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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
So, you felt the need to slap 30% duties on european steel exactly why?
/Janne
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
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
"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.
Actually that's usually the first thing they do once someone stands up to them. I can't wait to see what the US is like in 10 or so years when China starts to flex its economic muscles and the US becomes a minor player in a world economy fueled by 2 billion emerging chinese consumers.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
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.
Every religion has fanatics/fundamentalists.
These are the violent ones. Islam is a peaceful religion, but terrorists are fanatics that twist the religion to do their bidding, which is violent.
Think of David Coresh. He was a Christian fundamentalist. He killed cops, and got a whole load of people to kill themselves.
Is Christianity not a peaceful religion?
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
To win votes from West Virginia and Pennsylvania, and the related unions.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
AMEN!!
I think what makes the USA so resented is the very fact that because of the fact our Constitution has been pretty much stable since 1789, we have perhaps the second longest-lasting representative republic (the first being Great Britain) in the world. This has provided a stable base for economic development in this country.
It also has helped that even with our unfortunate War Between the States in 1861 to 1865, our country never had a situation where the entire country suffered grevious losses on an unimagined scale. Look at Great Britain--they lost a very large fraction of their country's finest young men in World War I, which began their decline as a world power. France and Germany in the 20th Century suffered seriously from the effects of two World Wars. A large part of the former Soviet Union in its European parts suffered horribly in World War II. Japan suffered heavy losses during World War II. Chinca suffered heavy losses during World War II, especially the areas under Japanese occupation.
I think the world envies us because when we put the mind to it, we have the capacity to out-produce just about anyone on this planet. Why do you think we pretty much put the structure of the Internet into place? CERN in Europe may have invented the World Wide Web, but it was here in the USA that the World Wide Web was developed to be very easy to use, thanks to the development of the Mosaic web browser in the early 1990's.
I also think the success of the USA has shown that Islam is often incapable of relevancy in the 21st Century. Their religious leaders need to form the equivalent of the Council of Trent AND the Second Vatican Council so they can make the religion relevant in our modern world.
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!
Is Christianity not a peaceful religion? I would say Christianity, well in its current incarnation, is not a peaceful religion. They advocate hatred to others such as homesexuals and in some sects of christianity towards other religons in general. Very few if any reglions can truly pure and peaceful in nature.
Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
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.
It'd be difficult even for Rev. Falwell to compete with the Saudi paper al-Riyadh, which recently published a column claiming that Jews were sadistic vampires who consume pastries composed of human blood from tortured Gentile kids and adolescents. Or even with the Palestinian Authority, who some years ago promulgated the myth that Israelis were spiking chewing gum with chemicals that caused women to be libidinous, yet sterile.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
"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.
Now compare this to the West, where standards of wealth for the average citizen have been improving for over a century.
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.
Not a good excuse for a nation that thinks "International News" means from inter-state. I am an Australian living in London. Australia is an (almost) equally large landmass a lot further from anywhere than the US, with a lot smaller population and a similar culture. Yet after spending some time in America I was amazed at how much more Australians travel and understand the rest of the world in comparison. And although our media is also predictably controlled by its own interests we do have a lot more information available about world events, probably due to demand.
I dont think that it is so much of a perspective problem, I think that America needs to readjust its view of where it fits in the world. Have a look around folks....why dont people like you? Have a go at understanding that, maybe try and fix it. But hey, not with bombs, alright?
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
"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.
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.
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).
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
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...
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.
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!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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)
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 mean like this?
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
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.
The "developmet" (as in "developed countries") of the United States of America is accelerating beyond the rest of the world. More vulgarly, the USA is leaving Europe and Japan in the dust. There used to be alot more parity, but Europe's socialism (>10% unemployment and fleeing capital) and Japan's monolopies/trusts have stagnated their economies.
Further, since the 1990s, the USA military capabilities have accelerated past whomever might have been called #2. Europe can barely help, militarily, in all these "coalitions". "Coalition" means that the USA engages in military action, and the rest of the "coalition" says "The US is doing this with our assent".
Many people are starting to realize the scale of differences of the USA's power/influence in economic, military, and cultural (mcdonalds and brittney spears ecchh!) affairs even compared to others in the "developed" world.
-- I am not a fanatic, I am a true believer.
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.
Wasn't there a Monty Python sketch about Finland?
Reality has a liberal bias
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
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.
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?
Economics is a complicated subject. Politics is a complicated subject. The union of the two is vast enough that slashdot alone could not contain an answer to your question.
And yet I answer.
Basically, the US Government does not directly subsidize the US steel industry. That is illegal in the US. In Europe and Japan, the government subsidizes industries that compete with the US. For example, Japanese steel is so subsidized by the Japanese government that the US can buy it for less than it costs to produce. Same thing with Airbus. They are essentially being sold at a loss to the US. The goal is not to kiss up to the US, but to drive the US industries out of business (US industries can't compete on the prices because they are not subsidized by the government). The long term goal of the subsidies by European governments and Japan is to gain a monopoly and then raise prices. Economically, the only thing the US can do is raise tariffs to protect its industry or subsidize the industry itself. The subsidies are a lot harder to get through than tariffs.
Troll Like a Champion Today
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?
No it isn't. Guys like Katz and Soros that are the problem.
Seastead this.
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.
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.
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--
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); }
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:
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/
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.
>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.
In Europe they hate US because
a) americans think the sun shines out their ass
b) americans are amazingly ignorant about non-us
c) [and this really grates] americans are more powerful and more successful (although standard of living is often higher in europe).
In 3rd world, it is much more love hate relationship, jealousy plays a part, but a feeling that they've been robbed of freedom and wealth by US is much more significant. West encourages and finances coups. Then it lends money to resulting dictatorships. The money is spent by dictators on arms bought from west and used to subdue population. Country then has big debt that it owes west which is paid for by growing export crops (coffee, choclate, coke, whatever). However, the export crops have collapsed in value, so they can barely afford to buy grain from US after having converted their agriculture to cash crops at behest of IMF. Also, the regimes we prop up are necessarily friendly to western business interests at expense of local industry. Effectively, entire populations are enslaved and set to work for west, their natural resources exported for a pitance, and all this without us having to bother with the hassle of explicit invasion. Neat, huh.
Anyway, accurate or not, this understanding of what's going on is what makes people less than fond of US. It's not that they "hate our freedom", they hate their own slavery and don't think it's entirely an accident.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
These aren't good enough reasons to hate the American Government ??
Point of technicality: the American government changes every time the sitting president is not elected.
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.
I agree 100%. Americans are ultimately responsible for the actions of their government. After all, they elected them. People in America protest all the time for things they disagree with from domestic to foreign issues. Just because we don't know about it doesn't mean it does not happen.
We created him and then we act like it's a big surprise when a created and particularly brutal monster turns on us
I don't mean to justify Osama in any way but I am sure that if the US gov could see the future they would not have trained him. It's too easy to point fingers of blame like that. Sure the US trained him, but they did not make him do anything. He chose to be a monster all by himself.
ASCII tastes bad dude.
Binary it is then.
...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."
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[4.91] You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given.you a clear authority.
Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.Luke 10:5 When you enter a house, first say, 'Peace to this house.'
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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.
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.
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...
(KJV) Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
(KJV) Luke 12:51-53 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
(KJV) Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.
(KJV) 1 Peter 2:18 Servants, [be] subject to [your] masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
For "servants", read "slaves". Persons in glass houses, avoid stone throwing.
-- "Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep voting? Do you think you're voting for something?"
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...."
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?
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
Hence arguments like "that's all in the past, why do you bring it up now?" Well, because it's going to happen again
Very good point. There is a reason to study history and that is one of the best.
OK, so, you take this person, who may be a not so wonderful person, and you feed his anger. You train him how to make weapons. You train him in all aspects of guerilla/terrorist tactics. Then he does something bad. You have no responsibility?
Apply that thinking to your kids (assume you have some). You teach them how to read, write, do math and communicate. When they are 25 they go to Afghanistan and join the Taliban, go to college and learn how to make a nuclear bomb. Then they use it to kill Americans. Are you responsible? You 'trained' them and gave them the ability to learn and do simple things like 1+1 that leads to calculus and nuclear simulating. Does that make you responsible for the deaths they caused? I am not comparing apples to oranges here. America may have trained Osama to fight a guerilla war, but it did not train him to mastermind terrorist activites. He learned that afterwards and chose to go ahead with plans he made. He alone is responsible for what he does.
ASCII tastes bad dude.
Binary it is then.
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
The US *DOES* subsidise its steel industry and its aircraft industry, and to the tune of quite a bit of money.
Although some European states subsidise, in general most of these have been done away with it several decades ago - along with quite a lot of jobs.
Put very simply what the US is doing is protectionism. There is no way you are going to compete with Korea on bulk steel production - the economics just aren't there. Its a commodity market and your cost base is too high for you to stand an chance.
On the aircraft side, you have been used to your manufactuerers having a cartel - and now object that there is a real competitor. Instead you should welcome it - Boeing will either stop sleeping on the job; or go out of business. That's a good outcome of global competition - you get better planes, cheaper.
When you come down to it, there is very little that the US does best. Your not as smart as Europe, not as cheap or industrious as the far east, not as devout as the middle east.
What you do have is a large, protected, home market.
Don't confuse that advantage with some dream-like superiority - your long term future is a steady decline. In 50 years time, if things go as they currently look, you will be secondary to the primary superpower of China and its satellite manufacturers on the far east.
Learn humility now.
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.
Critical analysis of American government does not mean:
American people are bad.
Other governments are good.
I agree. In fact I enjoy critical analysis of anything that is worth the time. Given the place America has in the world, this is a worthwhile endevour.
So, after U.S. pressure to accept the Balfour Declaration it was passed with 33 of 56 (member nations) votes, 59%
OK, that is certainly one view of the situation, but I don't think it is the only one. Granted America wanted the resolution to pass, so pressure in the form of "hey, vote for this or there could be consequences" is not uncommon for any nation, let alone the US.
Let's see, U.N. resolution 42/159 states:
[SNIP]
What about resolutions 44/29, 46/51, etc. all the way up to 55/158 ? It seems that the U.S. and Israel did vote for them. Why that particular paragraph was eliminated is a matter of speculation. I cannot find any evidence to support your claim that it was the reason they did not vote for it. Even so, I can see why the U.S. would vote against it. The "alien domination" of the Native Americans would cause some concern for quite a few people if it were adopted. Does that make it right, of course not. Should we forget about it, no. Should we punish all Americans or make them go back to Europe because of what their anscestors did, absolutely not. I don't know if that would be the right thing to do with the Israel/Palestine issue either. Fact is, the Jews and the Palestinians have a very long history in that region which goes back well before 1948 or even Jesus Christ/Mohammed. It is much more of a religious issue than a political one. Especially considering that politics have only been a major factor in the last 50 years.
U.N. resolution A/56/L.1 states:
"The General Assembly, Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Strongly condemns the heinous acts of terrorism, which have caused enormous loss of human life, destruction and damage in the cities of New York, host city of the United Nations, and Washington, D.C., and in Pennsylvania;
2. Expresses its condolences and solidarity with the people and Government of the United States of America in these sad and tragic circumstances;
3. Urgently calls for international cooperation to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of the outrages of 11 September 2001;
4. Also urgently calls for international cooperation to prevent and eradicate acts of terrorism, and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of such acts will be held accountable."
So the UN seems to be backing the U.S. led coalition to forcibly remove terrorist organizations. How does that co-exist with the "colonial and racist regimes " clause of the 42/159 resolution?
ASCII tastes bad dude.
Binary it is then.
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.
O_O
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
This is exactly why it befuddles me why militant Arab Muslims continue to express hatred at the "American government." Apparently based on their undemocratic experiences, they have no way of understanding that the American people put that government there! Our leaders are essentially doing what we want them to do (although certainly our democracy could stand some improvement).
But if these militants then think that this justifies "suicide bombings" and the like, they'll have another thing coming. The American mindset currently isn't very far away from agreeing to the idea of unleashing heck on particular countries in the Middle East to essentially ensure that America survives. And survive she must.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
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.
When they do, can they send US some please? :P
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
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.
Is this an oblique reference to the Kyoto Protocol?
Nope. just a tragic, if crudely put, fact. A fella I met spent 6 months in France in a post doctorate position. His observation: "If science we're left to the french, we'ed all be chisleing out square wheels."
Europeans are the most violent sickening peoples. Today it is Chic' to all the euro-lusers to run around whining about US policy without taking any responsability upon themselves.
Scratch a european, and you'll uncover a racist who believes some untouchable governing force should solve their problems. Don't you find it revealing that they replace their paternal monarchies with paternal socialist governments. And just like during the monarchical times, the commoner bemoans the policies of the world governments. And when those european peasants usurp power, you get genocide and murder.
I don't think you or europeans take responsibilty for your inaction and appeasement. I don't agree with the US foreign policy. It is to often corperate and not democratic; and I believe that is where we get it trouble. But I also believe that it is imoral to have power and not use it (of course excerising power often corrupts :).
-- I am not a fanatic, I am a true believer.
Once and for all: Middle Eastern countries are not backwards because of Islam.
And you wonder why Israel has several times the Gross Domestic Product output per capita than every country surrounding it.
The problem is that most Islamic countries don't understand our concepts of individual liberty--in a way they remind me of the Holy Roman Empire of the Middle Ages in Europe, where religious authorities have the final say on every aspect of life.
Now you know why Islamic religious authorities should really go through the Sunnah (Islamic laws) with a fine tooth comb and update their laws to reflect the 21st Century. We are seeing inside the Islamic world right now upheavals in a way that reminds me of the Reformation movement of the late 1400's and 1500's in Europe.
There hasn't been a single "great" nation/empire which has lasted.
I think the USA stands a chance to last a lot longer than people think.
Besides the fact we are a representative republic with a strong tradition of capitalism, the USA is also blessed with the fact that we have two oceans to keep out large scale land invasions. The last time the USA had a large-scale land invasion as the War of 1812. If you look at the history of Europe, northern Africa and most of Asia, land invasions was a big factor in the fall of many empires. The Roman Empire, the Persian Empire, the ancient Egyptian dynasties, the early empires of the Indian subcontinent, and the Chinese dynasties all fell because they couldn't contain invasions from large outside armies. It was only recently that the USA was under threat, not from invading armies but from Soviet ICBM's.
Now you know why Europe is trying to unify under the European Union; it's the only way Europe will be able attempt an economic comeback to wrest the #1 economic superstatus from the USA.
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.
This poster is a pretty good example of what I'm talking about.
The propaganda in the Middle East, Europe and the West are all carefully designed to create an atmosphere which will make it very easy for the U.N. to walk in and declare martial law in Israel. New World Order, here we come!
I wish people were less easily programmed. It would at the very least force those behind the curtain to come up with more interesting mind games. This Bruce Willis airplanes into skyscrapers stuff is just so pandering suck-o 'B-Movie-With-A-Budget' crap.
Ah well, I guess most of the viewing public is of highschool education or less. Give me Godzilla any day of the week!
-Fantastic Lad
Nothing you have said denies that Wahabism (as it is called in the west) is an extreme sect of Islam (which is different from saying Islam is extreme). You appear to have misunderstood me. And anyone who has seen how religion works in Saudi Arabia (and I am not talking from what the media says here) recognizes extremism there. And since, as you point out, the Saudi's have embraced it. The movement has hardly snowballed until recently with Saudi funding of Wahabi teaching throughout the world.
And I do not consider my support of Israel to be blind. I have read in depth about the subject and I find your statements to be distortions. Israel does not threaten the world, as does Saddam. Iraq gets cruise missiles and bombs because it is ruled by a dangerous maniac who has demonstrated his willingness to kill innocent people in large numbers. We did not confront him until he invaded Kuwait, in case you do not remember. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia asked for our help, as they feared him (and do so today). BTW, are you aware that Saddam is not truly a muslim, and only recently has claimed to be one because it is convenient to him. The Baathist movement (which rules Syria and Iraq) are secular anti-religious movements.
The Iraqi children accusation is one of the most outrageous lies. Yes, they are dying. No, we are not killing them. Saddam is killing them. Do you know that he has built 40 palaces since the Gulf war. Don't you think that money might help those children? We do not embargo medicines or food, so the fate of those children is directly caused by Saddam and his greed and evil.
As far as Israel goes, they are not innocent. I do not think they should have the settlements, and many Israeli's don't either.
BUT... they do not kill children on purpose. They do not target families at religious ceremonies and blow them up. They do not say one thing in english (condemning terrorism) and the opposite in their native language (as Arafat does). They do not oppress those Muslims who are their own citizens, and they fight the Palestinians only because they are being attacked.
If you were to poll Israeli's, you would find all but a small minority who want nothing other than to live in peace, and are willing to return the West Bank and Gaza to get it. If you look at official PA statements, they want nothing other than to drive the Israeli's into the sea, and are willing to target and intentionally kill women and children in order to do so.
As far as I am concerned. Yasser Arafat is an evil man and always has been. He used terrorism against innocents for decades. He has stolen much of the money that the west (including the US) gave the PA.
However, all of this is mute. I will never convince you of any of this. What will happen is that the despots and dictators of the middle east who allow terrorists will be swept away by our military power. And this is as it should be... well not really. It would be better if you would get rid of them, instead of making excuses for monsters like Saddam. BTW... can you explain why there are no true democracies in all of Araby? Why Iran is suppressing its own citizens who want freedom?
There are certain moral issues that are simple, and others that are very difficult. In my opinion, he who intentionoally targets women and children in warfare is evil. It is wrong. And I include the US and Britain in this in their WW-II bombing campaigns - even though they were in retaliation for similar behavior by Germany.
You can argue about Palestinians all you want, but until the civilized Palestinians are in power, I am not interested. Civilized human beings do not target innocents. Civilized human beings do not send their young out to kill innocents while killing themselves. In fact, most interpretations of Islam condemn suicide for any purpose!
The only good weather is bad weather.
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?
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
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.
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;}
And how many democracies has the US Govt and other Western Govts Toppled because the wrong guys came to power?
Or were in power anyway...
Research who toppled the Iranian Democracy in 1950's to insert the Despotic Shah? US/UK...
The reason being that the Iranian government intended nationalisation of oil production. Which would have taken control and profit away from the foreign oil companies operating in the country.
And that precipitated the Iranian Revolution.
Because it is vitutally impossible for democratic opposition to overthrow a dictatorship. Especially one supported by a much larger foreign government. The only exception which comes to mind is the Phillipines.
The whole thing was done for the sake of control of Oil - where've we seen that before...
Actually it isn't even directly about oil. There is (and indeed cannot be) oil in Hawaii nor are Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chilie, Argentina, etc especially noted for oil production.
1950's Iran is simply an example roughly in the middle of a process which started in the 1890's
Extremism - far from the common behavior/beliefs.
:-)
Israeli's are not perfect and I do not consider them so. But when you have to go back to 1947 for atrocities, that's stretching it. And you don't mention that some (all) of those atrocities were committed by the Irgun, an extremist group rejected by the rest of the Israeli's. It is true that later on, an Irgun leader (Begin) was freely elected president. This is far different from the PA sanctioned atrocities.
Then we can discuss 1982. Did Israel kill anyone at Sabra and Shatila? No, they didn't. Did they knowingly allow others to do so? There is considerable disagreement on those issues.
BTW... I don't think you can go on abaout Israeli atrocities. But I could come up with as many Palestinian atrocities in the last two weeks as you came up with in 55 years!
Israel is not perfect. Nobody is. But Israel is not active engaged in targetting innocents. The Palestinians are. And the Arab world refuses to condemn them for it or even recognize it as wrong. Israel has been active for years in trying to get rid of the territories. Israel wants peace - it is a democracy and its people can and do vote out war mongers. The only reason Sharon is in power is that the Israeli's realized that the Palestinians would not agree to peace with the previous government, even after that government made major (and in my opinion) dangerous offers to the PA.
Violence against innocents is bad, but what is abhorrent is intentional violence against innocents. In any war, innocents die, but this is not terrorism or evil unless those who do the killing do it intentionally, or carelessly, or do it in an unjust (non-defensive) war. And this is where the Israeli government is radically different from the Palestinian Authority. The IDF, as an organization, does its best to avoid killing civilians (this is not to say that every IDF soldier does HIS best). The Israeli morality does not allow the targeting of innocents, and even if it did, the IDF is under constant and detailed scrutiny by hostile journalists.
You might also be interested to know that the US media, in general, has been far more hostile to Israel than the PA - at least until the suicide bombers started blowing up innocents on a regular basis. The US media has two faults in this area:
- It believes that every story has two equally valid sides, and tries to report both.
- It is saturated with US liberals, who side with the Palestinians because they are the "oppressed" - and liberals always side with those who can best appear oppressed.
CNN, in particular, has been very hostile to Israel for many years. For that manner, many of us consider it to be very hostile to the United States. Such is freedom! Tell me, how many newspapers are there in the Arab world which can be hostile or even critical of the regimes in their country? The US has many. Israel, which is the size of a large US city, has several - there is one in English that I read, for example.
And we are not punishing Saddam's people, as I told you before. Did you miss the fact that it is Saddam himself who is diverting the monies away from the people who need them?
As far as democracy... your attack on US democracy is as naive as it is outrageous. The Supreme Court did not elect our president. The Supreme Court did rule on procedural issues. But the fact is that the election was too close to say in any way who actually one. That is a rare but possible occurrence in a free vote. And it was too close because, despite anyone's protestations, any election process will have some degree of error - like any other human counting process. Oh, and btw, as far as the official vote goes, every analysis of the Florida vote indicates that even without the Supreme Court, Bush would have won.
The US and UK do not have clean hands in toppling democracies - especially through the 1960's. But it wasn't just about oil (since it occurred other places) - it was part of a vast undeclared covert war between the US and the USSR, with every other country in the middle. The only difference between this and World War II was that the war was covert.
Arabs themselves do not have clean hands with regards to the Palestinians either. For example, after the Gulf War, Kuwait expelled 600,000 Palestinians - almost every Palestinian in the country! That is more than the Israeli's ever expelled.
Millions of Palestinians have been kept in refugee camps in host countries since 1947. If those societies assimilated the Palestinians the same way the US assimilates millions of people (including Palestinians) every year, those Palestinians would be much better off!
And you are right, democracy will not solve everything. At least the following are required for a free and prosperous society (and please don't point out that the US isn't perfect here - perfection is something not achieved in the affairs of man):
1) Democratic government
2) The equality of all citizens under the law
3) Basic civil rights including especially the right to property.
Without these, a system will over time become corrupt, and corrupt systems do not produce long term economic growth.
Saudi Arabia demonstrates how vast wealth can be misused in a way that leaves many of its citizens poor.
I would be happy to see democracy in the Arab (really, the Moslem world - Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan are not Arab) that was as good as that in India. In fact, I would be overjoyed to see democracy in all countries in the world, because democracy is the most just system we have yet discovered, and it is the most peaceful (with exceptions: Hitler was elected democratically). It is also the most productive. And the reason for this is that democracy recognizes the *natural rights* of man and builds on them.
BTW... if the US and the UK were as bad as they were made out to be by many in the mideast, we would have long ago captured all the oil and we would keep it. But we didn't do that, and the reason is that we (and belatedly the UK) are against colonialism.
However, If the states in the mideast don't mend their ways with regard to terrorism, we may redraw a few of the lines in the middle east! For example, perhaps we could give the North of Iraq to Turkey, the middle to Jordan ( one of the most benign monarchies) and the south to a newly democratic Iran. Perhaps we should create a Shia state in eastern Saudia Arabia (where the oil fields happen to be
I am afraid that what we are seeing now is the start of a major war - a war of civilization vs. barbarism. A war of sanity against irrational hate. And I would expect this to be a terrible war - with the US for the first time suffering major casualties on its own soil (from biological and radiological weapons attacks).
If you look at what the US/UK did to their vanquished enemies after World War II, it was beneficial to the world AND to those enemies. We de-nazified Germany and built an anti-Nazi culture there by teaching all germans (of that era) the shame that they should feel for the behavior of their government. We de-militarized Japan, and forced them to adopt a constitutional democracy, which has been working since them. We gave massive economic aid to Germany (and Europe in general).
The result is that today both Germany and Japan are peaceful democracies. Not perfect, but good.
The decolonialization did not go nearly as well. Britain was tired of colonialization, and basically just pulled out. Note, BTW, that Britain was significantly anti-Israeli in 1947, and the US did nothing to help. Israel's early partners were the US enemy - USSR was the FIRST country to recognize Israel as a nation. But Israel's democratic nature was stronger than her socialist nature, so she ultimately became more aligned with the US when she couldn't be used as a Russian puppet. The Russians then chose to try to destroy Israel by arming their Arab enemies.
Such is history.
The only good weather is bad weather.
I just love how people ove to point out all the mistakes the US has made, but never once mention any of positives.
Because it's not a points game where so long as you score above zero it's ok.
Well, we are working on pulling up our collective IQ scores so we can compete with Europe on such gameshows as jeopardy. We are working on cutting out those trips to the snack machine, so we can be cheap and industrious like the Far East. As far the devoutness of the Middle East, we are planning on praying for the world's biggest oil field to be found in Iowa or Montana. Those states never pitch in on the rent or do the dishes anyway.
Maybe you did not read my post, or you don't know the facts. The reason we get foreign steel so cheap is because it is subsidized and ours isn't. Those are the facts. Go to steel.org/policy/trade/msa.asp and look at it for yourself.
Say what you will about Boeiing, but Airbus would not stand a chance if it wasn't subsidized by the EU. Same situation with steel.
Biotch.
Troll Like a Champion Today
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;}
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.