslim fanatics. Instead we discovered that we should take their toxic rantings more seriously. That's all. Muslim countries have always hated us for trying to introduce them to the twentieth century, because they ain't done with the twelfth yet...
There is within the question "why do they hate us" the very answer to the question. Because we take a "we" vs. "them" attitude to begin with and then act like a frightened bull in a china shop with arrogant bravado added to cover our ignorance over the damage we have done. Bush has made a mockery of the truths and high ideals our founding fathers fought for till America is known as the "Land of the Hypocrites". An appointed president using an admittedly horrible excuse to wag the dog and cover his lack of ability to even sham compassion has found his calling in creating a never-ending-war and an excuse to brand anybody who gets in his way a terrorist. It's the McCarthyism of the 50's coupled with the Nazism of the 40's and the big brother concept of 1984. The glee of destruction coming out of this nations capital is broadcast world wide to sicken and terrify anyone who would stand up for human rights and justice.
Bush's stance on Palestine reminds me of Hitler telling the French Resistance to stop attacking his troops. Its frightening that a country of religious fanatics can so boondoggle the U.S. government that they are given more military hardware than they can use and so they turn around and sell it to the highest bidder. China can now shoot down American airplanes with American missiles given for free to Israel.
The peace process was over when the U.N. passed the Balfor Declaration. The fact is, all Israelis are foreign nationalist occupiers of Palestinian. That the west created this situation and continues to support it shows the west did not learn anything from WWII. We may have to go through that exercise of "white man's burden" stupidity one more time.
The path to peace is to try and execute Sharon for war crimes and send a message that taking land by armed force, crimes against humanity and other forms of state terrorism will not be tolerated even if it is against non-whites. Isn't that one of the rules of the U.N. Or is that only enforced when it is convenient to the West?
As long as Israel exists where it is the world knows the West doesn't understand the concept of justice.
If the west truly wants peace, give them Arizona (just not on Indian land, you forgot them didn't you). Globalism, like "the war on terror" is just western colonialism in sheep's clothing.
Other areas (England) that chose to ban guns almost completely have seen a horrific increase in the rate of violent crime and murder.
And then you claim: "Look at the facts and you will see the light".
Since you didn't actually cite any actual statistics, were you hoping we'd just take your word for it? I'll show you mine, what have you got to show?
Well, it took about two minutes to find data via Google, and here are the facts: according to the US Department of Justice/FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the U.S. in 1997 there were an estimated 18,210 homicides. Or, a rate of 6.8 per 100,000 population.
In the U.K. in 1997, there were 640 homicides. Or, a rate of 1.24 per 100,000 population.
Next time, heed your own advice and look at the facts before spouting your useless drivel.
References:
Wow. That is the worse collection of mistakes, lies, and obfuscation I've ever read. George Soros is one of those "believers". He's the guy that says we can have a New World Economy and still have an Open Society. Well, he's a liar. Connecting trade to human rights is an old trick. It simply doesn't work, it never worked, and it won't work. Yet, we still get books from liars like this guy. Let me break down the article above paragraph by paragraph.
This isn't what's happening in the World at all. Not even generally. Computer networks are not changing anything, they simply generate money. that's what IT is for, nothing else (ask Bill, Larry, and Steve).
American culture is forced upon the world by the "American Empire" (defined as Corp. interest that control Government and thus trade and law). That is, a world wide market controlled and flooded with American "media" product. It's another big money maker after all. Since this already exists and is a complete mess for everyone but the billionaires in California, it might be a great model for the WTO... but they ignore it as everyone knows that it perfectly shows that World Trade to the USA means the World buying American products... and nothing else.
The truth is, the entire world sees the USA as amateur diplomats with guns and bombs who can barely speak English. Don't get mad, I'm being kind. Recent events in Israel caused one Diplomat to refer to American efforts from the Bush/Cheney/Oil government as "amateur hour at the U.N".
Global Economic policy (defined recently - behind closed doors and without any input from anyone not wearing a tie) is specifically designed to put the "American Corporate Empire" on top. If that isn't what happens, suddenly the USA isn't interested (and has threatened to leave the WTO if they don't get their way). Note; all of this is done behind closed doors with ABSOLUTELY no human rights input at all.
A data based economy? Did he just make that up?
American policy on terrorism has not changed at all since Ronald Reagan and TWA-Flight111. 9/11 seems only to cause the Bush government to give out billions to industry (mainly the Military Industrial Complex) and appoint his pals to silly and completely new positions of power. Homeland Security Director? No such thing. Who are they trying to fool?
I love how this "genius of investment" referred to the protesters of the WTO as "fragmented potpourri of laments about life in the modern world." Fuck you pal!! They are students mostly, and some are not DEAD BY COP. They are concerned that the entire future of the nation is being decided behind closed doors by people who have a history of MURDERING MILLIONS FOR PROFIT.
It has little to do, as he implies, with sour grapes about American infiltration of traditional markets and everything to do with an American Corporation controlling the economy of a nation. American companies already call the shots all over the world and get CIA and NSA help to do it. Central American history is a great place to learn just how the American Industry, government, and the military have no problems at all breaking the laws and very ideals that are the definition of the United States of America. I would think the USA would be ashamed to sell drugs for guns, but it doesn't seem to have bothered Dick Cheney a bit.
Since WWII is mentioned, I feel it necessary to point out that the term "New World Economy" was thrown around allot then too. The Cold War seems to have stymied their plans then.
Lastly, the last 20 years of deregulation, WTO, and New Economy law shredding has created a world of Corporations that have all the restraint of SHELL OIL! Thank you Ronald Reagan. You know, some people think it might not be a good idea to give a Corporation the equivilant legal rights of an human being. Call me crazy...
There is no such thing as a Welfare state, there never was one. It's simply the argument politicians roll out to justify deregulation. After all, what difference does it make to you if your taxes go to Corporations instead of Hospitals? You'll find out the second you need a doctor.
The last paragraph reminds me Nazi propaganda circa 1936. Chose us or CRAZY SUBHUMAN MONSTERS! *pffffft*. Do I look like I'd fall for such crap?
Why in the name of Kibo would anyone bother getting richer and richer on a global scale? Does it make peoples lives better? Does it help the world in any way... any way at all.
Anyone...
No, not you.
Anyone else... ?
If I got my opinions from CNN, or from other mainstream US media I would probably share your views of palestinians.
Your own bullshit detector needs some attention.
I could list sites for you to visit, or suggest you actually try going to the middle east and taking a look for yourself, but I don't think it would do any good. The trouble is, people judge the credibility of information against what they think they know already. You obviously believe you have a more accurate understanding of what's going on there than 98% of the people who live there. You "know" too much to learn anything.
They disagree with what you learnt from CNN - they must be stupid and ignorant.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Seems like we're just getting back to the free flowing capital of the Edwardian age. This isn't new.
Someday, someone's going to write an interesting history comparing the chaotic pre-WWI times (anarchist bombings, the first stirrings of nationalist sentiment in the 3rd world, etc.) with our own post-Cold War crises.
Oh, sure. Globalism is why the whole world hates the US. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact we have troops in 150 countries around the world and are continually poking our nose in everyone else's business.
after reading most of the replies here. it is quite obvious that the average slashdotter should stick with computers, as world history, economics, current events, and motivations of various populations around the world, are clearly so far beyond them it is frightening.
> Thanks to our myopic and narcissistic media
God forbid you report on an issue which has anything other than completely unresolvable content, such as the current debacle wherein Yahoo! has flown against the explicit directions of *all* of its customers, changed their marketing preferences to "yes", and sold their personal data against their will.
Or that the BBB won't touch the issue, that the FCC won't reply to the issue, that TrustE's submission form doesn't work, and that they won't respond to *any* email.
No, no: another 9/11 sensationalism. Jon, please, listen to the people when they tell you that they don't want to think about that for a while. Stop picking at the scabs.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Quite a few statements sound pretty bass-ackwards to me.
"Six months ago, most Americans were stunned to discover how differently others in the world regard us from the way we see ourselves."
Then why is it that not even minutes after the second plane hit most Americans assumed it was the work of Arab Muslim extremists in general and Osama bin Laden in particular? Sorry, the only surprise there was that they had the resources.
(Thankfully our good neighbors the Russians are on the verge of fixing these problems by becoming the world's number one oil exporter...)
Ask the average American what the rest of the world thinks of their country and the vast majority will answer with a resounding "They hate us." In fact, this sentiment is so strong that it has caused problems with the many people that actually like us.
"Invasive American culture -- from movies, music, fast-food -- have highlighted political and religious differences, from Europe to the Middle East and South Asia."
"Invasive?" Most of our cultural icons could care less about sales outside of the United States. There's more money to be made domestically with our high per-capita GDP than there is out in the Middle East or southeast Asia or sub-Saharan Africa. The Soviet Union collapsed because the average Soviet citizen wanted a pair of Levi's, not because we were air-dropping Levi's over Moscow.
"We seem to be running away from the world, and much of the world hates us for it."
By whose assessment? For the last half-century the word that most often appears in anti-American rhetoric is "imperialist." The United States hasn't had a decidedly isolationist foreign policy since the Hoover administration. Heck, we're even trying to get ourselves a bigger role in the EU.
The shear fact that we literally have troops stationed all around the word puts the lie to your statement.
"Such forces make America not only the world's leading superpower, but probably its most feared and hated nation."
How would closing our borders make us the most feared and hated nation? Oh, that's right, we HAVEN'T closed our borders (unlike many European nations)...
Oh, by the way, we're not the leading superpower, we're the only one.
"International capital movement accelerated in the early 1980s under Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and financial markets became truly global only in the early 1990s, Soros says, after the collapse of the Soviet empire."
...
"That period also happens to coincide with the most explosive growth of the Net and the Web"
*cough cough* What?!? In the late 1980's and early 1990's, nobody knew that there WAS an internet, and the World Wide Web was literally in its infancy in the early 1990's. It wasn't until 1995 or so that things started to really catch on. Revisionist history, anyone?
"It's no accident that nations who can't or won't are also incubators for political discontent and terrorism."
Money makes the world go 'round, huh?
No, the main factor in breeding terrorism isn't a nation's wealth but the distribution of that wealth. The Middle East and most of the Muslim world has class stratifications so sharp that they make the United States look like Marx's communist utopia. Capital from the oil industry, for example, isn't seen by the average Saudi on the streets of Ryadh. It's all hoarded by a select few families. Families like the bin Laden clan. Osama bin Laden has been very successful not because his original home of Saudi Arabia is poor, but because of the stark difference between his personal wealth and the destitution of the average Arab (a destitution that is conveniently blamed on the United States). Osama bin Laden can then afford the people as well as the equipment.
"Since capital can move anywhere in seconds, any nation-state's ability to exercise control over an economy has been radically undermined."
Many years ago there was a similar "new world order" coming to power. Economies had becomed so intermingled and interdependant that it seemed that there was a lasting peace on the horizon. What two major economic powers would go to war with each other when their livelihoods depended so much on one another?
You know what happened then? Archduke Ferdinand of the Austo-Hungarian Empire was shot in Sarajevo, the first of several million people to die in the Great War.
And here we are, once again at the dawn of a new century, supposedly on the verge of lasting world peace through economics. But I suppose you're arguning that this time is different, right?
"This was a huge club the British held over the Chinese government during negotiations over the transfer of Hong Kong."
I believe the British had used a similar club when they enforced their ownership of Hong Kong to begin with. Another possible example of history repeating?
"So, exuberantly costumed demonstrations aside, globalism is not about to evaporate or even weaken, not any time soon."
HAH! HAH! And again HAH! Have you taken even a cursory look at the state of national economies outside of the United States? Japan is facing an economic meltdown of Soviet proportions, dragging most of east and southeast Asia along with it. Rioting in the streets of Argentina that seems ready to set South American markets ablaze (and pretty much snuffing out hope for FTAA). The EU is held together by a few thin strands, and they're being tested as former communist states enter it. Even the decade's big success story China has seen its unemployment skyrocket along with its GDP. About the only reason the people who are doing alright are as well off as they are is the strength of the economy of the world's biggest importer. Nobody wants to get involved in an economic scene like that.
If you had said regionalism (ala the EU, NAFTA, etc.) I might have agreed with you. But globalism? Definately not this century, and the next isn't looking to good either.
Will someone PLEASE gag Katz or at least send him to some other self-serving webzine?
since I (and you) dont know them well enough personally we have to take what they actually say as thier reasons. All else is conjecture that has no supporting evidence, really.
epoD revoL
"I am a warrior, and information is my weapon..."
>a general Arab resentment of the West because the West has replaced Arabia as the center of progress and culture. This is made worse by the obvious popularity of western culture - even as that culture insults all religions and religious ideas
We know that Saudi Arabia has built multitude of temples and colosseums, and has the Mecca a Wonder of the World to boot. This must have generated tons of culture. The west, with its Wall Street and bank wonders, could not have won a cultural victory over Saudi Arabia.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
We have resources, and thus are able to Do Things. No matter what we do, or don't do, there will be many people who hate Americans.
If we support a certain government(Israel, for instance), we are hated for that. If we withdrew all support from Israel, we would be condemned for abandoning the region and allowing the possibility for another anti-semitic massacre to occur.
If we give money to certain countries(like Saudi Arabia, for instance) we are demonized for supporting autocratic governments. If we do nothing we are lambasted for allowing the region to destabilize.
Look at Iraq for a good example. We are vilified for allowing millions of Iraqi children to receive inadequate medical and health care. Sadaam could comply with the UN, allow inspectors in his country, and greatly alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people. Does the world blame Sadaam? No, they blame us.
In my opinion, our government generally does its best to promote peace and economic opportunity throughout the world. Mistakes get made, and consenquences happen, but overall our intentions are good. Since we have the ability to do things, the things we do aren't going to be liked by everyone. But don't confuse us with the real bad guys in the world - the terrorists, the dictators, the warlords. If Uncle Sam really had his way you'd all be living in democracies, have good paying jobs, and be free of worrying about when the next nutcase is going to blow the next building up.
We are not the cause of the world's problems. We may come up with the wrong solution from time to time but that doesn't make the problems our fault.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Suicide and Murder rates (per 100,000 inhabitants)
--------------------Suicide---Murder
United Kingdom______8.0_______0.9
United States______11.9_______9.4
(as per the United Nations)
U.S.A._____________11.1_______7.0
(as per the U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1997)
Guns by themselves don't kill people, but they greatly facilitate the killing of people. There are no good arguments for the lack of gun control in the States, save perhaps for the feeling of power that it gives to its owner. [begin sarcasm] Since as a nation americans seem addicted to power, taking the guns away might be too big of a shock to bear...[end sarcasm]
Reminder: find a new sig
Russia just finished its second cross continental pipeline, so I would assume that they are going to be our friends in the oil business rather soon.
Besides, Russians want to move to the United States, not act nice, take our money, and secretly plan to blow it up. That is also a bonus.
Saudi Arabia will not make a bad move against us... other tha secretly spit on us in teh presence of other Arabians. When there are few leaders, they are extremely easy to find and get rid of. Their leaders are only interested in doing things that their religion would kill others for doing, namely chasing international tail, drinking, and living a life of excess that no "divine king" would ever want.
Saudi Arabia's may not be numbered in days or years, but the end of the corrupt kingdom is coming, they have only been this influential because of our influences. We can take those influences away if it gets too hot out there to deal with them. I guarantee that the end of their influence will come long before their oil runs out.
George Soros list:
Survive Nazi occupation of Hungary
Become billionaire
Give money to the poor
Write book about Globalization
Have Jon Katz write dribble about
your book making it look like a pile
of shit
Jon, next time make sure you read the book before you write something relating to it.
---> suck it
Hehe yeah, you are right. its the Senior Citizens. Damn buttmunches, always lugging their buckshots in their wheelchairs and hopping over gas station front desks to empty a .45 into an unsuspecting innocent who accidentaly cut them off 12 miles down the road.
I hear that the 80+ age groups form gangs at night and terrorize intire neighborhoods.
In fact, last month a group of teethless grandmas, all named Ethel, stormed down market street demanding from everyone they saw a chopped up corn and bean mix that has less than 15% saturated fat.
Dumbass.
and you are sure quick to insult other counrties.
Even though I have only been to china and India once, I can say that the hell hole you describe sure seems extravagant.
But oh yeah, what I meant to say was that you are an asshole.
Not for any particular reason, I jsut felt like saying so.
Asshole.
>From Ainriail - the Irish Anarchist bulletin list
m l
_ lists . tml
Globalisation: The end of the age of imperialism?
IT HAS BECOME increasingly fashionable to use the term globalisation as a description of the international economy and international political relations. Globalisation is meant to have taken over from imperialism, when a handful of large states openly and directly ran most or the world.
The bosses' magazine, The Economist, ran a major article on this New World Order called 'The New Geopolitics' last July. It described this supposed transformation: "The imperial age was a time when countries A, B and C took over the governments of countries X, Y and Z. The aim now is to make it possible for the peoples of X, Y and Z to govern themselves, freeing them from the local toughs who deny them that right."
Many on the left, including some anarchists, have critically adapted this description of the New World Order. Central to this is the idea that the rapid movement of money made possible by the'information age' and the growth of multinationals means that the age of imperialism- when powerful nation states dominated the world - has been replaced by a more abstract and invisible but equally powerful rule by capital which is not tied to any state.
At first sight such a description seems compelling, it is 'common sense' that
international trade has increased and that
treaties like the European Union are breaking
down the old nation state. But does globalisation provide us with an accurate description of how the world works?
In fact the Economist article admits that "...before the first world war some rich
countries were doing almost as much trade with
the outside world as a proportion of GDP as they
are doing now (and Japan was doing far more)".
Assuming 'rich' to be a polite word for
'imperialist' here, what has changed is in fact
the sheer volume of world trade (and wealth)
along with the fact that smaller countries are
now far more involved.
End of the nation state?
But this is not the end of the nation state. In
fact since 1914 the number of states had
rocketed from 62 to 74 by 1946 and today it
stands at 193. The other surprise is that in the
wealthy nations state spending as a percentage
of GDP (a measure of the relative wealth of a
country) has actually increased since 1980. The
central idea of globalisation - capital becoming
increasingly independent of any particular
nation state therefore has to be questioned.
Again the Economist is unusually honest here in
asking what is "the central reason why a state
remains". It answers "the State is still the
chief wielder of organised armed force".
Recent wars clearly divide into two types. Some
involve geographic neighbours fighting each
other, commonly over border demarcations like
India and Pakistan. Others involve interventions
by countries that may be 1000's of km's away,
most commonly on the basis of 'humanitarian
intervention' as with the UN interventions in
Iraq and Somalia or the NATO intervention in
Kosovo. But when we look at these second type of
interventions we find that, far from the distant
countries being a random collection or selected
according to size, every single one of these
interventions has been led by one country, the
USA.
Beyond this the second and third most important
forces in the intervention will also be drawn
from a very small pool of countries including
Britain, France and Italy. Clearly, on the
military side at least, such interventions are
not random but are dominated by a small number
of what the more old fashioned amongst us would
term imperialist powers.
The US is the dominant power and, with its NATO
junior partners, has proved able to dictate to
any and every other nation on the planet. Indeed
NATO has no realistic rivals. The closest you
might come is an imaginary alliance of China and
Russia. This would face a power with not only a
larger and far better equipped military force
but which also has over ten times the economic
muscle (NATO's GDP in 1997 was 16,255 billion
dollars, Russia's was 447, China's 902).
However the spread of democratic ideas, and
knowledge about other countries, has meant that
'old style' imperialism has lost its popularity.
That is why imperialism today is far more likely
to hide behind 'humanitarianism' and a whole
range of supposedly international bodies. When
we look at these 'international' bodies,
however, we find that they are constructed in
such a way that only the major powers have a
real say in decision making.
The United Nations
The United Nations was the great hope for many
as an alternative to war, or to a peace where
rich countries could do as they please. Even
today many well-meaning people all too often
refer to the UN as if it was an alternative to
US or NATO domination of the globe. The UN may
claim to be a global body representing all
countries, but in reality - for effective
intervention - it may only act with the say so
of a tiny number of powerful military powers.
These are the five permanent members of the
Security Council (USA, Britain, France, Russia
and China), each with the ability to veto any
intervention that goes against their interests.
In effect the UN is a cover behind which these
countries can wage war when it suits them - as
when the UN supposedly went into Iraq to protect
Kuwaiti sovereignty in the 1991 Gulf war. But
they can stop the UN acting in other cases, so
for instance no UN body invaded the US to
protect Nicaraguan sovereignty when the Reagan
administration were mining its harbours in the
1980's.
Even where the smaller countries disapprove and
partly block military action behind the UN
banner, the NATO countries have proved adapt at
ignoring calls for negotiated solutions and
using UN resolutions as an excuse for war as in
the ongoing bombing of Iraq. Often these excuses
are astounding hypocritical. NATO could bomb
Serbia supposedly to protect ethnic Albanians
living in Kosovo from Serbian paramilitaries yet
stands by while Turkey (a NATO member) massacres
ethnic Kurds.
The Security Council mechanism by which the
major powers control the UN and hence military
intervention is quite well known on the left.
However what is not so widely realised are the
similar mechanisms that exist by which - without
resorting to arms - the major imperialist
powers, and the US in particular, can control
the world economy. Once this is revealed the
idea of globalisation becomes no more then a
cheap card trick designed to disguise and take
away our attention from the imperialist
domination of the world.
Economic control - Debt, the World Bank and the
IMF
One aspect of this economic control has recently
got a lot of attention, if perhaps a little
indirectly. That is the massive debt owed by
'Third World' countries. The Jubilee 2000
campaign, which demands that 'unpayable' debt be
abolished, has had considerable success in
mobilising tens of thousands on demonstrations
in support of this demand. Some 800,000 people
in Ireland alone have signed the petition for
the abolition of the debt. What is seldom
mentioned is the central part debt plays for the
western powers in dictating how third world
economies are organised.
The debt crisis of the late 1970's and early
1980's proved an ideal leverage for the western
powers to force 'free trade' on the 'third
world'. This occurred when third world countries
faced with falling incomes and rising interest
rates defaulted on their loans.
Before this many countries had followed a policy
of 'import substituionism' which meant that they
tried to manufacture goods like, for instance,
cars that they had previously imported. Without
suggesting this sort of policy offered a
positive alternative role it did have one big
disadvantage for the imperialist powers, it
tended to deny them both markets and cheap raw
materials.
What the imperialist powers wanted, and what
they essentially have won, was a system where
the third world provided cheap raw materials &
labour and acted as a market to consume the
products of companies with their bases in the
imperialist countries. But for obvious reasons
this would not be a popular policy for the
people of those countries, except perhaps the
few who could be promised a share of the profits
generated if they would administer the system.
When the debt crisis hit in the mid-1980's,
starting with Mexico's declaration that it was
unable to repay loans in 1982, the World Bank
and the International Monetary Fund stepped in.
Despite the fact that these institutions are
household names most people have very little
idea of what they do or how they function. Until
recently they were quite happy to keep things
that way.
One dollar - one vote
In summary, both these bodies are designed in a
way which favours the powerful western nations -
they are based on the pro-business principle of
"one dollar - one vote". What is more, their
internal decision making structure gives the US
a veto - enabling it to block any decisions that
go against it's economic interests. They are
technically part of the UN structure, but in
reality the western powers have an even greater
say in them then they have in the UN. In the
case of the IMF the US holds 17% of the vote
while only 15% is required for a veto. In the
case of the World Bank it has managed to insist
that every single president is a US citizen.
Thanks in particular to the debt crisis, the
power of these institutions is so great that no
country can defy their dictates without losing
the ability to engage in foreign trade.
The debt crisis forced most developing nations
to hand over control of at least part of their
economies to the IMF and World Bank. This
occurred in the 1980's when individual countries
became unable to repay loans. At that stage the
IMF and World Bank would step in and 'offer' to
facilitate re-structuring of the loans providing
the country concerned implemented an IMF
dictated 'Structural Adjustment Program'.
Typically these involve removing barriers to
imports and removing whatever protection of
workers 'rights' and pay exists. This is usually
achieved through high inflation, privatisation
and anti-union laws (and indeed physical
repression). Alongside this, spending on
education and health are slashed. In the 1980's
an official of the Inter-American Development
Bank described these as "an unparalleled
opportunity to achieve, in the debtor countries,
the structural reforms favoured by the Reagan
administration".
The payoff
It shouldn't be imagined, through, that this
means the local ruling class likes these
policies. In reality today most Latin American
economies are controlled by locally born but US
educated economics graduates. As Latin American
intellectual Xavier Gorostiaga observed "Neo-
liberalism has united the elite's of the South
with those of the North and created the biggest
convergence of financial, technological and
military power in history".
In 1960, the income of the wealthiest 20% of the
world's population was 30 times greater than
that of the poorest 20%. Today it is over 60
times greater. The top 20%, though, is too crude
a measure. According to the UN "the assets of
the 200 richest people are more than the
combined income of 41% of the world's people."
This highlights what is perhaps the major post-
war change to the imperialist system. Before the
war the old colonialist countries like Britain
and France had controlled it. They favoured a
very obvious system of direct rule with the
local ruling class being composed of people sent
out from the imperialist country for that
purpose. This system caused great resentment
amongst the local middle class as it denied them
the possibility of promotion into these roles,
and more often than not the racist nature of the
imperialist power meant the local middle class
had to put up with all sorts of petty
oppressions.
The post-war years saw many anti-colonial
revolts in which the working class and peasants,
under middle class leadership, united to throw
out the imperialists. With the growth of these
movements, and the growth in the military and
economic might of the US, the old imperialist
powers were frequently defeated and a section of
the local ruling class would take over the
running of the country, often with American aid
but sometimes with Russian aid.
As US dominance grew a post-colonial system was
constructed where, in return for accepting terms
of trade favourable to US business, the local
ruling class would be allowed some local
control. Some, of course, were not happy with
this but by the 1980's the debt crisis on the
one hand and the collapse of the USSR on the
other meant they had little choice and most came
over.
The US has constructed a 'New World Order' in
which it pulls almost all the economic and
military strings. With such control there is no
need for it to rely on 'old fashioned' direct
imperialist control. Through the IMF/World Bank
and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) it can
set the rules of global trade with its junior
partners of the G7 nations (the seven most
powerful economies).
Recently it has not flinched from using these
powers on its 'junior partners' in particular
with its attempts at imposing Genetically
Modified foods on reluctant European states. The
handful of 'rogue' states that are reluctant to
accept its rule have been easily contained,
militarily and economically in the case of North
Korea and Cuba or bombed into the stone age in
the case of the ongoing war against Iraq.
Those who suffer from this new imperial order
include the workers and peasants of the
developing world. Real wages in most African
countries have fallen by 50-60% since the early
1980s and in Mexico, Costa Rica and Bolivia
average wages have fallen by a third since 1980.
But workers in parts of the developed world, and
in particular the US, have also seen falling
living standards and wages.
This global economic order had given new weapons
to the major companies by which they can dictate
economic policy to even the governments of the
developed world. The threat of mass withdrawal
of investment has essentially ended the post-
war social democratic compromise throughout
Europe, in particular in countries like Britain.
The nation state continues to be central to this
'New World Order'. Multinationals may trade
everywhere but their headquarters,
administrative and research facilities are
concentrated in the imperialist nations. The
recent trade war about bananas grown in the
Caribbean, for instance, was fought between US
and European based transnationals, despite the
fact that neither grows significant quantities
of bananas.
Limited space here only allows a brief
exploration of these bodies behind which US
imperialism hides. Importantly I haven't touched
on resistance to this domination that has taken
many forms. This July saw over 250,000 Turkish
workers demonstrating against IMF imposed
'reforms'.
June saw the global J18 day of action; this
November will see widespread action against the
WTO summit to be held in Toronto, Canada. But
what should be obvious is that before we can
decide on the most effective form of action
against imperialism we need to identify its real
nature - despite whatever mask it may choose to
hide behind.
Andrew Flood
This article is from Workers Solidarity No 58
published in Oct 1999
More articles from this issue at
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws99.html
>From Irelands's Workers Solidarity Movement
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm.ht
>From Ainriail - For more info see
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/inter/email
I am into the copy and paste.
How timely, the Globe and Mail reports today of a Canadian on trial in Philidelphia for "trading with the enemy" (Cuba).
The article tells of a Canadian citizen, charged in the United States for acts committed in Canada that are not crimes in Canada. Quotes the prosecutor as having conceded that the defendant was "technically not subject to jurisdiction." Nonetheless, the charade continues.
Hmm, how does that work? US idealogy should apply everywhere, regardless of boundaries and quaint local customs like laws and treaties.?
I would have to disagree with your agreeing. I'm all for agreeing with things that deserve agreeing with, but this is not one of them. Or two of them. A'ight?
Turkey will be the next Argentina.
I am into the copy and paste.
That's not David Koresh, it's L. Ron Hubbard!
So you reply back with a canned series of definitional reflexes. What is "is"???
Maybe those slashvertisements were real....
--j
That sorta implies that the conclusions based on your suppositions based on speculation are... pointless.
Why you wasting everyone's time and bandwidth?
.
Evry time I see Americans use the "if they don't like our culture, they don't have to buy it" argument, I cringe. You still don't get it. In some countries, Sinter Clause comes on December 5th to give out candies, not December 25. Yet all the American paid advertising sets the kids up for a non-religious event on the 25th. The multi-nationals don't localize their marketing. Eventually the parents give up, and another tradition is lost.
Dressing to provoke is concidered insulting in many nations, much as me walking nude in your neighborhood would be. But if the nation is exposed to this is daily advertising, it won't be long before nothing can be done about it.
Creating a global market for goods and services is one thing, but it must be done with cultural sensitivity. Sports illustrated should not be allowed in many nations. Much American programming should be blocked from certain cultures, in the same way that pornography is restricted within the US. Just because it's acceptable for American households, doesn't mean it should be acceptable everywhere. Advertising should be banned accross borders, and advertising within a nation must be culturally sensitive to that nation!
Just my view as a non-American who has never lived in the US.
Look if you want to truly talk globalization, then you need to talk cosmopolitanism. According to Martha Nussbaum in her essay, Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism she begins to get off onto a tangent about the merits of the both and does something similar to what is being done here by Katz, just on the other side of my argument. The only way that true "Globalization" can be a "good" thing is if all people take the same view point as Diogenes "the cynic" Laertius said, "I am a citizen of the world.", a cosmpolitan. If you want to know what that entails then look to Borowski or Blonski, it requres that all people believe in complete universal human rights, abolishment of feelings of strict and restrictive Patriotism, and a myriad of different ideals that can all be sumed up in the term "Utopian." (Which is historically fitting. Utopian interestingly enough was originally a criticism or rather a mockery of the idea itself because the word's etymology means not only the contemporary perfect society, but also an unattainable one!) Both Katz and Nussbaum fail to mention the other aspect of the Globilization/Cosmopolitan dichotomy, one can not be judged as good or evil without due consideration of the other. That's my "too sense".
Once in a while, you just have to stop...and piss in someone's garden.
FUCK OFF KATZ!
Thank you, that felt good.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
...there is a solution that is simple, obvious, elegant, and wrong.
Eventually I'll get to Soros, but for now let's look at the choice of words in the post:
Our invasive American culture is THEIR choice - last time I checked, the McDonald's franchise punch list did not include armed invasion. Soneone in every place where there's a McD's, Coca Cola, Polo, or US motion picure - the locals had to make it so. You don't get too many US franchises without someone on the receiving end, real estate, vendors, zoning, import & export officials letting if not inviting you to do it.
Also - let's not cross the line and infer by omission that 9/11 was or is any indication of the opinion of anyone but the perpetrators of the terrorism. "Others" is far too unbounded a term to us to describe the marginal combatants who sent two flying bombs into the financial center of the US.
The world has been "globalized" in the modern sense since WWI. This all is nothing new. What is new is the speed at which it can happen, and the facility with which anyone can get their nose in front of a camera. Giant puppets don't mean anything except that they are easier to see and therefore take advantage of the technology of video cameras and the individual predelictions of the TV news producers.
We say "globalization" as if there were any other choice for the only known planet filled with one race of planet-shaping beings.
The real action point comes down to individuals and entities that make the decisions. Nike is responsible for what they do, not America. And before you say it's our laws that let Nike (as an example) do (whatever), it takes two to tango. Is a Nike factory a forced invasion? Is Nike removing Asian teens from their six-figure suites and putting them in a factory? Fill in your favorite offender. The country they're in wanted them there - if they didn't, they wouldn't be there. They decided that this was the best offer they could get. Just like we all decide that minimum wage is right where we want it. If it weren't, we'd vote out anyone who disagreed with it right? Again. Individual choice. The politician's to vote a certain way and ours to sack them. But we have yet to learn the ppower of our (voting) choices, even after the 2000 elections.
And it works both ways. The upper south is now an annex of Asian auto manufacturers. Fuji Heavy makes tanks, but they didn't need them to raise their Subaru plants. Alabama just gave away the store to Hyundai to get them in the state. It was a company and a state government who did this.
Point is, hammering away at an abstract called 'globalization' will do little to change whatever someone wants changed. Put down the puppets, become someone who can make a decision in the direction you wish to, and do something real.
I teach. Every day I make sure that at least in part, my aid to my students includes the messsage that doing is better than wishing, that action is more effective than mentalism, that if you don't work for what you want you will get what someone else wants you to have.
None of this involves carnage against living beings for living as they do. 9/11 is not the untinkable thought in the minds of the rest of the world. While I think Dubya is a little too fond of hearing himself say 'evildoers', it does boil down to individuals who decide to make war, or who design or agree to a sweatshop. Someone has to decide to do these things. We need to make individuals more congizant, enlightened of their actions and consequences.
Globalization's not inherently evil, it's not inherently good. It's inevitable. Consider it as a technology and realize that it only is considerable in specific instances. We learned this lesson at Trinity, but alas, teachers know that that wonderful mental agent called transference never works the way its supposed to.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
The sad truth is, and I'm sorry if this is a cliche, but capitalism is the only system that works. Flawed, but infinitely perfectable. Please, someone show me a viable alternative. I live in Barcelona. We just had some of the Euro heads of state to visit. Much as the inevitable anti-globalisation rioters were a real pain, I'm happy that they had the freedom to exercise their democratic rights to gather and protest. (Although breaking all the phones and ATMs around the centre of the city was a little immature, to be honest.) I shudder to think how these people and their protests would have been dealt with under the regimes they wish to install. Democracy, capitalism, globalisation, and a free press. What are the alternatives?
"Globalism" is a beat-to-death horse that's been pounded on from all over the political spectrum.
Some leftists decry globalism because resultant interdependability between sociopolitical structures prevents Marxist-Leninist governments from operating successfully alongside free market democracies (as if socialisms would ever be successful, or pure communism could even exist, without a totalitarian political structure). Some extreme-righties decry it because globalism is reminiscent of biblical prophecies surrounding the "end-times", and God knows none of us sinning mutherphuqers wants Jesus to come back too soon (he'd be pissed to say the least!).
Wether you agree with one or the other, the fact is that uncontrolled globalism is inherently evil. One could most easily see why in drawing a parallel between a one world government under the ospices of some pan-national body of representatives (elected or otherwise), and The Borg (ST:TNG Fame). Reagan tells us that government is "inherently evil", but inline with Jefferson, it is a "necessary evil". A one world globalist society is the fist step towards a one world government. It is a step that but barely has to be taken before the worlds politicos will begin falling all over themselves, jockeying for position in the new more powerful political entity so that they themselves will be more powerful. Currently there are 189 member nations of the United Nations (those nations which are recognized, but not necessarily all nations of the planet), each of whom to some extent have the ability, regardless of how disproportionate, to check the others either through the UN or in a unilateral fashion, as they see fit. However, there is no organization, save for possibly NATO, that has the power to check the United Nations. Therein lies the rub: If the UN, or any other body holding itself as the worlds top level governing body, decides to do something against a people, they have little or no recourse. The citizens of the world would be left to hope that such a government would always remain fair and impartial, and maintain respect towards the individual.
Nothing could be more naive. How many Adolph Hitlers, Saddam Husseins, or Osama Bin Ladens do we need before we realize that too much power in the hands of the few, and unchecked by other equal powers, leads down primrose path to the gates of hell.
The forgone conclusion of John's rant, and of most posts I'm reading seems to be that the rest of the world hates us because "we've run away from them". Our streets are paved with gold, and they're jealous.
How smug.
Consider this: perhaps there are people in the world, and more than a few of them, who fundamentally disagree with our system of values. They don't want to be like us, they want us to be like them. This can be a difficult concept to grasp: it involves pulling your nose out of your navel and not thinking so paternally about those poor brown people over there.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
--Fantastic Lad, guerrilla moderator.
Speaking as a Euro-weenie, I must say I was depressed by how
But when even k5 and Slashdot are still full of musclehead morons and well-meaning but appallingly informed "liberal" types (I use that in the Uk sense of "somewhat fair-minded and prepared to listen to other points of view" rather than your weird "practically a Marxist" connotations) , it's hard to feel good about the prospects whilst Bush is in office, at least. Rather like the Israel/Palestine situation. Too damn depressing.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
I am so tired of reading complaints about "invasive American culture." It is oh-so-trendy-and-intellectually-hip to bash things American, just by virtue of the fact that they originate from America. But if you blindly do so, you demonstrate yourself to be badly biased and ignorant of reality.
Throughout the world there is a voracious appetite for American culture. We are not "invading" anything. If a French businessman opens up a McDonald's franchise on the corner of his street, his business is free to succeed or fail based on the demand for the product. Somebody must like McDonald's Hamburgers over there, because the restaurants somehow stay in business. Should the French businessman be denied the right to open and operate his own McDonald's? Doesn't he have the right to make money how he wants? Just because something is distributed in a chain or franchise arrangement (whether it's a restaurant, supermarket or store), it doesn't make it automatically crappy and evil.
Here in Texas, I am constantly seeing reminders that we are not the vicious cultural stormtrooper that we are made out to be. Wildly successful businesses started by Mexican or Vietnamese business owners are everywhere. I see Spanish-language advertisements all over the place on billboards. Many of my friends listen to Indian pop music, drink Australian beer and eat Japanese food. And they do this without a second thought -- not "wow I'm being so cool and hip for consuming this stuff," but because these things have really woven themselves into the culture. Americans seek out and embrace other cultures.
I have traveled through more than 20 states, and I have seen it with my own eyes: Americans, for the most part, are genuinely interested in foreign cultures, willing to embrace new ideas and learn about the world. If anything, this made 9/11 all the more tragic and disturbing, because the perpetrators were so terribly misguided in their beliefs about the American people.
It's unfair and ignorant to say that all muslims are kill-crazy bombsmiths. It's unfair and ignorant to say that all Frenchmen are rude, snotty, disheveled little toads. And it's equally unfair to say that American culture is ruthlessly invading the rest of the world, or that the American people are spoiled SUV-driving yuppies, because its a grossly unfair and ignorant characterization.
We seem to be running away from the world, and much of the world hates us for it. Such forces make America not only the world's leading superpower, but probably its most feared and hated nation. As the U.S. evolved rapidly from an industrial to a data-based economy, much of the world hasn't come along, or doesn't want to.
Whether a large portion of the world doesn't want to tag along for the cyber ride is a complex question that, I suspect, runs the gamut of causes from arcane beflief systems and right versus left side of the brain issues to biochemistry. Because the questions that need answering are complex and of a sensitive nature it's unlikely there'll be a short term conclusive result. What is sure is that a crisis will arise when,or, if the industrialized first world realizes that a large portion of the world population will choose to hate it rather than reinvent itself to rid itself of the inherent barriers to their own development. A good part of that hatred might come from having to approach the industrialized world with hat in hand and hand out. Few things fester hatred in a person or group as much as dependence without hope of independence. If communication is seen to be the avenue via which benefical results can be achieved then we have to consider the now double trouble of a two layered illiteracy. First is the problem of conventional literacy as in being unable to read or write. Second is cyber illiteracy with it's far more prohibitive strictures of first an economic barrier followed by a technological/informational barrier requiring people to use technology and information rife with cultural bias.
America with it's allies are the world's cops.. it's real it's inescapable get over it and get on with it. Britian paid the price for being the world's policeman in the 19th century and now it's America's turn. As a Canadian who would like nothing more than to shut out the world's problems and return to an endless summer of vacation time at a pristine northern lake I don't like America's present position any more than I suspect most American's do. Frankly John Ashcroft scares me, (well he scares me when I'm not rolling on the floor laughing at him) but his time will pass as will the ugly head of religious fundamentalism that is too prevalent in both our societies. Anyway it's not going to go away and short of hiding from the world and leave it to terrorists and despots we're going to have to work through some very unpleasant things but for those of us who would see the full potential of science realized in an Open Society there is no option. BTW: I've not stayed current with Mr. Soros works although I did read his first two books. Then the foundation of his thinking had much to do with the works of Karl Poppper, most especially his three volume work 'The Open Society and It's Enemies'. The Critical Cafe on the net is a good introduction to the intricacies of the arguments of Darwinian Evolution and Capitalism etc... but be forwarned they don't suffer foolishness... lurk and read and learn.
heuristic algorithm seeks stochastic relationship
--Fantastic Lad, guerrilla moderator.
Shuddup and eat your McDonalds (TM), because you know you'd rather have your fancy BMW and plush house than live in a cave like Bin Laden. What's so wrong, with globalism? If mom-n-pop Gizmo-Parts dealer can sell their wares to Kerpleckistan, what's wrong with that? The only (cough) major corruption in the system, is that the people who make the rules (politicans) have a reputation of being unethical (accepting campaign contributions from SIGs: tit-for-tat, quid-pro-quo, etc.).
My 3 1 - 100 / fraction of a dollar.
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
Is this asswipe for real? What the fuck is malfunctioning in this guy's head. Someone needs to bitch-slap this sorry excuse for a human
Title length limit a bit short these days??
if someone killed Katz
you sir are correct. I own a 50 cal rifle among many others and I love to shoot them. as a matter of fact I am going in about 5 minutes. so because I own a firearm does that mean I am going to go and kill a bunch of people off? no I think not. 90% of all gun owners are very law abidding. the people who go and get guns to commit violent crimes are getting them from illeagal sources not(expections have been noted) from stores that required you to wait 7-10 days.
Criminals get illeagal guns that are imported(A.K.A. smuggled) from china, cuba, mexico and others. just because a gun can be used to kill someone doesn't mean they should be banned. a crossbow or, a bow and arrow could also be used to kill should we ban them too? what about baseball bats? they have been used to kill gotta get rid of them also, and don't forget about kitchen knives, they also must go away.
Don't you see that line of reasoning can be used on damn near anything? once you start down the road it is a slippery slope to travel. first they start on gun owners then slowly move on to all of the other things that are considered to be "BAD" or "Evil". what happens when they come for the things YOU enjoy? well what then? I know you will fight the good fight all while yelling to others asking for help, just like we do. only one small problem, the only thing you will hear is silence because the rest of us have already been strangled under the opressive boot of our governments.
the founders of this Country (U.S.) wanted us to have firearms in case the fedral government got out of control. They(the fonuders) allowed us to have them so if it came down to it we could take back control. I think maybe it has become time for that... after all it was Thomas Jefferson who said The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. and it is still true to this day.
please don't read this and just scoff while muttering something about "Gun Nuts" truly think on it. Galileo once said You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him discover it in himself. if you look at the history of government and what they ALL have done it will boil down to one thing: disarm the populace and then you can passify, Rob, and, Abuse them.
things are only going to get Worse, just look at the DMCA
just my $5.73
if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
Sadly, unlike an idea such as, "Cutting Down Rain Forests", the threats associated with Globalism, for most people, are not immediately obvious until some complex thinking and networking has taken place.
--Fantastic Lad, guerrilla moderator.
Six months ago, most Americans were stunned to discover how differently others in the world regard us from the way we see ourselves.
I'm not a US citizen and I've never been to the United States. However, I'm pretty certain that there is no single way how Americans see themselves. There are just too many (280M?). Similarly, there is a wide range of feelings towards the US from everybody else. Every intelligent person should be able to see both positive and negative aspects of US society and the impact of that country on the world. Any US citizen who was surprised that the USA are not loved all over the world has really lost touch with reality.
Globalism is a major reason. Invasive American culture -- from movies, music, fast-food -- have highlighted political and religious differences, from Europe to the Middle East and South Asia.
Well, last time I checked nobody here (Germany) was forced to watch American movies, listen to American music or eat fast food. Only the very intolerant complain about this addition to their culture. Pick what you like (that would be certain movies and TV shows for me) and ignore the rest.
Currently our economy is criticaly dependant on Arab Oil. Iran and Iraq are both threating to choke the supply to punish the US for supporting Israel. I doubt that they will, but consider what the effects would be if Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and Iraq cut supply and we got $50 a barrell oil? Yikes
There are huge amounts of unexplored oilfields in Central and South America. If the Arabs try to get too greedy, we'll just spend a bunch of money to develop the petroleum industry down south instead. Besides, those folks down there sure would appreciate it if such a thing was to happen. The average Pedro and Juan would much rather have the opportunity to work an honest day's work in that industry than to work for the druglords for their income.
At the risk of incurring the usual racial slurs, let me set the record straight on one point.
Katz had to make his usual thinly veiled references to the muslim world. The posts were full of the ignorant anti-arab jabber of people whose idea of independent media is CNN and the bloody Drudge Report.
I'm half arab, and I live in the middle east. I am sitting here right now with street demonstrations outside well into their 5th straight hour chanting anti-government, anti-military, and anti-US slogans.
Yes, the people on the street here have an axe to grind with the US, and to a lesser extent the rest of the West. That axe is Israel/Palestine.
What I'm trying to say here is that the reason people her don't like youy folks is because you don't bother to check whether your government's foreign policy is in any way related to justice.
I"m not going to look for good guys and bad guys here; bombing civilians is bad, just as using military force against a civilian population is.
But the US foreign policy is just way off. Get your facts straight before flaming me.
Stop going on about how the 'islamic orient feels inferior and therefore hates the west'. It's getting old. Start understanding the mistakes made at the beginning of the century by Lord Balfour and subsequently by the US government.
Oh, and Katz? Go away please. You're superficial. That's a quality that has hampered the west from dealing adequately till this day with the issues in the middle east. Media whoring is the last thing this issue needs.
Farewell karma, you have served me well.
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
This is actually turning out to be one of the best threads I've read on /. in a very long time. There are loads of interesting viewpoints being thrown around here. However, I'm having a major internal conflict because this is attached to a KATZ article! Funny how most of the interesting stuff is rather unrelated to his blather I suppose...
The USA is the leading economy in many sectors. Understandably the USA has pushed for free trade and stuff like that because it was in their best interest at some point in time.
... and guess what, the USA doesn't always want to apply the rues they've "imposed" on others.
However, globalization is not only a one way thing
The last example I'm aware of is the tariff barriers the USA have raised against European steel makers. In that industrial sector European firms seems to be more competitive that US firms for the time being so the USA is unfairly restricting competition on the US market.
That 's unacceptable.
The USA too has to pay the price of globalization. Think about that.
(Courtesy of A Great Listener)
AJ: This is earth shattering. Can you break it down for us and tell us what the economists have done?
GP: Well, I'll tell you two things. One, I spoke to the former chief economist, Joe Stiglitz who was fired by the (World) Bank. So I, on BBC and with Guardian, basically spent some time debriefing him. It was like one of the scenes out of Mission Impossible, you know where the guy comes over from the other side and you spend hours debriefing him. So I got the insight of what was happening at the World Bank. In addition, he did not brief me but I got some other sources. He would not give me inside documents but other people handed me a giant stash of secret documents from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
AJ: So to insulate himself, somebody else did it.
GP: No, I'm telling you. He wouldn't touch it but I really did get from completely independent sources a big stack of documents.
AJ: Just like you got W199I, from the same folks we got it from.
GP: And so one of the things that is happening is that, in fact, I was supposed to be on CNN with the head of the World Bank Jim Wolfensen and he said he would not appear on CNN ever if they put me on. And so CNN did the craziest thing and pulled me off.
AJ: So now they are threatening total boycott.
GP: Yea right. So what we found was this. We found inside these documents that basically they required nations to sign secret agreements, in which they agreed to sell off their key assets, in which they agreed to take economic steps which are really devastating to the nations involved and if they didn't agree to these steps, there was an average for each nation that signed one-hundred and eleven items that they are required to sign on to. If they didn't follow those steps they would be cut-off from all international borrowing. You can't borrow any money in the international marketplace. No one can survive without borrowing, whether you are people or corporations or countries - without borrowing some money and having some credit and
AJ: Because of the debt inflation pit they've created.
GP: Yea, well, see one of the things that happened is that - we've got examples from, I've got inside documents recently from Argentina, the secret Argentine plan. This is signed by Jim Wolfensen, the president of the World Bank. By the way, just so you know, they are really upset with me that I've got the documents, but they have not challenged the authenticity of the documents. First, they did. First they said those documents don't exist. I actually showed them on television. And cite some on the web, I actually have copies of some...
AJ: Greg Palast dot com?
GP: Yea, gregpalast.com. So then they backed off and said yea those documents are authentic but we are not going to discuss them with you and we are going to keep you off the air anyway. So, that's that. But what they were saying is look, you take a country like Argentina, which is, you know, in flames now. And it has had five presidents in five weeks because their economy is completely destroyed.
AJ: Isn't it six now?
GP: Yea, it's like the weekly president because they can't hold the nation together. And this happened because they started out in the end of the 80s with orders from the IMF and World Bank to sell-off all their assets, public assets. I mean, things we wouldn't think of doing in the US, like selling off their water system.
AJ: So they tax the people. They create big government and big government hands it off to the private IMF/World Bank. And when we get back, I want to get to the four-parts that you elegantly lay out here where they actually pay off the politicians billions to their Swiss bank accounts to do this transfer.
GP: That's right.
AJ: This is like one of the biggest stories ever, Sir. I'm sorry, please continue.
GP: So what's happening is - this is just one of them. And by the way, it's not just anyone who gets a piece of the action. The water system of Buenos Aires was sold off for a song to a company called Enron. A pipeline was sold off, that runs between Argentina and Chile, was sold off to a company called Enron.
AJ: And then the globalists blow out the Enron after transferring the assets to another dummy corporation and then they just roll the theft items off.
GP: You've got it. And by the way, you know why they moved the pipeline to Enron is that they got a call from somebody named George W. Bush in 1988.
AJ: Unbelievable, Sir. Stay right there. We are talking to Greg Palast.
BREAK
AJ: We are talking to Greg Palast. He is an award-winning journalist, an American who has worked for the BBC, London Guardian, you name it, who has dropped just a massive bomb-shell on the Globalists and their criminal activity. There is no other word for it. You link through at inforwars.com, you can link to his web site - gregpalast.com, or any of the other great reports he has been putting out. He now has the secret documents. We have seen the activity of the IMF/World Bank for years. They come in, pay off politicians to transfer the water systems, the railways, the telephone companies, the nationalized oil companies, gas stations - they then hand it over to them for nothing. The Globalists pay them off individually, billions a piece in Swiss bank accounts. And the plan is total slavery for the entire population. Of course, Enron, as we told you was a dummy corporation for money laundering, drug money, you name it, from the other reporters we have had on. It's just incredibly massive and hard to believe. But it is actually happening. Greg Palast has now broken the story world-wide. He has actually interviewed the former top World Bank economist. Continuing Sir with all these points. I mean for the average person out there, in a nutshell, what is the system you are exposing?
GP: We are exposing that they are systematically tearing nations apart, whether it's Ecuador or Argentina. The problem is some of these bad ideas are drifting back into the U.S. In other words, they have run out of places to bleed. And the problem is, this is the chief economist, this is not some minor guy. By the way, a couple of months ago, after he was fired, he was given the Nobel Prize in Economics. So he is no fool. He told me, he went into countries where they were talking about privatizing and selling off these assets. And basically, they knew, they literally knew and turned the other way when it was understood that leaders of these countries and the chief ministers would salt away hundreds of millions of dollars.
AJ: But it's not even privatization. They just steal it from the people and hand it over to the IMF/World Bank.
GP: They hand it over, generally to the cronies, like Citibank was very big and grabbed half the Argentine banks. You've got British Petroleum grabbing pipelines in Ecuador. I mentioned Enron grabbing water systems all over the place. And the problem is that they are destroying these systems as well. You can't even get drinking water in Buenos Aires. I mean it is not just a question of the theft. You can't turn on the tap. It is more than someone getting rich at th e public expense.
AJ: And the IMF just got handed the Great Lakes. They have the sole control over the water supply now. That's been in the Chicago Tribune.
GP: Well the problem that we have is - look, the IMF and the World Bank is 51% owned by the United States Treasury. So the question becomes, what are we getting for the money that we put into there? And it looks like we are getting mayhem in several nations. Indonesia is in flames. He was telling me, the Chief Economist, Stiglitz, was telling me that he started questioning what was happening. You know, everywhere we go, every country we end up meddling in, we destroy their economy and they end up in flames. And he was saying that he questioned this and he got fired for it. But he was saying that they even kind of plan in the riots. They know that when they squeeze a country and destroy its economy, you are going to get riots in the streets. And they say, well that's the IMF riot. In other words, because you have riot, you lose. All the capital runs away from your country and that gives the opportunity for the IMF to then add more conditions.
AJ: And that makes them even more desperate. So it is really an imperial economy war to implode countries and now they are doing it here with Enron. They are getting so greedy - they are preparing it for this country.
GP: I've just been talking to, out in California just yesterday, from here in Paris, the chief investigators of Enron for the State of California. They are telling me some of the games these guys are playing. No one is watching that. It's not just the stockholders that got ripped off. They sucked millions, billions of dollars out of the public pocket in Texas and California in particular.
AJ: Where are the assets? See, everybody says there are no assets left since Enron was a dummy corporation - from the experts I've had on and they transferred all those assets to other corporations and banks.
GP: Well yea, this stuff has really gone just like a three-card Monty game. I mean remember that there is money at the bottom. You did pay California's electric bills according to the investigations, they are telling me that they were pumped up unnecessarily by 9 to 12-billion dollars. And I don't know who they are going to get it back from now.
AJ: Well they actually caught the Governor buying it for $137 per megawatt and selling it back to Enron for $1 per megawatt and doing it over and over and over again.
GP: Yea, the system has gotten completely out of control and these guys knew exactly what was happening. Well, you have to understand that some of the guys who designed the system in California for deregulation then went to work for Enron right after. In fact, here I'm in London right now and we have, the British has some responsibility here. The guy who was on the audit committee of Enron, Lord Wakeham. And this guy is a real piece of work, there isn't a conflict of interest that he hasn't been involved in.
AJ: And he is the head of NM Rothschild.
GP: There isn't anything that he doesn't have his fingers in. He's on something like fifty Boards. And one of the problems, he was supposed to be head of the audit committee watching how Enron kept the books. And in fact, they were paying him consulting fees on the side. He was in Margaret Thatcher's government and he's the one who authorized Enron to come into Britain and take over power plants here in Britain. And they owned a water system in the middle of England. This is what this guy approved and then they gave him a job on the board. And on top of being on the board, they gave him a huge consulting contract. So you know, this guy was supposed to be in charge of the audit committee to see how they were handling their accounts.
AJ: Well, he is also the head of the board to regulate the media.
GP: Yes, he is, because I have run into real problems, because he regulates me.
AJ: They are also trying to pass laws in England where you've got an 800-year old well, or in some cases a 2000-year old well that the Romans built that's on your property and they say we are putting a meter on it. You can't have your own water.
GP: Yea, and that's Lord Wakeham. I mean this is the guy from Enron. He is a real piece of work. He can't be touched here because like I say he actually regulates the media. So if you complain, he's got his hand on your pen.
AJ: Burrow into NM Rothschild, you'll find it all there. Go through these four points. I mean you've got the documents. The IMF/World Bank implosion, four points, how they bring down a country and destroy the resources of the people.
GP: Right. First you open up the capital markets. That is, you sell off your local banks to foreign banks. Then you go to what's called market-based pricing. That's the stuff like in California where everything is free market and you end up with water bills - we can't even imagine selling off water companies in the United States of America. But imagine if a private company like Enron owned your water. So then the prices go through the roof. Then open up your borders to trade - complete free marketeering. And Stiglitz who was the chief economist, remember he was running this system, he was their numbers man and he was saying it was like the opium wars. He said this isn't free trade; this is coercion trade. This is war. They are taking apart economies through this.
AJ: Well look, China has a 40% tariff on us, we have a 2% on them. That's not free and fair trade. It's to force all industry to a country that the globalists fully control.
GP: Well, you know Walmart - I did a story, in fact, if you read my book. Let me just mention that I've got a book out, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" about how, unfortunately, America has been put up for sale. "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" is coming out this week. But I have a story in there about how Walmart has 700 plants in China. There is almost nothing in a Walmart store that comes from the United States of America, despite all the eagles on the wall.
AJ: Exactly, like 1984, then they have big flags saying "Buy American" and there's hardly anything --- it's Orwellian double-think.
GP: What's even worst is they will hire a factory and right next to it will be the sister factory which is inside a prison. You can imagine the conditions of these workers producing this lovely stuff for Walmart. It's really....
AJ: And if an elitist needs a liver, they just call.
GP: (Laughs) I know, it's grim. In fact, I talked to a guy, Harry Wu, is his name and, in fact, he broke into, he's been in Chinese prison for 19 years. No one believed his horrible stories. He actually broke back into prison, took a camera with him and took pictures of the conditions and said this is the conditions of factories where Walmart is getting its stuff made at, it's all....
AJ: I was threatened to be thrown off TV here in Austin when I aired video of little girls 4-years old chained down, skinnier than Jews in concentration camps, to die. And I was threatened, if you ever air that again, you will be arrested.
GP: Well you know, it is horrifying stuff that, unfortunately, I have been handed and Stiglitz, was very courageous for him to come out and make these statements. Like I said, he didn't provide me the documents. The documents really sealed it because it said this is what really happened. They really do say sign on the dotted line agreeing to 111 conditions for each nation. And the public has no say; they don't know what the hell is happening to them. All they know....
AJ: Go back into privatization. Go through these four points. That's the key. It sends billions to politicians to hand everything over.
GP: Yea, he called it briberization, which is you sell off the water company and that's worth, over ten years, let's say that that's worth about 5 billion bucks, ten percent of that is 500 million, you can figure out how it works. I actually spoke to a Senator from Argentina two weeks ago. I got him on camera. He said that after he got a call from George W. Bush in 1988 saying give the gas pipeline in Argentina to Enron, that's our current president. He said that what he found was really creepy was that Enron was going to pay one-fifth of the world's price for their gas and he said how can you make such an offer? And he was told, not by George W. but by a partner in the deal, well if we only pay one-fifth that leaves quit a little bit for you to go in your Swiss bank account. And that's how it's done.
AJ: This is the
GP: I've got the film. This guy is very conservative. He knows the Bush family very well. And he was public works administrator in Argentina and he said, yea, I got this call. I asked him, I said, from George W. Bush. He said, yea, November 1988, the guy called him up and said give a pipeline to Enron. Now this is the same George W. Bush who said he didn't get to know Ken Lay until 1994. So, you know.....
AJ: So now they are having these white-wash hearings. You know I was at Enron yesterday in Houston because I'm now here in Austin. We were like 30-feet from the door, right on the sidewalk and I have it on video - goons came up and said you can't videotape. I said go ahead and have me arrested. I mean I'm talking on the sidewalk, Greg.
GP: Well, you know, I was there in May, telling people in Britain you've never heard of Enron, but
AJ: Listen at the bombs you are dropping. You are interviewing these ministers, former head of IMF/World Bank economist - all of this, you've got the documents, paying people's Swiss Bank accounts, all this happening. Then you've got Part 2, what do they do after they start imploding?
GP: Well, then they tell you to start cutting your budgets. A fifth of the population of Argentina is unemployed, and they said cut the unemployment benefits drastically, take away pension funds, cut the education budgets, I mean horrible things. Now if you cut the economy in the middle of a recession that was created by these guys, you are really going to absolutely demolish this nation. After we were attacked on September 11, Bush ran out and said we got to spend $50 to $100 billion dollars to save our economy. We don't start cutting the budget, you start trying to save this economy. But they tell these countries you've got to cut, and cut, and cut. And why, according to the inside documents, it's so you can make payments to foreign banks - the foreign banks are collecting 21% to 70% interest. This is loan-sharking. If fact, it was so bad that they required Argentina to get rid of the laws against loan-sharking. because any bank would be a loan-shark under Argentine law.
AJ: But Greg, you said it yourself and the documents show it. They first implode the economy to create that atmosphere. They institute the entire climate that does this.
GP: Yea, and then they say, well gee, we can't lend you any money except at these loan-shark rates. We don't allow people to charge 75% interest in the United States. That's loan-sharking.
AJ: Part 3 and Part 4. What do they do after they do that?
GP: Like I said, you open up the borders for trade, that's the new opium wars. And once you have destroyed an economy that can't produce anything, one of the terrible things is that they are forcing nations to pay horrendous amounts for things like drugs - legal drugs. And by the way, that's how you end up with an illegal drug trade, what's there left to survive on except sell us smack and crack and that's how...
AJ: And the same CIA national security dictatorship has been caught shipping that in.
GP: You know, we are just helping our allies.
AJ: This is just amazing. And so, drive the whole world down, blow out their economies and then buy the rest of it up for pennies on the dollar. What's Part 4 of the IMF/World Bank Plan?
GP: Well, in Part 4, you end up again with the taking apart of the government. And by the way, the real Part 4 is the coup d'etat. That's what they are not telling you. And I'm just finding that out in Venezuela. I just got a call from the President of Venezuela.
AJ: And they install their own corporate government.
GP: What they said was here you've got an elected president of the government and the IMF has announced, listen to this, that they would support a transition government if the president were removed. They are not saying that they are going to get involved in politics - they would just support a transition government. What that effectively is is saying we will pay for the coup d'etat, if the military overthrows the current president, because the current president of Venezuela has said no to the IMF. He told those guys to go packing. They brought their teams in and said you have to do this and that. And he said, I don't have to do nothing. He said what I'm going to do is, I'm going to double the taxes on oil corporations because we have a whole lot of oil in Venezuela. And I'm going to double the taxes on oil corporations and then I will have all the money I need for social programs and the government - and we will be a very rich nation. Well, as soon as they did that, they started fomenting trouble with the military and I'm telling you watch this space: the President of Venezuela will be out of office in three months or shot dead. They are not going to allow him to raise taxes on the oil companies.
AJ: Greg Palast, here is the problem. You said it when you first came out of the gates. They are getting hungry, they are doing it to the United States now. Enron, from all the evidence that I've seen was a front, another shill, they would steal assets and then transfer it to other older global companies, then they blew that out and stole the pension funds. Now they are telling us that terrorism is coming any day. It's going to happen if you don't give your rights up. Bush did not involve Congress and the others who are supposed to be in the accession if there is a nuclear attack in the secret government, Washington Post -"Congress Not Advised of Shadow Government." We have the Speaker of the House not being told. This looks like coup d'etat here. I'm going to come right out with it. We had better spread the word on this now or these greedy creatures are going to go all the way.
GP: I'm very sad about one thing. I report this story in the main stream press of Britian. I'm on the BBC despite Lord Wakeham. I know he doesn't like me there. I'm in the BBC, I'm in the main daily paper, which is the equivalent of the New York Times or whatever, and we do get the information out. And I'm just very sorry that we have to have an alternative press, an alternative radio network and everything else to get out the information that makes any sense. I mean this information should be available to every American. I mean, after all, it's our government.
###
At http://www.GregPalast.com you can read and subscribe to Greg Palast's London Observer columns and view his reports for BBC Television's Newsnight.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
You are sovereign in your country. If you don't like something, don't allow it. I mean really, if its important, take a stand. The Saudi's got away with forbidding 500,000 Americans troops from having alcohol. How? Because they believed it. Now me personally, I think they were stupid. But they did what they felt that they needed to do to protect their culture.
Now you sit here and whine about how your culture is being destroyed by the evil Americans. Well, if I were offended by your walking nude into my neighborhood, but did nothing but complain, then I would be as guilty as you are for whining here about this.
"I wasn't using my civil rights anyway...."
Three questions and two comments:
... and that either we or our descendants will also be its victims. [eg. 911]
1. What would we (Americans in my case) do if our homes, our country was stolen from us? How would we react?
2. If the situation that the Palestinians are in is so fair, so just, so equitable that they should accept it as "peace," then why not let the Israelis and Palestinians trade places?
3. If George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell were around in 1776, would there be any United States today or would these three be Tories?
Comment 1:
Anti-semitism is a Western disease which the Eastern world has only recently contracted. Jews and Muslims lived together peacefully for centuries. Jews thrived in Muslim Spain and indeed when it came time to flee the inquisition, they migrated to North Africa and Turkey, not Europe. There are some who like to portray the current conflict as an ancient hatred. Nothing could be further from the truth. One day, an equitable solution will be found.
Comment 2:
It is criminal to talk about PEACE. Those who talk about peace are enemies of humanity for what they are really demanding is capitulation, slavery. The only thing that decent people should be calling for is JUSTICE. With justice and equity, peace will come. Without justice, peace is only the temporary absence of war and the continuing subjugation and exploitation of people. I'm not so naive that I believe that there is a Utopia of eternal brotherly bliss. I do know, however, that if we let the theft of a nation stand today, if we say that the law of jungle determines who has a right to what, then we'll be revisiting this issue again in 10, 20, or 100 years when the opposing side steals it (and more) back citing the same logic that those who defend Israel cite today.
Nations, like people, are born, they grow and they die. No one lives forever. Few of us realize this in our youth. I'm certain that in their glory days, few people amongst the Ancient Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Mayans, the Chinese, the Ottomans or, indeed, the Brits, ever thought that their great empires would crumble. If we stand for principles and promote principles, we can delay the onset of old-age and the death of our society and we can improve the chances that justice will predominate after our passing. Similarly, if we promote tyranny, we shorten the life of our society and we increase the chances that tyranny will follow us
for not fixing their problems or giving them money. It's all "America is evil because they will not educate our children, or give us food, or repair our infrastructure."
Truth is, if these particular middle eastern / African countries weren't so bass-ackwards (bascially because they are religiously-run Islamic regimes), they would HAVE infrastructure and food and education and wouldn't be jealous of us.
They hate us because we actually were semi-intelligent about not raping our people and our lands (at least as long as we hold off Cheney and Norton).
Ciao!
What ever makes America great it sure isn't the type of people posting on Internet thats for sure.
The half-baked logic is incredible.
-Why do Americans instinctivly react to any criticism by retreating to simplistic self-congratulation and triumphalism? Get over yourselves.
- The success of the U.S doesn't mean Islam is irrelevant.
Once and for all: Middle Eastern countries are not backwards because of Islam.
Is Catholicism irrelevant because most Catholic countries are poor?
In the early 80's most Catholic countries were dictatorships. Was Catholicism too blame?
Middle Eastern countries are backwards because of a rotten political culture that exploits religon the way Milosevic exploited nationalism. Period.
Jeff Kim is a faggot. Fucking loser. I wish he would fucking go away. Leave motherfucker.
No, Mr. Soros is a ferocious advocate of open markets. Big difference.
No, Mr. Soros is a ferocious advocate of open societies. From the bio on his website:
Today he is Chairman of the Open Society Institute and the founder of a network of philanthropic organizations that are active in more than 50 countries. Based primarily in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union--but also in Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the United States--these foundations are dedicated to building and maintaining the infrastructure and institutions of an open society.
In the West, a slow but steadily increasing impatience with Israel is being deliberately fostered.
In Israel, (and indeed, among Palestinians), a similar grooming of public awareness and political policy is being maintained in order to keep the fires of rage and mistrust and total disharmony burning.
Why?
When the U.N. tanks roll ashore and the U.N. helicopters start dropping troops on your head, it ought to become more clear. And all the world will applaud and approve and we will all be one big step closer to realizing the dreams of a small group of ultra-powerful egomaniacs.
And incidentally, I think this point is entirely in keeping with the topic of Globalization.
-Fantastic Lad
First, if you don't know about it already, there's some cool resources like ATTAC which have email lists and go through the economic underpinnings of why globalism as currently practised is not a good idea. They started in France, of course, www.attac.fr.
The main thing is that we, the people, never get to vote for these organizations. Globalism as it is practised is intended to reduce barriers - and those barriers are local laws that protect labor requirements (e.g. kids can't work more than 2 hours per school day) or environmental restrictions (e.g. you can't dump chemicals untreated in creeks).
There is another form - which is that corporations, which are really only asset poolings for investors like you and I that limit our losses, be required to conform to the countries that they operate in.
Where globablism attacks fraud, waste, and bribery - this is good. But it usually doesn't seem to mind this at the multinational corporate level. Where it attacks reasonable labor and environmental laws - this is bad. And multinationals seem to spend most of their energies trying to attack these.
GDP is flawed in that it does not measure social good as a benefit and it does not measure environmental damage as a cost.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Weren't these Waco "nuts" the recipients of a significant amount of government assistance towards their deaths?
Yes this is certainly true. In fact there are at least two or more members of the FBI, who due to their conduct at the Waco raid, cannot ever step foot back into Texas forever because the Texas Department of Public Safety will arrest them and charge them with multiple counts of felony injury to a child and negligent homicide, and they have a case prepared with a preponderance of evidence to make those charges stick. Only because of some kind of wheeling and dealing between the state and federal agencies were those charges not actively pursued and will not be unless those individuals ever return to the state.
Catchy title, has little to do with what I'm going to write though.
One thing that pisses much of the rest of the world off, and the parent touched on this very lightly, is that our country is 227 years old - and it is the most powerful, most influential, and richest on the planet with a more even per capita distribution of wealth than any other society (excepting communist-socialist states, where everyone is poor). 227 years, and we can kick ass on cultures that have thousands of years of history.
Nothing is more exemplified by this then when my chinese friend told me that the reason America is arrogant is because we don't respect cultures like that of China that are thousands of years older. In turn, I told her that if after thousands of years, they couldn't do any better than slave labour and pandemic poverty, it's their own damn fault, not ours. While I pretty much ruined my chance of scoring with her, she later agreed that most of the problem was envy.
The same goes for the middle east. 500 years ago, there were 11 universities in Bagdad, and Basra was likewise a center of learning, philosophy, and theology. In Iran, Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived side by side in peace. Ten years ago we were bombing the piss out of Baghdad for not playing fair with their neighbors, and Iran after turning away from western ideals has sunk so deep into the third world mire that they're confiscating DSS dishes so people there won't find out how fucked they really have it.
Good old Homer Simpson, he really hit the nail on the head with that one.
Your use of statistics is incredibly partial. You quote an anecdote about the UK, but the UK has a murder, rape and violent assualt rate far below the US.
Likewise, the study you quote (presumably the University of Florida one) is only partially accurate. Earlier this year, the Harvard School of Public Heath found that (in the words of The Economist 28 Feb 2002) "when it comes to killing children, guns do help." And "Before an American child reaches 15, he or she is 12 times more likely to die of gunshot wounds than a child anywhere else in the industrialised world."
Statistics, studies and anecdotes should be used with caution: don't believe that because a gun was good for you, it will be good for society.
*r
--- My dad's political betting
1) It's Swiss, not Sweden.
2) An assault riffle is not as easy to conceal or carry around as a handgun, which is what causes most "accidents".
And if you think it's impressive that the US has damn near "every friggin" culture in the world in one country, try London which also has just about every culture in the world, only in one city. Oh, and here's the amazing part, they play mostly nice with each other in the sandbox.
ps. I'm getting sick of the argument "once you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns".
If you banned them in the first place not even outlaws would have guns.
You missed a few, but right on. Maybe there is hope for the US after all if a seventeen year old is any indication.
www.qcislands.net/peerless/
/*Quite the opposite: nation-states and their constituents now have to choose between globalism (and its attendant prosperity) or religious fanaticism.*/
Haha, as Bush said. Sure, you believe in this. Let's take a look of the world poor Americans. Globalism harms many state. To give an example: From economics there are models that show that taxes reduce welfare.
But take a look at poor states. How fiscal policy of poor states depends on taxes. Because there is no way of other taxation. If companys don't even have accounting. If income in those states is spent 100 percent. If people are paid by natural goods. How to put a tax on it? Before you start taxation a state has to know whtether there is income. Tax on soil? Well, but you have to get it...
Just take a look at how the world is. It's different from western civilizations. You cannot put an economic system that was developed for us to the most poor states. There even has a to be variety. Pluralism of economy. Maybe even some sort of communism may fit to special a state of development. The American Hat fits only for Americans.
Dear sir..
Some things should be quite basic.. For example humanistic values.
I dont give a rats ass about where (convinsidencly) the human live: Should it be in Africa or the USA: For me, it seems obvious that one should in any case be against things like frying people ("Preventivel egal actions") (or injecting them with poison). (Not to mention all other basic humanistic values that has been broken.. Although I will not go into this)
Espesially a state that almost uses the christian god as a symbol for it self: Humanistic values should not be that hard to grasp?
If you never have criticized any other nations internal politics: its in high time to start right now.
I could be wrong about this, but are you sure you don't mean Switzerland?
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
some much intelligent banter regarding a Katz article?
it's got to be april fool's day.
(was this a book review done in the wrong format?)
George Soros points out that globalism is when companies or countries can use their power to alter things in another country.
But when it comes to US, many steel exporter countries are overtaxed when exporting to US, besides Australia (there is a Bethelem Steel company in Australia!!!). Only because american are not competitive on this market, with companies working with VERY old machinery, another countries are not able to sell them their steel.
Globalism works both ways, not only US towards the rest of the world. Each country must do what they know best!!!
Want to learn Manga P2P way? try www.mangaschool.com.
ESR's favourite argument against gun control can be found here.
As a Brit, living in England, I can honestly say that it would not bother me at all to put that sign in my window. The only reason for not doing so would be that I might scare some little old ladies into thinking that there was some reason to need such a sign. In this country, there really isn't.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
No mention of anyone but the Arabs in the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement.
I challenge you to find a country where this is not the case.
I didn't make that claim. I refer you to my theory on the modus operandi of governments
I assert that if you have several bullies doing their thing in the schoolyard that if you are going to make a difference it makes sense to start with the biggest and meanest.
Critical analysis of American government does not mean:
American people are bad.
Other governments are good.
Another reason not to buy Intel chips.
Regarding Balfour Declaration (direct from Israel's own Jerusalem Post):
President Truman would later say that the US did not pressure any country to vote for partition. That statement, however, would seem to be based on an interpretation of pressure as gunboats or White House stationery. Two US Supreme Court justices, Frank Murphy and Felix Frankfurter, contacted the Philippine ambassador in Washington and sent telegrams to Philippine president Carlos Rojas warning that a negative vote would alienate millions of Americans. Ten senators also cabled Rojas. Presidential aide David Niles, Truman's channel to the Jewish community, contacted influential American-Greek businessmen in an attempt to persuade Athens to vote for partition. Unlike with the Philippines and Liberia, this effort was not successful.
[SNIP]
The voting was conducted by the senior American on the UN Secretariat, Andrew Cordier. When it was done he handed the tally to Aranha who studied it for a moment before announcing that the resolution had been carried by a vote of 33 for, 13 against and 10 abstentions. "I close the meeting."
So, after U.S. pressure to accept the Balfour Declaration it was passed with 33 of 56 (member nations) votes, 59%.
Let's see, U.N. resolution 42/159 states:
Reaffirming also the inalienable right to self-determination and independence of all peoples under colonial and racist regimes and other forms of alien domination, and upholding the legitimacy of their struggle, in particular the struggle of national liberation movements, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter and of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,
This is apparently the reason that it was voted for by everyone except the USA and Israel.
Linux is UNIX.
The problem is, (assuming that your writing is representative of your character), that you are one of the 'good' people; 'Good' being a relative term, to be certain. --Essentially, one who strives to be less self-centered than is common, and generally compassionate.
There are people and forces at work in the U.S., the current world capital of greed and selfishness, who certainly do NOT subscribe to the thoughts voiced in your post. And for the most part, they have all the power and all the money.
Solution?
Sorry. There isn't one. --The fact of the matter, (according to what I have learned at any rate), is that the whole world, and indeed, the whole cosmos, is just a great big school for the soul. The best you can do is to hunker down and get the best marks you can, and when able, offer your advice to the smaller kids when the bullies come a'knocking. --But don't fight for them; that prevents their learning and is in itself a selfish act. (You get to feel heroic, and they don't learn how to deal with bullies.)
After all this, you ought to just try to enjoy the whole careening show for what it is. There are some really clever acrobatics and special effects going on right now, in the media and on the international stage in general.
It's not every day you get to watch the end of the world!
-Fantastic Lad
These U.N. tanks and helicopters come from where? The last time I checked the U.N. doesn't have an independent military force.
Hmm he talks about "out" technology, presumably meaning American Just how many bits of technology he talks about were actualy invented in places other than america however? from CD players to gene shears a lot were not. Which leads into another reason why a lot of people dislike americanisation..claiming things like that.
but i am 17 and have lived in 4 countries (depending on how you count taiwan, 5) and, generally, have learned about history from 3-4 more perspectives than the average American. so... this kid may not have lived anywhere else or experienced a global perspective... but most adults 40+ haven't experienced what some 17 year-olds have.
ah, and i don't appreciate your agism... this kid may have taken all that from his parents... maybe. but what i know i know because i lived it. so maybe he's the same.
What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
OK, I don't know how to do it myself, and it probably won't have an effect, but heyyyy...
Your theory that Americans don't know or care what's going on in the world is simply untrue.
I agree. In fact, I would say that with respect to 9/11, the situation is just the reverse. People in the rest of the world don't know or care what happens in America. The Germans didn't know or care what happens in America when they blew up the Lusitania. The Japanese didn't know or care when they bombed Pearl Harbor. Al Quaeda didn't know or care when they attacked the WTC (notice that the Pentagon is seldom mentioned?). People in the rest of the world have had a century to figure out what America is, and they still haven't learned.
Some people can never be made happy, no matter what choices America makes.
Minor quibble--I think they're very happy. Hatred of an all-evil foe is very happy-making, which is why there have been so many articles about LOTR. Add in the nobility of supreme sacrifice, and you have a lot of happy people. They may be happy by being proud of their (ex-) daughter the suicide bomber, but they like it.
There's an old parable that goes a little bit like this:
Supplicant: O Lord, help us! We suffer from war and crime and hatred and bigotry.
God: So what, if that's what you like?
Supplicant: But that's just it. We don't like it.
God: Well then stop, dum-dum!
Whether most Americans speak more than one language or not may deprive them of some cultural breadth, but that is more than made up for in the rich tapestry of immigrant culture that has helped build America over the generations.
That's true, but language is a red herring for other reasons. I speak Spanish and German and have lived in Mexico and England and have at least visited most of Europe. This is perhaps not ultimately spectacular, but it isn't too shabby either. Plus I've studied anthropology, and I'm good enough at it to have figured out the algorithm to get Hispanics to show up for dates, which stumps most anthropologists. I may not be representative of all Americans, but I agree with you, and I probably have more cultural breadth than most of the people who don't.
The same can't really be said for your government however. For better or worse, the US government has been very active since WWII in intervening in other nations "internal policies".
If you are a US citizen and entitled to vote, then "none of my business" isn't really a tenable position.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
The US is giving Israel billions of dollars worth of arms every year that they use to oppress arabs, all the time pretending to try to make peace in the middle east. How can you be a peacebroker when you're supplying the arms to one side??
The interactive way to Go -- http://www.playgo.to/iwtg/en/
I think you're getting the story of perceived danger as opposed to real danger. In the vast majority of the UK you are perfectly safe, but the media's sensationalist reporting of that violent crime which does occur, has made people too paranoid to let their kids out on the street and has made the elderly cower in their beds.
The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of violent crime occurs in deprived city areas and is associated with drug crime. What increase in ambient violence has occurred is probably as a result of normal people leaving the streets and parks to the dissafected youth making many areas "No Go Areas" simply by the absence of law abiding citizens.
IMHO having a gun to "protect yourself" simply means that anyone who wants to mug you has to carry a gun, and if they really want to do you harm the will have killed you before you even know you're under attack. The only real way to win a gun battle is to have drawn first and have the will to do what the other person won't do.
You may be here because you had a gun, but the those who had a gun and still got killed cannot post here and say "I had a gun and I still got killed". This is hardly a surprise given that they are dead. In scientific terms any anecdotal evidence is tainted by a selection effect.
I don't look at the gun issue through clouded lenses of feelings, fears, and misconceptions. Guns are not evil, bad, etc...but some people, irrationaly, feel that way...and they are often portrayed that way.
If you don't look at the gun issue the a clouded lens of feeleings then why do you carry one? Is it because you feel the need to be protected or is it because it makes you feel powerful, like a big man?
Guns may not be evil but they give evil men the ability to do more harm than they could otherwise do. For this reason alone they should be banned because you cannot know who the next mass murderer of school kids will be.
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Is this claim really true? Seems like most of the anti-globalism comes out of Europe and the Middle East, and not so much out of South East Asia. Europe and South East Asia are heavily exposed to "invasive American culture." The Middle East? Not so much. There really is far less exposure to American culture in Saudi Arabia, home of lots of anti-Americanism, than there is in South East Asia, home of a lot less. So maybe this is just an argument that makes MacDonald's haters happy....
Ok, so I haven't eaten in MacDonald's for years, either. I still don't think Ronald created the Taliban.
Well said, sir! Truly an inspired piece.
Who the fuck do you think is doing the heavy lifting (as usual). Besides, Kyoto was a joke treaty to hamstring U.S. interests, so it has nothing to do with our desire to let you all go to the little socialist states you desperately want to be. BTW, Your country better pay attention re: Islamic Fascist Theocracy, because once they get tired of picking on cities worth bombing they will turn to you next.
Sorry but I don't think it helps for people to keep redefining Globalism/Globalization based on their own bias or need for a snappy book title.
The global deregulation of financial markets, growth of multinational corporations and the accompanying loss of social and environmental standards is generally known as Corporate Globalisation (or Globalization if you live in the US).
The US aren't solely to blame for this as many multinational corporations are just that - transnational. They have no particular loyalty to any country, government or body - only their shareholders.
Many of their shareholders are the big banks and investment houses who are in turn responsible to us - their investors (anyone who has a pension, mortgage or even an overdraft). It's up to us to put pressure on them if we want multinational corporations to become more socially and environmentally responsible (and recent polls in the UK suggest that the majority of us do).
You could do worst than ask Barclays, HSBC and NatWest why they are financing companies that cause rainforest destruction...
All your base are belong to us!
Nothing else really to say.
A'ight. Oh, I said that.
I think Bush looks very sick. The propaganda is so weak. Sir Ustinov told i television american politicians seem to him talking in a way of recorded message. Where is the man responsible. I think he is right.
What have you got against private citizens having guns? I bet you wouldn't disarm the military, now would you? Even though various militaries used guns to kill tens of millions of people in the 20th century alone.
It would be interesting to hear you explain why you're essentially pulling for Stalin over a woman who's trying do defend herself against a rapist by using a handgun.
It should not come as a surprise that the US has the highest violent crime rate in the developed world and they have the most relaxed gun laws.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Guns != violence. Switzerland refutes you.
Second, this:
I don't look at the gun issue through clouded lenses of feelings, fears, and misconceptions. Guns are not evil, bad, etc...but some people, irrationaly, feel that way...and they are often portrayed that way.
is slander - you're accusing those who disagree with you of being "irrational" to get around the open-ended nature of the debate. The lens of feelings, fears, and misconceptions is a fundamental part of being human - in fact it's the part of being human that's both endlessly frustrating and totally liberating. This business that scientists and engineers have about applying the idea of objectivity drives me nuts - objectivity is an abstraction of the much cloudier notion of someone who already has a perspective trying to make a fair evaluation of something, and as an abstraction "objectivity" misses a lot of the subtlety of real life. Would you say you look at your girlfriend objectively? Doesn't she deserve better judgement than a reductionist cost-benefit analysis?
A more honest explanation would be to explain how you come to think we're better off with guns. Particularly since you seem to have had experiences that confirmed that point of view for you. As it is, I'm utterly unconvinced, because I've had experiences the other way.
I'm glad we didn't say the same thing when Hitler was sinking whole convoys of our *relief* ships on route to your country in the early years of WWII, or when Winston Churchill was begging for American intervention during the Blitz. We did agree to concentrate on Hitler first, despite being attacked by the Empire of Japan.
And I honestly hope that a city as beautiful as London never falls prey to the deprivations of the large radical Muslim contingent which lives there, but if you don't think it could happen than you haven't been keeping up with who the Arabs blame for establishing Israel. (Yet another example of their disgustingly ignorant propaganda).
But that ignores the reason why NYC was attacked, because it had nothing to do with our support for Israel. American culture fundamentally threatens the power structure of Islamic states precisely because it is so "corrosive", but we are talkin about a group of people who consider Wahabist Saudi Arabia to be corrupt, so one can readily imagine what they think about the entire EU, especially in regards to Great Britain. This is not over, and it will not be over until we have significantly eradicated a critical mass of these large scale terrorist organizations and overthrown the autocratic states which breed them.
Are you sure you're not from France, where they still refuse to lift a finger to defend respectable jewish citizens from the ignorant scum of their gutter colonies?
You saying women can't have guns? Who the fuck do you think needs them? Or does your patronizing analysis extend to rape victims as well?
Guns may not be evil but they give evil men the ability to do more harm than they could otherwise do.
Are you talking about the police?
What you're saying may have relevance (though I don't see it), but it's certainly not based on any understanding of Derrida or the deconstructive method (not "movement"), which has nothing to do with nihilism, even though many people incorrectly portray it that way. Based on your rambling post I can tell you've never read Derrida (and probably won't), but if you want to read his responses to such arguments about nihilism, read the interview at the end of Limited Inc.. Anyway this is totally offtopic anyway.
"...In an appeal to President Bush, leaders of Christian denominations in the area asked to "stop immediately the inhuman tragedy that is taking place in this Holy Land in our Palestinian towns and villages."" - (AP)
So as you can see this is not about religion (as both Muslims and Christians are suffering under Sharon) or globalism. It is very simple: Israel is occupying Arab land and expelling Palestinians from their homes with bulldozers and tanks. The US so far has actively supported Sharon and his policies. That, not McDonalds, is what causes hate against the US from many in the Arab world
You make me sick Katz. I believe a Buddhist monk when preaching about morality, because the live the life they proscribe, they have honor and integrity, YOU HAVE NONE. You fucking people who legislate how we should live our lives in a way YOU HAVE NEVER EVEN TRIED FOR YOURSEFL FIRST hand.
You are disgusting. Your editorials are one way, you never give feedback or comments in threads. You pontificate with no moral or intellectual authority. You suck, you are a goat.
I'm totally appalled. Wah. Wah. Cry wah. Commie. You leftist shit. Lets make the doors out of paper to let the burglars in, give a big hug and try to kiss and make friends.
This thread is making me sick, and all the commie leftist biased shit going on makes me even more sick.
There are those few people here which have said some conservative sense to these leftists that would teach gay love to young boys for the sake of diversity.
No one holds a gun to your head to eat that fuckin' McDonalds. NO ONE. These third world saps suck up American culture because they are busy chopping clitorises off of women, suppressing ethnic minority groups though genocide or some other bull shit. None of these fucking countries have to use our culture, our money our products, yet the ALL FLOCK TO DO SO.
Trickle down has served the world well. Everyone has planes available to them now, and they were ours and ours alone back in the days of Kitty Hawk. Same with mass produced cars, everyone has ridden in one to date, largely because AMERICA made it feasible very early on with the assembly line. We have all this glory and innovation because we are a FREE fucking society, and we welcome people of all walks of life, of all creeds and colors, to come here and FUCKING PROSER you animal.
People are way to young and don't read much history. Ask Tibet how it likes China's takeover. Ask the Chinks how they like the Japs when they killed 100,000's during the occupation of Manchuria. Ask any of the down trodden eastern Europeans how it felt to have the long spear of the Soviet Ramrod up their asses during the cold war days? How bout a nice day in a GOULAG? How about making bomb shelters in Iraq near legit military targets to get "bad lefty communist like Christiana AMAPOUR to report civvie deaths even though Hussein is at fault?" How about starving Iraqi "children" aka terrorists in training starving to death because their leader is spending upwards of0B/year in WMD research. How about Canada and France selling No. Ko. reactor parts, great fuckin friends we have. How about getting the death penalty in Singapore for smoking a joint? How about giving the Middle East nations the oil fields back (after we built huge oil platforms for them, because the tent dwelling cretins were too fucking retarded to do it themselves). Oh, Mr. Bad USA, gave the panama canal back. How about a USA so weak right now fucking Chinks want to buy out Global Crossing (a big chunk of the FUCKING INTERNET WE INVENTED, PIONEERED) after the chinks were handed all sorts of shit by the CLINTOON administration, and Terry McAuliffe.
FUCK TIHS ANTI AMERICAN shit. All the foreigners who get here legally stay for a fucking damn good reason. And I welcome you, so long as you pay taxes - do what you fuckin want.
This is historically unfounded. We get over our vices and inconsistencies fast here. USA makes mistakes, but the Sudanese still have slavery, we don't. We got over slavery damn quick compared to the rest of the world. We came a long way on suffrage (the right to vote to all the bleeding heart commies who have yet to pay much into the system yet). We may not be perfect yet, but shit, its far from shit. very far.
I hate the commie shit socialists who want the least common denominator for everyone.
FUCK YOU. Id rather nuke your ass and suck up some nice radiation I paid for that share my home with you fucking lazy un-working vermin.
I'll never worry about losing the cure for cancer by nuking dumps like Iraq, because these defunct shithead countries will never make one.
There is so much trash going around on this thread, it makes me laugh. Pseudo educated suppressed homosexuals (not that homosexuality is bad, but suppressing it, geeze you liberal fucks should spread the cheeks and get it done with, you spit your wad a lot harder when the person fucking your ass has a towel on his head) eructating puerile shit.
I'm glad we are planning to make it possible to put me into bondage. I would rather die than be in bondage to these shitty subversive chinks or commies or morally bankrupt suppressive shitass Islamic Towelheads.
We have said for 40 years plus, you do it, you think about it, and you are gone. the red button gets pressed, the red telephone gets slammed on the receiver.
The Japs did well surrendering to us. They are the second or third largest economy in the World, jeeze, the USA really sucks to surrender to , huh? You tools need to think - you really think the US didn't do them a favor by burning down that house? They made off with our car industry for Christ's sake, and boy, I do love driving my Japanese car - its great. And I fucking paid it off in 9 months, $33,000 bucks. And not, its not public property, you cant have a ride, fuck off , its mine I PAID FOR IT. None of this commie shit.
John Walker scum floating around Marin. Bezerkelyite fuckers with Barney Telletubbie view of the world scumballing their shit subversive agenda.
I must say, piss on John Asscraft for being a fascist shit. I may hate you leftist fuck commies, but this right wing fascist shit sucks too.
Really, really. What is going on? There are circles of power, some leaning left, some leaning right, some existing for themselves. They divide the people of the world, always focusing on what makes us different! Are you a fag or not? Are you black or white? Are you left or right? Are you a fat fuck? You know what - I don't give a shit what you are, and that's still my fucking car. The circles of power want us to fight amongst ourselves while the prance off with all the fucking money and power.
Everyone wants a nice Japanese import car, real medical care (not socialized shit, like that shit in the UK where if you reach a certain age you entitlement to care is GONE, like if you get dialysis, hit age 65, they PULL THE FUCKING PLUG, because they are commie shits), they want halfway decent schools, freedom to think etc. We got all that here. I live it. You fall on your face here because you are lazy, not a caste system.
Tactical nukes are appropriate, and we had the finger on the button the last 50 years, we just want to remind the world, hey, have a wet dream, and well have a coupla kilotons of force to save us some money.
Appeasing Hitler landed Neville Chamberlain in the historical doghouse, and it took Winston Churchill to show the world the right way. To quote Churchill, "'Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others,'"
All high and mighty EU, they armed these fucking countries. Half the Islamic nations shit came from French military hardware, roundly supplemented by the zipper heads. The I hear some leftist shit in this thread quote MAO the DUNG on the US being the "paper tiger". HAH. Nice life expectancy in China there, Mao Tse Dung. Nice going, harvesting organs from political prisoners for the highest bidders and government dignitaries.
Commies say big business is evil. Hah. The "Evil" Big Business: Doesn't exist like you think it does. I am in a small business. My small business was created from money from big business to innovate new technology to stop Internet DDOS attacks. The innovation would be a B2B service for medium and small businesses. I get my health care, dental, paid vacation and education subsidy either directly or indirectly from Big "Evil?" Business. One could way to make things work better would be to give outright tax credits to companies doing good things in their communities, like building schools or repairing roads or bridges. I'm sure HP could negotiate a better price for the "NEW BAY AREA BRIDGE" than the cabal of stupid idiots running Oakland and San Francisco. Now that I think of HP, I think of a huge company that has built several hospitals and given BILLIONS of dollars in charity through the "David and Lucille Packard Foundation" - established 1964. General Electric was run by a bottom-to-top rags-to-riches engineer-to-CEO JACK WELCH [http://www.straightfromthegut.com/ good book]. Mr. Welch, a native of Salem, Massachusetts, served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of General Electric from 1981-2001. He was nicknamed "Chainsaw" or "Neutron Jack" because he fired people. He was painted as evil He was the epitome of an evil CEO. Yeah riiiight. He fired the lower 10% every year. He removed the bottom 10% with sound metrics. He FIRED losers. And those vocal minority losers who can't work up to corporate standards whined and pissed and made the public think that he was "EVIL." The losers seem to speak up the loudest. By the way, GE has a long standing tradition of employee investment - education subsidy, good pensions, health care, etc etc. Yeah, GE dumped shit in the Hudson. Yes, GE made mistakes. The Chinese STILL dump shit in their rivers, we stopped doing it 30 years ago. Does it help GE to maximize shareholder profit if they are being forced to clean up shit they dump? No, so they stopped doing it a LONG time ago. Are some businesses evil? Yes. Are they all, flat out NO. It doesn't pay long term to be "evil."
Point: Be angry at the media for sucking, be angry at the government for wasting your money. Unless we get a western version of Mohandas Gandhi, be angry with every single Congressman, Senator whatever else. They step on your heads everyday.
Time to go read about some new scientific discoveries or new information about open source software or something interesting. Politics suck.
God I love those Krauts too. The fucking purified leftovers from the National Socialist party. Fuck you krauts. You started two god damn world wars. This Eurotarded Eurotrash Union is a suck bag quagmire of shit.
And these Towelheads and their newfound love for Palestine. Keep in mind these Palestinian vagrants have been booted out of every ISLAMIC nation they try to infect. They are hooligan vagrants , and if you replaced Israel with lets say, a pro Towel regime like France, they would be next on hit list of all the adjacent Arab nations. No one wants to pay for these tent toting Neanderthalic holdovers from the 3rd century. May as well kill them. We wont have to in the long run, the morally bankrupt Islamic nations will mop them up for us when they have expired their usefulness to their twisted cause.
And everyone blames DUBYA, like one person runs the fucking country. Meanwhile, the Congress and Senate make all the fuckin laws, the only power W gets is a big fat Veto. There isn't much the legislative branch can't override. DYBYA has an big administration, so of it is typical Right wing special interest trash, some of it is true blue pro the future of America. Shit, these people have to have some notion of self preservation. Every single Bush family relative isn't surviving WWIII, fuck, I'd be willing to be that 90% of everyone in that administration's extended families would be dead as doornails if there was an all out nuclear conflict. No one wants an extended nuclear conflict, but I would pay front row admission to see bin Towelheads skin get baked off by a tactical nuke dropped off by a Predator or some shit. You don't eve have to aim.
The geopolitical situation in the world is not solely exacerbated by the US. It is bullshit to think that this country control the world's direction. People want what we have and aren't willing to adopt our ways. We get what we want by worshipping our own dollar, more than POWER or RELIGION. Its only natural cretins don't catch on to this and feel like trying to defeat us "imperialists." Hey, quick secret you fuckers who hate us - STOP BUYING AND SELLING SHIT TO US, STOP USING OUR CURRENCY. I would be willing to bet that most of the world printed US currency isn't even in the US. Out of many one, e plurbus unum. Printed on the fucking money. I don't buy trickle down doesn't work either, our success trickles down. People think we should have the upper hand after we invent all this shit and create a venue for success because they are failures in life and have to resort to communism or socialism to make up for the fact they need Viagra to get it up, another American invention.
I love how America is seen as this pretty glass castle, and the rest of the serfs plowing the fields for a fair wage all start tossing rocks because they or their culture or their family failed to give the intellectual tools to succeed. Yeah, that's our fault.
I don't think an Islamic person will ever set foot off this planet, because anything not of the planet or Mecca or any aliens are probably UNCLEAN, UNHOLY and vile, and they MUST BEND to ALLAHS will. I cant believe people still believe in this superstitious bullshit.
Hey lefty, you'll get extra credit for your shit clas at Berkeley - its called the SUNDANESE CULTURAL CLASS, 101, learn to carve a girls clitoris off! 4 CREDITS!
WE MUST DEFEND THE WEST, IT IS THE LAST SALVATION FOR THOSE WHO ARE GOOD FROM THE EAST, AND ALL OF HUMANITY. CAREFUL WHICH SIDE YOU PICK. We MUST STOP Globalization!!!!!!
Islam is Death, Death to Islam.
I'm a U.S. citizen, and I find this to be quite an absurd idea. Yes, the U.S. is the richest country on Earth (We Earned It!). But we also give away a *lot* of our wealth to the third world in the form of food/medicine aid. And our oftentimes needed military interventions are *extremely* costly. The United States is arguably rather generous compared to regions like Europe, who rarely lifts a finger (monetarily speaking) in hot-spot conflict resolution.
I'm afraid that opinions like yours are just rants borne from a backward socialist mindset or to be more generous, you're very poor and you're expecting an even bigger handout.
Yes, what I just said might easily be taken as harsh, but please realize that people who have been "battle-hardened" by capitalism get to a point where we/they simply cannot appreciate the whines of people who would choose not to work for what they get in life, but instead would choose to have their government send sacks of free rice to their doorstep on an ongoing basis.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
But Temples generate 4 Cultural Points per turn, and Wall Street Wonder only generate 2 Cultural Points.
About being anti-west, my favourite Civ is actually the Romans, which is both Militaristic and Commercial in nature.
But the Russians, which is Militaristic and Scientific is pretty cool too.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
Yes, what I just said might easily be taken as harsh, but please realize that people who have been "battle-hardened" by capitalism get to a point where we/they simply cannot appreciate the whines of people who would choose not to work for what they get in life, but instead would choose to have their government send sacks of free rice to their doorstep on an ongoing basis.
By that philosophy, you wouldn't mind then if the government imposed a 100% death tax and disallowed gifts of capital or real estate to children. That way you could make it on your own according to your own merits rather than riding on inherited money.
The truth of your "Capitalist Democracy" is that the ones with the capital can buy all the democracy they want. And everyone else can go pound sand.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
From a european POV the United States does not seem to be the free country it claims to be. The electing process seems to be more or less a matter of collecting contributions from powerful corporations. Naturally most people knows this, but are powerless to do anything about it since they have already abdicated their power years ago.
My image of the United States is the picture of an opportunistic country ruled by corporations who couldn't care less about anything but profit.
One of the downsides to globalisation is that the same thing will eventually happen everywhere else too.
All of this seems to be a natural, but sad, phase of our technological evolotion. As the ease of communication increases the world is deprived of it's content.
I guess Civ III is not exactly the most popular games in /....
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
Just think about it....you take 50 kids from 50 different countries and put them in a classroom together. How are they going to talk to each other? Most likely in English. What are they going to talk about? The latest American movie, Britnay Spears album, and the Nike shoes and Levi Jeans they're wearing.
We didn't get attacked because their's a McDonald's in every city in the world or Starbucks is on every corner. We got attacked becasue we are the 'last great hope.' Religious dictators hate us because we make them look bad. The more movies their people watch, the more music they listen to, a little more free the get. That is why we're hated.
I'm going to print up a sign that says:
I'm a fucking ego maniac randroid.
and staple it to ESR's forehead. Assuming I can catch him when he's asleep and/or unarmed.
Arafat's Book-Keeping Department Yields
Bill Linking Him to Suicides
2 April: This piece of correspondence was discovered by Israeli troops who went through the files in Yasser Arafat's personal accounting department in Ramallah. It is an itemized bill signed by the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades - Palestine, and dated September 16, 2001, exactly five days after the September 11 suicide attacks in the United States.
The document is a routine request for Arafat to approve the daily outlay for the arming of suicides with explosives and ammo, their memorial ceremonies and funeral posters.
It is part of the body of evidence Israeli troops gleaned at Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah and demonstrates that Arafat supervised every last detail of the Palestinian suicide offensive.
Translation into English:
1. Cost of posters for Martyrs of the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades: Azam Mazhar, Osama Juabra, Shadi Afouri, Yasser Badawi, Ahad Fares (inserted by hand: NIS2,000).
2. Cost of printed notices, invitations and mourners' tents (inserted by hand: NIS1,250.
3. Cost of attaching personal photos of these martyrs to wooden panels, plus those of Tabeth Tabeth and Mahmoud al Jamil (inserted by hand: NIS1,000).
4. Cost of memorial ceremonies for martyrs. Memorial ceremonies held for Martyr Azam, Martyr Osama (inserted by hand: NIS6,000)
5. Cost of electrical goods and miscellaneous chemical substances (for manufacturing explosives and bombs - the largest item. (One prepared explosive device - NIS700 at least) We need 5-9 devices per week for the squads in the different regions (inserted by hand: NIS x 4 = NIS20,000 per month)
6. Cost of bullets (cost of Kalashnikov ammo is NIS -8 per bullet; M-16 bullets cost NIS2-2.5 each) We need bullets supplied on a daily basis.
7. Note: Available are 3,000 Kalashnikov bullets @ NIS2 each. We need a sum of money at once to buy them (inserted by hand: NIS22,500 for Kalashnikov bullets - NIS60,000 for M-16 bullets)
In conclusion, glory and pride to those who support our brave resistance against the occupation. Revolution until victory.
Three-Day Siege of Jibril Rajoub's Command Center in Bitunya
Almost Over Tuesday Night After 180 Barricaded Palestinians Turn
Themselves in to Israeli Forces
Fifteen Terrorists Still Hold Fast
Two Suicide Attacks Thwarted Tuesday Night on West Bank-
Baq'a al Garbiyeh Border and Central Negev
Palestinian Tanzim Militiamen Hold 10 Priests and Nuns
Hostage in Bethlehem's Santa Maria Church
Israeli Tank and Infantry Force Goes Into Fifth West Bank Town of
Jenin Tuesday after Taking Control of Rest of Bethlehem,
Ramallah, Qalqilya and Tulkarm
Israeli Air Force Bombards Hizballah Positions in S. Lebanon after Hizballah Fires at Israeli Troops in Shaaba Farms Sector
Israeli Defense Forces Uncover Document
Linking Arafat Directly to Palestinian Multi-Casualty
Suicide Campaign against Israel
It Was Found in Ramallah - in Files of His Personal Accounting
Department at Palestinian Authority Government HQ
Document Is Dated September 16, 2001, Five Days After Suicide Attacks on
New York and Washington
Costs of Bombs, Bullets, Martyrs' Posters Are Meticulously
Itemized for Arafat's Approval and Books
Number of Fatalities in Netanya Seder Massacre
Climbs to 25 with Three More Deaths Tuesday
Making It the Deadliest of All Palestinian Terror Attacks
Ramallah Curfew Lifted for Daylight Hours Tuesday
Some Terrorists Begin Come Out of
Jibril's Besieged Command Center in Bitunya and
Surrender to Israeli Troops
Ceasefire Allows Evacuation of Combat Wounded from
Site Where 400 Wanted Men Battled From
Early Tuesday with Israeli Forces
Casualty Toll Runs to Tens of Dead and
150 Or More Wounded
West Bank Security Chief Jibril's Men Expected to
Exit with Wounded - Jibril Is in Ramallah
Israel Prepares Legislation to Enable Sanctions against
Palestinian Suicides' Families and Their Senders -
Sharon During Troop Inspection in Qalqilya Tuesday
PM Views with Gravity Violations from Syrian-Lebanese Frontiers with Israel, Warns Damascus and Beirut
They are Not Immune to IDF Israeli Reprisal
Egypt and Jordan Seal Borders to Palestinians - Including Leaders
Israeli Soldier at Har Homah Position, S. Jerusalem,
Is Wounded by Palestinian Gunfire Tuesday
Res. Sgt. Ophir Rott, 22, from Netanya,
Was Killed at Same Position Monday
Second Palestinian Dies from Monday Night's
Shooting Incident on Maaleh Efraim-Cochav Hashachar Road
North of Ramallah
Responsibility Claimed by Unknown Jewish Group
Called "Tears of Widows and Orphans"
Tomer Mordecai, 19, from Tel Aviv, Is Policeman Killed
When He Stopped Terror Car from Reaching
Downtown Jerusalem Monday
Bush: "Suicide Bombing in Name of Religion
Is Simply Terror. I'ld Like to See Chairman Arafat
Denounce Terror."
US President Urged Sharon to Keep Pathway to Peace
Rumsfeld Accuses Iran, Iraq and Syria of Fomenting
Terrorist War on Civilization
Kissinger: If Suicide Terror Is Not Stopped,
It Will Spread Worldwide
France Drafts Riot Police to Guard Jewish Synagogues and Centers
After String of Antisemitic Attacks
Read Wrap-up Report below
Jewish and Israeli Institutions Worldwide on Guard
Senior American Intelligence Officers Are Positioned in Region
Closely Monitoring Development of Israel's Counter-Terror Offensive
Group is Led by CIA Director George Tenet
At 01:30 IT after Sunday Midnight,
Tenet and Envoy Zinni Called Secretly on Arafat in Ramallah
Islam is Death, Death to Islam.
OSI, it turns out, is *opposed* to initiatives and referendums, period. Hmmm... opposed to expanding public participation in the formulation of public policy. Doesn't sound like an "Open Society" to me. Rather, it sounds like they're working to build a more closed society that reflects only the views of OSI and, at the same time, doesn't have the democratic ability to challenge those views.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Exactly. Maybe if the people in US goverment behaved this way we could be still seeing the Twin Towers in the NY skyscape.
Also, we might have seen the sham that is totalitarian communism and fascism in control of most of the world. Kuwait would be a territory of Iraq. The Jews would all be dead, or at least a slave race at best. Latin America would be a warlord's dream. Kings would all be in charge, and those kings would wage the sport of kings, WAR, all the time. The list goes on and on.
By that argument, if we didn't get involved with the Middle East, they would still be dust farmers watching the world march on without them... which IMHO is what they really want us to do, but resent the fact that they enjoy their Western toys, and aren't the big boys that they used to be centuries ago.
Besides, if Saudi Arabia could promote themselves as the preeminent force in the world, would they? Would any culture pass up the opportunity to be the world leader?
How much do you want to bet the poster came from a country that we pulled out of the fire in WWII? All of my friends parents died to save these whiny bastards, that bite the hands of the generation before who paid in full for their fredoms.
United States is arguably rather generous compared to regions like Europe, who rarely lifts a finger (monetarily speaking) in hot-spot conflict resolution.
These things are certainly true to a degree, (although many other nations do their part to help in terms of humanitarian aid.)
But the U.S. is also one of the largest offenders in terms of corporate third world slave-labor exploitation. This is selfish in the extreme.
The U.S. appetite for narcotics is also such that entire nations are socially and economically laid waste if they are so unlucky as to sit on a drug trafficing corridor.
Beef, a luxury food at best, is consumed in huge quantities at the cost of world's rainforests. Again, an act of massive selfishness.
And the drug/food/technolgy export industries. Do you remember the Pablum debacle of the 70's? (Free Pablum given away in third world nations, which after a few weeks of use allows the mother's milk to dry up, after which parents must buy more of the American baby food to prevent their children from starving.) --Either by error or through corporate manipulation, whole nations are duped or forced into consuming things which irrevocably damage their social well-being and culture. --All so that U.S. manufacturer's can grow rich. And these are not choices. Foriegn governments are pushed into making these moves through corruption and C.I.A., (or similar), manipulations. Destroying cultures to open markets and keep Americans employed and some Americans very, very wealthy. This is selfishness.
So yes, the U.S. is the richest counrty on Earth, and they certainly did 'Earn' it, but in doing so, a lot of blood has been spilled and a lot of innocent people have been shamed and hurt.
Now don't get me wrong here. I am a Canadian, and I will point out something upon which most non-Americans will agree. .
Nearly all the Americans I have ever met have been good-hearted, likable people who truly shudder at the thought of doing something immoral. It isn't the individuals.
It's the U.S. nation as a whole which is insane. (And Canada isn't a whole lot better!) --Owned and maintained by a corrupt elite, the U.S. is a nation which lies and manipulates the opinions of its good people through propaganda in its entertainment, its news and in its class rooms.
I really like Americans; I really like people in general. --I believe very firmly that if it wasn't the U.S., it would simply be another nation from which the darkness would arise. And there are forces which do not care about border designations for whom it is VERY important that the darkness does arise. It is painful to watch when any group of people are swept along by something they probably wouldn't choose if they actually had a choice.
If only democracy actually worked!
-Fantastic Lad
The reason Osama is pissed of at America is because USA supports a regim in Saudi-arabia that spends the riches they get from oil on the wellbeing of the ruling class.
1.) A friend of mine was staying in Miami with his dad over the summer in our junior year. He had a nice green 92 Mustang convertable he got when he started driving. He was in a parking lot one night when a guy with a knife tried to car-jack him. If my friend didn't have his 9mm handy (luckily he'd just turned 18 & got this pistol) when that guy walked up to him he could have lost his car, or gotten hurt. Instead he just has a funny story about the guy almost pissing himself trying to get away from him.
2.) A similar thing hapened to my step-father but instead of just approaching him, a guy jumped into his Blazer's window late at night coming back from the Jacksonville Landing. My step-dad didn't get a chance to threaten his assailant, but he was able to pistol-whip the guy long enough to keep him from using the knife he had, and to push him back out of his window (at about 35mph).
3.) A good friend of mine had to pull a pistol on his (now ex) step-father to keep him from continuing to beat his mother.
Call the cops after she's been beaten or stop it from taking place to begin with? What would you do?
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
Your point is excellent - inheritance taxes are a good idea.
Assuming the government is going to spend and hence raise a fixed amount of money, I'd rather they take it from dead people than living people. And as a prep-school alumnus, I can say from personal experience that the expectation that one will eventually become rich without any effort on one's own part is corrosive. Some folks adopt noblesse oblige and do just fine, but far too many tend to waste their lives waiting for their money to come, instead of finding something meaningful to do.
And, of course, rich people hate paying taxes, so they give their money away to foundations and such if the think it was going to be taxes. There would be less of this as inheritance taxes go up.
And yes, I'm speaking as someone who is likely to inherit a meaningful amount of money. I'd rather pay lower taxes now, and have less in the future. And heck, I'd rather my wealthy relatives live forever - they're a lot more fun than money (money can't tell stories about being blown out of a jeep by a panzerfaust).
My video compression blog
Indeed. We sacrifice our long-term political interests for silly short-term political issues in swing states all the time.
Another example: high steel tarrifs don't get us anything we actually want - we're going to lose four jobs in steel-consuming industries for every one we save. AND we're PISSING OFF our allies at the time we need the most. Why? Because steel workers have a good lobby, but people who buy cars and work in dockyards don't. And because Detroit will vote Democratic whatever happens, but Pennsylvania could go either way.
And heck, why are family farms so sacrosanct? It's not like anyone in government is trying to save family restaurants, and we actually need those in our cities - most people couldn't care if they're eating produce from Florida or Chile.
Of course, I don't think we're worse at this kind of stuff than most other countries. It's just that with our greater power, our mistakes have greater consequences. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard than we hold others.
I was pleased to see Bush announced a 50% increase in our foreign aid budget, targeting countries with good government. This is an excellent start.
My video compression blog
Don't listen to him. I'm an American, and I don't like guns one bit. Neither do most Americans I know.
If your country is so much better, then go back.
If you can't handle constructive criticism, then at least don't try to stop others when they try to help improve our country. The only thing that keeps America great is constant improvement, and if everyone were to just plug their ears and chant "America is great, love it or leave it" the way you do, then America would quickly stagnate and become inferior. Oh wait, that's exactly what is happening...
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
From a self defense standpoint, a person is better off with a gun over any other weapon as it is a great equilizer. It takes little training to learn to operate one safely and effectively.
Basically it allows a 120lb woman to defend herself against a 250lbs man, who could overpower her with his bare hands or with a knife. More often than not, just displaying a gun sould make the attacker think twice. Now I will admit, if both the attacker and his target are both carrying a gun it might escalte.
Some would say, well just be passive and give your attacker what they want. I think the events on 9/11 onboard the airplanes show what happens when you submit to your attacker.
Anyways as a martial arts instructor, learning to carry yourself with confidence(as in being alert and not looking at the ground when you walk through town) and not visiting high risk areas will make you less of a target. Having a gun on your person may give you the confidence you need so that you aren't viewed as an ovbious target.
Most discussions I have had with people who were anti gun blamed the guns themselves as the problem far more than the reasons why in the US there is such a high incedence of crimes as compared to europe (i believe it is in part due to education and a portion of society which does not place an empasis on education or maintain a strong interest in their children's education, less social programs compared to europe, lack of strong male role models etc).
Here is a question I pose, if the gunbans in DC NYC and chicago were lifted, would violent crime rapidly drop due to a legally armed populace? I'd like to think so, but to be honest I really don't know.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
"Man, I'm Canadian and even I know American history well enough to know that. The time for the second ammendment's existance is over, it's time to get rid of the guns in every house, perhaps then there'd be less shooting deaths in America."
Well ovbiouslly thats the case, but according to your logic "if we got rid of all the bicycles in america there would be less people who fall off our bikes." If someone wants to commit premediated murder, there are a wide variety of manners to commit it. Granted, using a firearm is probably one of the easiest and requires the least training, but that being said its also one of the easiest ways to defend yourself (the other is to have confidence and notmake yourself a target or visit bad areas).
The way to less violence in america is to spend more money on education and programs for children after school. Mass incarceation is not the problem as young criminals are given a chance to become better criminals to learn from other prisioners, however teaching children right from wrong, letting them know there are consequences for their actions, and providing them with the skills in life to succed certainly would make them better off.
The other solution is to institute a police state(video cameras everywhere, massive police force) to cut down crime, but i'm certianly not infavour of that.
I do advocate for gun education in school though. I'm not saying that children in 3rd grade should join a gun club, but they should learn how to behave responsibly around them and learn that they are not toys.
"Second, gun just aren't cool. I'm amazed how many of these gun nuts are too stupid to know their own history and that the point of the second ammendment was as protection against British invasion."
Well, a hostile power would even today have a hard time subduing the america populace with the number of guns privately owned.
I find it funny how people seem to think that all americans live some sort of cowboy lifestyle. I'm willing to wager that 90% of firearms bought through lawful means are NOT used for crimes,but instead are used for defensive purposes or target shooting.
By the way, I don't own firearms. Even if I wanted to, the state I grew up in, New Jersey, and currently live in, Maryland, have restrictive gun laws. They don't seem to have helped things in baltimore or newark either. If firearms laws were suddenly liberalized, would their be a rapid crime rate drop? Well i doubt it would make anything worse.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
I've had it enough with jewish propaganda. Please tell us why it was ok for millions of jews to come from Europe into Palestine and offset the demographic balance and yet offsetting the balance is the reason Israel uses not to allow 4 miilon refugeees to return. btw actually I'm pro-israel in a way. It existance means i see less of your kind in my hometown every year plus when the times comes to complete the final solution it will be much easier to accomplish with all of you grouped nicely in one place.
USA-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
"The NAFTA agreement is no good for any country, only corporations. "
Well that isn't entirely true. In another year or two, it will enable mexicans to purchase cars which are also sold in mexico. Whats the bigd eal you might ask? The models sold in mexico are priced signifigantly higher than in the US, hence this allows more mexicans to purchase cars. I don't believe the higher prices are due to taxes, as they would have to pay them anyways(just like when you buy a car out of state in the US.)
Its to bad that this doesn't work for car models not certified for sale in the US, as they offer a number of european and japanese models which aren't for sale in america.
In regards to pearl harbor, i would have to look into that myself. Allowing a number of very exspensive shipped to be severly damaged or sunk while in harbor doesn't seem like a good financial plan.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Of all the people that could carry guns, violent crime victims are one of the groups that SHOULDN'T [at least without counselling]. The last thing I want is to be walking home and be shot by someone who thought I was walking in a threatening way.
PS: If you can't win your argument without resorting to emotive cases such as this, your argument is pretty weak.
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
"Guns may not be evil but they give evil men the ability to do more harm than they could otherwise do. For this reason alone they should be banned because you cannot know who the next mass murderer of school kids will be."
1 /0 6/09/850909.xml
_ iwxSRoRoC: www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/research/other_docs/notes/canus / efault.html+us+homicide+non-firearm+rate&hl=en
Well, you never do know who the next mass murder might be, but it doesn't take a knife to do it.
http://college3.nytimes.com/guests/articles/200
Last june, a japanese man killed 8 school children and injured 15 others with a butchers knife.
If you carry a gun and it makes you feel like a big man, and assuming you use it responsibly, you are better off as you would carry yourself with more self confidence and make a possible attacker go find an easier target.
Americas problem with "guns", isn't a gun problem its a people problem. Take away the gun crime and the US homicide rate is still higher than canada (and 3x japans).
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:2p
As you noted, the vast majority of crime in concentrated in a few areas. The same is true in america as well. Somehow people think that if all their neighbors are carrying guns then there willbe shootings every time there is "road rage".
Fortuneatly this isn't the case. Despite living near metro DC which is host to a number of road rage incidents, and the stateof virginia which has liberal concealed carry laws, i have yet to hear of a single road rage shooting. There might have been, but nothing came up in a search on google.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
"Just be fair to every country out there."
Will they show us the same courtesy?
"They freakin invaded and destroyed the place, not the US."
It was already like that befor the soviets invaded.
But seriously, if you want to learn something about the evils of globalization as it is being played out, check out:
We all know that capitalism is not stable without democracy. Therefore global capitalism will not be stable without global democracy. Why the president of US, elected by ~200M of people should command and dictate the res of the world - ~6B of people? There should be a system of democratic election across all the world electing either some sort of euro-parlament or sort of US president.
It is alos known that capitalism should protect itself from chaos, vandalism and crime. There should be a system of police and court. In order to protect global capitalism - a global jurisdiction system wiull be required.
Army and security services are created to protect a country from outside enimies. From whom of outside should we protect global capitalism?
Immigrationa and naturalization services are a part of institution to protect internal job market from aliens. What aliens do you mean in the time of globalization? Don't try to build global capitalism based on global slavery.
Capitalism is diffent from feodalism b/c corporations compete each other, not regions. Is it competible with protectionalism and custom services?
It seems like we are far way from global capitalism yet - once we don't have global democratic political system. But what global we already have is global slavery (alike H1B) and global feodlaism (import/export trade wars).
Australia also has many ethnic groups, but still nowhere near the crime rate of the US. There can be tension between groups, but it is much easier to keep under control without guns getting mixed up in the equation.
Microsoft - Where would you like to go today, Maybe Jail?
What a lot of conceitet offensive rubbish.
Tell my why the American media is infested with morons like Katz who always assume that if someone dislikes America they must have a justified reason. It never occurs to them that the reasons offered might be unreasonable. The most ludicrous charge is of course that the spreading of American culture is something the USA is at fault for, nobody forces McDonalds or US soap operas or cop dramas on anyone. They are purchased by the residents of other countries.
Without the USA, Canada would be in a very different situation. Just tonight on The National they had a story about how Moncton NB was in trouble because all the companies were leaving. The solution? Entice US companies to set up shop in their city. 12000 jobs from US companies in the last few years. Eighty percent of our exports go there. So its nice that we have health care and all that, but thats not to say the US is wrong in their ways. Think about it, if the US economy had to start spending obscene amounts of money on their own health care and things, that would adversely affect ourselves. Less money to buy our goods.
I'm not saying you're doing it yourself, but it really irks me when Canadians spout their anti-American tripe, compeletly ignoring the fact that our own country is so inextricably tied to theirs. Economically, culturally, militarily, everything. Anything that benefits the US indirectly benefits ourselves. We need to accept this.
(Well I guess it doesn't benefit us when they go and do things like slap 30% duties on our wood, but you get the idea. I really wish Americans would accept that we are their biggest trading partner as well).
USA and guns are like an alcoholic justifying drinking by describing the way it makes him feel better and quoting medical reports that one drink a day can help reduce heart disease. (Thats one drink, not a dozen!).
Microsoft - Where would you like to go today, Maybe Jail?
Firstly there is no such thing. It is a (derogetory) nickname given to Muslims that try to stick to essence and core of Islamic Monotheism (Tawheed).
Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahaab, was a Scholar and a Reformer. He wrote some books (The Book of Tawheed, Three Essays on Tawheed; among others). That challenged many of the corrupt ideas and philosophies that had entered in to Islam, from the influence of many of the other cultures that been assimilated into Islamic rule.
He showed by evidence that these NEW beliefs (Saint Worship, Grave Worship etc) had nothing to do with the Islam that was taught by the Prophet Muhummad. His call was heared by one of the Rulers in Arabia, and the "movement" snowballed from there.
So it is these aspects of WORSHIP that you will find the "Wahabies" most strict upon.
Indeed it is strange how many ppl speak about Wahabies without ever having read even one of his books!
"Wahabism"/Islam, has no "Viscious" ideas, and nor is it Extremist. Bring some evidence for your statements, or remain silent.
For Further information on Islam:
http://www.spubs.com
http://www.troid.org
http://www.efatwa.com
The majority of Arabs do not resent the West. Nor do they dislike the West. They do, however, resent the US's Blind unquestioning and un-equivicol support (Media, Financial, Political) of Isreal.
Isreal flaunts UN resloutions as though they didn't exist. Iraq gets Cruise missiles and Bombs.
600,000 Iraqi children have dies since the Gulf War (Official UN figures), and Madeline Albright says that it is a price worth paying. If you were an Arab, and cost of your children's lives were described as such, how would you feel toword the speaker and the country she represents?
Hence, Western "Culture", has nothing to do with it. If it did, they wouldn't be buying into it.
"What do you think of Western Civilization?"
"I think it would be a good idea"Mahatma Gandhi
-- "To ask a question is to show ignorance; Not to ask a question means you'll remain ignorant."
On the one hand we have the hippies, or the "down with globalism" people for all you morons out there; they pull quotes and facts out of their arses. They took a philosophy or sociology course in college, read a few paragraphs of Marx, and now are card-carrying members of the 'Noam Chomsky for President' party.
On the other hand, you have the majority of slashdotters. They like to point out the flaws of the hippies, while ignoring their own. They took several courses in philosphy at a community college, so they have the right to flame the hippies. Their precious portable mp3 player that they use at the fitness center, their Mazda RX7s or VW Jettas aren't necessary, and they exploit thousands of people. At least the hippies know they're idiots, but the slashdotter IT people seem to be even more pompous than Mr. Katz. Stop being so damn protective of your "comforting" possessions and learn to think on your own.
This Soros guy is the luckiest fuck ever, he made Billions of dollars, England hates him, he is Hungarian expatriate to England who essentially betted and gambled into his money - luck - no intelligence, this is clear. You wont hear Warren Buffet or Donal Trump talk like this with this communist shit.
Yes he is a "philanthopist" (self servothrist who pretends his gifts exonerate him from being subjected to the medocrity communism legislates), with racist subtexts, and he now has so much money, he knows not what to do with his time.
So this BILLIONARE will institude world communism to protect him from you the people, you the opressed, and he will CRUSH the venue by wich you can walk to reach equilibrim. This is the oldest plot, communists are rich people who want to fool the masses into thinking that mediocrity is great, and that they should be lucky to have that and not want more.
DEATH to this globalization bullshit. Death to this racist hungarian. Death to the evil mask he wears! He hides behind philanthopy to push communism on the world.
Islam is Death, Death to Islam.
Ask yourself why were guns banned at the Winter Olympics? Surely an armed population would have been a deterrence to terrorism?
Microsoft - Where would you like to go today, Maybe Jail?
[deleted offensive title]
Um...slight question. How is the UN (knowing what we know about them) going to declare martial law in a independent nation, keeping in mind that israel does have "the bomb"?
The U.S.A. needs to withdraw from the U.N. and mind its own business. For too long we have been acting as the so called "Policeman" of the world. Let other countries fix their own problems and let the U.S.A. deal with its own growing problems. Freedom and Liberty will soon disapear if we do not wake up and return the U.S.A. to the people and away from the corporations who have been running things for far too long.
TV is the drug of a nation.
" Since when have 17 year olds experianced anything in life?"
Ah grasshopper. It's not how long you've lived, but what you've done with that time that's important.
Were do you think "regrets" come from?
Is that there aren't lots of guns in the UK and many other places around the world.
Unless you want to somehow assure that all the violent criminals in the US are going to have their guns taken away and be unable to get new ones, you are expecting people who have no intention of hurting other people give up their guns? That is simply ridiculous.
P.S. Most people don't kill other people for fun. Those that do, probably won't care if you say guns are illegal.
P.S. #2 Your USDOJ homocide numbers: Did a greater portion of the population have firearms in 1950 or 1993?
Maybe Arafat would be better in exile then? Safer.
http://www.gush-shalom.org/generous/generous
Why sadly? It's good that the subject takes all that. Means the results will stick around in our minds a lot longer than if they were easy.
"'The USA is a great country but with people like this [slashdot.org] the picture the USA delivers to people outside of the US worsenes."
Hmmm...fair enough. Now if I read a link like the one above, but it was a european, what would I as a nation think of europeans? What should I think? Maybe there's a lesson for both sides here?
"I'm so confused."
I'm not. Go read all through (including AC's) and aside from the usual noise there is a great amout of thought-provoking discussion going on. Agree, disagree, it all gets our mental juices going. That's worth the price of admission.
I have never criticized any other nation's internal policies. It is none of my business.
I wish more Americans were like you.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
For instance, in New Zealand I read an article about how an American company was making plastic tents for home use to protect against biological agents, painting a picture of americans huddled up in the saftey of their bio-tent. Absolutly ridiculous. Similar to judging every american by watching Jerry Springer. Obi-won might say, "Who is the greater fool: The fool or the fool that believes anything the press tells him?"
With that said, here is my hard line. Anyone who wants to use the "Of course we sympathise, but..." line to express their further prejudices ("superiority complex about themselves", "Contrary to the belief of apparently nearly every American alive, America does not constitute the whole world apart from the Middle East.") doesn't deserve the time of day any more than the stupidly patriotic crowd.
I don't agree with the point of mixing up these two: Globalization and 9/11 attack, I'll explain my view. For me, the attack MAY BE just "somebody doesn't like the things that the USA do out there", and I won't go into discussion about their licity although I would like to mention that I am in principle against any kind of violence and therefore neither I like the USA intrusism nor I like the attack.
Now for the globalization movement. I think that there are many different people with many different reasons to be against this "invention" out there. I am myself firmly against the globalization movement so I'll explain my reasons.
Ecological reasons:
It is stupid to ellaborate a biscuit in Spain (actually my home country) and sell it in Australia while ellaborating some other biscuits there in Australia to sell them in Spain, well understood that good conditions are given for the two countries to ellaborate their own biscuits using either cooking recipe. Full stop. Now a bit further. If doing this is convenient for many companies, as it is the case, then big warning: Something is wrong. And so we arrive to the next chapter, social reasons.
Social reasons:
(Or how these companies, the multinationals, do business.) So it is in fact convenient for many companies to manufacture their products far away, even spending much money in trasportation. It is simple to imagine (or perhaps not so simple) to what extent the worker is being exploited. The concept is so obvious that I won't explain it, I will just say that, at least in Europe, chances are that if you pick any article of clothing in a store and have a look, it has been manufactured in China or Korea. For a cup of rice. You may say: If we rejected to buy those, that people would die. No. If we did so, their corrupt governments could not take place and convenient social laws would be adopted, just in our privilleged countries.
Choice reasons:
We consumers lose our freedom of choice. You may say: If you prefer to pay more and avoid exploitation, well, you are free to do so and let people decide by their own instead of trying to ban globalization or anything. Wrong. If we haven't got the information, then it's impossible for us to know what is going on. It would be neccessary for every piece of product to have a hundred of stickers telling how, when and where it was manufactured, impossible, paranoid. The result would be pretty much the same as with the EULAs. To use the same example: WE THINK THAT "Write Your Own Damn Code" IS GOOD, BUT WE DON'T CARE ABOUT "Grow Your Own Vegetables". Or buy them to a near neighbour or at least NEAR, say in your home country. Not patriotism or anything, it is just that we know better what is going on AT HOME than far away.
Economical reasons:
Read this: World Bank Secret Documents Consumes Argentina
My opinions are just opinions, and I am even often changing my views. But my point is that these reasons, wrong or right, make sense, I am not a hippy or anarchist but a design engineer, I LIKE to think. Therefore I don't like this link between the 9/11 attack and globalization.
If you find this interesting, this link may be of interest to you: Znet (Zmag), specially here.
I am from India and I have to disagree with what said about India being "not free, thanks to the caste system". The caste system in India was a formalisation of the class difference that is present in all societies. It is no longer present. People are NOT discriminated based on their castes. The only place castes are still used is for providing assistance to people who were kept down on the basis of caste. What you are referring to is atleast 60 years ago. Please learn more about a country and its people before making blanket statements like these.
Atleast in India, the government is not run by a bunch of industrialists who pass laws like the DMCA.SSSCA and CBDTPA.In India, the Members of the Parliament cannot be bought out to pass laws like these.
Particularly those in the US government.
There is of course no good or evil, just power and how it is used.
1997! If your going to quote statistics at least quote recent ones! I cant remember any mass murders occuring in schools in 1997 ... but i think your right we can definitely extrapolate ...
"we have perhaps the second longest-lasting representative republic (the first being Great Britain) in the world." erm the last time I checked we (the UK) had a Queen, did I sleep in or summurt?
Could someone with a spare moderation point mod enkidu's comment up, please.
I must have had a shaky hand and somehow selected Flaimbait, wanting to give him an _Insightful_. His comment is definitely not a flaimbait, it reflects the views of many (european) friends.
enkidu: I'm sorry for selecting the wrong choice.
--
"choose between globalism (and its attendant prosperity) or religious fanaticism."
Globalism is another way of saying global capitalism. And capitalism makes the rich richer, the poor poorer. Americans adoring view capitalism/globalism comes from not looking at the third-world countries that make your towels, your curtains, your Nikes...
If the poor are far enough away, you assume they don't exist. The question could also be: "continue to be America's slaves or choose the religious fanaticism that would rebel against it."
> Anyone with half a brain comes to the US to be a GTA!
Huh? Grand Theft Auto? Gargantuan Tobacco Addict? Grimy, Tiny Anteater? Ghod, these acronyms get too annoying.
Click here if you just like to click on shit.
"Thanks to our... short-sighted politicians, we are only beginning to grasp the ways in which computer networks are changing, even radicalizing much of the world, sometimes in great, sometimes horrific ways."
Do have any clue what you are asking for here?
Hey, do-gooder, Keep Your Laws Off My COMPUTER! Got that!
It's REALLY FUCKING IMPORTANT. I understand that as founder fathers of the MTV generation it's difficult to concentrate on one topic for longer than a TV advert for the Gap, but people need to make the effort.
For the people that globalisation is working for, I can see why it's more a case of "Next Political Topic Please". However I would have thought that the billions of people that are on the short end of this ideology are slightly more interested. Unfortunately I dont think they have accounts with AOL.
Yeah, flamebait me or whatever, but the crushing lack of interest by posters on this topic provides a very bleak outlook in my book.
Invoicing, Time Tracking, Reporting
Well, lots of people here doesn't understand that 17y old guys are the one who will build the future of their country. It's at this age that people can make their own opinion about their environment, not fully based the scholar dogma or an opposite adolescent authority rebellion idea.
I don't have hate or love sentiments to US in general(Amazing how some people on this thread call their own opinon the "U.S. one"....), but as a moderated continental-european citizen I am disguisted on how US goverment has acted towards other countries, from 1/3 world to their "commercial pairs" since WWII.
OK, US gov. represent the most powerfull country (military, capital,...) so they have a responsability over the World, it's the other side of the medal of being nr1. They leave the image of a country who thinks its way of life is the UNIQUE way of being happy/free/rich/... in two words: american dream. Just Consider the word American is not the same as World...
Even our politicians are abused of your image and begins to make nasty things in Europe, where people things differently, with EUCD law, extreme capitalism and throwing away our social security system in order to be as the same level as USA, just because of an embedded image of the USA.
You did your revolution in the 18th century, my country does in 1830 (Belgium), and so does actual "democratic ones". Leave the actual "dictator-leaded" countries make their own revolution in their time (revolution violence) but for g** sake don't interfer with your CIA or other bullshit agencies who don't even care about what these people want. Cold war and communismcapitalism considerations for making war makes me this impression 13 years after Berlin's wall fall (sorry it's in french): "A choisir entre la peste et le cholera, ou est le pire..."
US Gov. may have interrests while imposing peace in a country (middle east, yugolsavia,...) but from now it has always been first making money or imposing capitalism market and only after hoping to solve the real problem, but when people are angy against your whole nation -because they're not stupid and discovered they've been manipulated by the new "democratic" goverment the US one helped to impose them-. Ask refugees from Yugoslavia if they're happy now (the alabanese mafia is ruling their splitted-country and comes to Western Europe)...make the same to Afghans (how about the new oleoduc construction through their country?). Their reaction of being angry against US gov. is legitime even if they use a wrong form to show it. If US citizen were materially and morally humiliated, day after day, as they are in countries where rich people -with powerfull and organized army- steal them their small land to construct villas (for rich ones already having a middle or good-living level in Europe or US but coming for religous "rights", as they want to rule their own country...), how would they react? I'm sure they'll use all their small powers to kick these richs bastards back to where they comes from. This is not an excuse for terrorism but explains the extreme solution for poor and crushed ones to fight against a modern army who kills them each time they make a demonstration or assassinate their virulent leaders. It's not an issue of religion. Islamists extremes mafia are just using the situation to make their own profit, as does extreme right wings of the other governments.
First, F** all the religous or UK/UN papers saying who's country is and take the place of the people under fire (both camps). They want a just peace, not the 'SOLUTION' from US point of view. While Us citizen will understand this, they may vote for a goverment which will make real good things to the rest of the world, and not a World Company ruling the markets. And maybe the rest of the world won't see your country as evil.
There are many reasons powerful states decline. They become lazy, corrupt, riven with internal strife, destroy their farmland, overpopulate, as well as war. The empires you mention above often faced danger equal to the one that finally ended them but defeated it with organisation or luck.
So what makes you think the US even needs to be invaded to decline? What if the confederates decided they wanted to have another go? What if George Dubbya destroyed the economy and the US began a decline into poverty? Asteroid anyone? What makes you so arrogant to think that the USA will absolutely be king of the hill in even 100 years?
You obviously didn't read the previous poster very well. I'm not going to speculate about the future, many hollywood movies have. You may have read the poem "Ozymandias" at school (I don't know what they teach in US schools), maybe you should read it again:
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: `Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear --
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.'
Percy Bysshe Shelley
You are correct. My statement should have been "I have never criticized a democratic nation's internal policies.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Don't listen to him. I'm an American, and I don't like guns one bit. Neither do most Americans I know
Talk about plugging ears. Listen. There are as many guns in this country as there are people. If there were no demand for guns then this discussion would be moot because there would be no business in it. Many people I know own guns. Is it the majority - no. But it is a good proportion of them. Many of whom do not advertise the fact that they have one.
If you can't handle constructive criticism, then at least don't try to stop others when they try to help improve our country.
Who is to say if the criticism is constructive? I value my right to own a gun. It is a right that much of the world does not have and is as valuable to me as the right to free expression and the right to vote. Much of the world does not understand what it is like to own firearms because in their country, firearms ownership is limited to the government, wealthy, or politically connected. The average person is denied because he does not have the connections to get one. Do I think these countries should adopt our policy? No. Do I think we should adopt other countries policies? No.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
"Ask yourself why were guns banned at the Winter Olympics? Surely an armed population would have been a deterrence to terrorism? "
y /2 28185p-2195707c.html
e ad er/0,2061,547483,00.html
Simple, international pressure. Utah allows concealed weapons permit holders to have their firearms in the legislature.
http://www.modbee.com/24hour/spec/olympics/stor
There is no other reason than international pressure, if the states own legislature trusts its own citizens to carry firearms in the state capitol. The reason according to a democratic representative, Rep. Scott Daniels, is "People in other parts of the world think it's odd Americans want to be armed all the time," Daniels said. "I think it's going to scare them. They're going to think every third person at the opening ceremony is carrying a gun."
It didnt help either that the IOC was supposed to supply storage for firearms permit holders at the olympics but didnt.
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/r
In regards to sporting events and legally concealed guns, i don't really have a problem with it, however, once somebody starts drinking then their is a problem. The is illegal to do if you have a concealled carry permit and have the gun on your person. Keep in mind that most criminals are drugged/drunk when commiting a crime since the drugs/drink do effect judgement. A person who is impaired lacks judgement when opperating a firearm or even a car.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
The world doesn't envy you. Far from it, the world (for the most part), doesn't like you at all. Why?
BECAUSE YOU THINK WE ENVY YOU
So you can outproduce practically any individuall country, so what? How many countries have America's combination of vast amounts of land, population, and infrastructure? None - but just because we don't doesn't mean that we are the slightest bit worse than you. You are not resented because you have a stable goverment, or because you never suffered horrible losses (well, perhaps from countries who saw your involvement in the World War as being to just waltz in at the end and claim all the glory), or for any other reason you've listed. It's because, often, you guys are so damn arrogant.
Bush wants peace in the Middle East. Why? So he can bomb the crap out of Iraq. After that, as long as the oil keeps flowing and there are still markets for American exports, don't believe that he could give a rats arse for what goes on there. The affars of the rest of the world are treated as irritating matters which should be regulated as quickly as possible so that America is inconvinienced in the least possible way and its oligarchies can continue to rake in the money.
I'd like to point out that this comment is not motivated out of jealousy. As an Australian/German, I have memberships in two countries which, when taken together, have a plethora of advantages over the USA. And I don't intend to imply that all Americans are arrogant, self-absorbed, ignorant louts, but many are. For the most part you couldn't give a stuff about news outside of your own backyard. Before the WTC attacks (yes, before), I knew who Osama bin Laden was, and about al Qaeda. I know where most countries in Europe, Africa, South America et al. are located, and I don't hold stereotypical images of the inhabitants of those countries.
Can you say the same?
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
Though, when it comes to killing prisoners, the USA is doing a good job..
remember ?
Is it *that* what they tell you? Really?
That sounds a bit different from Europe. It sounds like America is planning the same war they did in Afganistan.
While most of this is a troll, there are some nuggets of info there that bear some analysis.
The Cold War is a symptom of something else. It's the result of power struggles. Power struggles and the control for dominance is just that. And, IMHO, it's hardly ever justified. It's basically a form of mental masturbation and usually performed by insecure little boys who haven't figured out how to deal with their own personal problems. The reasons, however, are usually couched in some kind of rah-rah about protecting the world or some other such trite crap.
It's a little more than mental masturbation. Ask the Poles. Ask the Czechs and Hungarians. To believe that the Cold War was about nothing, or about ideology that really didn't matter is to ignore the massive differential in the numbers of people who were killed going over the Berlin Wall from east-to-west and vice versa. Its to ignore the relative freedom of the Tiawanese and South Koreans compared to the North Koreans and the Chinese mainlanders.
The US has a lot to answer for in its conduct of the Cold War. We didn't take nearly enough account of the wants and needs of the countries we interfered with. Often, to keep the enemy out (and yes, the Soviet Union and Communist China were our enemies) we backed people we shouldn't have. Still, there's an anecdote that perhaps sheds some perspective on events such as the Cuban revolution.
(I'm paraphrasing from memory here, so details may be incorrect, but I think the overall gist is accurate) During meetings with the Soviets in the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Guevera was advocating launching the missiles from Cuba. The Soviet representative asked Guevera if he understood that the US would undoubtedly react by hitting the launch sites with nuclear weapons, and that there would be no one left alive in Cuba afterwards. Guevera said that would be a price he was willing to pay. Unlike Che Guevera, the Russians really did love their children too, so it didn't happen. I believe this was recounted in an interview between Castro and an American reporter. If somebody remembers the details and can back me up, I'd appreciate it.
So if the United States opposed the various revolutions that Guevera and his friends were involved in, (remembering that Che Guevera was not Cuban but Argentine, and made a career of fomenting leftist revolution throughout Latin America) that's hardly a masturbatory excercise.
C) you have totally ignored that where there is a propaganda machine in place it's probably a small flame next to the might mechanisms of the American mass media which affect the globe.
Sort of, but at least in Arab countries, there's still a very pervasive and very effective propaganda machine. The percentage of the population that believes that the attacks of Sept 11 were orchestrated by Mossad (Israeli intelligence service), not by Muslim terrorists is pretty large.
you are operating on the basis of emotions for your deductive reasoning. In a huge number of cases the "dictator" in question that you refer to was backed by the U.S.
He's not the one who started trolling, dude. Something about pots calling kettles black.
However, as a logical argument, you're right that sometimes that dictator has recieved some support from the US, but lets take the example that everyone is fighting about now, Iraq. When Hussein was a ruthless but not overtly vicious dictator, we supported him. His regime was politcally repressive, but religiously tolerant, and suprisingly open for an Arab regime of the early eighties. The majority of the Iraqi population were freer than their counterparts in other countries.
Then came his war with Iran. This was his first agressive war, started by Hussein to get the oil terminals at the end of the Gulf. Early on, the US did not oppose (lack of opposition != support) him, because he was opposed to the brutally repressive Iranian regime which was at the time just as bad and openly hostile to America and openly supporting international terrorism. Hussein seemed the least evil of the actors in that region. We still did some business with him, but his main military support came from France and the USSR, with some from China.
Then the war dragged on, and the Iraqis began opposing his regime in earnest. Ethnic minorities, especially Shia muslims in the south and Kurds in the north began resistance movements. Hussien responded with military reprisals, shelling, and when that didn't work, shelling with chemical weapons. As far as I know this was only the second use of weapons of mass destruction since the end of WWII (the other being Soviet gas attacks in Afghanistan). These were carried out against civilian targets and horribly effective. At this point the US began open opposition to Hussein's regime.
After he decided in 1990 that it was OK to use his military to expand his power by taking over weak neighbors and their oil supplies, the US realized that Hussein needed stopping. Yes, that war was about oil. It was about how no one can take over another country just because he wants to sell more of it and gain more power from it. Especially someone who'd shown that he felt no compunction about slaughtering innocents with nerve gas. This is not the type of person you appease.
If the US were not involved, would the results be better? The US has largely ignored Myanmar, but they're in bad shape. The US tries to be a force for good. Sometimes we fail. Others not so much. Nicaragua is a good example. Democracy is taking hold there, after years of bloody Communist dictatorship.
At this stage, the best thing the US can do to bring democracy to Latin America, and southern Asia as well, would be to end drug prohibition. Nothing undermines those democracies like the massive monetary resources that are getting pumped into their criminal and insurgent groups. Judges get whacked if they try and impose order. End the flow of illegal drug money, and South America could really take off.
I must really be bored with my job if I'm willing to post a response this long to a Katz article.
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
> How much do you want to bet the poster came >from a country that we pulled out of the fire in >WWII? All of my friends parents died to save these >whiny bastards, that bite the hands of the >generation before who paid in full for their >fredoms.
I see you have studied to MPAA version of history. Yes, America did drop 2 nuclear weapons on Japan, but the role they played in the majority of WWI and WWII was minimal when compared to those of England, Russia, Canada, and even Australia. America had the advantage of being able to sit idle and decide who had the best chance of winning, and thus who to help. Unfortunatly for the US government, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor made the decision for them. Even then, most of the important battles of both wars were fought with out American involvment.
The terrorists attacked the US because they are funding Israel's attacks on the arabic minority.
There are three bold faced lies in that one statement.
1) The terrorists who attacked us (Al Qaeda) never had the Palestinian issue on their agenda until a statement made by Bin Ladin some two months after 9/11.
2) The US sells surplus arms to Israel, and provide *millions* not billions in foreign aid. We also give a substantial, but smaller amount, to the Palestinian Authority and other Arab governments in the region. Unfortunately, that means we are also guilty of funding the terrorist attacks against Israel, since the Mossad recently released invoices showing that Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade actually invoiced Yasser Arafat for some $4,000 with the express and stated purpose of committing terrorist acts.
3)Arab minorities? Arabs make up some 20% of the Jewish state sure, but the region is almost 80% Arab itself. Last time I checked Israel was holding it's own little corner by the sea while surrounded by enemies who have vowed to destroy every Israeli man, woman, and child. Who is the oppressed minority in that region again?
Oh, and those 20% Arabs living in Israel? You won't here complaints from the 5% or so who aren't Palestinians - they're having a grand old time.
Is that so hard to see? You're so fucking myopic thinking that you were attacked because the rest of the world is so envious of your high standard of living or whatever...
The "or whatever" part is a big portion of the problem. We aren't the only target of these terrorist bastards, we're just the most visible and popular. These sons-of-bitches make a living intimidating people in their own lands. They commit acts of terror against anyone who doesn't follow their lead, and usurp legitimate government authority throughout the middle east and south west asia. They don't need a reason to be terrorists - they do it for a living, and they have a ready supply of useful idiots in the refugee camps and slums of the mideast.
The US is giving Israel billions of dollars worth of arms every year that they use to oppress arabs, all the time pretending to try to make peace in the middle east. How can you be a peacebroker when you're supplying the arms to one side??
Ask your buddy Yasser Arafat that. On the one hand, he forces Israel's hand into giving him 13% of Israel (Camp David Peace Accords), promising them nothing but peace in return. Then, he turns right around and tells his own people in Arabic that he will "push the zionists into the sea", and the bombings continue.
We give military aid to Israel because they are our ally in the region. They reciprocate by giving us a presence in that area. And in case you forget recent history (the past 2 decades), we have spent billions and lost thousands of lives defending Arabs, so FUCK OFF YOU INGRATEFUL PISSSANT.
Thank you, and have a nice day.
we dropped two bombs, what's yer phuqing point?
its fun
"I am a warrior, and information is my weapon..."
You ignorant miserable no nothing fool. Only for American trucks, machine tools and rail cars. The Russians would have been defeated outright in 1943. FACT.
Curmudgeon
I really don't understand why you use an argument like this. It's old and tired. Rah, rah, rah. We represent freedom and everything that's right with the world. Yada-yada-ya. Yes, I know that's the claim. The other guys are worse than us and all of that.
I assert that the reality is that we aren't that terribly different and that while the U.S. government is rigorous in it's defense of the freedoms of your average American, it really couldn't care less about anyone outside it's borders regardless of what the propaganda machine claims.
For instance, there are the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg (~175-200,000 dead), use of Atomic weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki (~350,000 dead), and significant loss of life for Iraqi children (~200-500,000 over 5-10 years).
Sadly, you point out that the U.S. formed it's policy against Saddam Hussein based, amongst other reasons, on their concern over the plight of the Kurds. This while they provide and continue to turn a blind eye to the large numbers of deaths of these exact same Kurds in Turkey (~40,000 dead). Note that the above listed numbers are predominantly civilian casualties. When other countries do this it's called terrorism. But the U.S. government does not engagement in this. Nor do any of it's "client" states. Like Turkey, of whom, 75% of their arsenal is supplied by the U.S. government. The arsenal used to kill these same Kurds. The U.S. government's desire to help the Kurds is clearly overwhelming in it's earnestness.
You are using typical apologist tactics for people unwilling to take any time to do a careful analysis of the actual facts or to use sources beyond those provided by the mainstream media. "We had to do it." "We're not as bad as the real bad guys."
How many people died crossing the Berlin wall? Was it any where near the roughly 1 million civilians (from above) that the U.S. has directly or indirectly killed? This isn't even a significant sampling of the number of civilian casualties the U.S. has at least some responsibility for.
Sort of, but at least in Arab countries, there's still a very pervasive and very effective propaganda machine. The percentage of the population that believes that the attacks of Sept 11 were orchestrated by Mossad (Israeli intelligence service), not by Muslim terrorists is pretty large.
Prove it.
He's not the one who started trolling, dude. Something about pots calling kettles black.
No, I'm just vehement. I'm very frustrated with people who just parrot the party line. I will avoid any further "trolls".
because he was opposed to the brutally repressive Iranian regime which was at the time just as bad and openly hostile to America and openly supporting international terrorism.
Right. The one we were also funding and arming during the Iran-Iraq war. Playing both sides against eachother essentially. See any of the Iran-Contra investigation information available on the web. Arms sales to Iran were occuring at the same time as arms sales to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988).
Nicaragua is a good example. Democracy is taking hold there, after years of bloody Communist dictatorship.
The "bloody Communist dictatorship" doubled literacy, among other things. Also, they were in the process in 1985 of building a democratically elected government. Admittedly, very Sandinista biased at first, but it could have gone somewhere but for U.S. embargo, U.S. funding of the Contras (funded by arms shipments to Iran and drug money). Who knows? Do you? No.
Regardless, atrocities on both sides are well documented and there are not clear "winners" as far as any kind of moral conscience. You can't really prove that the Contras were any less "bloody" or that Democracy would never have been established.
As far as I know this was only the second use of weapons of mass destruction since the end of WWII (the other being Soviet gas attacks in Afghanistan). These were carried out against civilian targets and horribly effective. At this point the US began open opposition to Hussein's regime.
Well, I don't really understand why you use this argument. Dead is dead. I'm not really clear why it should matter what the mechanism is.
Are you aware that the total tonnage of bombs dropped on Vietnam is significantly larger than all of that dropped during WWII? That's not a Weapon of Mass Destruction?
The US tries to be a force for good. Sometimes we fail. Others not so much.
Regardless, you haven't really made any arguments that prove that the U.S. tries to be a force for good. Or, if we take your assumption that this is true and agree with you (for a moment), then we must also assume that the end justifies the means even when we kill more than we save by doing so.
I don't buy it. The use of force as a mechanism for solving problems (while effective in many ways) simply leads others (usually the ones on the receiving end) to the conclusion that opposing force is required in response.
A spiralling cycle of violence.
Ensuing power struggles.
In summary, I think it's pretty clear that U.S. government simply tries to maintain it's dominance and the reason it is not involved in conflicts like Myanmar (as you point out) is that there are no political (read: domination/power) reasons for it to do so. If it were so concerned about being a force for good it would be more concerned about Myanmar, East Timor, and the myriad of other examples where it essentially ignores suffering people because there is no perceived benefit.
Linux is UNIX.
Does this moderator consider it provocative to vigorously condemn people who burned down places of worship and brutally assaulted a pregnant woman and her mate (It happened this weekend in Marsailles)? It is impossible to ignore that this site appears to be infested with blindly irrational apologists for terrorist thugs.
I'll take your criticism as a badge of honor.
This ain't no evolution - this is a mutation. And a dangerous one. As society gets more and more dependent on the products of globalization it gets more and more fragile as well. Go and read some Asimov novels (Caves of steel, Naked sun) - it gives you a good picture how society evolves and people feel it gets better.
Take a look at history - Rome romanized the whole ancient Mediterranean Sea. Roman knowledge and culture influenced every piece of the empire, creating the 'globalized' Roman Empire. The economy was driven by a slave workforce, which slowly weakened, thus weakening the whole Roman Empire, which evidentually collapsed.
Ancient knowledge and culture were lost (in fact Arabs were the ones, who kept most of the knowledge of Greece and Rome to us) for Europe for more than a thousand years (only the humanists of the Renaissance began to study the old books in the 15th century).
The USA spreads its culture today much more intensively and agressively than any previous country in the history of the human race. Another novel: The Merchants' war from Frederik Pohl gives you a good picture what the world became, if we let corporations control our tastes, our preferences, our thoughts (last time you got thirsty, did you think of drinking a glass of water or a Coke? Would you drink water if Britney appeared in a commercial drinking plain old water?)
Yes, Post #1000 - even more rare than a first post.
Wow, a .50 cal. I wanted to buy one of those once. TOO MUCH, the guy wanted $5000 and was selling rounds for $4 a piece. I though my .357 DE was too much! Good to hear from someone out there that still has common sense. Keep up the good fight abolith. Guys like that guy from Canada we are reponding to grow up in an Urban area and are never exposed to guns. They see them on TV and in the movies and are never taught respect for firearms. They hear stories on the news and in "expozesses" (sp) about people being shot, gang violence, school shootings. They never hear about the 10,000 people that day that saved their own lives or their families lives with their personal firearms. It's a shame.
It's not the OS it's the user that sucks. If it's user friendly, you get stupider people. - clinko
California homicide rate = 6.6
Vermont homicide rate = 2.2
source
Facts:
- Vermont has no gun laws (well just a couple).
- California has the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
I'll let the stats speak for itself.
I assert that the reality is that we aren't that terribly different and that while the U.S. government is rigorous in it's defense of the freedoms of your average American, it really couldn't care less about anyone outside it's borders regardless of what the propaganda machine claims.
:), covertly sponsor outside terrorist organizations. These are called terrorist sponsor states. I'm just trying to illustrate that I am not ignorantly spouting breathless claims of "terrorist" against anyone who opposes the US.
/.ers. However, I can understand assumptions of ignorance. Still just getting the facts won't grant immunity to foolishness. Two people can read the same report and come away with totally different opinions about the meaning.
I didn't say ask Americans about the Poles, Czechs and Hungarians. I said ask them. They have their own ideas about the relative merits of the Soviets and Americans. As for how much we care about folks outside our borders, sure its less than we care for our citizens. Duh. But we really could care less. It'd be easy to care less. What exactly were we doing in Somalia? Or Bosnia-Herzegovina, or Kosovo? You can argue wether we should have been there, but we weren't there to protect ourselves, that's for sure.
bombings of Dresden and Hamburg [fpp.co.uk] (~175-200,000 dead), use of Atomic weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki [northpark.edu] (~350,000 dead)
Yeah, we killed a lot of people in WWII. Maybe we should have stayed out. That would have helped a lot. Seriously, though, if you're so keen to grant us the dead from the sanctions on Iraq, can't you also grant us the lives saved from not invading Japan? If we had, at least a million Japanese would have died. Based on their actions on Okinawa, women and children would have been issued weapons, and perhaps as many as 100,000 would have commited suicide rather than accept defeat. By convincing the emperor that surrender was preferable to resistance, we saved at least two lives for every one that we ended. And that's not counting American casualties that most people use to justify the bombings of Hiroshima. As for firebombing civilian targets, yep, but you have to grant at least half those casualties to the British. Just piling up every single casualty in every single conflict that we were ever involved with on our doorstep is just not justified, unless you do similar analysis for other countries. Its really hard to argue that all of these deaths wouldn't have been replaced twofold by others if the US had just remained isolationist and been a nice little Switzerland.
blind eye to the large numbers of deaths of these exact same Kurds in Turkey [bullatomsci.org] (~40,000 dead).
I'm well aware that Turkey is not captain wonderful. I'd just as soon they were the worst country we had to deal with. That would suit me just fine.
and significant loss of life for Iraqi children [ngos.net] (~200-500,000 over 5-10 years).
That's what happens when you try to use peaceful means to end a conflict. Are they killed by bombs? No. Logically there are two alternatives. Let Iraq re-arm, in which case it will most likely re-start the Iran-Iraq war or the Gulf War (Between them those wars killed between 1 and 1.5 million, between 3 and 12 times more than you claim 'we' have killed through the sanctions program). Or attack Iraq again, this time obliterating all resistance and begining yet another foriegn occupation of Arab lands. Or there's a third possibility. Iraq could destroy its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. That's it. Hussein doesn't even have to leave power. Just let the inspectors in, prove they've decided not to use nerve gas on anyone else, and re-join the human race.
When other countries do this it's called terrorism.
Not by me. I call it violent or brutal repression. Notice that I never used the word "terrorist" with respect to Hussein. I reserve use of that word for blowing up cafes without warning or flying planes into buildings when the perpetrators are not obviously associated with a specific government. I'm not trying to pick nits, I just want you to know that I don't have a double standard. The Turks, Israelis, South Africans, Zimbabweans, Myanmarese, Indonesians, Chinese, N. Koreans, Iranians, Iranian Shah (back in the day), Taliban, Algerians, Iraqis, etc are brutally repressive regimes, some of whom are guilty of genocide. Others, such as the Russians, Chinese, (in some peoples opinions) Americans, French, British, Iraqis, etc are agressive regimes that often attack outside thier borders. The ETA, IRA, Hezzbollah, al Queda, Jihad, Hamas, and (in some peoples opinions) Fatah, are terrorists. Some states, and I won't do another stupid list
do a careful analysis of the actual facts or to use sources beyond those provided by the mainstream media.
I have some sources beyond the mainstream media, but I'm a scientist, so I have limited education in that field (ask me about elastic wave propagation in solids, I know more). However, I try, and I talk to people who read even more than me. Most notably, my brother and another friend whose degrees in international relations probably trump most
How many people died crossing the Berlin wall? Was it any where near the roughly 1 million civilians (from above) that the U.S. has directly or indirectly killed?
Are we to ignore the millions dead in Soviet purges, the Great Leap Forward, and the Culural Revolution? The roughly 1 million - and that number is small by most estimates so let's use the more pessimistic 3 million figure - is dwarfed by the numbers killed by the USSR and China (estimated between 5 and 10 million apeice). You claim that we're not any better than the enemies, but numbers don't back that up.
[following a statement regarding Muslim conspiracy theories and propaganda] Prove it.
OK, now that's just childish. Come on, this has been widely reported in the months since Sept. 11th. You don't belive me? 30 seconds on google should back me up. Or find a Muslim American and ask him. Hell, even horrid mainstream-media-outlet NPR could do that much (they interviewed a Palestinian living in New Jersey who'd heard the Mossad conspiracy reported on Arabic-language news, and thought it sounded reasonable). Just saying 'prove it' on this kind of discussion list I can only interpret as either "you're lying" "you're ignorant" or "I'm pissed that you're right, but I don't want to admit it". You're the one who's all about finding things out from outside the mainstream media. Put those skills to work. Try and get the pulse of the world outside. Or do you only go to 'independent sources' that are talking about how bad America is and ignore anything else? If I'm so ignorant, and just parroting a party line, it shouldn't be hard to prove me wrong.
Dead is dead. I'm not really clear why it should matter what the mechanism is.
Most of the world has clearly stated that nukes, gas, and germs are different from other things. If you want to unilaterally say that its not, go right ahead. Still, an anecdote will illustrate that gas attacks are worse than conventional attacks.
Again back to the Kurds (and yes I'm still aware of Turkey). There was a village in northern Iraq which the Iraqis were trying to subdue. For weeks they'd been hitting it with daily artillery barrages. Every time they started, the Kurds went into thier trenches, basements and other shelters. So most people were surviving. Their homes were getting annihilated, but the people were surviving. So the Iraqis decided to use their chemical weapons. They started with conventional artillery. The Kurds went into their shelters. Then they started the gas attack. The gas was heavier than air, so it flowed down into the shelters. The entire population of the village was wiped out in minutes.
That's the difference between conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction. You ask if using more tonnes of bombs on Vietnam than was used in WWII was not a weapon of mass destruction. No it wasn't. Vietnam survived. They were able to take the losses. For the most part, we carpetbombed jungle. Hanoi, Haiphong, and the other major NV cities recieved only minor damage throughout the campaign. If we'd used gas, or nukes, we might have wiped out the entire North Vietnamese population.
That's not to say that bombs are good. I'd like to see a ban on landmines, and maybe even cluster bombs. They're all horrible. But none of those equals the horrific destructive power of chemical and nuclear weapons.
Regardless, you haven't really made any arguments that prove that the U.S. tries to be a force for good.
It cannot be proven. Can you really deny that you would always say "They're just doing that to push other people around and maintain their dominance!"? Why were we in Somalia or Bosnia-Herzegovina, or Kosovo? What political reason did we have to be in those places. I'm sure you could come up with one, but you can't prove it any more than I can. Emotions and motives cannot be proved. Gravity can. Feelings can't.
We haven't done as much for the world as we could sometimes. In Myanmar, we've got no bases to operate from, and we've got a bad track record of success in SE Asia, so we've not sent the fleet out. In Indonesia, the international community did act. East Timor is now pretty much free though, or at least as good as we can do. And we did that multilaterally.
One final question. Were we right to do nothing about Rwanda? Did America make the right decision in not throwing its weight around there, or did we duck our responsibility to save the innocent where possible?
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
The reason for the hatred stems from a much different source. Living in a certain culture you naturally find it hard to look outside and consider alternatives and other possibilities. America is hated for it's strong culture (meaning that it pushes itself on others, where other cultures may be more accepting of different lifestyles), for it's intervention in international affairs (esp. Iraq sanctions, Israel, etc), it's hypocrisy (nuclear weapons, etc), capitalist greed, history of assassinations/meddling (Enron and oil pipe through Afghanistan), etc.
Please don't pin the hatred to technology. A lot who hate America benefit in one way or another from the technology.
And the review even talks about other countries, too. :-|
Not like this will get modded up so late in the game, but, here goes.
Your post seems to go, "Other nations hate us because we decided to do x, which in hindsight was a bad decision."
For argument's sake, I will assume that everything you say is accurate. Even so, hindsight is always 20/20. Foresight is hazy at best. The United States government did the best it could with what it knew at the time. That is all that can be expected out of anyone. Anyone who expects otherwise is being unrealistic.