Slashdot Mirror
Congressman Quizzes Net Companies on Shame
mjdroner writes "Cnet has a transcript of the House of Representatives hearing on net censorship with Google, Microsoft, Cisco, and Yahoo reps. At one point, Rep. Tom Lantos asks if Microsoft is ashamed of their actions in China. Microsoft: 'We comply with legally binding orders whether it's here in the U.S. or China.' Lantos: 'Well, IBM complied with legal orders when they cooperated with Nazi Germany. Those were legal orders under the Nazi German system.'"
Congress envoked Godwin's Law. Now this whole thing is going to peter out and the companies are going to come out blameless.
I guess he never heard of Godwin's Law.
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
<strongbad-voice>GODWIN'D!</strongbad-voice>
One interesting section I saw was when Yahoo was being quizzed about handing over information to the Chinese Government about a Blogger. They were asked if they would have done the same if the Nazi's asked them the location of Anne frank. Its good that people are drawing paralels on these areas, they are very similar but I think it helps people to think about it more deaply than they might have done. The Nazi state is something people understand and have seen a lot about, China is similar but a lot of what you get taught about it in school is about Mao and later leaders, all told in a possitive way, and less about areesting people who want democracy
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
Simply because it has no conscience. There's always someone "higher up" demanding that you do what you have to do. You have no choice but to do what you do. Do it or be fired. And on top, you have the shareholders who want their shares to rise. So you have to do what you have to do, or they get angry and replace you. And the shareholders don't have anything to do with the way a company is lead. They don't know what's going on.
Comforting, isn't it? And so convenient too. Nobody's to blame. In fact, if it wasn't illegal, you could run a corporation dealing in murder. Nobody would have a problem pulling the trigger. 'cause hey, he can't do anything else anyway, it's the system.
And since I don't want to invoke Godwin's Law, I'll end here.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ah yes, it is those EVIL tech companies support the EVIL chinese regime by following the law and not the US government which has given them the Most Favored Trade Status with the US.
I am sure that Google and Microsoft has 6 year-olds writing toiling in basements writing the next version of Office or Internet explorer and Google search engine. They would be too busy coding to be working in a sweat-shop factory sewing clothes 16 hours a day in inhumane conditions.
No sir, It is those tech companies turning a blind eye to everything going on...
Seriously, Lantos has some nerve. He's a memner of the same congress that both approved Guantanamo Bay and moved to supress images from Abu Ghraib. Censoring information to people in other countries is one thing. Censoring information from your own counrtymen is another.
Perhaps Lantos should look closer to home for people to berate. Asking the sociopaths that run multinational corperations whether they are "ashamed" is ridiculous to begin with. These people are physically incapable of that emotion. Joe Congressman on the other hand, may have developed the ability by tuning himself into his electorate over the years.
May the Maths Be with you!
Does Google maintain the same history of keyword searches by IP and by "cookie" at google.cn? If so, what are they going to do when the Chinese government demands they provide that information?
It's not hard to imagine a situation where that information would put a Chinese Google user in danger.
Is this a new record?
I listened to some of this on the Today programme (Radio 4) in the UK and the Microsoft guy sounded *really* nervous when they bought up the IBM/Germany analogy. It sounded like the similarity really hadn't occurred to him before. Really cheered me up on a cold morning.
So, Congress things that censorship of the Net is a bad thing.
This is the SAME congress that mandates filtering of the Net in all libraries.
So, basically, if other countries do it, it's evil, but if the USA does it, that's the right thing to do? Sounds a lot like Congress' policy on detaining and torturing prisoners.
yeah keep ragging on the
In general, I would agree with you. However, you are off base on this one because it was Tom Lantos making these statements. He is a HUGE champion of freedom (true freedom, not freedom unless it hurts a corporation). I have taken the liberty of doing a cut & paste of part of his online biography:
An American by choice, Tom Lantos was born in Budapest, Hungary, on February 1, 1928. He was 16 years of age when Nazi Germany occupied his native country. As a teenager, he was placed in a Hungarian fascist forced labor camp. He succeeded in escaping and was able to survive in a safe house in Budapest set up by Swedish humanitarian Raoul Wallenberg. His story is one of the individual accounts which forms the basis of Steven Spielberg's Academy Award winning documentary about the Holocaust in Hungary, The Last Days.
Say what you will about most Congressmen, Senators and the President, but complaints about MFT and coddling those commie bastards doen't apply to Rep. Lantos.
The issue as I see it is this:
Either the company comply with Chinas laws or do not do business there.
So what they are debating , is if they are going to ban the companies from a particular area of trade and services in china .
Is that somehow anti-capitalist ? does it constitute an embargo ?
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
I honestly believe that this entire topic has been blown out of proportion - congress is not interested in promoting free speech, they just want to spread democracy to the rest of the world.
Just remember how communists in the US were treated during the cold war - there goes the free speech argument. It can be said that the United States is the greatest example of democracy, however, it is also the greatest example of it's failure. In the US corporations run the country at least in China they are forced to tow the line.
Having recently visited China, I can sincerely say it is not the police state that most people envision (actually the heightened security in the US is far more restrictive in my experience i.e bags being searched and going though metal detectors in some buildings most notably SF City Hall)
Although many people do comment on China's education system which puts Mao on a pedistol, it is no different to what the US does with Kennedy - secondly in China's education system, the incident at Tienanmen Square is not taboo - my current girlfriend completed high school in China and was taught that the military was wrong but so too were the protesters (allegedly they set fires)
I'm not trying to make excuses for the Chinese Government, I just think we should give them a fair go and accept their sovereignty like they do ours (has anyone heard Chinese criticising the US for their human rights record?).
Excuses Are Like Assholes - Everybody's Got One
You are so wrong about Tom Lantos that there is not enough room to write about it. I can assure you that as a survivor of a WWII concentration camp, Tom Lantos is in no way a supporter of Gitmo. You are showing igorance by painting an individual member of the House with a paint brush better suited to the Republican majority.
The challenge of trying to have both power/profit and ethics is hardly a new one - it's been around probably as long as there have been people.
In the United States, where so many people are very committed to capitalism, it may rear its head more than in some other types of social or economic systems, but I see it everywhere I go.
"What pays best" and "What is best" simply aren't always the same thing, after all.
Personally, I've made choices on both sides of the divide, when there's been one. I got tired of picking things that paid well but made me feel dirty, after a while... but that's probably why I'm neither corporate nor congressional!
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Mr Lantos,
Do you have *any* equipment that says "Made in China" ?
If you do, your questions should be asked in the mirror.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
These companies are not and SHOULD NOT be ashamed. They moved to provide the best services for ALL parties. In order:
All the companies have worked in the best interests in order; first, the stock holders for providing ads (money) in these markets; second, the people they are serving in these markets (Google in my opinion the best, they tell what is being censored and provide alternative (though not foolproof) workarounds); third, the governments they are working with. They follow all US law (DMCA), and all Chinese law (censorship) as well as everything else. These companies have done the best things they can in the corporate sense, and while they may not be proud of having to censor their results, they certainly have NOTHING to be ashamed of.
If it's not for everyone, it's for no one. Universal rights mean nothing unless they're universal.
What? Are the Chinese too "yellow" for democracy? Politcal freedome is only for white Europeans?
Interesting as all shit that you conflate security searches designed to protect against terrorist attack with military tanks running over people engaged in a political protest.
You sure as hell are trying to excuse and explain the Chinese government.
Tell it to the Dalai Lama.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Let me please provide the Congress with a few examples in which questions about ethical behaviour and/or shame might be appropriate:
* HP, Tektronics e.a. have supplied Iraq with militairy usefull technology, resulting in the death of allied soldiers and lots of iraqi (and kurdish) people.
* Companies like Enron and MCI/Worldcom have, by lying about revenues e.a., jeopardized jobs and savings of thousands of people who, in a climate of economical recession and outsourcing/offshoring, risk the destruction of their livelyhoods. I know, no direct fatalities, but not very nice now is it?
* Companies like Shell continue to do business in countries like Nigeria, which are known to have a bad record regarding human rights.
And don't get me started about the ethical aspects of some of the policies of the American Federal Government. (Guantanamo Bay, Weapons of Mass Destruction, dropping bombs on Civil targets).
I love it when I don't have to wait for some Anonymous Coward to evoke Godwin's Law... This article's gonna save a TON of Flame Time.
Want to find other gamers to play board and role playing game
And at the time IBM had divisions in Germany.
If they wanted to do business there they had to comply.
You never saw senate hearings THEN (Especially Postwar) About their actions
China will change, it wont be a "grand" revolution, but it will change. In 50 years with the Decline of Freedom and Liberty here in the US I wouldnt be suprised in the LEAST if China were a MORE free society, (in 50 year I estimate) There are simply too many people, and the more that become educated with a market system such as china has , it will happen.
If American companies should ignore local law when operating in China, does this mean that Dutch companies should now be encouraged to sell pot in the US?
Good work. You managed to invoke Godwin's Law on your own first post!
The Rush rule, because of AM radio, the Rush effect, and other folks who insist on name calling instead of, or including a (some what) rational argument. But, if someone uses the same technique on them, they (Rush et al.) will hang up and further their name calling and then dip into a complete irrational argumnt.
Ergo, a ratinal discussion cannot be made. Now, go away and have another cup of coffee and come back when you feel like being civil and a bit more adult.
No need to flame back, I'm an AC after all.
I think the US congress has more simularities to nazi parlement than the Chinese government.
Brian Sebril thinks man never landed on the moon. These people think the earth is flat. A lot of smart people think a lot of dumb things.
Alright, you've convinced me that it's time for a boycott of Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!. Now, at the very least, I need a search engine. Anyone know of a good alternative search engine I can use until they get their act together?
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Yes, they just do it at home.
No, they already invade them and just keep em (did I hear Nepal?)
Yes, they already stretch around half the world.
dto for the US...
Well, Microsoft won. By Goodwin's law.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
It's been established for some time that capitalism is the best economic system (thus far) for providing growth and prosperity.
It's also been established that without some sort of ethical laws governing a capitalistic system it will steamroll over anybody on it's way to the singular goal of profits.
We have laws in the U.S. designed to limit the behavior of corporations (within the country) based on the ethical and moral will of the people as represented through government (mostly...don't start the hypocracy thing).
I see NO reason why a company that is based in a U.S. should NOT have to follow the same laws when setting up shop in another country (Obviously things like minimum wage would have to be modified to suit local circumstances).
If it's good for people in the U.S. then it's good for people in China. If the corporation can't set up shop there because the local government will not let them then it's THEIR loss.
You are also oversimplifying. I think what the parent is saying is that China may not want democracy right now. Do you know how many people live in that country? How many people need to eat? Not everyone lives one block from a mcdonalds you know, there are people trying to survive.
I think it is important for American's to understand a fundamental thing about Chinese culture (at least as I have heard from Chinese people). That is that Chinese people feel that China needs to stay together. In their 5000 year history the country has been united and divided, and it is part of their culture to want to stay united. Americans can recognize that with the civil war, but our country was 100 years old, not thousands of years. This is important when talking about democracy and the current state of things. This is a higher priority than the bill of rights, try to understand that Chinese people KNOW what freedom is, they WANT it, but many just know that the country cannot handle a sudden change like that. So take this as you will, but just try to understand that people in that country don't have the same views on life or society, and that is partially why things are the way they are.
"how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
If I were an American I would seriously be proud of this Lantos guy.
How about someone makes a list of what "the Chinese" do?
Your implication by "The Chinese don't" is that "The Americans do". I'm guessing we don't need to have a discussion on generalizing the entire population of a country based on what its leaders do.
Let me start one off right:
_The Chinese Government_ runs over its own citizens with tanks when they protest.
And, by the way, next time try to get through a whole post without a prejudicial slur (i.e. "fat Mayonaisse-stinking American mouth"). I don't call your mouth "emaciated rice-and-fish-stinking." Thanks.
I can read whatever I want from any online periodical around the world. As far as I can tell, no one's censoring my media. Can you say the same? How sure are you of your conviction that America is today's Nazi regime when you're not even sure you get all the information (or even that the information you do get hasn't been modified)?
Now that I've written this and looked back, I may have to put on my tinfoil hat. Are you a propaganda plant in the ranks of Slashdot for the illustrious Chinese regime?
Tibet has been a part of China for 700 years. That's waaaay before Columbus rediscovered America (after Leif Eriksson). What right do YOU have to interfere in this? None. Why don't you give back Arizona, California and Texas to Mexico? Or the whole goddamn country to the Indians?
"Insightful" my ass. It just proves that the general Slashdot crew is fundamentally clueless about this topic.
Dalia Lama does accept being a part of China. He doesn't fight for a free Tibet. But you didn't know that because you didn't read up on the issue; you just listened to Fox News. Right?
Seriously, have you studied any of the topics you are talking about? What about Chinese incursions into India, Russia, and of course Tibet? Seems like someone got a bit washed while taking a trip to the other side..
hur visste jag att du var svensk....
"The Chinese don't have anything similar to the Guantanamo base, where alleged terrorists are held, without being given status as prisoners of war, without the right to a lawyer, in order to interrogate them with torture off American soil."
Are you qualified and authorized to make that statement? How familiar are you with how China deals with its dissident groups, like, say, Falun Gong? Most of the outside world does not know what China does or does not have in that regard, because China is not exactly forthcoming about such matters. Amnesty International notes that a lot of secrecy surrounds China's judicial system, and believes that annual figures showing over 3,000 executions may actually represent one-third or less of all those carried out.
"The Chinese don't invade countries, going all against the UN, without a single thread of evidence for the alleged cause, like it happened in Iraq ("Weapons of mass destruction") and has it happened in Vietnam."
For much of history, certainly, this was true. And in the 20th century, China itself was sadly subjected to invasion and foreign occupation. However, I seem to recall China having... erm... "assimilated," shall we say, a little country called Tibet. And I can't imagine what large, powerful neighboring country might have been supplying the Viet Minh... can you? Oh, and there's that little dispute about Taiwan, I suppose.
"I think it is time the Americans start to realize that AMERICA is today's Nazi regime, NOT China."
A lot of us realize this. A lot of us also realize that while America may be today's superpower, China is most likely tomorrow's. And we also realize (although you may not) that there's very significant cross-investment between the two countries, and that most of the "bad" things about each of the two tend to be closely related to the other.
Anyway, thanks for the interesting, if a bit impolite, dialogue.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Wow. How to reply to such anger. Bringing up Vietnam was a bad idea since it is known China was behind the uprising in both Vietnam and Korea. Lets not talk about what has been going on in Tibet either. I better not talk about Inner Mongolia too. Definitely should leave out what has happened to various people of different religions.
America is not perfect and most citizens know that. As for racism, that's a human condition. Should we talk about Japanese-Chinese relations. The movie Memoirs of a Geisha brought out alot of racist attitudes in China, demeaning Zhang Ziyi and calling Ken Watanabe and Japanese dog.
People's nationalism usually blinds them to the evils happening in their own country, American, Chinese, and everywhere alike.
I eat Karma for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. That's why I don't have any.
It is unreasonable to suggest when the topic is totalitarian regimes who routinely lock people up because of their beliefs and also routinely execute people and harvest them for organs, that comparisons to Nazis are either off-topic or a sign that the argument has been lost.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I heard the snippet of inquisition on the radio and regardless of my feelings about Google et al's activities in China, I though the congressman's question deserved an answer which highlighted it's stupidity.
Lantos asks:
Well, IBM complied with legal orders when they cooperated with Nazi Germany. Those were legal orders under the Nazi German system...Do you think that IBM during that period had something to be ashamed of?
The answers should have been:
Are you saying that the current Chinese regime and the Nazi regime are equivalently evil? If you are then my answer to you is that not only IBM but the whole of the U.S.A had something to have been ashamed of during that period.
The U.S.A had yet to enter the war despite evidence of what the Nazi's were up to. They had yet to implement full economic sanctions against the Nazis.
If, congressman, you believe that the Nazis and the chinese are comparable, why hasn't the U.S declared full economic sanctions against China, and why hasn't it made illegal for any U.S company to do business with that country? Why have you yet to propose that we declare war against China?
The truth is, because China is not equivalent to Nazi Germany, and your question is nonsensical.
Sure! Have a look at http://www.baidu.com/.
baidu.com
Or you could realize that you are not helping yourself or the Chinese people by cutting down your access to information. This is the whole point I am trying to make about Google et al doing GOOD. By increasing access to information and expanding the possibilities of education they are HELPING the Chinese people. So you want to cut all the Chinese people off from those companies, I commend you for trying to see what its like first!
"how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
I find it absolutely absurd that anyone would claim the US is as bad, or worse even, than China as far as human rights is concerned. American citizens have a right, in fact a responsibility to always be aware and in fact question what the US government is doing. Blindly following the government, like so many in China do, is dangerous.
It's ridiculous that people would compare the US to China. I feel like people here like to dream up these crazy threats from the government. When was the last time you or any of your friends have been questioned or imprisoned for voicing your opinions. When was the last time the FBI showed up at someone's house simply for running a blog criticizing the US government?
Don't twist the truth here by pointing out protesters who've been jailed. They were jailed for breaking specific reasons, demonstrating without a warrant, vandalism, or other such activities.
Those people jailed at Guantanamo Bay are also there for their ties to terrorism, not because they were simply anti-American. You may not agree with what the government is doing, but there are specific reasons why they're doing this. Rest assured that China would be far, far more aggressive in this regard. These guys are our prisoners and soldiers are going out of their way to make them feel comfortable.
All the sites I've ever seen against this administation specifically are still up and running, one of the most prominent in the past having been moveon.org.
These sites aren't allowed to exist in China. Period. Those guys at moveon.org would have had the site up a week before they were found themselves in prison and likely tortured.
What about all the farmers negected by the Chinese government, who've been forced to protest in order to be heard, and now their voices are being trampled by their own government.
I'm not even going to bother getting into this China appeasement crap. What Google and Microsoft are doing is irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. It's even more absurd that the US and worse, the United Nations refuse to recognize a soverign nation like Taiwan because China demands it.
The Chinese do have one thing that many Americans today lack. That's nationalistic pride. The Chinese are willing to do what it takes to get ahead in the World; the average Chinese citizen is far more likely to defend China's actions than any American would be. Many Americans are far more critical of the US government, and in fact, are quickly to defend foreign nations than they are their own.
I wouldn't be surprised if over the next hundred years China grows to be a real superpower and the US is relegated to the second-class status that Europe currently enjoys. Let's see if the Chinese government turns out anything like the US. People criticize the US and what it does around the world, but rest assured that many other nations, and I expect China as well, would be far, far worse.
Godwin naziism is its own attempt at censorship.
I can also read whatever I want. We Europeans actually invented the concept of democracy, freedom of the press, freedom of speech. We still practice it.
As a EUROPEAN, previously living in the US for a long time, and later living in China, I can tell you that I will choose China over America at ANY TIME.
Because we all know how we never tried (or succeded in some cases) in bringing democracy to the Japanese, South Koreans, South Vietnamese, Philipinos, etc... no, we Americans certainly would never shed our own blood for the freedom of Asian people. We're all a bunch of Euro-centric racists, right?
And if the Chinese government is so bad, why does our government even negotiate with them? Maybe these companies are within their legal bounds merely because our government has hypocritically refused to boycott another communist regime. I guess we only boycott them when they'r poor, anyway (like Cuba).
And before anyone gets on my case, this is apolitical - both parties have kowtowed to the Chinese in the interests of American businesses. It's a bit hypocritical to start getting mad at them now when our government led the way.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Here's a GREAT search engine that I use.
http://www.baidu.com/
I hope it's as useful to you as it is to me.
Tibet has been a part of China for 700 years.
That... depends on whom you ask, and how you define "a part of."
Yes, Tibet first came under Chinese control 700 years ago, when it was conquered by the Yuan Dynasty of the Mongol Empire. (Prior to that it was off doing its own little mountainous thing, one would presume... so the fact that it is under Chinese control seems to fly in the face of your prior assertion that China doesn't invade people. But anyway.)
That said, there have been periods since then during which China had little if any control over Tibet, and prior to the Cultural Revolution, even when it had control, it apparently chose not to exercise that control very much.
So there are some people who see things differently. And there are some people who feel that China's control, particularly in the last several decades, has had a... detrimental effect on people in Tibet, as far as certain cultural or religious freedoms might be concerend.
It's not surprising that there are misunderstandings, there are a lot of people in the world with many different views. These sorts of things happen.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
my password really is 'stinkypants'
Democracy isn't just about voting, it's also about access to justice, education, freedom of speech and concerns about the minority.
A few points:
1) The implicit comparison of Chinese law to Nazi Germany's is pretty offensive.
2) He also seems to imply that violation of other countries laws just because the US goverment doesn't agree with them is morally correct. That's a morally questionable point in itself.
3) This 'Congressman' also part of a system which has incarcerated a number of people indefinately without due process of law (Guantanamo Bay of course) because they say they're guilty. Somewhat hypocritical...
Thats cool with us lol have a nice time!!
They could have been helping the US Government surpress folk in Cuba but they went to China instead!
Thats the kind of traitorous behaviour that gets you investiagted by the US Government.
(Not necessary just for the parent)
From Wikipedia: "Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage in Internet culture originated by Mike Godwin on Usenet in 1990 that states:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
There is a tradition of protocol in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread in which the comment was posted is over and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress."
This does not mean that anybody ever who mentions Hitler is wrong and automatically lost! If I say some dork on Usenet is like Hitler then sure, I'm dead wrong. But is my argument totally unfounded if I say that Stalin was almost as bad (or worse) than Hitler? No. Both engaged in terrible atrocities. China is also violating human rights so there is some ground for comparison here.
It is certainly true that the longer the thread, the greater the chance that Hitler will be mentioned (one could also say that about wanking pink monkeys). It is not a law in any real sense of the word that you automatically lose, it is a tradition which is IMO bandied around too much in situation where there is room for legitimate comparison. I think people just want to prove their internet savvines by reminding of Godwin's law every time Hitler is mentioned. You don't need no Godwin to tell a wanker who's comparing your granma to Hitler that his wrong. Bringing the guy up in situations like this is pointless.
Godwin - preventing legitimate discussion in the 'net since 1990!
I just watched a documentary on Ecuadorian ayahuasca shamanism. The interesting thing is how honestly connected these people are with their surroundings, and how much they love the planet.
The crazy thing is that in my reckoning, the land belongs to the indians who have lived there for generations and generations. At some point, a government came in, declared ayahuasca illegal, and is allowing big oil companies to come in and destroy the land.
The head of one village was knifed by military forces because he nonviolently opposed the supposed right of these people to destroy his home.
The sad thing is that we as Americans are not only on the side of evil on this one, but the biggest force on the side of evil. And I really don't see how to get people to care. I mean, tell people about an illegal plant, and they think you're a drug addict.
Sell them Budweiser (now and always with formaldehyde!) or Marlboros (look up the list of chemicals) and they'll kiss your feet. You can't patent a plant, why can you make them illegal?
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Not in miles. Not in years.
The distance to real democracy in China, indeed the world, is measured in ports.
It doesn't matter what these companies are doing. So long as ports are installed, and the internet is accessed, then the world will be made free. These companies bending to the local rulership only serves to keep the door open. If they say "no we will not comply", then the door to the rest of the network world will be closed.
Every fight for freedom has its martyrs. Try harder not to be caught.
Kulakovich
_The Chinese Government_ runs over its own citizens with tanks when they protest.
Erm... I... hate to break it to you but, well, most governments of powerful, well-armed countries are perfectly willing to roll out the armor if there's unrest.
Of course, in the US, we're enlightened and use Armored Personnel Carriers with only machine-guns on them. They do much less damage to buildings than tanks, if someone accidentally pulls the trigger. My father drove one during the 1967 Newark riots, in which 20+ people were killed, 700+ injured and well over a thousand arrested in less than a week.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Or was he waving a Little Red Book and exhorting you to learn from Lei Feng?
At a lot of U.S. universities, especially if it was in a humanities class, I'd expect nothing less.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Dude, universal freedom doesn't come from democracy. Democracy is just a clever way of taking money from Group A and giving it to Group B while the fat cats in power profit. Instead of taking responsibility, politicians can blame the voters. It's corruption with votes and bureaucracy as the primary tools instead of coups and assassinations.
Freedom is served not by majoritarianism, but by laws that respect and protect a person's basic rights as a human being. Neither the US nor Chinese governments do this very well, which is too bad but hardly a surprise. American democracy has shown a remarkable propensity for eroding rights, both those of citizens at home and those of the foreign "illegal combatants" that disappear into gulags, never to be seen again.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Google is to Hitler as 43 million to Taliban (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst110501.h tm) is to?
A. Grandstanding
B. Double Standard
C. Promoting Democracy
D. Same as Hussein, Karimov, Shah of Iran, Pinochet
E. A, B, & D
How is this a troll?
He just stated his opinion, that he would rather live in china than in the US (and in fact, he apparently now lives in china).
Now I don't agree either but that doesn't make him a troll..
After doing quite a bit of research, I discovered two things.
p onsibilityc orporatelaw.html
First, there is no "U.S. Code" (I assume you mean federal law) governing corporate profits.
Second, virtually every state has a law that DOES require maximizing profits.
http://blj.ucdavis.edu/article/533/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_res
http://www.business-ethics.com/resources/article_
Each of these links add information, but because the laws are specific to each state, I'm not going to look them up for you.
Regardless, the point is clear.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Many Americans, companies and even the US Congress supported Nazi Germany prior to 1941. It was widely admired, particularly the fast recovery in the 30s. The work camps for jews and other undesireables made some people a bit queasy, but internment camps were hardly new and both the US and Canada had them. It was only in 1945 after the liberation of the death camps that the horror of the Nazi's "Final Solution" was discovered. The world (including Germany) was shocked and very surprised.
If the US truly believes that China has horrors on such a scale hidden (nevermind that we tolerated Stalin's horrors), then it should embargo them immediately. Since this congresscritter isn't even asking for that, he's just playing rhetorical games. Godwin his @$$. Recently, a suprising number of public figures need it.
why doesn't Congress haul oil executives to the Capital Hill to question them about doing business in oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia.
China's no threat. We've got thousands of businesses already over there. Why are they picking on technology companies? If Congress is so concerned about China and democracy, why do we allow trade with China, but not Cuba?
Typical Washington hypocrites.
Sometimes I just hate our representatives. Really, stupid - IBM complied with legal orders when they cooperated with Nazi Germany. Those were legal orders under the Nazi German system. - is he really trying to compare the Nazi's to China? While China is oppresive, they are not sticking people in concentration camps (wholesale, for no other reason then a racial thing) so they can gas them, do funky experiments, get slave labor, and coquer the world.
It is, and has been, that US companies - when they travel abroad have to follow THAT countries laws and the laws of the US. I am sure some companies have figured ways to get around it (maybe when it is Microsoft Australia they do not have to follow US laws) - but if MS wants to do business in China they have to obey Chinese law. How would the Congressman feel if a foreign company came over here and did not obey US law....how would he feel if Sony said "screw american laws, we only obey japan laws"
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
I was hoping somebody else would kick this obvious irony straight in there and the tone of the replies was to be expected.
After the recent UN Human Rights condemnation of the Guantanamo prison camp, I was a bit shocked by the allusion to the 10 year prisoner when there are prisoners in Guantanamo for nearly 5 years without trial.
The problem that I have with this is in China the 10-year prisoner is incarcertated legally according to Chinese law (even if you don't agree with thoses laws), the terrorist suspects in Guantanamo are not there legally according to American law.
Fine, if they are terrorists, try them and lock them up or execute them, if that's what you want to do - but it is pure hypocrisy to complain about China acting under its own laws while having a blatant disregard for your own laws and the right to just and fair treatment under them.
It's do as I say, not as I do.
I can see where Tom Lantos is coming from with his background, and I like a good Microsoft roasting as much as the next man, but as a representive of the government of the United States, I wonder is he ashamed?
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
In the late 1930s, Gerald Nye of North Dakota and Martin Dies of Texas were outright for the Nazi party practically right up until the bombing of Pearl Harbor. They were unabashedly anti-Semitic, pro-fascist, and anti-Roosevelt.
People forget that the Nazi party was probably the most political party in the world during the 1930s. The American Bund (a group formed to promote Nazism in the states, and to encourage neutrality while Hitler invaded the rest of Europe) was not a fringe group - they had among their members Congressmen, Senators, judges, and governors.
Even after World War II had begun in earnest for America in 1942, members of Congress gave classified information to Nazi agents, spoke out for the extermination of "the Jew" on the floor of Congress, and continued to spout anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi rhetoric in newsletters sent to their home district.
Luckily for us, Congress is not beholden to respect the opinions of all of its members individually - it only has to respond to the majority opinion, which usually correlates with public opinion. This is also true of corporations - their "public" is just limited to those who own stock in it.
I for one am very glad the USA government has decreed that we don't have to obey any laws which we don't particularly like. Surely society can only benefit from such a move.
I will particularly enjoy the look on their faces when Google uses precisely this argument when refusing to disclose search term information to the USA authorities.
Burns: We're building a casino!
McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
I really hope you're not trying to present yourself as somehow objective on the grounds that you're not from either China or the US yourself.
'Cause, um, well, you know... your URL is on Slashdot.
And photos of you and your Chinese wife (tai hao kan, by the way, my compliments!) are on your page.
Kinda destroys the whole impression of "Oh, Nik's not really taking sides."
Hao de?
Plonk.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
"the history repeats itself" ... ...because our mental capacity is often inadequate to review past events and learn from them. Sooner or later our turing machine" runs out of tape and we start re-writing it from the beginning. What I can't comprehend (due to my own mental capacity problems) is why people cannot see that democracy in its purest form is mutually exclusive with social responsibility. As long as we value our shareholders financial interests and act in a fiscally responsible way we will not be able to justify staying out of places like Nazzi Germany, or China, or even the US (DMCA anyone).
I'll drink to that.
What I have not seen mentioned here are any valid comparisons between these companies and the United Kingdom's East India Company. It's not such a far-off comparison, and it needs to be made. What this congressman does not quite comprehend is the function of American Hegemony. The reason that people in the middle east are pissed at us is somewhat to do with us kicking the shit out of them, but moreso has to do with the fact that we're taking away their culture. Ironically, we're teaching them to love Coca-Cola, McDonald's, and JC Penny, but we're not teaching them to love 'real' American values like Freedom, Liberty, etc. etc. This, then, is how the British and American empires have, and will continue to work. The British figured out (after the American Revolution) that the way you go about building an empire isn't about annexing land and administering it (mistakes the Portuguese, French, and Spanish all made) - it's to exploit it, commercially. I'm not saying this is a morally sound method, but it has, in most cases, made a country better off - take, for example, Canada or India. Both are countries that were at one point in time simply taken over and exploited for commerce - eventually, when they lost all profitability for the companies that owned them, they gained their independence. The US congress is growing stupider by the years. Yes, China can come up with its own IT solutions so it's better if Americans do the work anyways, but moreso allowing American companies to do business in China is in and of itself spreading American influence. When you've got a company like Microsoft or Cisco so ingrained in the Chinese superstructure you're going to see more change made to the country's system of government than you will if you were to bitch and moan at the UN.
The reason Godwin's Law has caught on so strongly is that it's a useful rule of thumb. Once a discussion on USENET has reached the point where people are citing the Nazis, chances are it has long ago stopped being worth reading.
However, there are circumstances in which comparisons to the Nazis are not unreasonable and cannot be put down to the usual hyperbole found in flamewars. This discussion is one of them. We are dealing here with American corporations doing business in a totalitarian state, and - through the nature of the business they are doing - aiding and abetting the unpleasant regime there in the very deeds for which they are despised.
In the 1940s, it was IBM supplying the machinery needed to handle the great indexes and lists needed to keep track of the processing of six million or so undesirables, and the consultants and technical assistance needed to set up and run that machinery.
Today, it is Yahoo handing over the emails of activists, and Google censoring search results. Is this quite the same scale of evil as IBM's collaboration in the Final Solution? No. Is it, however, qualitatively the same, even if it is quantitavely lesser? Yes. Just as happened back then, our corporations are collaborating in the sordid work of tyrants.
Godwin's Law, therefore, cannot be applied. Comparisons to the Nazis are clear and appropriate.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
"It would not surprise me one bit if there were state laws that force corporations to maximize profit, but I am not aware of any federal law that says so."
You clearly had an agenda in mind when replying, or you'd have realized THAT WAS MY ENTIRE POINT.
Each state has laws about this subject. When I said there is no "US code" I meant in regards to this subject.
"Further, the GP said "US-American law," not "state law."
Pedantry. United STATES of AMERICA. Don't know what you were trying to prove here, but you failed.
My point (please read it this time) is that the IDEA of corporate responsibility is very much real, and present in STATE statutes, which appear in veitually every state.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Rep. Lantos wants us (Americans) to force our laws on all the other countries of the world. This seems a little to Nazi for me. I believe that freedom of speech is a Good thing, but without laws there would be no thing protecting our rights. We (Americans) must respect other countries laws and allow the people of those countries to live the way they choose. If the majority of people in China truly want freedom of speech they can do what it takes to change their laws, but until then they are simply a minority that is making life difficult for everybody else.
----------
I fought for my freedom. Have you?
Are you saying that the current Chinese regime and the Nazi regime are equivalently evil? If you are then my answer to you is that not only IBM but the whole of the U.S.A had something to have been ashamed of during that period.
I'd say that it's even more important that companies are not countries.
If Congress wants to push for a collapse of the current Chinese regime, great. They have the CIA, VoA, etc.
Corporations are not companies. We build an environment for them specifically in which they are not intended to be confrontational with countries, but to act in a profit-maximization mode and (if the country has designed the rules correctly) is rewarded for promoting the public good.
China has chosen slightly different rules for what is the "public good" than the US has. They don't want criticism of their government available to the typical citizen.
Now, remember that the last time that the *US* regime was scared of being overthrown (by communist ideology) that it took some similar steps to silence those that it percieved as a threat. Currently, the US regime does not have any fears of being overthrown, so it allows a broad range of speech.
At other times, when the US actually felt threatened, it has suppressed free speech via the Sedition Acts. From WP:
In practice, the Espionage Act, as amended by the Sedition Act, was used to persecute individuals or groups who disagreed with presidential or congressional policy. Historically, these types of acts have been suggested and/or passed when a presidential administration or congressional majority has lost general public support and additional, judicial tools are necessary to minimize public dissent. The Sedition Act was the most recent attempt by the United States government to limit "freedom of speech," in-so-much-as that "freedom of speech" related to the criticism of the government, or, more applicably, the political policies of the presidential administration or congressional majority.
The Espionage Act made it a crime to help wartime enemies of the United States, but the Sedition Act made it a crime to utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States' form of government.
Socialist Eugene V. Debs was sentenced to 10 years in prison under this law.
Does this sound familiar? Yeah, it sounds an awful lot like China today to me.
Now, if Congress wants to push for the collapse of China's government, then it's Congress's job to use the existing tools that we pay for to do so. Hammering companies for not doing their job for them is just stupid. Companies don't have the ability to produce revolution. Google is not the dominant search provider in China, and if you successfully force them to use what influence they have to attack China's government, you will simply drive them out of the market. I'd argue that export of Google's sort services will be one of our more important exports in the future.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
I am the only one who sees that google has TONS of workarounds to get proscribed data to the people of China? That they don't appear to be fixing them as "problems". There is, according to NPR, a large sneakernet (person to person) sharing of information about these methods. Is it better for the chinese people to not have access to that data, by google saying, "we will not abide by local laws" outright, and getting blocked? Whereas Microsoft and Yahoo do seem to fix those "holes". In my eyes google is not being evil, they are trying to get the data to people, while still being able to maintain a presence in china and not get blocked. Even on the above the board level, google was the first company that was going to show blocked content results in terms of "there is a web site that has results you searched for but are blocked from your viewing". None of the other companies were doing that. I think in this light google is working as a force of democracy. If a company isn't doing business with china and china and doing what it can within that framework for change, then it's just and outside observer. If google were not doing what they are doing, a chinese search engine that doesn't have access to google's data cache wouldn't be evil but would not be helpful to democracy or freedom. And here's the thing: Google's Official stance would still have to be exactly like they are saying in congress because they can't admit to trying to help in a public setting without undermining their own efforts. Here's to hoping that that the PRC doesn't take stock in an Anonymous Coward on Slashdot.
So, I'm just curious. Do you think that when Cheney was running Haliburton that he acted ethically? Or, if we assume that Congress's use of "ethically" is short for "in US interests", did Haliburton act in US interests?
If not, why was he allowed to be the Vice President by the Republican Party?
Just a thought.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Oh, and I do need to point out, since you mentioned the UN... that the Kuomintang government, which fled to Taiwan, originally represented China in the UN. Until the mainland Maoist government disputed this, claimed that it represented them, not the other way around, and got them thrown out of the UN. Taiwan has been trying to join the UN as an unrelated nation for the last 15 years, but China's clout (and security-council veto) make it look unlikely that this will ever happen. Wikipedia's article on "China and the United Nations" has all the details.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
"and it should be in the Government's interest to keep people happy and safe across the world..."
I really don't know what you were trying to say in your post, because it wasa all over the place, but this caught my eye.
A government isn't elected to take care of the world. It's elected to take care of its consititutents.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
On the other hand, Lantos has standing to invoke Nazi Germany on account of his personal and family history.
Well said.
"China is communist ergo *all* trade with China furthers Chinese censorship."
So Communism equals censorship huh?
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
> * HP, Tektronics e.a. have supplied Iraq with militairy usefull technology, resulting in the death of allied soldiers and lots of iraqi (and kurdish) people
Was this when Saddam was still allied with the west? Before or after he started his first war of aggression against a neighbour - in that case, Iran. Of course the west supported him in that, so surely if he was on our side it must have been ethical.
> * Companies like Shell continue to do business in countries like Nigeria, which are known to have a bad record regarding human rights.
Nigeria, while it has problems, doesn't have such a terrible human rights record compared to, e.g. Saudi Arabia, or China, or lots of other places people do business with. Face it, if you're only going to be dealing with truly nice people, your oil suppliers would limited to Norway and Canada.
Just remember that when you fill up your car; Shell & co are just acting as go betweens for you the consumer.
Mind you, there seems to be a market for green electricity, maybe there would be a market for ethical petroleum.
no taxation without representation!
It's sad that many news sites today don't publish the original source.
Although many people do comment on China's education system which puts Mao on a pedistol, it is no different to what the US does with Kennedy
I beg your pardon? How about the tens of millions Mao killed?
Orange whip? Orange whip? Three orange whips.
the Japanese
Oh, those people you dropped nuclear weapons on? They're real grateful.
South Koreans, South Vietnamese
Those far-off places where the US fought their arms-length wars against Communism, which resulted in those countries being split in half? Yeah, they're real grateful too.
Philipinos
Filipinos (at least spell it right)? Yeah, they're the ones who were the US's only foreign colony (note: no democracy) - the US bought the country of the Spanish, and then fought a war against the Philippines to suppress the independence movement. Yet more grateful people there.
You might not be a Euro-centric racist, but you sure as hell are a dumbass regarding the history of your own country.
> > Tibet has been a part of China for 700 years.
> That... depends on whom you ask, and how you define "a part of."
In the same sense that Ireland has been part of the UK for hundreds of years.
no taxation without representation!
Nah, you can do better than boycott.
If you use their search, you cost them a little in bandwidth and server usage etc. If you block all their ads, you don't earn them anything in return.
The other thing I take issue with is that once a society or a regime crosses a certain threshold of evil that they become Nazi Germany. There has been a lot of evil in the world over the years, but it is generally believed that Nazi Germany represented a particularly unique and malignant evil in that history. It also diminishes our rememberance how just how bad Nazi Germany was when we equate it to Milosovic's Serbia, Saddam's Iraq, or modern day China. While there are people who may argue this point, it is even believed that Stalin's Soviet Union, however lethal and repressive a regime that was, didn't quite rise to the unique combination of modern science and industrial production with a racist world view and mass murder that was Nazi Germany.
There are many ways that all regimes that practice evil resemble Nazi Germany, and people have even invoked this comparison for matters that bring shame to the U.S., but there are many ways that Nazi Germany was unique, and to call every bad regime a Nazi Germany diminishes the rememberance of those who suffered under it, and I would say that publically to Mr. Lanos.
One point I'd like to make is that if the government would like it that way, the government could, potentially, make it that way.
With defense contractors, for example, there are certain restrictions that the companies absolutely have to abide by, if they want to remain eligible for US government contracts (and others that they have to abide by if they want to do any business in the US).
Since the US government is by far the biggest money pool for defense contractors, they very much go to great lengths to ensure that they obey those laws. Hell, there are even laws governing the use of bribery in countries where that's a part of doing business.
So while the situations are slightly different, it's not like the US government can't do things about it if they want to.
Some how, I think this quote is so apropos:
"You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear." --Peter Gibbons, Office Space
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Is this the same Tom Lantos who voted to authorize the use of military force against Iraq in an illegal, immoral and genocidal war? http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php ?vote_id=3202
Is this the same Tom Lantos who thinks Israel is justified in killing Palestinians and stealing their land?
Who you going to ask whether Taiwan is a part of China, the people on mainland China or the Taiwanese?
I would ask the Taiwanese to be honest, since they freaking live there. So you ask the Tibeteans whether they want or consider themselves a part of China, or how they want to be a part of China.
If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
This is political grandstanding. Aside from invoking Nazis, there was a part of the transcript excerpt that really bothered me.
Lantos asked Yahoo! about whether it has contacted the family of the jailed reporter and what it felt about that. Okay, fine. Then he asked Microsoft about the blogger, to which Microsoft clarified that it only took down the site and never provided the government with private information. Well, that's fine too, I guess, if Lantos didn't know beforehand the specifics of this incident and exactly what was different this time between "turn in" and "take down". And then he asks Google the same question. And here, that political grandstanding shines through clear and bright. Google just censors search results. It hasn't turned anyone in. It hasn't taken down any sites. Nobody could conceivably be harmed in this sensational "think of the family!" way by seeing rosy pictures of Tian'an'men. It's purely political.
If Congress was *really* interested in doing something about this, then they would recognize that the solution is not to criticize American companies, but to back them with a strong diplomatic stance up so that they would have the ability to say no to Beijing. But being tough to Beijing is hard, so let's bash these companies instead and hope that Americans will equate that to us doing something productive.
And as much as I dislike these Nazi references, maybe we should think of it this way. Remember that scene in Schindler's List when Jewish doctors kill their patients with lethal doses of some sort of liquid shortly before the Nazis come crashing in? One could argue that these doctors were immoral because they killed Jews and by killing them, they were in a way helping with the Nazi extermination. But most people would not hold that view, and instead would praise them for having mercifully killed them instead of letting them be killed by machine gun bullets when the Nazis come. The doctors could do nothing about the fact that those people were going to die, so they decided to do a little evil of their own, but in a way that mitigated a worse evil. Replace killing with censorship, doctors with American companies, and now you have a more accurate Nazi comparison.
ironically, in Germany, Nazi came in to power by election.
What I'd like to see: Tech Companies: Senator, are you ashamed? Senator Lantos: Ashamed of what, I'm very proud of everything that I have done. Tech Companies: Are you ashamed that because of the policies of the US, we have such a huge trade deficit to China? Are you ashamed that we owe so much debt to a country that has differing opinions about human right? Are you ashamed that we fought an unjust war in Iraq? Are you ashamed of OUR human rights violations in Git-mo? Are you ashamed of our prisoner abuses in Abu Graib? Senator, I can go on and on. Please answer the questions! [Sigh] The hypocrisy...
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
"Bullshit. Utter tosh and nonsense. Please provide references."
You first. Seriously. You're very insistent, so I assume you have them. Of course, then the argument degrades into "your references are biased" and flame wars ensue. Which is why TAKING REFERENCES OFF OF THE INTERNET, which used to be so ridiculous that it was the source of many jokes, is now considered proof to people like you.
Why do so many people seem to think that there is some ultimate "truth" regarding these issues? The law isn't clear, the facts aren't clear, yet you've made up your mind.
Why?
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
I would ask if they would do the same if the FBI came knocking on their door asking for customer information without a warrant, but waving the ill-named USA PATRIOT Act around. "Terrorism!" "Security reasons!" "Other buzzword that makes it sound like you aren't a true red-blooded American if you don't comply!" This whole thing really pisses me off. Congress is more than willing to tear down trade barriers with China, allow some corporations to run sweat shops over there, while criticising the tech companies for doing something similar.
So what are your feelings on gun control?
In addition to what you said, it really pisses me off that there are people who loudly complain about the abuses of the PATRIOT ACT, yet are more than willing to look the other way when such abuses are used against law-abiding gun owners (see http://www.instapundit.com/archives/005290.php and http://instapundit.com/archives/006525.php for examples).
What if Google or Yahoo were ordered by the FBI or BATFE to turn over records for certain gun related searches? How many people here would approve?
I hate Godwin's Law. I wouldn't hate it so much if people realized that it was a tongue-in-cheek limit on the increasing hyperbole that an internet discussion will get into instead of treating it as "Hah! You said Hitler! That means you've lost!"
There are times that parallels with the Nazis are extremely useful. Comparisons to authoritarian states, the self-destruction of democracies, racist state policies, genocide, and merging of industry and state power without the loss of private profit all apply.
In this case, another rare correlation comes up; WWII was the last well-remembered times that the U.S. has a string of prosecutions for the crime of businesses colluding with the enemy. There were similar cases for breaking the law against dealing with apatheid South Africa. Also, there was a law against doing business with the Arab world and not Israel at a time when the much larger Arab market was boycotting businesses that dealt with Israel, but few people remember that. Personally, I would've gone with the apartheid example, but since state censorship was the issue, an authoritarian regime seems a little more appropriate.
I find extremely dangerous that one of the darkest moment in history and most especially one of the darkest moments in the history of democratic nations is forever walled off from discussion because of the extreme nature of its behavior. Fascism is the dark shadow of right wing politics in democracies just as Communism is the dark shadow of the left. It is unbalancing to the public dialogue that we are only allowed to talk about one of the two without a large section of the public putting their hands over their ears and shouting, "La la la! I can't hear you!"
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Are you ashamed that because of the policies of the US, we have such a huge trade deficit to China? Are you ashamed that we owe so much debt to a country that has differing opinions about human right?
I don't get why folks get so worked up over this. I mean I do, but I think it's a bit simplistic. When someone owes you $10,000, you have control. When they owe you $10 million, _they_ have control, since you've got so much invested in them already. People worry about whether China will 'call in their debt'. How? If they don't keep exporting to the US, they don't have jobs. If they don't have jobs, they have civil unrest (as evidenced by the barely-covered farmer and rural revolts going on daily). Their government fears civil unrest above any other thing. Therefore the Chinese leadership is strongly incented to keep dollar buying power (at least for Chinese exports) relatively high.
What would a debt call mean for China? At this point, probably some form of legalized default, such as a law saying that the US won't honor debts to nations that don't honor some list of civil rights. So China gets left holding a bag of worthless instruments and they'll have to keep taking dollars for their exports (and, incidentally, not have any US private direct investment). Next step would be an atomic war, which would be very bad for business on both sides of the Pacific. So, China will keep on exporting until its internal economy can handle the output of its production capacity, which if the commies continue to rule will be never. So a fascistic China (where the government works hand-in-hand and/or owns large corporations and sculpt laws and rights to suit them) is good for the US economy even as it's offensive to American principles.
You wanna know why the US economy can absorb the inflationary effects of the housing bubble, energy costs, etc when it comes to the cost of manufactured goods? China. It's like a huge copper heatsink for the US economy.
That... depends on whom you ask, and how you define "Ireland." ;)
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Female children
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
IMHO it's fair for these companies to say "if there's no law agin' it, the other guy would be doin' it, so I better be in it". Standing on principle == lower stock price == new corporate leadership at the next stockholder meeting.
So berating these companies is kind of a sham, at least without a productive followup: bar American companies from kowtowing to Chinese censors by law. And live with the consequences.
Funny I can't find anything about that. Did you just make it up?
I once had a signature.
Our bad. We didn't realize until your "5, Insightful" post that dissenting opinions in Congress are Another Liberal Myth.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
When was the last time you or any of your friends have been questioned or imprisoned for voicing your opinions. When was the last time the FBI showed up at someone's house simply for running a blog criticizing the US government?
To cite someone's comment in an earlier Slashdot article, how about Mario Savio?
"As a EUROPEAN, previously living in the US for a long time, and later living in China, I can tell you that I will choose China over America at ANY TIME."
That makes me very happy. As an American, I will gladly choose sending you to China over putting up with you ANY TIME.
Please keep your word, we don't want you.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
"The Chinese don't have anything similar to the Guantanamo base, where alleged terrorists are held, without being given status as prisoners of war, without the right to a lawyer"
And you know this because the Chinese government is open enough that they don't practice censorship at the most basic level.
Oh wait, they do. That's what started the entire discussion. So allow me to reinterpret what you're saying:
"I want to make a point about the United States doing things that aren't right. So I'll make up stuff about how wonderful the totalitarian Chinese government is. But it's okay, because I'm making an important point. That makes it all right"
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Didn't the US publish a law that forbids companies from doing business in certain country which go against human rights?
perhaps they could make a law, with the restriction that commercial transactions would be finished as soon as the company in question helped the country go against human rights, or something...
Becuase you obviously didn't, here's the part that makes you wrong.
"Understandably, Ford didn't want to take this sitting down, so he took the case to the Supreme Court of Michigan. Their opinion, sans dissent, said:
A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of means to attain that end and does not extend to a change in the end itself, to the reduction of profits or to the nondistribution of profits among stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes."
The court stated in its opinion "A BUSINESS CORPORATION IS ORGANIZED AND CARRIED ON PRIMARILY FOR THE PROFIT OF THE STOCKHOLDERS"
Stop moving the goalposts, you're wrong, take the opportunity to learn something.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Would every other American company who does business in China please stand up...
Now would every American company that has not had to explain their business practices to Congress because they are doing business in China please sit down...
Oh... whats that... a double standard, but this is America the land of the Freedom how could we have double standards?
It's not just that elected officials are bought by campaign financing, and so on. It's that elected officials typically belong to the class that owns and controls these corporations in the first place. Their interests are aligned because they're cut from the same cloth.
Well, by that logic, everything from Greece to India should be part of Macedonia. Alexander conquered it all ~2300 year ago, which is waaaay before China ever got to Tibet.
Also, we shouldn't give those territories back to Mexico, they should go back to Spain.
We can't use history as a guide for where borders should be created today. It seems like we should be able to, but it doesn't work. Borders have changed over the centuries, and entire countries and societies have come and gone, so there is no way to determine what belongs to whom. Sure it would be nice if everyone could have their "ancestral lands" back, but that brings up the questions: Which ancestors? When? What if they were sold and there is no record? What if they were just absorbed, without conflict, but without consent?
No, your historical idea just doesn't work - we live in today, not 700 years ago, or even 100 years ago.
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
"Tibet has been a part of China for 700 years."
Why didn't you SAY so?
Oh then, the oppression of religion and jailing of people for dissident opinions is fine then. I didn't realize how long it had been!
Here we go again with the oversimplifying history again.
Fine, lets review some history. We will keep it pretty simple too, and we will see how these broad generalizations are not a good way to judge China as a nation.
The Germans were crushed in spirit and reality because of the Treaty of Versailles. All of their neighboring countries had taken a piece out of them and they saw it every day in their inflation and indignation. Part of the reason Hitler could inflame such blind nationalism was because the German people as a whole were down in the dumps. As you may see I am oversimplifying a lot here.
Now lets look at China from the 1910s shall we?
I'll outline things taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China#Political_histo ry because I don't know everything off the top of my head:
On January 1, 1912, the Republic of China (ROC) was established, signaling the end of the Manchu-dominated Qing Empire.
Soon after Yuan, who had taken control as president, died China became fragmented and controlled by many warlords. (cultural note: Many Chinese people look back at this with distaste and regret)
In the late 1920s, the Kuomintang, under Chiang Kai-shek, was able to reunify the country under its own control. I believe this was the "Nationalist party". It began to rival the CPC or the Communist Party of China and they had a bloody civil war that lasted into the late 1940's.
What do we have in the first half of the century so far? Dynasty rule ends, war lords, a nationalist party officially in control but fighting a bloody civil war with the communists. So far it sounds way different from Germany, let alone the Nazis. Perhaps you want to equate the Nationalists with the Nazi's, there are many external similarities such as anti-Communist dictatorship. But we still have 50 more years of history before we can compare todays China to Hitler!
lets keep going then
So by the early 50's the CPC had pretty much beat the Nationalists who then retreated to Taiwan to set up shop. In 1949 Mao Zedong sets up the Peoples Republic of China as a one party communist dictatorship.
Unfortunately wikipedia skips out a bunch of history which I'm just going to summarize off the top of my head (thats what we are all doing here right, generalizing)
Mao fucks up, he gives actual leadership to someone else for a while and becomes party spokesman and controls policy. In the late 60's he takes power back, and he does it with a vengeance. He institutes the Cultural Revolution. Everything old is to be destroyed, colleges are stopped. People are supposed to WORK not LEARN. Millions of people starve todeath because the entire economy is redone from the top down. Professors are supposed to hit the fields like everyone else. To make a ten year story short its a big failure and Mao dies in '77, and so does the Cultural revolution.
So now you can see how there is no "Red Dynasty". Those 80 years are filled with turmoil and radicall ideological shifts. But wait, we arent done, there is one more ideological shift to consider, capitalism!
Ever since Deng Xiaoping said "To get Rich is Glorious" (something most of us money-loving Americans dont even want to admit) Things have changed even more. Communist hamlets became small villages where people produced and sold on a free market what they used to sell to the party at fixed prices. Granted nothing is as pretty as it sounds, things have gotten steadily more capitalistic. I went last year and everything I bought was from shops, nothing government issued about it.
This is where this government differs most drastically from pre-Nazi Germany. They are in a position of economic control, steadily moving towards stability. Apparently if they wanted to they could do some crazy stuff to the dollar. They are not pinned down by any neighbors, and their nationalism is not zealous but philosophical.
I hope we have all enjoyed the simple yet slightly less
"how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
"First, there is no "U.S. Code" (I assume you mean federal law)"
"Federal law" is officially referred to as "The United States Code." This is why federal laws are always referred to in the form $TitleUSC$Section e.g. 15USC144.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/
I'd think that would come up somewhere in your "quite a bit of research." Puzzling why anyone with a clue would balk at the use of that term.
Part of the United States were part of the British Empire for 200 years. What right did Washington et al have to interfere in that?
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech.php?can_id=H02711 03
Maybe this will help you answer your question.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
"Puzzling why anyone with a clue would balk at the use of that term."
Well, perhaps I wasn't balking, but was instead CLARIFYING.
I realize you pompous assholes think you know everything, but when someone says something I'm not clear on, I like to make an attempt to understand what they are saying. You know, so I don't come off like you just did.
So, apart from drawing attention to the fact that you're a pedantic dickhead, what was your point?
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
...just clarifying it for you, sparky.
All the companies to Lantos: Are you ashamed of being an hypocritical dumb politician?
It's never too late to stop doing something wrong, or to start doing something right.
The whole premise of Rep. Tom Lantos's question is ridiculous. A corporation is not a human being capable of experiencing shame, remorse, joy, love, sympathy, sadness, or any of that. A corporation knows only its revenue and stock values. Any executive or spokesperson's expression of shame should rightly ring hollow.
It's not that some Microsoft or Google executives or employees might not personally feel ashamed of some things their company has done, but the company itself is cold and unfeeling. It is not human like you or me. It is an artifice, a person animated by law alone.
On vit, on code et puis on meurt.
What a dumbass comment. Grow a brain. Please.
Why don't you drop the hash pipe, get out of your college dorm room, quit spewing "progressive" rhetoric, and join the real world. If anything, it's so-called "progressive" policies that actually implement the taking of money from some and giving it to those that are more equal than the others.
Recognize the following words, jackass? They happen to explain the philosophical underpinnings of democracy better than I ever could. Read them, and please try to understand them, as hard as it may be.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
That is what the people in Tianammen Square were protesting for. Before they got run over by tanks. They risked their very lives for that ideal. Something a cowardly twit like you living on money from Mommy and Daddy will never understand because you've done nothing but have everything handed to you your entire useless existence.
So go fuck yourself.
Explain to me how this is flamebait when someone is touting China? Is their history of murdering female babies not relevant to the discussion?
Or is it that I'm right, and someone with no way to refute me chose to misuse their mod points?
That's just fucking sad.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Do the advertisers know that you've blocked their ads?
Korea was in much the same situation, giving 'tribute' to China. They were effectively under Chinese control. But you don't see them arguing Korea should be part of China.
Why? Because it's too late; it's not politically feasible anymore.
Right, we live in today, and therefore there is no point in talking about a free Tibet. It belongs to China, period.
But IF you bring up the question of a free Tibet, anyone is entitled to bring up the question of a free Texas. You think the US federal government would agree to that?
Or that Japan was one before 1945?
How about South Korea? Is it not a democracy now?
If you're not trying to imply such things, you missed the entire point of the GP post, and used your utter incomprehension as an opportunity to do nothing more than rant about the US.
that you're a twit.
But thanks for confriming it.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
I would tell Mr. Lantos that we often find ourselves in a conflict between law and concience, and ask him how he would have us behave. For example, I belive the DMCA to be an affront, and anyone that uses it to further their objectives is immoral. However it is the law of the land. Would Mr. Lantos prefer that we break the law to remain consistent with our morality? Or should we follow the law, while it is the law, while we fight against it.
Censorship in China is the law. You or I could argue that it is *more* morally wrong than the DMCA, but how relevant is degree? You either follow the law, or you follow your concience. I suspect a law maker would have us follow the law.
My Freakin Blog
There are more federal laws than just the US code.
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/cfr.html
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/fed_register.html
So, next time you decide to clarify something for me, make sure you're clear on it yourself first.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Not as such - however, if my mind isn't completely aardvark, the way adblock works normally is that it doesn't even try to access anything on its block list, so the advert isn't downloaded, let alone displayed. Which means it's probably not been counted as looked at. *shrugs*
Only applies to pay-per-view ads, of course.
The Board of Directors, and Management, DO have a responsibility to act in the best interests of shareholders, see Fiduciary Duty.
However, NOT to the extent that they must pursue every market in every industry in the world.
The Business Judgement Rule protects the Board and Management from lawsuits about normal business decisions, such as:
Hypo_Google_Director/CEO: "should we go into China knowing the upside for immediate growth and the potential downside for long-term corporate image problems? No, I don't think so."
No way you a shareholder could sue over that. You cenrtainly could try to vote in a new Board of Directors who are committed to expansion in China, but that is not the same as suing the Board.
"The US should clean up its own dirty laundry before they attack others. There is clearly no point in talking about human rights as long as you ROUTINELY break them yourself."
First of all, "the US" isn't one bloc of like minded followers. I would expect someone who claimed to live here would know that.
Second this statement
"The US should clean up its own dirty laundry before they attack others. There is clearly no point in talking about human rights as long as you ROUTINELY break them yourself."
Is just plain stupid. Did it ever occur to you that both can be done? I much prefer the idea of improving human rights in many places to your idea.
And MAYBE, the people trying to improve human rights in China are ALSO trying to improve humna rights in the US.
No, stop lying about your motives. It's obvious to everyone your posts are just more anti-US screed. At least be a man and own up to it.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
>You think the US federal government would agree to that?
Following a Constitutional Amendment ratified by the states, they would indeed.
Good luck with that.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Please read the example in question again. This was a journalist who's now doing 10 years in Chinese jail. No he's not being gassed, but this is a million times more than censorship. He'll get out in 2014, assuming he's still alive. He was found guilty of giving top secret state secrets to the enemy. The secret he gave? A directive from the government not to cover any Tianeman stories.
That's a copout. Are Chinese versions of Gmail and Blogger available? They are offered in Chinese (see here and here).
If not, I'm sure that it won't be long. Maybe we can ask them again soon.
US viewers, check this out.. go to Google Video and search for "Iraq Explosion" Choose the 2nd result, "Night Explosion." If you're like me and every other US citizen I've given this to, you'll get the following error message :
This video is not playable in your country.
Scary, no?
Correct me if I am wrong. I was reading a article on outsourcing and one point that came up, IIRC, was that under the present laws and regulations if a board or management fails to pursue maximum profits they would be derelict and therefore could be in vilation of law or regulation.
Is this correct? If so, it may be congress itself causing the problem.
And why does everyone focus on Google? because they are an untraditional company that made Wallstreet mad? Cisco and Microsoft are *just* as complicit? WHy aren't their names splashed all over the news?
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
No, capitalism is inherently unstable, and that's been known since the heyday of Keynes and Marx and the other economic theorists. Just pick up any economics history book.
The issue is this. Capitalism thrives in an open market, with seeminly limitless exponential growth, and then plateaus often without warning. Think of it as a bacterium introduced to an otherwise sterile, nutrient rich agar plate. It will grow unchecked until it reaches the bounds of the dish, at which time population growth reverses due to a limited food supply.
Big Business in the US sees this slowing of growth, and its actions against it manifest as monopoly, price gouging, sneaky underhanded business deals, etc. The system by design corrupts itself in the free market. And you wonder why we have problems.
It seems the Tibetans disagree with your statement. Does that give the PRC apparatchiks the right to essentially destroy the way of life of the Tibetans, as well as meddle with their religious traditions? It seems to me that it is more important to you that China be large and prosperous, rather than people be free and prosperous.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Fox News told you so or what? Why don't you ask the Navajo Indians in Arizona if they want their freedom back instead? I guess it is more important that the US be large and prosperous, rather than people be free and prosperous.
When I was in Arizona, I saw a great deal of local Indians sleeping on benches after drinking heavily. I saw poverty on the reservations. I saw hatred in their eyes. I saw the remnants of ethnic genocide.
Why the fuck do the Americans suddenly care about the Tibetans, of which they do not know anything? For the same reason they care about a lunatic orginzation like the Falun gong, namely to use it against something they perceive as a "communist" threat. In reality, you don't give a shit about the Tibetans, just like you never gave a shit about the Indians, just like you never gave a shit about the people in Rwanda killing each other. And in reality you care as much about Falun gong as the Waco sect.
Once upon a time you gave weapons to the Mujahedin in Afghanistan, but you didn't really give a shit about the Afghans themselves; you just used them as a brick in the game against the Russians, then forgot about them, until they hit back on your own backyard.
Please spare me from your fake tears for the Tibetans.
About a dozen American citizens are jailed or detained il-legally in China. And congressmen don't think this is an important issue to take up with the Chinese ?
It is interesting to note, also, that Edwin Black is an otherwise failed businessman who used to be an OS/2 reseller, so he apparently had no problem with IBM while it made him money, but once IBM killed off OS/2, he had to find something else to profit from.
Well, as long as that involves being willing to de-recognize countries that elect the "wrong" people, like Hamas. After all, its not real democracy if you don't vote the way that we want you to.
The democratic choice that brought Hamas to power in the kingdoms of Samaria and Judea is a good thing. It is self determination. But voters must realise that their choices have consequences. Hamas' vision is to continue violent struggle from a position of weakness and maintaining the wretched status quo. They reject international will and defy those who provide aid. They should not be surprised when aid is withdrawn.
an ill wind that blows no good
gotta love the COWARD postings...
I'll point out Dec. 7, 1941 and the Bataan Death March... it was a WAR, for Heaven's sake. We rebuilt their country after said war, and I'll bet you most Japanese are pretty happy with their form of government.
You bet your ass they are. Ask 1,000 South Koreans if they would rather be living under the rule of Mr. Kim. How many would say yes? Exactly 0.
As, for Vietnam, well... they WOULD have been thankful if American politicans had the balls to use overwhelming force and bring the war to a quick conclusion.
I was thinking of WWII and after, but I guess you have a point about the late 1800s and early 1900s. We'll not speak of what Eurpoean nations were doing to their colonies during during the same years.
Three Journalists Face Jail For Revealing Existence Of CIA Prisons In Europe
Submitted by editor4 on February 16, 2006 - 3:51pm.
Source: Reporters Without Borders (via Guerilla News Network)
Three journalists face prison for revealing existence of secret CIA prisons in Europe
Reporters Without Borders has appealed to the Swiss justice and defence ministers to drop complaints against three journalists who revealed the existence of secret CIA prisons in Europe.
In letters to the federal councillors, Justice Minister Christoph Blocher and Defence Minister Samuel Schmid, it has pointed out that the journalists only fulfilled their duty to report on a case of public interest.
Zurich-based weekly SonntagsBlick on 8 January this year reproduced a fax from the Egyptian foreign minister to his embassy in London, referring to the existence of secret CIA detention centres in Kosovo, Macedonia, Ukraine, Rumania and Bulgaria.
The case produced an outcry in Switzerland and worldwide and the country's secret services were implicated in the leak of the confidential document. Romania and Bulgaria denied the allegations. The United States admitted the existence of flights chartered by the CIA over numerous European countries but not the existence of prisons.
A damning report from the Council of Europe condemned abuses committed by the US administration in its fight against terrorism and its recourse to torture, comparing the camps to one in Guantanamo Bay.
The Swiss authorities, fearing a deterioration in their diplomatic relations with the US, with whom they are in the process of negotiating a free-exchange agreement, have sought to defuse the crisis by opening two investigations, one criminal, one military, to track down who was behind the leak. The journalists on SonntagsBlick face prison sentences under the terms of both investigations.
Mr. Lantos: Are you actually saying China is like Nazi Germany? The record I have seen states you did not vote to give China Most Favored Trade Status. However, the United States of America Congress DID vote to give China Most Favored Trade Status rather than reject that Status and add tarifs to Chinese products? Why don't you argue that the United States of America Congress is like Nazi Germany? Or is it? Counsel
Before you make even more of a fool of yourself by making rash assumptions about people you don't know, I'll point out that my experience with countries is far closer to yours than you think. Something about being a European in the US with some unusual language skills and all that. Now that that's out of the way, let's deal with your poorly presented points.
1) Americans have perpetrated one of the largest genocides in human history.
True. No argument from me here. I wasn't even aware that this was the topic. I thought we were talking about China? Let's stick to one problem at a time. Otherwise, you will degenerate into Fox News style expulcations about how other places are worse.
2) Falun Gong is a sect, not a political organization.
Possible. Even somewhat plausible. Now, is this a reason to arrest members merely for practicing it? How are they a threat to others? Please explain.
3) Afghans were merely a proxy in the fight against the russians.
Brilliant deduction, Sherlock. What is news in this? How is this relevant to whether China should import Han chinese into its western territories and into Tibet in order to better assimilate those areas?
So far, the only thing you've offered in defense of China's practices is that "y'all did it anyway, so you ain't got no right to tell anybody else about anything." In the process, you make two mistakes: lumping everyone's comments into crude categories that allow you to disregard the content of the criticism, and substituting a weak argument of historical and political equivalency for a discussion on the nature of events.
In another post, you complained about the hypocrisy of your country that censored a cartoon about self-censorship, and how this was part of your decision to see China as the "better" nation.
All this tells me two things: you care actually very little about acts of freedom. If that would be the case, you would not prefer a country where abuses of freedom are systematic rather than sporadic. Two, what you care about is pride and strength. Congratulations, you are fitting right into the current mold of Chinese nationalists. You'd also be right at home with American nationalists, French, Japanese, Swedish and many more. Why? Because these two traits are trademarks of nationalists. That and arbitrary decisions of what is part of a country (i.e., decisions that are not based on the opinions of the people who actually live in those lands), belief in abstract of what it means to be of a certain nationality, and so on.
I guess that's the difference between you and me, and why we don't see eye to eye on China. I believe in people and their right to decide their own lives. You believe in nations and their right to decide the lives of their people.
I'll just leave you with one question: what is a country without people?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Boogloo.com is an independant search engine started by a friend of mine.
SecureThe.Net - Practical Resources for Securing Systems
But it's all okay as long as there are actual laws on the books about how to deal with groups like Falun Gong. I mean, nothing's bad as long as it's lawful and properly approved by the authorities. Especially if the authorities invoke social stability and national security as the reasons for the laws. After all, country above all!
Yeah, that's the ticket. [cynic mode=off]
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
No, I believe in a world free from a nation controlling every nation and every individual. If China doesn't do as the US says, China won't have access to the Internet. If China doesn't do as the US says, the US will prevent its companies from operating in China. If Sweden doesn't do as the US says, namely label two people terrorists without evidence, seize their assets and leave them in the cold for as long as the US wishes, then Sweden will be punished by the US. If Sweden, France, Finland, Denmark etc. don't allow the US to come in their FBI planes and grab prisoners to interrogate them in mid-flight, where there are no laws against torture, these European countries will be punished.
I also believe in people and their right to decide ther own lives. The US government doesn't. If they did, they wouldn't interfere in South American coca plant farmers' lives. If they did, they wouldn't interfere with the democratic outcome of Chile's, instead supporting a fascist regime of the same kind as in the US. If they did, they wouldn't cry wolf just because you can smoke weed in the more liberal parts of Europe.
I also believe in nations deciding for themselves. It might come as a surprise to you, but the approval rating of the Chinese government is probably much higher than that for the Bush administration. China is a country in development. There is no point in pushing it at this moment. There will eventually be a transition of political power in China, unless the US screws up this process, trying to force democracy on China. It will never work!
That is the whole problem with the US today, trying to force their way onto EVERY corner of the world, disrespecting the wills of the people in those remote areas. What's the fucking point in installing a democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq? Those nations don't have the necessary framework to become democracies at this point in time. Democracy is a process, not a tool.
If you look at the declaration of human rights, you will see that it is written by Westerners. People in Asia don't share these views, and you can't change their mind sets without a lot of time, i.e. it is a loooooooong process. Just look at the US complaining about the very liberal views on pornography in Japan; the US forced its Victorian views onto Japan. No nation may be less liberal and democratic than the US, but no nation may be MORE liberal and democratic than the US either; it is the essence of the American colonial rule, and I have had enough of it.
I could also present a more personal proof that the American government only cares about American lives (as Madonna would put it), and doesn't care a bit about the rest of the world, unless it directly affects US interests (like coca in Bolivia, like oil in Iraq, and so on): My daughter is still in the US, held hostage by the fascist regime currently installed, despite the fact that she is an orphan in the US after her mom died. That is not in her interest, but it evidently is in the American government's interest. That sort of behavior is usually expected from Saudi-Arabia and such nations, not the US.
'Well, IBM complied with legal orders when they cooperated with Nazi Germany. Those were legal orders under the Nazi German system.'
IBM Germany division simply had no choice. What is not talked about much is that IBM's US division was ashamed at that forceful compliance and used their factories to manufacture weapons for the US military. It was a sort of paying their dues for their German counterparts assisting the Nazis in WWII. There are still many IBM stamped guns out there. Most are M1 Carbine rifles.
If a company is truely global, it also means they have to apply to the laws of their respective countries they do business with. If the US doesn't want US based companies to play ball with China's restrictions, they simply could put a trade restriction against China. It would be like what has happened with Cuba then. That wouldn't be the best of moves since China is a huge manufacturing country that makes a lot of products we import. You simply can't ban Internet companies ability to do trade with China and not ban everyone else as well. If they don't like the sensorship China requires by law, then take it up with China and the UN to pressure them. China, regardless of acceptance, makes the laws that pertain to their country and others either abide by them if they want to deal with China or stop doing business with them.
root 10956 5164 0 Oct 22 - 0:23 sendmail: rejecting connections: load average: 70 (isn't sendmail just too kind)
...if someone didn't make a D&D reference as part of a serious political discussion.
With your third-rate education, you're probably not aware that Japan was a democracy before WWII...
"Lantos ... is the only Holocaust survivor serving in the House." Enough said. The man was part of an underground anti-Nazi resistance group while in hiding in Nazi Germany. I think he knows what he's talking about.
I am scientifically inaccurate.
Uh, you're kidding right? Notice how you put _riot_ after Newark? Yeah, in Tiananmen Square it was a hunger strike. I'm not sure what to say if you think they're the same thing and should be handled in the same manner. Not to mention the fact that you say 20+ people were killed in Newark (quick wikipedia search shows you're right at 23). Figures at Tiananmen Square are not precise (because of - oh wait, censorship) but the lower bound provided by the CIA is >400. I never said that the US government didn't do bad things, but the parent I was originally replying to implied that our government did far worse.
An academic question; how to compare Google's deeds with those of Lockheed, who were happy to sell China technology for their missiles, oh wait, "satellite launching platforms". That was a few years ago. Any sign that Lockheed is any worse for wear? It'd be hard to complain about their last 2 yrs (ticker: LMT). Personally, Lockheed's profiteering is a bit more worrying to me.
If you felt the way do you would not champion China, who has exerted at least as much influence on its neighbors in Asia as the U.S. has on its neighbors in the Americas.
China does not have the global influence the U.S. does simply because it is not as powerful a nation as the U.S. is, economically or militarily. If it was it would exert its influence as powerfully. If you really believe in what you're typing your ideal nation would be Switzerland perhaps.
The U.S. system of government makes it more open to foreign influence than China's government is. No nation has spent as much to influence U.S. elections as China has. And it has paid off--despite the negative opinion of China that many Americans have, it is continually renewed to Most Favored Nation status and the U.S. currently has an annual $200 billion trade deficit with China.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Because it was Tojo and the rest of the Japanese military that led Japan into WWII. At least in Germany you can kinda say Hitler was elected. Not so in Japan. Not once in that Wiki on Tojo will you read the word "election" or for that matter any conjugation of the verb "elect".
So, how many years did you spend in 2nd grade. moron? I'll bet those were the best years of your utterly useless fucking life.
The people brokering our investments are just doing what we tell them. If you don't want to invest in Google then you always have the option of putting your money elsewhere. If you're a mutual fund investor then it's your responsibility to read through the prospectus and see where that money is going. To make things easier for you, many investment companies offer "Ethical Funds". They tend to have a lower rate of return than the other funds, but that's be be expected because their priorities are different. When consumers stop buying from unethical companies then the ethical ones will become a better investment.
The brokers of the various investing companies are the one selling us this "eat our own tail" lunch
Welcome to the "Walmartization" of America. Purchasing from a regular mutual fund rather than an ethical fund is essentially the same as choosing to buy products at Walmart instead of your local department store. People are inherently greedy and seldom consider the effects of their purchases. People who shop at Walmart and then complain about their local industries all going bankrupt really need to wake up!
capatilism. All else is unpatriotic. :=]
He has no reason to be ashamed; he's a member of the minority party and appears to be doing what he can to oppose the policies you criticize. Blaming him is manifestly unjust.
If this keeps up, look for "Illbay" on the list of policy advisors for the Hillary! 2008 campaign!
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
China is definitely not a Communist society in the way the USSR was. On the other hand it's still a single-party, totalitarian regime, despite having become a capitalist success story. Maybe we should reconsider the Clinton doctrine of capitalism -> democracy. And while I agree that the Internet as a whole is providing much needed knowledge to the Chinese people, I don't think Google can get away with this defense. When the government gets to choose what knowledge may be searched out, then it's no longer knowledge, it's propaganda. At least Google has reserved the right to report when it's censoring something.
I much prefer Wikipedia's approach. The Chinese Wikipedia covers topics like Falun Gong, and trusts that the Chinese government will respect their adherence to a neutral point of view. Though at the moment, they don't.
Except not everyone can change what's being done, so all they can do is speak. Should all the dissenters in Congress who can't change the status quo resign in shame? It'd convey an interesting message, but it'd be pointless.
Both Koreas were able to get themselves UN membership. Once a country has UN membership, it's really, really hard to persuade people that oh, it's always really been a part of your other country. :)
(It's also supposed to be really, really hard to go take over it, since UN members kind of agree not to do that to one another, in theory, but, well, Afghanistan didn't really have much of a stable government, so it was missing UN representation. In the last year, I've been very pleased to see Afghan delegates at UN meetings. I'm not sure what Iraq's representation was pre-2003, since I've only been watching since 2004, but I see Iraqi dels too.)
Taiwan, of course, doesn't have UN membership, and China will probably make sure it doesn't get it - probably not even non-voting "observer" status, if they can help it. I forget whether the Palestinian Authority has "observer" status yet.
And for what it's worth, from the get-go UN members have, on paper, committed themselves to acting in the best interests of the inhabitants of non-self-governing territories they control, and helping those inhabitants achieve self-governance. This has taken us from something like 82 nations in 1950 to almost 200 today.
This is, of course, on paper. In reality, countries have often fought tooth-and-claw to prevent territories or regions from going off and doing their own things, either by cultural/religious/linguistic/etc subjugation of their indigenous peoples, by refusing to give them a proper "status quo, further integration or independence, please tick one box" plebiscite, or by simply taking them off the list and telling the UN "um, we solved the problem, thanks, no need to keep watching any more."
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.