Slashdot Mirror
The Message from Seattle
Much of America was surprised by the disturbances in Seattle this week, especially the sometimes violent street protests and confrontations over what seemed to be a mixed bag of environmental, technological, economic and social issues.
What were these protests really about?
It was widely suggested in the mainstream media that many of the demonstrators had no idea what they were protesting, that they were just acting out, or mimicking other protest movements. Three "anarchists" in ski masks named Spider, DangerZone and Nimo gave interviews all week to reporters, usually in shadowy light from secret locations.
Is there anything more endearing than watching reporters interview menacing Net-based anarchists with Web sites? Why does one get the sense these kids will be chuckling all the way back to their dorms? Finally, we know why Dr. Evil had his headquarters in a Starbucks in Seattle's famous needle.
All week, "analysts" have been zeroing on this alleged anarchism, hinting darkly of nihilistic conspiracists, union thugs and a wanna-be-like-the-60's generation that has no real knowledge of global politics or indigenous social issues to call its own.
But it seems more accurate to say that many journalists missed the point. They seemed to have no idea what they were seeing and covering in the streets. The protestors weren't aping the battles of the 60s, but raising new, in many ways much more complex ones. They relate to corporatism, humanism, Net regulation, the environment, globalization and technology.
Street brawling aside - the birth of political movements is usually neither pretty nor coherent - this new kind of leaderless, bottom-up movement could best be described as Techno-Idealism. Defined on the Net, this new movement has already launched its first red-hot idea - that corporatism has run amok.
There was, perhaps inevitably, the notion, not the first or last time this will be suggested in coming weeks, that all of this poorly-articulated, diffuse and anarchic anger could only have come from the Internet.
"The confusion about the protestors' political goals is understandable," wrote a New York Times columnist Thursday, "this is the first movement born of the anarchic pathways of the Internet. There is no top-down hierarchy, no universally recognized leaders, and nobody knows what is going to happen next."
The writer had a point. Perhaps one reason politicians and journalists have been so viscerally hostile to the Internet is that many of them foresaw this techno-driven political response to the rise of very big business: an era of absolutely unbridled, unprincipled and rapacious bigness, immorality, inhumanity and greed. The era of the mega-merger, takeover and acquisition without regard to consequence has created companies of unprecedented size and reach. Their rise has raised a host of social and moral issues, few of which have been seriously addressed - until Seattle.
Perhaps this political movement was inevitable coming from the children of the Boomers, who talked a lot about revolution but ended up doing a lot more business.
Protestors at the WTO conference were hardly vague. They were vocal and specific in citing the damage and suffering corporatism has caused all over the world - to human rights, working conditions, the environment and notions of security, privacy and personal and creative freedom.
Sorting through a wave of e-mail from Seattle and watching and reading shocked, increasingly angry accounts of the WTO protests, the message from Seattle is striking, especially when it gets past the media screen.
Apart from its physical targets - there were efforts to trash Starbucks, Nike, Gap and McDonald's stores and franchises in several days of near-rioting in Seattle - the most striking thing about the protestors was their diversity - all ages, all types, a lot of different causes.
But the causes weren't unrelated: they were nearly all connected, in one form or another, to perceptions of threats to freedom and to corporate greed and immorality, and to the failure of domestic or international governmental authorities to curb or respond to either.
If the protestors were lacking a single coherent 60's style political theme, (stop the War, racism is bad) the 90's version was impressive: a visceral, intensely political - and yes, increasingly Net-centered - response to Corporate Bigness is underway.
It's dangerous to generalize about all big corporations. And many of the Seattle protesters are enthusiastic free-marketeers. What they're opposed to is out-of-control business with no morality - the motto of our times. Some big businesses have advanced research, helped the environment, supported human rights, generated good jobs and economic opportunity, created valuable new products. But spontaneous social movements don't always draw fine distinctions.
In the past generation, corporatism - for which the WTO has become a metaphor - has been blamed for a daunting list of social wrongs, even crimes.
The institutions and entities that are supposed to be monitoring and regulating powerful corporations in America - government and journalism come to mind - have been, in different ways, muted and corrupted. They have failed to do their jobs or meet their historic obligations. Corporatism has invaded the workplace and transformed business with relatively little serious public discussion or oversight.
Small wonder the protesters were furious.
The Techno-Idealists can't look to Congress to monitor corporatism. Big business is now the dominant contributor to the political process. Journalism isn't about to do it. Most major national American media outlets have been corporatized and acquired by the very institutions they're supposed to be monitoring. Book publishing, now almost wholly owned by multi-national media conglomerates, isn't about to pick up the slack.
The protestors in Seattle seemed to articulate these issues with considerable clarity, even if many people in authority didn't want to hear it, preferring instead to huff about violence and irresponsibility.
Oppressive corporatism - foreseen and warned about by great writers from Orwell to Huxley to Sir Arthur Clarke to John Raulston Saul - has grown beyond even their imagination. Corporations have staggering resources and power to shape the modern world, despite the fact that they have no political agenda or ideology apart from dominating markets and maximizing profits.
But that's what makes these mega-entities so venal, even dangerous. By necessity, they exist in a moral vacuum in which almost everything is morally acceptable except making less money, and human and moral concerns are subordinate to profit. As corporations have become more global, and more and more of what they do occurs out of sight of democratic processes and scrutiny, they have become even less accountable, thus less moral.
"The WTO is Satan," e-mailed a Seattle protestor yesterday. "Not only because it threatens freedom by trying to help corporations damage human and labor rights, control property, tax the Net, corporatize technology, control intellectual content and ruin the environment, but because it's a stand in."
For what?
"Bigness. Indifference. Greed. Crummy jobs. Arrogance. Child labor. Being put on hold for hours when you call. Loss of freedom. The freedom of technology and commerce to grow unfettered. The WTO isn't responsible for all these things, but it's a pretty good focal point to start the fight. It's the tool of these companies, the mouthpiece."
"For the last 20 years," e-mailed a middle-aged Boomer, "ordinary Americans have been treated like toilet tissue by the 20 per cent that owns the whole damn country and its government."
And not just "ordinary" workers.
Middle-class and affluent workers have been down-sized, re-engineered, terminated, re-located and threatened by global corporations practicing new "flexible" (a/k/a: everyone is insecure, vulnerable and dispensable, everyone's role and mission is continously subject to change) personnel policies.
"It's not an issue of left or right," e-mailed Mark, a college student arrested during the first day of the protests. "It's an issue of top to bottom."
This idea is, of course, instantly familiar to anyone who's spent any time on the Internet, perhaps the most radically lateral, that is to say, many-to-many rather than top-to-bottom, social and economic system in the world.
The protestors in Seattle made some telling, nearly irrefutable arguments. Corporatism has, in fact, damaged the environment by creating incalculable amounts of products that pollute and trash the earth. Corporations have increasingly acquired and sought to monopolize whole elements of culture, from movies to books to the press. This has sparked an epidemic homogenization of popular culture - not a dumbing down, but a dulling down - as controversial, profane, sexual or other "controversial" cultural offerings from books to movies to music are eliminated or pushed to the margins so that safer products can be mass-marketed.
In the United States, corporatism is celebrated for generating a booming economy in which profits are greater than ever, but work for most people is much worse: transient, poorly paid, unrewarding.
Younger workers are forced into dead-end and poorly paid positions with little chance of advancement or meaningful work, while older workers are down-sized, re-engineered, laid off in droves. Countless millions of workers - from kids to the elderly - have been victimized and brutalized worldwide by modern corporatism and the ruthless way it competes.
The protest movement that popped up in Seattle isn't anti-globalism.
It's distinctly and specifically anti-corporate.
The roots of the demonstrations lie in the notion that companies are behaving immorally: Nike, which has been accused of making products in sweatshops, the human rights campaign that targets Royal Dutch/Shell in Nigeria. Or Microsoft, which has been accused of monopolizing software and information markets for years, but which is only now facing tepid government regulation. Ironically, some of Microsoft's employees joined in the demonstrations in Seattle.
There have also been protests against Monsanto's genetically engineered foods in Europe; individualistic (mostly geek-generated) struggles against the recording industry's cabalistic efforts to control music.
Other issues cited by the protestors: individual liberty, economic dignity, patent control, the freedom of intellectual property, higher wages, job security, labor rights, environmental protection, and some check on the rise of corporate power and influence.
Does this protest movement have its roots in the "anarchic pathways of the Internet?"
Sure.
The political potential of the Net has always been pushed aside by obsessive preoccupations with pornography and business. On top of everything else, the eruption in Seattle demonstrates the ability of activists and ideologues to form their own grass-roots communications networks out of the sight of traditional institutions. The WTO protests didn't come out of nowhere, it was just that nobody in authority was in a position to see them coming.
Many of the protestors in Seattle are - using new technologies like the Net - beginning to do the work of politicians, regulatory agencies, legislators and journalists. Perhaps that's the real message to the WTO and the rest of the world.
But if you listen to many of the messages and e-mails, they aren't all that scattered. They do have a lot in common. They are challenging Bigness and asking whether or not increasingly powerful corporations shouldn't be held to a higher standard of moral behavior; whether government shouldn't act to preserve freedom and elevate human rights rather than conspire to suppress them.
These questions are not foolish. They're powerful and timely. Public discussion of them is long overdue. Corporatism is a civic menace. It pushes the individual aside. It spawns greed, passivity and conformity.
The demonstrators aren't raising old issues, but very new ones. The real question isn't why protestors exploded in anger, but what took them - and us - so long?
The events in Seattle are meaningless. Diffuse reasons for unity are soon dissipated. Each allied group retakes its place
as client of power. Soon all are competing again for the teat and the attention of the mother of power. Only the rejection
of power represents growth. Growth is meaningless.
When Starbuck's is rebuilt, it will be a mightier Starbuck's. What does not kill Starbuck's makes Starbuck's stronger.
McDonald's is stronger. Capitalism is stronger. Earth rape is stronger. Only rejection of power means anything. And that
means very little.
There is no golden era to which we may return. It has always been worse than it is at the present. The present also sucks.
Only rejection of the present and the past, and denial that future exists can reject power.
Blank Frank is the messenger of your doom and your destruction. Blank Frank finds no present, even at yuletide, which is
itself either a rejected memory or denied anticipation.
Fun exists, but must wither away as it acquires meaning. Meaning is the destroyer Blank Frank heralds. Meaning is
meaningless, a function of becoming meaningless.
Wow, KatzDot 2.0 does a good job of auto-generating message bodies as well!
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
yet again. Nice try, though.
When you were a kid, you may have traded baseball cards... what happened during that process? You got rid of your duplicate cards, trading them for your friends duplicate cards. You would get rid of what you had alot of, and got rid of what you did not need.
This concept still holds true today, with nations. Nations as a goal will better from free trade. Our self preservation instinct should be kicking in right about now and realizing that free trade is the way to go.
I am unsure that the Seatlle rioters realize this.
Comments?
Sosumi. just kidding. DONT!
...whomever first coined the word "corporatism". Now that word is actually quite descriptive of the approach, and is quite different from the other -isms that exist. I'm glad to see the enemy has a name.
Despite all the media hype around the violence, I've been really excioted by the events in Seattle. Finally, it seems a large segment of the population has realized that fundamental issues, such as freedom of speech, freedom or assembly and the right to control their own government are what matter, not our own views on individual issues. The left and the right (outside of the mainstream) are both realizing that the ideas expressed in the Constitution should come before personal, moral and economic ideas.
Perhaps one of the most enlightening things I heard (on tuesday) was that a local militia was considering entering the protest are to defend the protesters' rights to assemble and to free speech.
Techno-Idealism ? ? ? Pffft yeawhatever
Young skulls full of mush, the lot of them!
Lets close up all the shops. Lets board up all the businesses. Lets shut off our computers. Lets go back in our caves. "Corporatism" is evil. Thanks Jon Katz! You are amazing.
SATAN = 666
WTO = 5512
World = 5
Trade = 5
Organisation = 12
Dude, they aren't even in the same neighborhood! They're 19 blocks away!
I was listening to KYW (the local CBS radio station) and heard a name from my childhood coming back at me - a friend had gone to Seattle to protest.
The protests weren't the riots, the riots were radicalists. There were valid protests there. People seem not to realize it.
Needless to say, she was very very upset about it. She had travelled all the way out there from Wesleyan, and then got classified as a radical.
*sigh* people claim they know all from looking at a segment of trees or the forest. I don't claim I know the radicalists or the protestors, but I do know that people are being shortsighted. Let's see the whole thing.
So many things couldn't happen today
So many songs we forgot to play
So many dreams coming out of the blue
ls:
(A)bort, (R)etry, (I)gnore?
Any society that strives for bigness eventually falls. The Persians empire fell. The Greek empire fell. The Roman empire fell. The British empire fell. The German empire fell.
The government seems, in some part, to be striving for a planet unified under a single body of policy; This was the same goal held by every empire in this world's history.
What would the world be like if the United States fell next....?
Just a thought.
ZP
Got Rhinos?
And now this "analyst" chimes in with his own overblown, incorrect assement of the situation. Instead of assigning the mainstream media's ideals to the protestors that don't exists, Katz assigns his own ideals to the protestors that don't exist. Pot. Kettle. Black.
At least the mainstream media reports are brief.
Coward, Anonymous
This article is no exception. However, he seems to be excusing the violent and destructive behavior of some of the "protesters" ("rioters" is more accurate in their cases). I don't care how angry you are over what the WTO is doing -- that does not give you justification to destroy others' property.
Sure, there are rare cases when violence is necessary, but protesting against the WTO and what it seems to represent is not one of them! The individuals who will feel the pain from the damage that was caused have done little, if anything, to hurt the public -- and the corporate leaders who the protesters should be angry at won't feel a bit of pain.
Let's face it; in any large grouping of people -- particularly people who are there to protest -- there will be some who can't control their impulses and do some things that are just plain wrong. And because of them, the real protesters' views get obscured behind the poor behavior of the others.
That's the real tragedy.
Powers&8^]
Powers&8^]
Through what mass-media coverage of the protests I managed to catch, I couldn't help but be reminded of the rioting at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, one of those things that has always made me wish I'd been born one generation earlier :) In particular, I heard that there were scores of people at the protest chanting "The Whole World Is Watching" while the police moved in with tear gas and clubs.
The '68 DNC was significant not only because of the rioting, and the Chicago 7 (or 8, depending on who you ask) trial, but because it was the first time that mass media (television in particular) had allowed images like that from our own soil to be broadcast right into the living rooms of everyday american homes.
The yippies to some extent (certainly more than the policemen beating unarmed protesters on camera) realized the opportunities afforded by this new kind of media coverage, and may have sought in some ways to provoke the police into more vicious attacks (the weathermen, for example, would chant "pigs eat shit. pigs eat shit. pigs eat shit." at approaching police lines), because they knew it was all being broadcast on the NBC Nightly News. "The Whole World Is Watching" takes on new significance in this light.
While I don't think the WTO protests are anywhere near the calibre of the '68 DNC, the situation is similar in some ways, as Katz pointed out. The event seems to have centered around a new type of media, a whole new way of communicating drastically altering the way we organize ourselves . Net coverage of the event has been particularly extensive (what are we doing right here?).
To quote Robert Anton Wilson (roughly) "Marx was wrong. Society is not determined by its means of production, it's defined by its means of communication."
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
"I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno
Though not copying the hippie movement of the 60's but the motivation is the same. The establishment is screwing everybody over and these protestors are just speaking out, wether it is for our enviroment, human rights or any other issue. Every generation needs a select few to step forward and demand a change for the better, though ridiculed by their peers and misunderstood those that speak up are those that change society.
SilverFate [Y]our wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick - Ian Anderson "Thick as a Brick"
Rioters log-on to the internet and loot on-line.
(with due credit to David Letterman)
Christopher A. Bohn
cb
Oooh! What does this button do!?
Give me a specific item on the WTO agenda that needs to be protested about. Yup, big companies need to have rules about conduct, and monopolies are not good, we've know that for some time. That's what anti-trust laws are for. If we have free trading all over the world. The 3'rd world countries will finaly have the possibility to trade fair. Instead of having to buy dumped merchendise from the industrial coutries, which makes a few people incredibly rich, and ALOT of people very very poor (the workers in the factories in the third world countries) FREE the market!!!
After reading this, I'm not sure of Katz got the point of Seattle. The "anarchists" were just schmucks. It seems that the mainstream media sucks, and if you're a schmuch with a website explaining some standpoint, you'll be interviewed. You'd be hard pressed to find a news cast that actually tried to explain what was going on in terms of WTO discussions.
However, what really happened with the media coverage is that the riots were covered, police brutality included, and actual WTO events were not covered.
Jon Katz, oblivious to reality again. But at least he didn't mention "Columbine".
I thought that the article was rather insightful and an interesting read. I agree with what's expressed in it. If you don't, then you don't have to read it. But if all you can do is complain about the author, you're wasting everyone's time.
Enough is enough, Katz is still here, BFD, quit whining and let it go.
I think it was anti-globalist. This is just one spoke in the globalist wheel. Those in power (read: big business) don't want seperate countries out there each having their own identity and making their own rules, they want a one world government (yeah, I know conspiricy theory sounding, but accurate) where coorporation run the world. Let's face it, they pretty much own the US government and many others, why not band them all together and make the rules for them. Of course, this brave new world will be very benifical to the companies that own it.
:)
And of course, we little "citizen units" will ha happy with the life assigned to us, or else they will find us (since we will be totally monitered, and you KNOW encryption will be outlawed) and subject us to the government approved punishment.
The sad part is, I'm started writing this as a joke, but I'm not so sure I'm kidding anymore, this sounds possible. It certinly sounds like the direction we are heading.
It also sounds like I stole it from the script of the classic 70's B movie, Rollerball
Finkployd
Better than getting screwed by a totalitarian gowernment.
I'm not sure wheater to chose pain or "relative" poverty but it will probably be pain. I figure being the rodent in the wheel for a few years wont be to bad. I also figure i might be wrong.
I do know I don't want to grow up and get on with my life. The tech race is not something I want to be in for the next 40 years.
Sorry, but every time John prints something it seems to consist of regurgitated and compiled slashdot comments. He probably reads all the comments the previous story on this subject, then feeds it back to us (with a few thoughts of his own).
Of course many of us like it, it is what we said two days ago!
Every article from him starts off by saying (in essence): This is what the media believes on this subject, but they are completely off target, my opinion is, of course, right on target and really at the heart of the matter.
-Adam
"Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing."
In the us , violence is rare (for protest I mean)
The funny thing is that some of the protesters where european - because being heard in Europe isn't enough, If you want your ideas to travel around the world, it's easier if the TV that does the images recording is an American One - Because for so many things the US dictates the world:
lets take the simple beef problem. In europe 20 years ago it was prouved that giving cattle some hormones was dangerous for man's health
that kind of production was banned in europe , not in the US.
Now days the US producer (which do make money but only because they use hormones) want to come back on our markets - we don't want to ! and the WTO will try to force us
that inaceptable !
none Yet.
But you forgot to mention Columbine and Hellmouth and the plot of our children's rights to go see R rated movies without parents.
Let's hope it's just the tip of the iceberg.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Kythe
A lot of the protesters have been really upset about the some of the problems of the WTO. It may be dominated by the goals of the corporations, but this is true of most governments as well. The WTO is simply a larger-scale version of what happens in Washington, D.C.
I also have to wonder how many of the protesters who decry the "incrasing corporatism" aren't aware of how many benefits they get from the same corporations which they are attacking. This is more than asking how many protestors were wearing Nike shoes; did they drive to Seattle? Where did all of the gasoline come from; can they really say that they aren't part of our car-centric culture? Did they fly? Who made the airplane they flew in on? From how many countries did parts for that airplane come from?
This is a complicated issue, and it seems to me that many of the protesters weren't necessarily presenting a very thoughtful dissent to what the WTO is trying to do.
ROTFL!
"Safe" products have always been what are mass-marketed. Have you ever considered that your beloved masses enjoy "safe" things? Even prefer them? Companies push whatever sells.
Not everybody is like you, Katz. Just because you like long boring movies where people just sit around in a room asking "Why?" doesn't mean everybody else does, too.
-cwk.
Though it is easy to villify faceless corporations as the goons of the next century, consider that when it comes down to the wire, corporations are one of the mechanisms we have seen for allocating resources where they are wanted. Look at the box in front of you. Its Operating system may have been constructed by a loose-nit band of freewheelers, but you can bet that the CPU was produced on a multi-billion dollar fab plant. Even the great grand-father UNIX was invented by AT&T, back when they were a monopoly.
I agree that corperations need to be kept in check (just like the government, unions, religion, and anything else with power and influence) but before we blast them as the Great Evil, look at some of the good they can do - ideally, a corporation wants money, it gains this by producing a product and selling it. it sells it by making its product something we want.
Of course, this usually gets muddled somewhere along the way, just like governments usually somehow forget to protect everyone's rights and freedoms and religions loose sight of their original intent, and what have you. This is the price we pay and the risk we take whenever humans decided to act together towards some goal.
My point is, coroprations have achieved some pretty spectaculary forms of efficency (things individuals simple could not have accomplished on their own), and they have done some pretty shoddy things as well. Keep this in mind before condemning.
Just my humble opinion
Who am I? Subscribe and find out
"Many of the protestors in Seattle are - using new technologies like the Net - beginning to do the work of politicians, regulatory agencies, legislators and journalists. Perhaps that's the real message to the WTO and the rest of the world."
/.er
This is a valid point. The first time I personally heard the 'net advocated as a tool for social change was in a tent at the 1994 Glastonbury Festival; and it was a refreshing change; yes, computers can be used as tools to bring about social and environmental change; used properly they can be extremely effective for the purpose, despite their (current) exclusivity.
The network that brought the Seattle protests into being started as a meeting of about two dozen people in a London community centre in July 1998; from three groups; Reclaim the Streets, Greenpeace (London) (no connection to Greenpeace International) - a group better known for the McLibel trial and People's Global Action.
We didn't know where it was going, but reckoned that it would be a damn good way of opposing the MAI; to use the global nature of the 'net to provide a global counter to the WTO. We got in touch with groups like the Zapatistas and Karnataka State Farmer's Association in India; and suggested an action on June the 18th 1999; to coincide with the G8 meeting in Koln (in Germany).
As the records show, we managed to get about 43 countries onboard; and there was a good feeling about it; that we'd hit upon a good way of co-ordinating resistance to the WTO; which is why a repeat action was staged in Seattle on November the 30th.
If a popular resistance is to be mounted to the WTO, the our resistance has to be as transnational as capital.
- A London J18 activist, Debian fanatic and regular
This isn't USA Today. /. readers can read *and* comprehend at the same time ...
I was in and out of downtown all day on tuesday. In the morning there was minimal activity downtown, a few intersections blocked but everything was pretty tame, so I headed to memorial stadium. The stadium was PACKED. Very impressive. I waited for the AFL-CIO march to start, and then followed it into downtown. Downtown was complete chaos. There was no organization whatsoever. The objective was simply to surround the places of meeting and the hotels to prevent entry and exit. All remained relatively peaceful. MANY MANY of the retail core shops were in bad shape. Anything on the ground floor was shattered. The insides of the shops were not looted, but there was glass and spraypaint everywhere. I saw this in the morning, and when I returned downtown with the protesters, it looked like no further damage had been caused, so it would appear that the violent demonstrations took place the day before. There were several people putting dumpsters in the middle of the road to form blockades, and anything loose (like the times/PI paper dispensers) was torn for the sidewalks. It wasn't clear if that had happened earlier or recently.
As you know there was a large dispensal of tear gas and pepper spray. For me, this came later. All day the police were trying to section of the crowd. They eventually contained most people to the pike pine corridor, and then to pine. I can't say this for sure because there was so much confusion, but I found no exit from pine street twords the end. The police then cut through the middle of pine street (don't know where), and then pushed half of the crowd twords the market and belltown, and the other half up the pine street overpass. The crowd (myself included) was sitting peacefully with some istance from the police when they decided to move us back. They wanted us out of downtown obviously from the looting (none of which I saw firsthand), but also because they initiated a 7PM curfew on downtown. NOBODY ever announced this to the crowds. I didn't find out about it until the 11 o'clock news. They never said "please withdraw" or leave or anything. Very suddenly the cops began to lob teargas into the crowds. They didn't aim twords the front to try to push the crowd ahead, they were simply filling the streets with it. I brought a gasmask, and promptly put it on. The crowd of course retreated up pine.
The teargas flowed, and the crowd retreated until we got to the I-5/Pine overpass. The crowd began to stop along with the gas. There was a 100 foot space in between the police and the crowd. There was a standoff for several minutes, until people started to throw bottles and empty tear gas cannisters at the police. Several people were also launching fireworks at them (smart move). In return the police started firing rubber bullets tipped with pepper spray. They also started firing MASSIVE rounds of CS gas (possibly pepper spray, I felt a burning on my skin, whereas what they used downtown only seemed to affect my lungs, minimally at that), again into the center of the crowd, not the front line. There was an all out stampede up pine street at this point. The police continued to fire until the crowd had (semi)dispersed. In the confusion I was hit with several of the rubber bullets, so if any media source has said they weren't firing them, they're LYING.
I went home and later went down to broadway (near seattle community college) where there was a scene of mindless desctruction FAR different from the almost entirely peaceful protests downtown. People were lighting dumpsters on fire, smashing up bus stops, throwing things, etc. The cops arrived, and not looking to get another whiff of tear gas, I decided to go home.
For the most part the crowd remained peaceful all day. There were a VERY SMALL minority of people throwing fireworks or bottles (mabey 10 out of 10,000). When the bottles were thrown, myself and others yelled out for them to stop (and they did). We as a whole remained peaceful, and our only crime was sitting. The fact that a few people decided to launch fireworks into the police probably set off the entire thing. I'm still trying to make sense of it all, as most of the night was filled with an air of complete chaos. -Ryan
Notice: This article does NOT feature the word "geek". It does have the term "geek-oriented" but it's inside a parenthetical comment so we'll forgive it.
Guiness Book of World Records Entry: December 3, 1999 - Jon Katz writes an article without using the term "Geek" or referring to how helplessly misunderstood they are.
I suppose I'm a geek, but I've always felt a little uncomfortable with the way that Jon Katz approaches the topic of geeks. Debate however you want on whether he is actually a geek or not, but I don't feel that he is, and since I don't feel that he is, it sounds very strange always hearing characterizations of people like myself from somebody who's on the outside. I'm not trying to be elitist, just that if you're not a geek, your characterisations of geek behaviours should be just about as valid as, say, a politicians characterizations of geek behaviors, which is to say not at all.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
They are challenging Bigness and asking whether or not increasingly powerful corporations shouldn't be held to a higher standard of moral behavior;
While I don't usually agree with Katz, I must agree that large corps should be held to a higher degree of morality. That said, the question is: WHICH morality will they be held to?
Large corps are mostly international in nature, and people in (and within) different countries all have different standards as to what is "moral". Is McDonalds immoral because the cow is a sacred animal to some? In fact, are ALL meat producing companies immoral because some people believe that eating meat is wrong? On the other hand, there are some people (I know a few) who have practically no morals. Do we want to use them as a basis for international morallity?
I gues what I'm saying is that having companies adhear to a certain moral standard is a good idea, you can't enforce it and make everyone happy.
"The obvious is that which is least understood and most difficult to prove." -- A fortune cookie
Sorry, Jon, I interpret the events in Seattle as yet another manifestation of the lack of understanding of economics. It's well-established that free trade helps check corporatism and through comparative advantage, helps everyone.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I have never really liked the media much. I read slashdot and wired but only really read the comics (probably the only good and true thing in the entire paper). They started the Spanish American war (the paper is the one that reported a US ship was blown up by the Spanish to increase sales - - it wasn't blwn up by the Spanish. In fact, it wasn't blown up) and they never take responsibility for their actions. Blaming it on the net is very lame. On the other hand I think I would be rebelling against this as wel (if I was there) but I would go with Henry David Thoreau's method, that is, civil disobedience. But, then again, I'm not there so I dn't knwo what is _really_ going on or who to trust with informatin about it, so I'll stay neutral on this one.
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.
jdube is who I am
I have it on good authority from someone who works in Juvenile Criminal Justice in Seattle that most of the rioters are known gang members, who are taking advantage of the chaos of the protests to sow a little mayhem and violence. In addition, law enforcement knows that these people are gang members. But how much of this fact has trickled down to the media? Lends credence to some conspiracy theorists, I think.
-- "God, Root, what is difference?" - Pitr, "User Friendly"
URGENT - JOIN THE ACTION NOW!!
==============================
PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO ALL YOUR
FRIENDS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
WE NEED AT LEAST 5,000 PEOPLE ONLINE OVER
THE GLOBE TO MAKE THIS A SUCCESS!
-------------------------------------------------
the electrohippies collective
THE WTO VIRTUAL SIT-IN
======================
THE E-HIPPIES WTO SIT-IN PAGES ARE NOW ONLINE -
COME AND JOIN THE ACTION!
http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/ehippies/act ion/
To coincide with the WTO's Seattle Conference, the electrohippies are organising - as their first major virtual action - a 'virtual sit-in'. To take part in the sit-in all you have to do is load the appropriate web page and leave you computer online for a period of time; the longer the better!
The Action
----------
the electrohippies are organising a 'virtual sit-in' of the WTO's special conference website. It is intended that this website will be the main conduit for accessing information about the conference, and the events taking place. By taking action against the conference server, and the main WTO server, we restrict the PR staff at the WTO from spreading their global corporate agenda.
To make this action effective requires thousands of people to be online. However, because of the global nature of the organisation involved we hope to be able to achieve this figure. This means that people will have to consider the effect of different time zones this makes thing a little more complex.
The sit-in will begin. . .
- 08.00 USA & Canada (Pacific time), 30th November
- 16.00 Greenwich Mean Time (UK/Ireland)
- 17.00 Central Europe
- 18.00 Eastern Europe
- 21.30 Indian subcontinent
- 00.00 Honk Kong/Singapore/Western Australia, December 1st
- 02.00 Eastern Australia
- 04.00 New Zealand
. . . and will finish four days later.To take part in the action all you need is an Internet connection, and a web browser. What people have to do is access the special web pages written for the action and then stay on line as long as they possible can. For those with 'dial-up' access to the 'Net that means staying on line as long as you can afford, as often as possible, for the four days. If you cannot afford to spend much time online then concentrate on November 30th (or Dec. 1st for those in the East). But we would like people to aim to go online from 12.00 Pacific time on December 3rd (add 4 hours to the above timetable for your local time) until the end of December 4th.
For those of you with constant connections to the Internet - such as universities or corporations - the cost of being online isn't that significant. Therefore we'd urge you to stay on longer with more connections open. For those people with high speed dial-up connections or those with constant connections a 'special' version of the action web page is provided.
NOTE: THERE IS ALSO A SPECIAL EMAIL BASED ACTION BEGINNING AT MIDDAY, YOUR LOCAL TIME, DECEMBER 3RD, AND CARRYING ON TILL DECEMBER 4TH. FOR MORE INFORMATION POP BACK TOT HE E-HIPPIES SITE ON DECEMBER 3RD.
What is a 'virtual sit-in'
= ==
--------------------------
A sit-in is where a group of people place themselves in front of some sort of entry way, or inside a building, and remain there as a form of peaceful protest. That's not easy to achieve where the Internet is involved. Therefore we have to find a way of occupying 'space' in cyberspace.
This page has been developed from a similar facility - The Zapatista Tactical FloodNet. This page is a less flashy but equally functional alternative. The purpose of this page is simple. By accessing the WTO's websites using the Javascript-based pages you are in effect accessing repeatedly - as if you were pressing the 'reload' button on your browser every few seconds. The ability of a server to handle these requests depends on its bandwidth - that's the physical capacity to move data in and out. For most servers bandwidth is split, and there is only a small proportion of the bandwidth devoted to data coming into the site compared to data going out (this is because much more data flows out of web servers than flows in). So, constantly requesting information puts pressure on it's weakest point - it's incoming bandwidth. Using these pages to send multiple requests queues up requests to the web server. Ordinarily this is not a problem. But, if the server is busy, or there are many people across the world using this same site to do the same thing, it starts to eat up the server's bandwidth. If enough people were to do the same thing, it would prevent the server from being accessed. Eventually, if maintained for a longer period of time, it would temporarily crash the server. So, you get the idea. If enough people use this page at the same time, going for the same target, they'll gum up the server and prevent other 'ordinary' users getting access. What this page is then is a form of remote cyber sit-in or cyber-picket - we occupy space in cyberspace!
Follow-up actions
-----------------
The WTO action is the first electrohippies action. Others will follow on different themes and with different tactics. Mostly these will be based in the UK, and possibly Europe. If you would like to be put on a email list to receive notices of when actions are due to take place then send an email to mobbsey@gn.apc.org, marked "FAO ehippies" in the subject line.
END
=================================================
from the electrohippies - ehippies@tesco.net
visit the Electronic Activism and Civil Disobedience website:
http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/ehippies/
================================================== ========
I've been on Slashdot and seen the following two positions come out on the same day. I know that there's no reason to believe that anyone individual made them, but it strikes me as entirely within the 90's geek gestalt to hold both these views at once:
1. Regarding the independent ISP whose business is endangered by flames and letters to customers - defensive "that's too bad - the Internet is a rough place" and "that's one ISP who well never buckle under to the Feds again" remarks. And lots of "that's just a small minority - Slashdot shouldn't be judged by the actions of a few" remarks. That line is very often repeated whenever stories about flame-avalanches directed at writers and journalists is brought up.
2. Regarding the attacks on Starbucks and McDonalds - "those punks have no respect for property;" "the protestors are just acting up without knowing what they're talking about." Little discrimination is made between the "flaming" few and the nonviolent thousands. Tears are shed for the insured, corporate-buck backed mega-franchises that have to replace their windows and lose a couple days of business.
I think this betrays a deep bias in geek thinking: non-physical "violence" is ok in a way that physical or direct confrontation is not, even if the former is more destructive to peoples' lives. Maybe because a lot of geeks are body-loathing recluses who posture themselves as pure intellect. (Hell, I used to be that way.)
Maybe the fact is that people in the high-tech field are a little incriminated by these protests has something to do with it. People who are getting what they want often tend to promote the ideology that people get what they deserve, and any reference to large-scale economic inequities compromises that stance.
Anyway, quite UNLIKE Columbine, I do see the WTO event as a sea-change of sorts. An interesting way to end a millenium.
Yes: corporatism can be a bad thing. And yes, I think that a revolt against it was what the WTO Riots were largely about. You see, I believe that humans are intensely valuable. I believe that we are far more valuable than money, far more valuable than can ever be defined by "McWorld".
And so, it troubles me when I see the world turning to a dominant consumerism. When I see morals, ethics, and everything else replaced in public debate by "It's the economy, stupid". When I see the interests of anyone or anything subjected to the heartless, amoral desires of big business.
And there is a solution to this guys. It's called "break the cycle". We, as individuals (hopefully) interested in the worth of man beyond his pocket book, need to step out of consumerism.
What does this mean? Well, for starters, pay off your credit cards. And your car. And your house. That's right: be debt free. (I'm not, but I'm working on it as fast as my overpaid fingers can get me there). And don't think you always need the latest toy. Buy quality instead of the cheapest thing you can get that will look good. Trade in your plastic steak and frozen cake for a vegetable garden. Live small, think large.
Don't get me wrong: I don't have a problem with money or possessions. They are necessary, and it would be folly to eliminate them. But they are a dangerous servant and a terrible master. When we are dominated by our pocketbooks, we become moral wretches of the worst sort. We will do anything to maintain our illusory life-styles. Or, as the Book put it: "the love of Money is the source of much evil."
-- Slashdot sucks.
why I read SlashDot. Not for the hordes of trolls, flamers, and anonymous cowards, but for articles like this one. Sure it was a tad lengthy, but you know what? I read the whole damn thing. I think Katz did a good job of explaining what the anti-WTO protests are about while integrating topics of importance to many slashdot readers (There was even a Microsoft reference!).
If Katz missed the point, then I appear to have missed it too, because I liked this article.
So do us all a favor and enlighten us, O Wise One: what is the point?
First of all, it should be made very clear that the peacefull (and yes, there were many) protesters and the anachists should be held seperate. Second, the protesteres (not anarchists, remember) didn't cause most of this rioting. The police were seen taking people out of coffee shops after kerfew simply because they dind't have anyone to arrest. During the riot, a nurse was trying to help a man but was beaten by the police. She kept screaming that she wasn't protesting--that she was just a nurse helping an inujured man, but they beat her because she was there.
While I do agree in principle with the anti-corporate sentiment expressed by Katz, I think he (as usual) may have gone a little bit overboard in his presentation, so, to play devil's advocate a little bit:
Corporatism has, in fact, damaged the environment by creating incalculable amounts of products that pollute and trash the earth.
The thing to keep in mind when making sweeping statements like this is that these corporations could not produce these products if we didn't buy them. I've heard the argument that we're just too ignorant to buy better products, or that there simply aren't enough alternatives available, but I think that with the advent of the "one world economy" this argument is becoming less and less relevant...
Corporate workers aren't some seperate sect of society, living in seclusion and secretly working to fuck with us all. They're you and me, average joe's just looking for a job and a few extra $$ usually.
Corporations have increasingly acquired and sought to monopolize whole elements of culture, from movies to books to the press. This has sparked an epidemic homogenization of popular culture - not a dumbing down, but a dulling down [...]
Again we come back to the question, "Who's buying this shit?" The only possible answer is: we are. I agree with Katz, it sucks, and I've spent years kicking and screaming and complaining about it and finally come to one realization: "We (for the most part) *want* to be dumbed down." It's like the end of 1984, we love big brother, as much as we'd like to deny it. Why else would so many people watch shows like Jerry Springer and Friends? Why do so many people so desperately look for any way possible to avoid the horrific burden of thinking for themselves?
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
"I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno
I usually am more than interested in a rather objective opinion of things. Unfortunately in this matter I have a subjective view. I live very near Seattle - and work in the World Trade Center in Seattle, needless to say I have had my fun getting to and fro work.
.. it's time that changed.
As much as I respect other peoples opinion on how "evil" or not corporations are. Unfortunately hurting jobs, and stopping 8.5 million dollars of commerce (as of yesterday) in Seattle doesn't help the situation any. If they want to make their voices heard they must, absolutely must try to convince people through nonviolent, easy, nonconfrontationist, means.
Listening and watching people who are, as I see "so-called" anarchists really irk me. Wearing their Nike shoes, Casio watches made in Taiwan - etc. If they were so damned Anti-corporation, and anti-order, and anti-civilization - then please go live like the amish.
I honestly believe that the WTO is a good thing for the most part. This is something that you will never hear any other time, I really do not like overbearing government etc. - but let's be honest. The WTO exsists to shatter trade barriers - thus improving the economies, the point of all of this is not "patent issues, and corp. rights" -- as one Seattle commercial downplays the meetings agenda. Let me make one thing perfectly clear, not many in America are poor. Those who are, or those who have been to the extent of a third world nation may understand that when you are poor _you do not care about certian things_ - you want to eat and drink. Animal rights, human rights, and the environment take a back seat to survival. If we improve the economies of third and second world nations - the rest will fall into place. And why are they so poor in the first place? Well because they owe other countries so much money, and the 30 - 50 odd year old debt is so inflated that they can't pay it... so first cancel the debt, open trade barriers, and then things will start to improve.
But back to the anarchists, and even the protesters... Please, you say that the wto is there to take away human, animal, and environmental rights? Get informed - look at the hard facts. I will leave my soapbox with a quote that I heard once "Your garbage cans are the gourmet of the world"
... to watch Katz continue to shoehorn whatever's in the news today into his standard schema of "geeks" and "tech" and whatnot, no matter how well the topics fit together.
"Techno-idealism"? How on Earth does what's been happening in Seattle have anything to do with technology? It has more to do with social science than computer science -- people feel threatened because a faceless Other is making rules that affect their lives, and they have no recourse if they don't like the world the Other is building for them. So they go to protest -- peacefully -- and then people on both sides overreact (as is common when crowds face police) and things get out of hand. Where in this description do the words "Internet" and "technology" fit? They don't. The growth of technology is one big story in the modern era, but it's not the only story, and we don't need to pretend somehow that all events in our lives spring from a Prime Mover called Mother Internet -- or that the only way to invest significance in an event is to somehow associate it with the tech world. To do so cheapens both the important changes that tech has wrought on the world, and the other movements and ideas that affect our lives and times.
Seattle is an important moment. It could very well mark the end of the political era we think of as the "90s", which began with the Gulf War and George Bush's New World Order, and the start of the next era, the backlash to the globalization, corporatization, and McDonaldization of the planet. That's the story that'll come out of the Battle of Seattle, not that some rioters had Web sites or carried PalmPilots or whatever. Of course some of them have Web sites. A percentage of any random sample of people these days will turn up some with Web sites -- but correlation does not imply causation, and those Web sites did not spark the flames in Seattle, Jon. Those flames were sparked by the anger and fear of people who feel themselves being stripped of their freedom and dignity by tiny elites and the social forces those elites command. Let's keep our eye on the ball.
-- Jason A. Lefkowitz
Read my blog.
Wow, Katz is worse than usual...
...the notion that companies are behaving immorally: [snip] ... Microsoft, which has been accused of monopolizing software and information markets for years
And many of the Seattle protesters are enthusiastic free-marketeers. What they're opposed to is out-of-control business with no morality - the motto of our times.
And, pray tell me, which morality are you talking about? There are plenty of moralities around, a lot of them are incompatible. Is it the suburban-US morality (or it has been corrupted by the big bad corporations?) -- or is it Christian morality (oops, plenty of non-Christians around) -- or is it Buddhist, or Confucian, or which?
This is very western-centric.
Oppressive corporatism - foreseen and warned about by great writers from Orwell to Huxley
It was my impression that these writers didn't worry too much about corporations. What they worried about was government, and I personally am still much more distrustful of a government than of a corporation.
Corporatism has, in fact, damaged the environment by creating incalculable amounts of products that pollute and trash the earth.
And guess why? Because the people wanted them, because the people buy them, and because the people will continue to buy them. That is called "satisfying demand". Would you rather commute to work in a horse-driven carriage?
Younger workers are forced into dead-end and poorly paid positions with little chance of advancement or meaningful work
You are telling this to the Slashdot crowd, remember?
Since when monopolization of a market is a sin?? You can argue that this is economically inefficient and thus the society should step in, but this is all about economic efficiency. What has morality do with it?
Other issues cited by the protestors:
Ah, here we come to the interesting parts
individual liberty,
Meaning what? And what does it have to do with corporations?
economic dignity,
I take it this means "I want to be paid regardless of whether the work I do is useful, or even regardless of whether I work at all".
patent control,
Meaning what? Besides, I doubt this issue worries much your average person.
the freedom of intellectual property,
Err.. does this mean the freedom to own intellectual property, or the freedom to ignore intellectual property? Both are freedoms, you know.
higher wages, job security, labor rights,
I see. The meeting of of our union Local 2072 is now brought to order. Those fat cats have been underpaying us all our lives, and I want more money, dammit! This is my moral claim!
environmental protection,
That's like apple pie and motherhood, isn't it?
and some check on the rise of corporate power and influence.
Power vacuum gets filled quickly. So, tell me, if you don't want the corporations to have power, who is to have it? Government? No, thank you very much. A brief look at history, even only of the XX century is a pretty convincing argument to give government as little power as possible. "The people"? There ain't no such thing. What you would call "the people" I would probably call a mass and a mess of tribes, groups and subcultures with different agendas, different views of the workd, and different ideas about how to go about pretty much everything. The individual? Yeah, I'm all for it, but I have this tiny little nagging suspicion that any power taken away from corporation is not going to end up in the hands of an individual anyway. IMHO it is the governments who are mostly afraid of the growth of the competition to their power, so they try to keep their monopoly on power for as long as possible.
Katz is trying to make the Seattle protesters much nicer and more sophisticated than they are. As far as it seems to me, they are mostly a mix of the same union and Greenpeace types with a bunch of luddites thrown in. Calling them techno-idealists is a very big stretch.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Acting on the rage does not - in the long run - hurt the corporations. Nike will go to their insurance company and get a check, the "anarchists" will get the blame, and people's sympathies will go out to that company and the minimum wagers who were put out of work by these events. Nothing will change.
As the demand side in this thing we - in every country - can and should act. To those of you who say nothing can be done just look at the fundamentalist types in Kansas. Action can be taken politically and economically.
Political action can be taken in a couple of ways. Deluge your local rep of whatever with letter writting, e-mail, anything. Get a meeting and explain why the WTO is not a good thing. Focus on the bad things that can and are happening to her or his constituants. But better yet run yourselves. Maybe a House or Senate seat is out of reach now, but with all the apathy around do the fundamentalist thing: focus on a weak area. Like just getting a bunch of people out to hijack a local Democratic (or even better Republican:) party nomination. These are just two of almost unlimited possibilities.
As for the economic side, people aren't going to change their spending habits unless you give them a good reason. Outrage is nice, but most people don't really give a damn about some third world child labor. To get them onside you have to - and I know this is painful - "sell" them on the idea. If you go to lower income people and tell them that the Nike shoes that they have to scrimp and save for cost less than a dollar to assemble and the company that sells them scoffs at the idea of hiring American labor, prove to them that this corporation, for all its commercials, doesn't give a damn about them, then their sales will suffer. If you force them to change their business practices, they will take care of the competition. If they are subject to economic restraints that do not affect their competitors they will use their clout to change that.
Anyway.... putting the drones out of work at one corporate location doesn't really do a lot. Proactive actions must be taken.
IMHO as per
Constructive Criticism only, please:)
J:)
Oh well, no point in steering now.
Thousands of angry protestors marching in the streets is not the right approach to the problem. The government is almost completely spineless when it comes to keeping corporations in line and forcing some morality on them. And why should we expect them to be capable of this? Can you think of anytime in the last few years where you thought that government was acting nobly on behalf of global responsibility and morality? No, I didn't think so...
The problem here is the multinational mega-corporations, and so you must fight them with a solution that works in the language they understand. Political protests are an irritance that they pass off to their PR department. Don't be surprised if all of the protesters get mailed some coupons from Starbucks to say, "No hard feelings." No, to take on mega-corps, you have to go for their life blood, money.
Start boycotts of products, publicly reveal the crimes that these companies are committing abroad (even corporatized press hops on these stories any chance they get). Buy stock in the companies, show up to the share holder meetings and generally be a nuissance.
Get together the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and all of the organizations that were out there protesting. Pool funds, and then purchase stock in big corporations that need to be brought back in line. Once you've got a big enough chunk, they will listen! Threaten to dump their stock if they don't behave, and just generally be a giant pain in the butt.
How about this one? Get all of these organizations together and draw up a statement of beliefs. Try to come up with ground rules that all corporations should follow (paying a living wage, not screwing up the environment, etc). Then make a big hubub about putting together a list of those companies that do not meet your standard. Work with these companies to get them up to your standards.
These protestors had their hearts in the right place, but a little anarchy in the streets is not the weapon that this movement needs. Their sword should be the cash in their wallets as the corporations understand nothing else.
a writer. The WTO is not SATAN. IBM is not Satan. GM is not Satan. They are you and I, do you own any stock in a mutual fund? The things that are wrong with these large corporations are the things that are wrong with us all. People talk about large companies like individuals, when in fact it is made up of individuals. The individuals in government and big business are equally out of touch with what people on the street want. business men are beholden to stockholders, politicians are beholden to special interest. The truly cool thing about the internet is that, at some point, it will force capitalism and democracy to the lowest rungs of the social ladder. Before that happens expect business and government to fall in together to stop it. (ISP's and Telco's filtering content and access, Governments mandating it by law.) The real answer? Everyman is a f***ing island. Arm yourself, speak freely, move to amsterdam.
I'm glad to see the enemy has a name.
Sadly, the name of the enemy is "capitalism" and "corporatism" is a bit of a weasel phrase invented to try to give the implication that the terrible corporations who do such bad things are in some way different from the people who make the fantastic stuff. I don't like this because it obscures the Faustian bargain we've struck -- in order to get the economic system which delivers the most best goods cheapest, we have to put up with its habit of creating selfish, powerful entities of limited humanity. Call a spade a spade and admit that these are problems of capitalism per se.
Actually, I seem to remember "corporatism" being used in the past to describe a kind of three-way partnership between unions, companies and government. Kind of like the economic model of France and Germany. It produces fewer neato toys, but leaves you more time and space to enjoy them.
jsm
You can check out an excellent article (and references for further reading) by Mike Huben on the subject at Suite101, titled Globalism, Neoliberalism, and Corporatism.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Kythe
This has been an interesting and thought-provoking week. If nothing else the protests have forced people to become aware of WTO and what it is and does.
My first reaction (to my boomer horror) was -
Hey these guys trying to get into the meetings are actually sitting down and trying to hammer out compromises on these issues that are at least partially acceptable to everyone. The folks in the street are all screaming 'I want it MY way!'. I'd like to see the anarchists, milita members, greens, hippies, labor unionists, and Pat Buchanan-ites sit down and agree on anything!
I do agree, though, that the whole process needs to be opened up to the light of day and more people need to be brought to the table.
Also, inundated with advertising and junk mail catalogs during this holiday season, I've become even more disgusted and awestruck at the amount of pure useless CRAP that is being churned out and advertised by the corporate machine..... and how much of it is apparently bought by Americans.
The fundamental nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can. -- John Prine
There's a problem with the WTO's particular implementation of it. It has no respect for the workers or the environment at all. It has no requirements for its member nations to fulfill that make those nations respect the worker by giving decent wages and working conditions. And let's not even go into the whole environmental issue; suffice to say the WTO doesn't care about that either.
What does this mean for businesses? It means that it's most profitable to move all their jobs overseas. It's the nature of business to seek as much profit as it can get away with, so this is what's going to happen.
In other words, the WTO is in theory good, but in practice is little more than "Let's Screw America." Or the 95+ percent of American people that don't own businesses, at any rate.
If the WTO actually made sure its members enforced fair business practices, that would be one thing. In fact, it would do a much better job by this than it does now, because it would truly reduce world suffering (note that I didn't say eliminate; no treaty can really do that). As it is now, all it does is give more people overseas sweatshop jobs that don't even deserve to be called crappy (so bad, in fact, that their suffering isn't ended or even reduced, only changed in form), and creates more employment for Americans. The net effect: an increase in world suffering. Mostly centered on America (where most of the new suffering would be created), but in other places too, and reducing suffering nowhere except perhaps the homes of the insanely rich.
This is an age of mega-corporations, where people are sectioned up into "demographics" and statistics - your voice does not count unless you make more than a billion dollars a year or are a hollywood star. It's no suprise that voters have become disillusioned with our system such to the extent that minority interests are better represented than those of the "silent majority". Ad hoc groups like the so-called "moral majority" or the "christian coalition" have seized this unprecidented voter apathy to put forward their own agenda, further adding fuel to the fire.
"To fight to remain yourself, in a world trying to make you like everybody else, is the hardest fight you will ever be in."
Welcome to the 21st century - would you like to pay with cash or credit?
Activism is a sham... Even if continued potesting and fighting brings corporatism down, the only result will be to create a potential well for some other form of oppression to take it's place. What's required is a change in the attitudes of the masses. As long as they think like sheep, they'll be fleeced like sheep.
I wouldn't say the WTO riots are in any way 'focused'. While there was a common cause of the protestors, I don't think it was to fight 'corporate greed', it was to promote 'labor greed' -- in other, more civil words, it's the age-old desire for labor to get a bigger piece of the pie than management gives them. Whether or not this is justified, I'll leave to personal opinion -- but this isn't a question of techno-idealism at all.
In fact, I'd probably say it's the precise opposite, and here's why.
At the center of the debates were three issues: The rights of (more highly skilled and paid) U.S. workers in the face of corporations increasingly moving abroad for labor; preserving the environment in the face of aforementined corporate practices; and occupational health and safety and child labor laws. There were many, many other issues, such as tariffs and the like -- but the protestors represented (at least according to the Washington Post) these three interests first and foremost.
Let's see why none of these are really 'techno-idealism.
First of all, the desire to move corporations back to domestic borders (from the perspective of the workers) is because we are highly educated and skilled relative to the other unskilled workers of the world. Our janitors have a better lifestyle than your janitors, and so on and so forth. In a [whips out microeconomics textbook] perfect market environment, the natural solution would be that the unskilled labor would move abroad, and the more highly paid workers, driven by their incentive to still make a livelihood, would become more highly skilled. The world is starving for computer jobs -- yet the protestors are not attempting to eschew their (for the most part; there are many exceptions) factory and service sector jobs in favor of retraining for the computer sector.
Whether they should or not is a matter of personal opinion; however a true 'techno-idealist' would be so enamoured by technology as a means and an end that they would not be in fear of being laid off in favor of a developing Global South nation.
Readjusting an entire economy to accomodate a technological paradigm shift isn't easy; a lot of people will be left jobless and bereft; but IMHO once the riots and pundits and yabbering of Katz passes in a few years we'll deal with it. "Luddites" anyone? I'd hardly call them Techno-Anarchists. Although I'm sure Jon Katz's ancestor, Horatio Alger Hiss Katz III wrote in The Daily Colostomy-Tribune, "These Followers Of Ludd, They Are Ye Technoe-Anarchistes, And Their Love of Geeke-Dom Is Fain Magickal." People want jobs and will use any means necessary. Using a web as a warfare platform is a use of technology, yes, but is a lot lighter use of technology than actually retraining for a computer sector career.
Techno-idealists also would not combat (again for the most part) environmental issues in the way the protestors did. If we are to take Jon Katz' definition that a Techno-Idealist is one enamored of political issues and technology to the same order of magnitude that Katz bandies about the words "Columbine" and "geek", then we would perhaps view the motivation of these aforementioned idealists to find a TECHNOLOGICAL solution to matters. Rather than start a riot, another ideological issues is the use of alternative, lesser-polluting fuels -- which are techologically feasible at this point in history but which the corporations don't view as cost-effective. So the (rather erroneous) view is promulgated that these technologies are "future technologies" when in fact I can have a fuel-cell today. A Techno-Idealist would use aforementioned Technology (Magickal or otherwise =) to promote public consciousness and outrage about the fact that we use the petrified remains of dinosaur shit to create smoky and oily futures for ourselves, when everyone should be using a hydrogen fuel-cell and making (gasp) water.
Burning, smashing and harassing people, web page defacement and the like do not promote public awareness of HOW we can fix the environment. At best these techno-anarchists have said "There's something wrong with the environment thanks to Joe Suit here."
That's great, but what do we do about it? I didn't hear about a Return To Pastoral Bliss summer camp. Where do I sign up?
In the end, if technology advances as it does, the only pollution will be heat pollution And that's mandated by Law. The Second Law, in fact. But to get this technology to move the way it does, we need public awareness. And the Techno-Boobs aren't doing that. In fact, simply blathering about how the WTO is satan(TM) is probably the least productive thing to do.
Finally, it can be said that the 'workers rights' view of the WTO, that the WTO promotes child labor and other such travesties, are not combatted in a 'techno-idealist' manner. Again, the key is awareness -- but the wonder of technology is that it allows people all over the world to be made aware. Making US citizens aware via protests and other 'web wars', legitimate or not, is good -- but the true potential of technology isn't being exploited. No one, to date, has used the wonders of technology to let the members of the exploited nations realize what a shitty time they're having. In other words, the protestors are preaching to a 'largely indifferent' choir. But techno-idealism would cause the workers of the country to realize how bad it is once they see images of American life, etc -- and they will not have any incentive to work.
Once they decide not to work until conditions are made better, arbitrage takes hold and the other nation's wages go up (because workers demand it), thus jobs move back to the US in some proportion until a new equilibrium is reached.
To date, no one has used technology to reach the afflicted workers. Companies are only there because wages are low, because workers there don't realize how bad it is and are willing to work there for that cheap.
To change policy best, change economics; to change economics, change incentives. This is advertising. This is canvassing. This is protesting done in a technological manner -- namely efficient and expedient without the middleman.
But of course, Katz must think that rioting and technology go hand in hand, after seeing the ape-show at Slashdot.
But what am I but a poor graduating college student with a background in computer science and public policy.
The third area of protest is
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
Benjy "Monkeybagel" Feen has posted another account of the riots. He lives right on Capitol Hill in Seattle, where much of the rioting took place, and works for Amazon in the middle of the curfew zone. I understand his geek culture site got Slashdotted the first time it was mentioned here; wanna give it another shot?
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
It's the same in this case, IMO. There are alot of reasons to why things are the way they are, but a large chunk of it has to belong with the public at large. they are willing to buy clothes made by 10 year old children. They will buy the Indian cigarettes rolled by 6 year olds.
The Big Corporation is not a monolithic entity, but is made up of people much like you and me, and the same is true for Big Bad Government. They are us, and we are them. Now we want Big Bad Government to help against Big Bad Corporation. That's OK, since we can make the change ourselves, and in the end it's a matter of changing the individuals, not the organizations.
You are looking at the future of the world. A world where Multinational Corporations (MNCs) are vastly more powerful that Nation-states. In fact, many poeple think that MNCs are already the most potent force in international relations. Take IBM, and its desire to sell mainframes to China. While the US became a little uncomfortable at the idea, IBM argued that if China did not get it's computers from the US, they would simply get them from another country. So the US backed down and is now selling high-end computers to the nation it considers it's most dangerous security threat (although I think the US is five times as dangerous as China to the world).
You cannot stop this trend. As International bussiness expands, aided by the internet and advances in packing technology, the world can only become more connected, at least from a bussiness stand point. Don't like it? Too bad. Maybe you should lobby your representatives to isolate themselves from the world market. The day when your vote mattered in International affairs is long gone.
There are good things that can come of this, however. As Intl Bussiness heats up, cultural exchanges heat up as well, possibly resulting in greater acceptence of other cultures (or it could just creat more ethic conflict). Another good thing that can happen is things like the WTO.
Love it or hate it, the WTO, like the EU, is bringing states together in more focused economic cooperation. The EU started in eroupe with a deal between the coal producing companies in Germany and France (traditionally not agreeable states) and has now expanded into a forum in which member states can resolve differences without resulting to military action. This integration was driven by economic nessesity, and it seems to be working to some degree (minus french farmers and german brewers).
Hopefully the WTO will also drive international integration and cooperation. Without these things the world would not be able to function as bussiness becomes increasingly international.
And US labour unions... grow up. You guys have are the richest workers in the world. Time for the US to play nice and let poorer countries develope thier economies. I'm almost embarrased to live in a country with so little regard for the health of the rest of the world. Glutonous bastards.
Enviromental and Child labour protesters: Good points, and keep the heat on the WTO *and* the International Labour Organization. The thing you have to realize is that completely redesigning an economy to respect human rights takes time, and isolating those coutries from the rest of the world (the ussual slap on the wrist for human rights abuses) will only make things worse.
I'm done.
peri@logorrhea.com
Trade benifits both sides when done properly and honestly.
It was not trade that wiped out the Native American Indians, it was pestilance.
And no, I never traded a valuable card for a common card. I knew my goods well enough to not make such a mistake. I feel that when nations and businesses trade in such fashions, that they will have done their research and will not make such mistakes either.
To the poster who interpreted that I felt free trade was the cure-all, I had never stated nor felt that free trade would be the cure-all. I did, however, state that free trade WILL benifit those involved when both parties have done their homework.
Sosumi. just kidding. DONT!
Sheesh. I can't believe this! I don't like the way that most of the worlds governments are working, so lets all go out and distroy some Mickey'D's and Starbucks. What's wrong with this picture??
When I was homeless and traveling for two years, I saw many a bum beg for change (the money type). I've always felt that this was dumb. Just like me, all of these kids could get a job doing anything from Internet Tech Support to digging ditches for Grandma Wilson if they wanted to. But that was just it. They didn't want to. They didn't want to put any real, constructive effort into the system. So instead they begged for it and got enough for a 40oz. That malt is just enough to give me, a non-begging, non-drunk "kind hippie brother" a bad name.
This is just the kind of thing that they are doing in WA. They don't feel like it's worth it to try to change things from the inside, so they are just begging and destroying. This gives everyone with a social conscience a bad name
I mean, do they think they are going to win against riot gear and tear gas? Are they going to look good in the eyes of the people that can change these sorts of things?
The worst thing for me personally is that after I chose to stop being homeless and settled down to go to school (Humboldt State Univ, the "hippie" school full of pot-and-nothing-else heads), the school chose to send 45 kids to Seattle at a cost of 1/6 of the total student budget. That's just about 10,000!!! So they could turn over a cop car and bring home some rubber bullets!!!
If this counts as social conscience, then posting a reply on Slashdot counts as a "published article"
For example, I'm a proud supporter of capitalism, it creates competition, which drives the economy. I cannot stand the fact that a lot of food we're eating these days is polluted with pesticides and what-not, not to mention there's a whole new breed of genetically engineering food on its way. And getting a patent has become too lax, allowing the simplest of methods to be patented.
Therefore:
- support capitalism
- want environmental protection
- No genetically engineered food, unless it's proven beyond doubt to be safe.
Same applies for pesticide control.
- want strong government body to regulate and oversee industry, congress, even the president.
And finally, what is very depressing is the fact the news media is still run by people who're to ignorant for their own good, or just too tightly guarded in their corporate enclosures to give a damn! Where do they come out with comparing us to the hippies from the 60's? We're way to politically knowledgable to better understand the dynamics of economy and its effects on people. We possess a deeper understanding of the issues at hand than the average public. And the average public is too dumb to know! Too dumb to care!!!
If they are healthy, they WILL NOT burn. The fact that Seattle erupted in riots like that is a sure sign that something IS wrong. But for the sake of the MNCs which need to keep making money in order to contribute to political campaigns, the government will continue to ignore this. Joy
The mistake of the protestors is that they are trying to change corporatism by attacking the supply side. This should prove to be about as successful as the "War on Drugs" has been with it's focus on supply:. no success at all. A much more effective tactic would be to go after the demand side: if you don't like multinational corporations, stop buying from them! And try to educate others to stop buying from them as well. These corporations' life blood is dollars contributed by dollars from the very people that the protestors claim are being harmed by them!
What, you claim you can't live without your new SUV or sports car, fancy clothes, faster computers, cable, video, movies, net access, microwavable food, morning coffee, imported food and wine, snack products, soft drinks, etc.? Then I'd get complaining about "corporatism" is pretty hypocritical, isn't it?
Wanna do some good, instead of jousting with windmills and ranting against the incoming tide? Push your legislators to make CAFE emmisions standards apply to SUVs and small trucks. Organize boycotts of McDonalds, Star Bucks, malls. Only eat what's grown within 50 miles of your home. Sew your own clothes using only domestic textiles. Blow up your TV. Start a lending library for books /videos/music, and encourage duplication of material. You get the picture.
Me? I live in a small cabin in the woods with a wood stove, can't even get cable (although I do have ISDN), drive a used Honda Civic, don't shave and dress like a bum. All on a six-figure computer consultant's salary. And I don't really have a problem with corporatism; if there was no demand, there would be no supply (the same goes for Jerry Springer). But at least, I'm not a hypocrite.
Sorry Jon, I think Karl Marx beat them to that one.
Against human rights and global capitolism involving people from around the world quickly turned into a citizen rights issue. You got a about 30 Nihalist running around spray painting everything, breaking windows all while protesters were trying to STOP them (guess those Eugene folks are fast runners). You had a peaceful demonstration quickly turn sour when you had one or two protesters getting a little upity (really, even watching the news coverage all day, its still unclear who started it) them wham, tear gas everywhere, concusion grenades everywhere. Thats when a peaceful demonstration turned into a riot on Monday. Thats why the citizens rights were temporarily broken, thats why you saw tear gas being thrown in an area where mothers and their children where shopping. What fueled a lawsuit was when the police drove a group of protesters out of the no protest zone and into a residental neighborhood righ next to downtown. All they had to do was make sure they wernt in the downtown area, but no, they continue to march into Capitol Hill area and tear gas people comming out of a movie, leaving a resturant, or waiting for the bus. Its midnight, and the one thing thats gonna wake you up is not the protesters shouting "The whole world is watching", no its the loud thundering noises from the concusion grenades and the loud speakers used by the police. Any resident who woke up and got outside to figure out whats going on, or to voice their concern at the cops were...yes you guessed it..they were gassed as well. Personally i wish they had burned down the Gap, hell im glad the whole thing happened. Its just another bone head move by the City council, another mess they'll have clean up. They knew all about the riots during the last WTO conference. They get every bit of annoyance they deserve. I do think is was chiken shit of the city to ban cell phones, radios, gas masks, & protest banners after getting their ass kicked on Monday. All this crap about yuppies and shit, hahahahaha too funny. And why was Microsoft even mentioned in this? Everyone and their mom joined in the protests on Monday (heh, i was sick as a dog watching the whole thing on several local channels without cable). Did ya hear? WTO headquarters is under fire right now, they're demmanding 24/7 protection. Me thinks they're gonna need to hire alot more Rent-A-Cops to save their ass.
The crux of the problem is this: Free Trade is unregulated. Ok, you say, no big problem. Well, think about this - without regulation we would all work in low pay sweat shops, where each ounce of work is drained from our bodies before we are allowed to leave for the day. Heck, we might get lucky and end up with foreman with whips, instead of machine guns. The reason I bring up the regulation is this: the checks and balances are failing. The framers of the Constitution were wondrous politicians, they found a way to make everyone involved happy. Each point of power had a balance to it, and the whole formed a government they thought workable. In the times of the writing, it was a wondrous document. It STILL is. We have convoluted it to the point of retardation, stagnation, and meaningless drivel that it spouted by politicians like Clinton, Bradley, Gore, Quayle ( he is still a politician, right? who says you need a college degree ). And as they cover their lies over with a silk sheet, we are supposed to look the other way while they line their pockets from special interests. Special Interests you say? what are those? CORPORATIONS. So - who really holds the power in Government? Well - wait a minute - if we regulate - who is going to hold the power of regulation? I mean, all our current politicians, lawyers, etc are for the most part corrupt. I cant blanket and stereotype, but i would lay odds the majority of Washington (yeah, even them thar squeky clean ones are slicker'n shit) has a skeleton, or two or a hundred, in their respective closets. So, again, I ask - who is going to regulate Big Business, and more importantly (as it will make the laws that business WILL follow) the Government? Who? Let's refer back to the two documents that started our great nation: The Declaration of Independance, and the Constitution. In one of the two (no, I don't remember which - anyone who does, please enlighten me) it is written (my paraphrase here) 'if your government fails you, it is your OBLIGATION to rise up and change it to how it should work'. Wait a minute - thats EXACTLY what corporations are doing. But they PRESUME to speak for all their myriad employees - why? Because said employees are too busy to speak for themselves. or are they? There needs to be a simple, effective, IMMEDIATE method for formulating an opinion, or casting a vote would be better, for each SINGLE entity/resident/personage (as opposed to a large company paying off a politician or group to further the COMPANIES' interests) to further the INDIVIDUAL interests, rights, privileges we all feel we should have, and are deserved in getting. Thats the point of the republic/democracy that the US operates under - something sticks in your craw, chuck it out! Fix it up and have another steak (or vegan burrito, whatever you eat for a treat), and sit back contented to know that you have DONE something for the betterment of the nation. In the words of one of the greatest presidents of all time: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Folks - its time for all of us to stand up and show our Country what we CAN do for it. We, as a collective whole, are the greates force for change that this country will ever see - organize, unite, drive out the fools who would line their own pockets at our expense, and remake the laws of this country into a coherent, mutable system that we can all live with. And, no, you don't have to be a lawyer - throw em all in the ocean, we'll start from scratch at the constitution again, and rebuild the things that are contained within the large store of simple common sense within the population. I leave you with one question - where can we start a process of this scale and involvement? My answer: Right here (well, slashdot has other things going on, but the Internet could work). What's yours?
....and I thought it was only a bunch of Democrats that were pissed off that the WTO wanted to drop tariffs on goods.
;)
Now I see, its Union guys, collage people and political activists.
Then again........
(1) On Teusday the police had no plain clothes officers behind the main group of protestors to deal with the 30 to 100 violent vandals.
(2) The police regularly fired gas on un-armed, peaceful protestors.
(3) The police regularly went outside of the unconstitutional no-protest zone to attack protestors/residents.
(4) The police provided no rational for the use of rubber pellets. The police were rarely physically threatened, and frequently fired these pellets on unarmed peaceful protestors.
So essentially the police had no plan. They attempted to make up for their complete lack of planning through the use of BRUTE force and chemical agents. Heres an idea: on Teusday they could have called off their idiotic attempts to gas thousands of people, retreated and set up their unconstitional no-protest zone on Wednesday. The end result would have been the same with a lot less property damage and chaos.
The sad thing is the majority of Seattlites don't seem to care that thousands of peoples rights were violated and that the police were out of control. Schell will go on his merry fascist way.
This article has to be one of the worst /. has ever posted, simply filled with techno-buzzwords and moot points.
Here's the deal: The protesters want the WTO to expand and start policing the world in areas it was never intended to go. They want to give the WTO more power, for crying out loud! Oh well.
Z
But seriously, using hormones, antibiotics, radiation, genetic modifications, etc. IS unacceptable if it is not clearly labeled as such, and one of the primary responsibilities of government should be to enforce truth in labeling. But if it is properly labeled, then it should be up to the consumers to decided whether or not it is safe to eat, not their government!
The protestors went home to their electric or gas heated wood framed bungalows, turned on their Sony TV's or IBM Aptiva computers, kicked back with some Budweiser beer, and talked about how they were making a difference in the world.
I have a 401K. It's invested 100% in T. Rowe Price's Science and Technology fund. Which of course, holds shares in... Microsoft and Intel. [Heavy sigh...]
More articles like this, John, this is what you're good at.
... if you geeks think the hacker/cracker issue was bad ... shit! ... but we currently have NO democratic organizations in america (unions are about the closest thing). Read the anarchist FAQ or something.
Of course, anarchism is about the most misunderstood moniker there is
Most people think anarchist want some sort of "escape from new york" type bullshit - nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchism wants truly democratic society
Yes, there are some violent anarchists, and I think they do some good. Cops are filth. Bashing Nike and GAP storefronts can certainly be justified, these corps are absolute shitwads. It certainly got the medias attention.
The problem with WTO, as there was with the once rejcted AMI (dunno the american acronym for, it's the agreement on investment), is the fact that it has very little possible democratic feedback. Plus, to advance their own immediate interests, governments will accept some stupid 'side notes' (that might have been instilled by some weird lobbying groups). Then ... well it's too late, you can't really change it, you can't opt out easily, ...you're screwed. It deprives citizens of the signing countries of most of their democratic rights. And I'm not even talking about the poor folks living in China.
The fact of the matter is that coporations are only successfull because people buy their products(M$ included). Corporations are simply a collection of contracts. When it comes down to it, these protestor's problems aren't really with the corporations, but with the people who purchase their products. These kinds of econmic relationships are not always easy to understand, and it is much easier to trash the local McDonalds then it is to attack the kid buying the happy meal. I also diagree that the protestors were of one mind (anti-corporation), I heard an interview of a guy who was all for going back to the hunter-gatherer society. Not only did he want to go back to that himself, but he also seemed hell bent on taking all of us with him.
the old protest videos i have watched. Chicago and Montgomery Alabama in particular. It seems like the police are still inciting all this violence, when will they ever learn?
*begin rant*
Yeah there were 20 people causing trouble, but there were also 39,980 peaceful protesters representing the local rights of consumers against greedy attacks by corporations to force their products into our markets at any cost, deregulating our morality so they can make a quick buck.
I would have loved to join in and if something like this happens in NY i will surely be there. It is about time people said "Enough!"
*end rant*
"The importance of using technology in the right way has never been more clear."
But, of course, Jon Katz doesn't want to blame ordinary individuals for their free choices. It's much more comforting for him to twist the realities of economics and blame big evil corporations for inflicting all these awful products on helpless citizens.
Katz thinks corporations are destroying personal freedom, and yet he seems to want them to make moral choices for people by only offering "good" products, in essence forcing the people to use "good" products by ceasing to produce "bad" products. Is that really your definition of freedom, Jon?
Many of the protestors in Seattle are - using new technologies like the Net - beginning to do the work of politicians, regulatory agencies, legislators and journalists
You mean Politicans, Regulatory agencies, Legislators, and Journalists are supposed to riot and trash a bunch of McDonalds and Starbucks?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
... but they are not the definite solution as libertarians would want us to believe. Not every government is fully corrupted, and not every corporation is fully efficient, and even then, for a corporation to function as a responsible 'citizen', it has to be subject to a direct consumer feedback, i.e. 'you do something bad, we don't buy your stuff'. But that kind of feedback requires trustable, reliable, and unbiased information. You have to know that product 'A' is made by corportion 'B' if you want to lobby the corporation into not acting badly. How do you do that if 'A' is one of its thousand of brands? Also, what if said company is not consumer oriented, but is otherwise business oriented? How would businesses care about other companies morales? Sure, you could boycott products from companies who use the evil corporation's services ... but it can be really far fetched and the information is hard to find!
Maybe if you mean by thought provoking, as stating the obviously and blatently trying to conform to what he thinks your ideals are. Katz likes to pretend there's this widespread conspiracy against nerds and the net. Hell he even claims to be a nerd himself, but when it comes down to it, Katz is just a sorry excuse for reporter.
One thing I find extremely insulting is Katz' use of the term "yuppie" and the fact that he even suggests that rioting idiots should be tolerated or even have a right to do what they did. This is just absurd! They have the right to protest, and they have ligitimate causes in my opinnion, but rioting is not protesting; Rioting is anarchic, juvenile behavior that violates the rights of the innocent.
The mayor of Seattle gave a press conference yesterday. He himself endorsed protests in all its peaceful and legitimate forms. Tear gas canisters fly when people become stupid and start breaking things. When they do this, their cause is de-valued and they are taken as beligerant zealots.
As for Katz and his "corporatism vs. the individual" battle, he should love corporations! Its the reason he has a job! I know if I owned and ran Slashdot myself, Katz would have been fired and firewalled a long time ago!
Go ahead, flame away.
(oh, and boo-hoo for it 8b )
I realize that I can just turn his articles off, but I'd much rather bitch about JonKatz everytime he posts an article.
I don't think a site that uses "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters" as a slogan should really be posting social commentary. If commentary must be posted, appropriately place it in a "ghetto" section just like YRO and the much more relevant Apache and BSD articles.
How about voices from other corners of the globe?
.
Why not something lighthearted, or even positive?
--
E2 IN2 IE?
Pro-gov "progressives" have been very successful
at keeping the focus on the sins of corproations,
rather than those of govs.
Ditto crimes of citizens vs those of govs.
Govs have killed 140M of their own people for political reasons in the 20th century.
This doesn't count civilians and conscripted soldiers killed in wars started by their gov.
Beside these numbers, mere individual crime and
corporate outrages are insignificant.
In addition to which, the problems of most corps
are due to their purchase of gov power via bribes,
so if the gov power wasn't there to begin with
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
Figure it. They need an internal enemy, just to tell to the middle class "vote for us".
The failure of all this to pick up on the fact these nutcrackers are aiming at the WTO is ludicrous! These people are sad and confused -- any reason to get out there and protest and they'd do it. They looking for a target, something to blame the modernisation of the world on. The WTO just seems to be it. These are people who've lost jobs in old industries -- agriculture, mining, unionists trying to clasp on to the past. They're conservative in the extreme, they don't want squat diddly to change... and that's what the WTO is standing for. CHANGE. Removing the barriers, allowing the free-market to work all over the world. Of course this serves the need of large corporations -- but it serves the needs of small business, it serves the need of consumers. Only old-industries in highly advanced countries will benefit. Farmers in the US scared of cheaper imports and losing all their subsidies. And to blame the WTO for human rights failures is like blaming the Department of Agriculture for human rights failures. You're picking the wrong target! Corporatism does not equal WTO does not equal Congress! They're linked, sure, but they're not the same! The entire article also assumes the fact that the US is ruling the world. Maybe your congress relies on "donations" from big business. That doesn't mean the rest of the world does. To say that the Scandanavians are at the WTO only making sure that big business succeeds is ridiculous. What the WTO stands for can only be described as good. It's breaking down the old 18th century barriers and allowing the globe to work as one. Where's the problem?
-- "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it" -- Winston Churchill
While I agree that this is another example of the classic Katz rant and do not see the world through his lens, I do agree with the gist of his tyrade.
I think the protests are the first manifestation of a growing segment of the population who is fed up with the corruption and unbridled greed we see today. The advent of internet has, for the first time in history, given people a way to share their thoughts and ideas with so many with such great ease.
I doubt there are few if any people here on Slashdot that believe capitalism and democracy do not work. On the contrary, I think the average Netizen is fiercely loyal to the pricipals and ideals this country was founded upon and is sickend to see the extent they have been twisted and corrupted. Capitalism and Democracy work. They work because they spread the power to all of us. Ideally, any Joe with a good idea could start a business and grab his share of the American pie. Any Tom, Dick or Laura (have to be PC, eh?) with an idea about our governtment could, in theory, be able to rally the people together and effect a change in our government. Or at least that's the way it was supposed to be.
We now live in the age of the special interest and the business lobby. These two demons usurp the power our nations founding fathers gave us by quietly recentralising it. You see, we live in an age of faux democracy and pseudo-freedom; the "common man" can speak his mind only if it serves the interest of the power mongers.
Who are the power mongers? They are the politicians who have forgotten that their job is to do the bidding of the American people. They are the elite businessmen who line the pockets of weak willed politicians in an effort to sway the goverment favor towards them. They are the small group that has been given special rights and powers that allow them to override the will of the majority. They are the mega-merger conglomerates that control the vast majority of what you see and hear. They are the bastards who seek power by bridling our freedoms and riding their way to the top on our backs.
I believe in capitalism, it works; nobody can have too much wealth or freedom. If you earned it, it's yours; if it bothers you, talk about it! I want nothing more than for every business in this country to be wildly successful, but they MUST climb thier way to the top while remaining loyal to the rules we (the people) have set for them. As soon as a business or group directs the governments path away from the will of the majority, the power of democracy slowly bleeds away.
The internet is the last place people have to speak their mind and voice their views; it was the last great communication medium untainted by government regulation and corperate influence. The internet is nearing the verge of gov't control; it's close to becoming another dumbed down, corperate controlled media/propaganda outlet and people are piss of about it. The last place you *don't* have to be politicaly correct is in danger and Seattle was a wake up call that there are those of us who are sick of the corruption and will not take it anymore.
Seattle was just the tip of the iceberg.
p.s. Yeah, my spelling and punctuation are problably suspect; I don't have all day to proofread.
"Restrictions of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."
-- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (Served 23 years)
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
maybe, but I'd rather not be screwed by anyone. And the best way I see to to that is to set up a new nation. On the Moon.
And that just reminded me of "I feel better than James Brown", by Was (not Was)
'Two weeks later I was transfered to the moon / Worse pay - better hours / Two weeks later I was transfered to the moon / Worse pay - better fellow workers'
Any way, we all need to move to the moon, and set up some sort of geektopia.
Shawn Poulsen (Fruan)
"On Slashdot, many obvious things are insightful." - Annonymous Coward, 2000/7/9
My first reaction when I read this article and see the reports on the news is anger.
Who the hell do these people think they are? Its like people are needing to invent new reasons to riot because we haven't had a good hum-dinger in a while. We are going through some of the best times in the history of humanity right now... that is not debatable. Unemployment is at an all time low, information and education is available to almost everyone seeking it, the vast majority of epople are optomistic about their future, education is easier and available to more people than ever, travel is easier and cheaper than ever (so you can leave if you don't like it), crime has been in decline for over a decade, social budgets are higher than ever, wages are at an all time high, employer sponsered profit sharing plans are growing at a fast rate, investing in general has opened itself to a wide aray of more people and classes, people are living longer and healthier, retiring earlier, environmental initiatives are going through at a faster rate than ever and the general state of living for every single class in our society has gone up.
What the hell are these people complaining about!? Shit, you want a cause to take to the streets, go back to the 20's, 30's and 60's. Those were some REAL causes. Not some whiney spoiled movement bitching about how things are not perfect.
The United States is one of the most successful cultures of all time. The economic model of the United States has slowly spread to other countries, and as that is embraced by them... their social as well as economic freedoms have increased right along with their rates of living. A while back I talked about a study done by the Heritage Foundation in which freedom is shown as the surest path towards prosperity. Well, that is freedom of the individual AND freedom of business.
People bitch that corporations are mean. So what the fuck do you want!? Shall we increase our government, tax the people more so we can keep these companies from laying off people (at a time when jobs available exceed the unemployed). Is that what these people want!? Because I bet the majority of them also bitch about their taxes, and how the government should stay out of their lives! Well, you can't have it both ways folks!!! Utopia is not a possibility... sorry, I hate beaing the bearer of bad news.
We have a system in place that has been extremely succesful, based on the succesful systems employed by other great cultures as the Persians, Greeks and Romans. It is not perfect, but it is working for the best.
So while these people piss me off to no end, I am able to see their value and my anger subsides a little. We need the extremists, as much as I wish we did not. We need people to bitch, moan and complain about every freakin' pot hole in our system. We need them to make noise and get noticed, or absolutely nothing that needs to be done will get done. Without the extremists, there would not be the compromise, and those with power would absolutely start to take advantage of that.
So while I think this whole business in Seatle is way out of line... I begrudgingly accept it as a necesarry aspect of our society... which dammnit, has done a good job so far.
...the rise of very big business: an era of absolutely unbridled, unprincipled and rapacious bigness, immorality, inhumanity and greed.
...corporate greed and immorality...
...out-of-control business with no morality...
...that's what makes these mega-entities so venal, even dangerous.
...host of social and moral issues, but you clearly partake of the ambivalence toward these issues betrayed by the political body in America today. We have not asked for these giants to be held accountable because we are desperately relying upon their paychecks. We take pride in their size and power even as we bemoan the impersonalizing scope of their control.
Their [mega-corporations] rise has raised a host of social and moral issues...
Katz -- The Message From Seattle, Dec. 3, 1999
It's not that such companies are evil - corporations can't be evil any more than they can be moral.
Katz -- The Post-Microsoft Era, Nov. 8, 1999
Which is it, Mr. Katz? At what critical mass of market-cap is a corporate entity absolved of moral responsibility? And at what degree of market-domination and media-control does this responsibility again become relevant?
To your credit, you do mention the
illegitimii non ingravare
If corporations are destroying the earth they've done a very poor job of it considering that life expectancy around the world continues to increase and every indicator of material well being, such as the percentage of people undernourished in the developing world, has improve dramatically over the last 30 years.
I still don't see how you can be pro-open source and anti-free trade.
Yes, corporatism (government by corporation) is bad, but these protestors are most definitely not individualists, they're raving socialists who want to impose their personal politics on the rest of us (go read the 'reclaim the streets' web site for a moment if you don't believe me). Yes, the true battle in the next decade will be between individualists and authoritarians of all stripes, but the Seattle riots are merely a battle between corporatist authoritarians and socialist authoritarians, and as such is nothing to write home about.
Didn't you even have one brain cell spare to wonder just why Pat Buchanan and the conservative christians are as opposed to the WTO as your beloved 'techno-hippies'? Hint: it ain't because they want us to be free, it's because global free trade interferes with the authoritarian goals on left and right.
The thing to keep in mind when making sweeping statements like this is that these corporations could not produce these products if we didn't buy them.
The thing to keep in mind is that 'we' would not buy those products if it weren't for the enormous amount of mind control material thrown at 'us', AKA advertising.
I've heard the argument that we're just too ignorant to buy better products, or that there simply aren't enough alternatives available, but I think that with the advent of the "one world economy" this argument is becoming less and less relevant...
For the free market to actually function properly, and according to the most hard core pro free market economists, 2 things (among others) are required: 1- that people have the information, and 2- that they have choice. Without information and choice, there is no free trade.
I've never posted to slashdot before, but a couple of ridiculous assertions from this story made me need to reply. "This has sparked an epidemic homogenization of popular culture - not a dumbing down, but a dulling down - as controversial, profane, sexual or other "controversial" cultural offerings from books to movies to music are eliminated or pushed to the margins so that safer products can be mass-marketed." I don't know what movies and TV Jon Katz has been watching, but controversy, profanity, and sexuality are the only things that sell media anymore. I agree with the homogenization bit, but it is impossible to assert that potentially offensive entertainment has been marginalized. It is, in fact, the one thing that can guarantee sales (see: Jerry Springer). "Younger workers are forced into dead-end and poorly paid positions with little chance of advancement or meaningful work, while older workers are down-sized, re-engineered, laid off in droves." Once again, the facts don't support this. The US economy has had unprecedentedly low unemployment and inflation for years. They're finding jobs somewhere, Jon! In fact, the majority of job growth comes from (drum roll) small companies. Big companies may be scary, but they're not quite the economic force they pretend to be. There has never been a better time to work than now. Especially for knowledge workers, like most people who read this site, salaries, benefits, and hours are pretty damn great.
"This has sparked an epidemic homogenization of popular culture - not a dumbing down, but a dulling down - as controversial, profane, sexual or other "controversial" cultural offerings from books to movies to music are eliminated or pushed to the margins so that safer products can be mass-marketed."
I don't know what movies and TV Jon Katz has been watching, but controversy, profanity, and sexuality are the only things that sell media anymore. I agree with the homogenization bit, but it is impossible to assert that potentially offensive entertainment has been marginalized. It is, in fact, the one thing that can guarantee sales (see: Jerry Springer).
"Younger workers are forced into dead-end and poorly paid positions with little chance of advancement or meaningful work, while older workers are down-sized, re-engineered, laid off in droves."
Once again, the facts don't support this. The US economy has had unprecedentedly low unemployment and inflation for years. They're finding jobs somewhere, Jon! In fact, the majority of job growth comes from (drum roll) small companies. Big companies may be scary, but they're not quite the economic force they pretend to be. There has never been a better time to work than now. Especially for knowledge workers, like most people who read this site, salaries, benefits, and hours are pretty damn great.
One thing you almost never hear discussed in regards to trade is what gets traded by accident.
Some sources have attributed the black death of the middle ages to increased trade, which allowed the rats that carried the black death to spread more readily throughout Europe.
In more recent times, we've witnessed the destruction of the Chestnut tree, various strains of influenza, and a few other pests that are less dramatic.
These things are very hard for economists to take into account when the do all these studies that show how trade benefits the economy. Forget about competing with 3rd world labor. Do we want to compete with 3rd world pests?
Sorry for straying a bit off-topic. As far as what was said about corporatism, I mostly agree. "Mostly", because the essay was a bit too long so I only skimmed parts of it.
AC as always, because there are enough logons in the world already.
--Stevecomments@vrml3d.com
>Better than getting screwed by a totalitarian gowernment.
I may have misread, but didn't the US suspend the constitution in Seattle? Isn't it abridging the rights of assembly and peaceful protest?
What would it take for a government to be totalitarian, in your view? Oh, and where's a well-armed militia when you need one?
"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt
I've done my share of Katz-bashing in the past, but this time I feel he's dead on. If you don't see it now, you soon will. Whatever you think about Seattle, it has struck a very real nerve. Dismissive slams against the protestors only reinforce their point--that people's minds are numbed by mass-market entertainment to the point where they don't even realize they're being screwed (or if they do realize it then they don't realize that anything can be done about it.)
--Hannibal
Ars Technica
"Perhaps one reason politicians and journalists have been so viscerally hostile to the Internet is that many of them foresaw this techno-driven political response to the rise of very big business: an era of absolutely unbridled, unprincipled and rapacious bigness, immorality, inhumanity and greed." So true. And Clinton rails on the 80's and Reagen as the decade of greed? Bullshit.
I happen to work 2 blocks from the Convention Center, and I am not happy. My employer decided that things were far too dangerous to risk being open so I had Tuesday and Wednesday off (which wasn't too bad), but I did get to watch the protests. And I have to say that Jon is full of crap.
First, there were large groups of "protesters" violating other citizens rights. Take the large groups blocking WTO member's access to their meetings. Not only were they in the way, but they physically molested people. This is unacceptable.
Second, on the legitimate protesters - All they agree about is the WTO is bad. On why the WTO is bad they do not agree. The Unions want fair trade - free trade + high labor standards for all so that they can compete more easily. Protesters from underdeveloped nations hate that. They want the WTO to help them trade more easily, by letting them limit the reach of first world nations into their economies. High/cheap agriculture producers want to kill subsidies for foreign farmers, while the farmers that need subsidies to compete are protesting attempts to eliminate their subsidies. The list goes on...
This is nothing but scape-goating. The world is changing, the old barriers are breaking down and these people are scarred. So they are trying to blame someone so let's blame "Corporate Greed".
It was my understanding that the Hacker Ideology was that the best tool should be used, not that the best tool should be used most of the time but we should support inefficient tools out of fairness. This is what is happening in the world.
US farmers are one of the best at producing food cheaply. Their efficiency should be rewarded, not punished and shunned from markets.
Third, I hate what has happened to my city. Everything is boarded up. Windows shattered, businesses closed, checkpoints to enter some areas of the city, and checkpoints to enter buildings. This is just like a huricane. Except it won't go away.
Please go away! Let us clean up and get back to work.
jbw
Targeting "Big Business" as such is dangerous. Free people, freely producing and trading unfettered is, IMHO perfectly moral and should be legally protected.
Perhaps it is better to target governments and laws which put bureaucrats in a position of arbitrary power to permit patently criminal activity, and to promote *market* awareness of companies who behave in a socially unpalateable manner.
Yawn. Big multinational corporations are just as much dinosaurs as big national governments. Both rely on the other, and both will die together. You can't have a massive corporation without governments to absorb much of the cost of maintaining that corporation (such as military attacks on other nations), and you can't have a massive national government without big corporations to tax their employees at source.
The two of them go together, and as national governments become less important, big corporations will become less sustainable too. The future is small corporations which do one thing and do it well, working together on larger projects... oddly, just like the Unix OS model.
As for 'child labor', why shouldn't kids in poor countries be able to make their own living. Where the fuck do pampered Westerners get off telling poor people in the third world who can only dream of Western standards of living what they can and can't do with their lives. These fucking hippie protestors are killing people every day with their stupid eco-crap and labor law crap. Screw 'em all.
I suggest that you make a trip over to China. You then get arrested for some political crime. After your arrest, I would like to see you chained to a machine in a factory.
That is the reality of goods from China. Goods that pathetic brainless idiots like you buy.
Unless it's violence for profit.
Violent countries are encouraged to send delegates to the WTO, to better arrange the export of products of child labour, to brutalize, kill and maim their populations in the service of power and profits.
If violence was really unacceptable to the WTO, the US delegates would be standing five blocks back alongside the protesters they've brutalized.
"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt
You mean, you prefer money to freedom? :) Please, don't go to vote... help the others...
The industrialized world knows full well how Nike makes their shoes. This doesn't seem to have any effect on consumer choice. The bottom line is pretty dark, we want our "stuff" and we want it cheap. Another driving force is we want our 401ks and retirment packages to grow forcing corporations to deliever. It is easy to point fingers at a "golden arch" or some faceless logo. The root of the probelm is you, your neighbor, the kid buying the happy meal, and on and on.....
Sorry, but after listening to NPR for three days and reading really good articles in the NY Times, Economist, etc., its obvious that Katz should stick to complaining about Microsoft. His analysis is sophomoric.
I have to admit that I am relativly ignorant on the issue, but it seems to me that one of the key points is that in trading baseball cards you are perfectly free to decide who you want to trade with.
WTO restricts such freedoms. One example I read is that Massachusetts doesn't do buisness with companies who do buisness with Burma (for various reasons which I don't really understand and won't even try to get into).
Under WTO regulations this is illegal, so a state cannot choose who they do buisiness with. I guess to extend the baseball card metaphore, you have to trade cards with the town Bully even though he beat up your friends, or you.
As one of those wacky left wing radio people, I'd suggest checking out two great sources for a different media perspective on the WTO issue:
First is Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now, at http://www.democracynow.org
Second is a special series put out by the National Radio Project called World Trade Watch.
---------
Yep, that's real fair, let's penalise the poor nations which can't afford to pamper their workers the way the West does, and force them to increase the cost of their products so that they starve while we live off their backs. Real fuckin' fair, yes, sir.
See what we mean about how the protestors are more evil than the corporations they're complaining about? They want to keep the third world poor so they can continue to live their pampered lifestyles. Selfish assholes.
Now, now. Didn't you know that the age of adolescence has been extended up to age 28 in these United States? The "left wing hippy" protesters are mostly overgrown children, with children's worldviews. "Don't hurt animals" etc. are a simplistic child's view of the world.
So you want riot control gear so you can go bash a bunch of children? Surely that's a shameful act!
And what were the "militias" supposed to do, huh? March on downtown Seattle? That would have gone over real well... And which "citizens" are they supposed to have been defending? The protestors? The American members of the WTO? THe citizens of Seattle? The Americans who claim to have been hurt by the actions of the WTO? I think that their inaction speaks well for them, frankly; the issues involved here are rather complex and not amenable to being solved by fired-up folks claiming to be the great and heroic defenders of human rights and morality in general...
Closer to the fact, young people who choose the right education and field of employment are making more within two years than their parents made at retirement. For others, who choose the wrong education and field of work, hey, I'm sorry, but freedom means freedom to fail.
As for "corporitism", please leave this to Chomsky, who at least can form rational arguments and back them up with facts, figures, and something other than hot air.
Reducing barriers to trade are the best way to get efficient technologies into developing countries. If you would prefer that China and India continue to use coal (their chief fuel), then I think you have grossly misunderstood the long term environmental benefits of trade.
As for the protesters, I notice they don't mind running banners across "gauche" stores like Old Navy, but don't bother abusing yuppie faves like North Face, who use an incredible amount of chemicals to bring you waterproof clothing. Thats what we call "hypocrisy", although its to be expected from the overwhlmengingly shallow generation "me"....eerrr, generation X.
Here is a site where you can get some firsthand accounts, streaming video, and other good stuff.
Check it out.
www.indymedia.org
I completely agree with the right of the protesters to have their voices heard and try to change things. Everyone has (or should have) that right. But I have to question their methods and their thinking...
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
You're looking at the last gasp of the nation state within the next hundred years. After that, look for smaller organizational units communicationg, trading, and sometimes organizing, under well understood rules and protocols.
These protesters and rioters did not help anything for the poeple who live in this country or city. I live and work in Seattle and have seen friends get gassed going home after a hard day of work. I have been unable to get home because these jerks were blocking off roads and parking lots. What help does that do? Downtown Seattle Stores have lost more than 7 Million dollars in revenues, I guess those products that ARE made in the US won't need to be as plentifull this year and firing those poeple who make those products won't matter to these protesters. My wife and son who missed me while I was stuck Downtown must not matter either. I've seen rioters wearing Nike shoes breaking windows at Nike Town (I guess it's OK to buy and wear them but not OK to make them) Unemployment is the lowest it's been in 30 years here in the US, so all those jobs that these laborers are losing must be plentiful, yeah right. Why don't these poeple try taking a political stab at their issues? Get together a petition to change the way that the US trades with these other countries, That's how another group of Jerks got I-695 passed which cut Car Licensing taxes and forced poeple to lose jobs and made roads crappy. I'll bet the reason why these poeple do not take this approach is because they don't have what it takes to comprehend these matters. They are too involved with blocking streets and training for months on how to disrupt poeples lives for a week just to get those poeple that they interupt to hate them, not listen to them. When they said before what their issues were and said that they were going to march for these issues I thought that some of their issues were good and made sense. Now after all my troubles trying to get home and all the stores ruined or damaged I don't really give a crap what these wanna-be-hippies have to say. They can all sit in the jail for all I care. Just as long as I can live my life with out caos and confusion. If they want to make a true point or actually change something do it like the politicians (if you can't beat em, join em) At least then they would gain some respect and be listened to (like the I-695 poeple). Just a Coffee drinkin' seatlite's opinion - Hey, maybe I should go protest the protesters about my issue, think that would make them change thier minds?
Everyone has a cause. And as evil as it is for me to say this, I firmly believe that a large percent of people who argue about the issues raised by the Seattle protesters are only doing it to make themselves feel better. What bothers me most are the arguments. E.G. corporations are evil because of the "sweat shops". Are the really evil? Look at it this way, most people in these less industrialized countries would not even have jobs if it weren't for those companies. They choose to work there, they aren't being forced. For the most part the very meager wages that they are making are more money than they had before, NOTHING. What disgusts me more is that I hear people around me, especially in collegiate newspaper that I read, that these sweat shops are terrible, but if the companies (from which many by their clothes, say GAP for instance) stopped there over seas productions and made it all in the US, those same people that were upset over the sweat shops would be crying bloody murder when those companies raise their prices. I do think that conditions could be better in there but I also realize that it is the only job that some people have, and who are we to take that away from them?
Secondly, this environmental bull crap is getting extremely annoying, everyone is all about saving the planet. WRONG! Humans have only been on this rock for a very, very small time. It is human arrogance to believe that we are destroying the earth, rather we are only destroying ourselves! We will, inevitably destroy ourselves, whether it be by nuclear war, plague or a destruction of the environment we need to survive, and quite frankly we deserve it. The only true victims of our pollution and such are animals, and no, I am not an animal rights activist. I just realize that the only things that suffer because of us our plants and animals.
And while I am on the subject, all of you who are vegetarians solely for the fact that you think it is wrong to slaughter and eat "god's creatures" keep it to yourselves, last time I checked plants were made by god too.
Whew! It feels good to get that out!
Quid rides ignare?
One thing that bothers me is this:
I recently finished 8 years in the US Army. Many times, I was on guard duty. Not that this is glamorous or anything. In fact, the last 6 months of my Army career I spent checking ID's and doing vehicle inspections at a base in Germany thanks to certain Arab terrorists.
However, one thing is ingrained in my mind: The rules for the use of Deadly Force. I think this is because every time I went out on guard duty, I was briefed on them.
Deadly Force is identified as the use of any kind of force to prevent an activity. It involves the following actions (in order of severity): verbal persuasion, non-lethal force (physical assault, teargas), and then Deadly Force.
According to the rules, deadly force is only to be used to protect the lives of us or anybody else or to protect areas designated as "Special Security Areas" (Arms Rooms, Intelligence Facilities) where intrusion in these areas could be very harmful to the Army, National Interests, or the Populace at Large. Note, this does not allow for the use of force to coerce protestors to disband.
In these cases, Deadly Force was allowable, provided that the minimum amount of force was used to prevent the activity of the person being abused. That is, if you can wrestle someone safely to the ground, then you do that.
However, the US Army does not fire warning shots. If it comes to the point of discharging weapons, you need to take somebody down, although non-lethal (in the legs) shots are OK.
Apparently, though, Civilian authorities are not bound by the same conventions. I guess it is justifiable to gas and pepper-spray groups of peaceful protestors. Sure, there were many "Bad Apples" out in the crowd, but they need to be taken care of, not the mass as a whole. I guess that's how the police settle disagreements now.
I live in Eugene, OR, and we have our share of gassings. On June 18th, we had a riot of "Anarchists" to protest the G-7 (or is it the G-7+ or the G-8?) meeting. I very narrowly avoided a gassing downtown. Several years ago, the police department gassed a 1000+person snowball fight between students at the university.
I think, mostly there needs to be a defining line between riots and protests, with there being a difference between how these are dealt with.
I do what the voices on my console tell me to do.
The problem is not that we have big corporations, but that the process of mediating these extraordinary times of change is not OPEN! The protests are direct evidence that the public only has a pinhole to look through and see how global powers are operating. The reality is that global power is distributed, but the perception of global power is not.
This fine point is also the reason why open source software is better than proprietary software. Open software is not better because anybody can steal it, but because anybody can peer through the source code window and either point to the underlying problems or feel justified that an adequate solution has been found to a rather complicated problem.
The anarchic ways portrayed thus far are a symptom not of the activity of the times, but of the lack of perspective on the activity of the times.
Sincerely, The General Debugger
RTFM - Read The Friendly Manual!
nO ceo OR board OF dIRECTORS IS SAFE. cORPORATE mOGULS THINK THAT THEY CAN HIDE AND DO WHATEVER THEY WANT/ tHEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT IF THEY WRECK MY LIFE, i WILL WRECK THEIR HOME, THEIR FAMILY, THEIR LIFE, AND ALL THAT THEY WILL HAVE LEFT IS THEIR WONDERFULLY FULLING CORPORATION.
mOST OF YOUR TOP LEVEL eXECS DONT THINK LIKE THIS, i HOWEVER do!
The reason to protest is not simply that Nike has sweatshops in the Pacific rim, or that MacDonald's effectively encourages people to cut down rain forests in order to grow cattle to grind into hamburger. It is the fact that the governments of the industrially advanced nations have become totally dominated by the money that politicians accept to run a bigger and better campaing than their opponents--and by indirection the corporations have come to run our countries. What the WTO represents is a direct effort, now on the part of those corporation dominated governments to totally abolish barriers to more sweatshops, forest clearances, etc., among member states.
The Europeans don't like US beef for a very good reason--if you talk to a garment maker, you will find out that in the US in the past 30 years women's torsos have gotten longer and meatier (showing on people exactly the effect we feed the hormones to cattle to produce). Our bioengineered soybeans and corn scare the hell out of me, here in the US, but you can damn sure bet the government will do nothing about it**unless** there is a popular groundswelling that demands it, and it will beCongress and not the FDA or department of agriculture (whose administrators are political appointees) which acts. I heard some wheel of one of the genetics engineering firms (Monsanto?) say "Its only a protein!" Hell, that's all that causes mad cow disease (and cooking doesn't help--its only a protein), and human population experimentation like this is just ezxactly the sort of thing we hung Nazi's for after WWII.
We saw NAFTA, where we in the US no longer have the right to complain about the pesticides, environmental practices, or fertilizers used in Mexican agriculture and industry.
I live in Colorado, and one of our National Forest districts has a wonderful plan to reduce useage of their forests by people, and yet they glowingly approved the plans for Vail to expand its operations in spite of environmental outrages it would cause (and the local environmentalists now view the Forest Service as the enemy). In other words, and this is literally the pattern for the future in other districts, save the forest for the corporations.
This is not about cars or sneakers or hamburgers. It is about human decency, and a respect for human values which seems totally lacking in much of the corporate dealings of today. It is not about abolishing trade or even about restricting useage of the environment, but about the attempts to remove all of the checks and balances which had previously existed on corporate conduct. Hell yes that will impede trade--so what. The more for me now set might just have to wait a few years longer to make their billions.
I know the past 20 years in the US have been so lopsided, that anybody in America who can't fork up $30,000 or so every couple of years in campaign contributions just doesn't have a voice in our government at all. And there are a lot of psychological things which make us reluctant to strongly condemn a plant closing where $15-$20 an hour manufacturing jobs go overseas (or to Mexico) where they turn into 70 cent an hour jobs. What has happened is that a threshhold has been crossed, and people now understand (explicitly or implicitly) that their government is screwing them over and why.
The risks of all this is those in power are totally unaware of the disenchantment of their constituents (next year might be a really interesting election if McCain can be heard or if Gore can get over being Clinton's lackey fundraiser). It usually takes a couple of years for our politicians to get any kind of message at all, but these deomonstrations will hopefully be a wake-up call.
My fear in all of this is that we have been so totally pro-business for so long that there will be a radical reaction which will break the long spell of economic growth we have enjoyed. It needn't (the Republican tax cuts would be wildly inflationary, and certainly would put the screws to most of us borrowing rather than lending money, although business would probably only take a lesser hit, since they can raise prices a bit). But, I don't see anybody out there with any identifiable sign of an original idea, and that is what it would take to keep our present economic regulatory tools intact (modest tax cuts to stimute, modest Fed rate increases to cool off).
Personally, I'm almost glad I'm a peasant with no substantial stock portfolia to worry about. I feel that we are at a crux, where either government will start to listen to its constituents again, or there will be serious conflict.
I accidentally came across this quote today. In addition to JonKatz's post, this might help people to better understand the Seattle protestors' fear and anger.
Also, let me weigh in here with a personal opinion. The peaceful protestors are fully within their rights to protest the WTO and corporatism. They should be lauded for their courage and citizenship. The rioters should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
The quote:
From politics I have come to believe the following:
(1) Most people are basically honest, kind and decent.
(2) The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. The do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator.
(3) Americans have a compatible community of ambitions. Most of them don't want to be rich but do want enough economic security to permit them to raise families in decent comfort without fear of the future. They want
the least government necessary to this purpose and don't greatly mind what the other fellow does as long as it does not interfere with them living their own lives. As a people we are neither money mad nor prying. We are
easy-going and anarchistic. We may want to keep up with the Joneses -- but not with the Vanderbilts. We don't like cops.
(4) Democracy is not an automatic condition resulting from laws and constitutions. It is a living, dynamic process which must be worked at by you yourself -- or it ceases to be democracy, even if the shell and form
remains.
(5) One way or another, any government which remains in power is a representative government. If your city government is a crooked machine, then it is because you and your neighbors prefer it that way -- prefer it to
the effort of running your own affairs. Hitler's government was a popular government; the vast majority of Germans preferred the rule of gangsters to the effort of thinking and doing for themselves. They abdicated their
franchise.
(6) Democracy is the most efficient form of government ever invented by the human race. On the record, it has worked better in peace and in war than fascism, communism, or any other form of dictatorship. As for the
mythical yardstick of 'benevolent' monarchy or dictatorship -- there ain't no such animal!
(7) A single citizen, with no political connections and no money, can be extremely effective in politics.
From Take Back Your Government - A Practical Handbook for the private citizen who wants democracy to work.
By Robert A. Heinlein.
Copyright 1992 by Mrs. Virginia Heinlein.
The preface indicates that the book was completed in April, 1946.
The quote is from the Chapter 1 (pages 3 and 4 in the Baen Paperback edition published August, 1992.)
Robert A. Henlein in Take Back Your Government.
IV
"These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
Of course we all do.
Interestingly, the message of WTO protesters is that _less_ freedom is good. The WTO is designed to take world trade out of the control of governments and into the hands of the individual, by removing its ability to interfere with international trade.
Let us take the example of tuna caught with dolphin friendly nets. There are overseas companies that do not use such nets, as required by US law. If I, as an indvidual don't really care about dolphins, but like cheap tuna, might prefer the overseas tuna. My government is removing my right to make that decision.
This is a simplification, of course. But so is the message of the protestors.
Their concern is that the government regulations that have protected the environment and labour practices are going to be dismantled. However, this isn't really going to happen, because everyone in politics knows that if it does, no one will vote for them, and the WTO will be quickly dismantled.
Look at thee tuna example. Foreign companies are going to keep using dolphin killing nets wheter or not they trade with the United States. It would be far better if no one used these nets. If the cause is worthy, then something will be done about it with internation treaties. Without the WTO, no one will bother, and the problem really isn't solved.
So in this case, and by extension many other cases, the WTO can improving things on a global scale. This is not to say that things can't get worse too, but so far I've heard very little rational discussion on how to balance the two sides. The WTO has the potential to improve the world economy, allowing for more money to be spent on better working conditions and the environment (neither of which are doing very well on a global scale right now, and are only going to get worse under the current system). Unbridled capitalism has a chance of ruining both, but only if everyone (including voters) looks the other way.
That's "force us" in the sense of the US applying extremely stiff tariffs (to the tune of 100%+ markups) on various EU-produced farm goods until the EU caves in and accepts US homone-tainted beef. It's better known as "extortion".
Been too busy working till today I noticed what was going on in Seattle. Dont know whether it matters who is in control either "big" business or "governments". In the past the "illusion" of ethics was attempted, now ethics are not a consideration for either institutions. Governments follow the money, which is "big" business. A slave to a Government or to a Corporation take your pick. It has to be remembered in this culture that the "big" guy will squash the "little" guy - right, wrong or indifferent. If you disagree try affording an attorney to resolve an issue. If this trend can be diverted, it will be a good change. Violence though should not be condoned, just imagining being a worker paid minimum wage, being put in a situation that could damage my income or health - all because someone wanted to prove a point. Have some experiences with the government that illustrate some concerns in dealing with "issues" http://home1.gte.net/scotter8/styx/issues.htm
I love how people scream 'martial law' whenever measures like a curfew and a cordoned-off zone are put into effect.
When a place is declared a disaster area, these measures are usually taken to prevent looting, and maintain order, and above all, prevent further damage to innocent citizens or their property until order can be restored. Nobody ever complains about this, right?
I think that once the situation in Seattle devolved into riots, the steps taken by the city were justified. People should be free to protest, but once they begin endangering other people or preventing others from, say, attending a conference, then they are probably overstepping their bounds and measures should be taken.
Wherever there's a will, there's a motorway.
Is there anything more endearing than watching reporters interview menacing Net-based anarchists with Web sites? If these anarchists were truly living in cyberspace, they wouldn't be able to do property damage in the real world. The anarchists were merely opportunists; they had nothing to do with the real protestors. And calling them "Net-based" seems a complete leap of imagination.
Finally, we know why Dr. Evil had his headquarters in a Starbucks in Seattle's famous needle. Just one question: who the hell is "Dr. Evil"??? What comic books have you been reading for your sources of information, Jon boy?
There was, perhaps inevitably, the notion, not the first or last time this will be suggested in coming weeks, that all of this poorly-articulated, diffuse and anarchic anger could only have come from the Internet. Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't "poorly-articulated, diffuse and anarchic anger" been around a lot longer than the internet has?
"The confusion about the protestors' political goals is understandable," wrote a New York Times columnist Thursday, "this is the first movement born of the anarchic pathways of the Internet. There is no top-down hierarchy, no universally recognized leaders, and nobody knows what is going to happen next." Whereas in the sixties, there was a clearly defined hierarchy of leadership, with well-publicized and agreed on plans for the reform of society. Uh, exactly what were you smoking in the sixties that you don't remember them clearly, Jon?
Perhaps one reason politicians and journalists have been so viscerally hostile to the Internet is that many of them foresaw this techno-driven political response to the rise of very big business: an era of absolutely unbridled, unprincipled and rapacious bigness, immorality, inhumanity and greed. The era of the mega-merger, takeover and acquisition without regard to consequence has created companies of unprecedented size and reach. Completely unlike, say the greed and rapaciousness of the railroad, coal, and lumber barons of the last century? Or the immorality of feudalism? Or the inhumanity of the Spanish Inquisition? Nike sweatshops seem to pale by comparison.
It's dangerous to generalize about all big corporations. And many of the Seattle protesters are enthusiastic free-marketeers. Really? I take it you questioned all of them personally on their economic idealogies? Or are you relying on the word of the same media that, in the wake of columbine, essentially got ALL the facts wrong, and that you also lambast for corporatism and irresponsibility?
Book publishing, now almost wholly owned by multi-national media conglomerates, isn't about to pick up the slack. Which must explain why you can't get published, Jon... oh wait, I heard PBS pushing you're latest book (Running to the Mountain)... the same PBS that's primarily funded by corporate sponsorship... could it be that Jon is actually a closet corporate flunky himself?
Oppressive corporatism - foreseen and warned about by great writers from Orwell to Huxley to Sir Arthur Clarke to John Raulston Saul - has grown beyond even their imagination. If I remember correctly, Orwell and Huxley were more concerned with government abuses than corporate. Perhaps William Gibson would have been a better author to cite
Corporations have staggering resources and power to shape the modern world, despite the fact that they have no political agenda or ideology apart from dominating markets and maximizing profits. This also makes them much more vulnerable than governments; if the consumers don't like what the corporations are doing, they can organize a boycott and cut off the corporation's oxygen. It should be much easier to organize a boycott in the age of the 'net then ever before, thus corporations SHOULD be more vulnerable than ever. The key word here is "organize".
But that's what makes these mega-entities so venal, even dangerous. By necessity, they exist in a moral vacuum in which almost everything is morally acceptable except making less money, and human and moral concerns are subordinate to profit. As corporations have become more global, and more and more of what they do occurs out of sight of democratic processes and scrutiny, they have become even less accountable, thus less moral. Unlike say, the Mongrel hordes, or the Nazis? Corporations do have some moral constraints, they cannot flagrantly break laws, and must avoid alienating their consumers. This is evidenced even by one of Jon's other complaints, that corporate media inevitable tends towards safe an least offensive content.
Middle-class and affluent workers ...who drive foreign cars to Starbucks wearing their Nikes and Gap jeans... have been down-sized, re-engineered, terminated, re-located and threatened by global corporations practicing new "flexible" personnel policies.
Corporatism has, in fact, damaged the environment by creating incalculable amounts of products that pollute and trash the earth. If there was no demand, there would be no supply. Isn't it more accurate to say "Consumers have, in fact, damaged the environment by buying incalculable amounts of products (which corporations are only too happy to supply) that pollute and trash the earth.
In the United States, corporatism is celebrated for generating a booming economy in which profits are greater than ever, but work for most people is much worse: transient, poorly paid, unrewarding. Younger workers are forced into dead-end and poorly paid positions with little chance of advancement or meaningful work... According to a survey of employers released today, the job market for graduates is better than ever, and computer science grads can expect a starting salary of $42,500 per year average. The problem is not that there aren't enough jobs; the problem is that the labor force is failing to supply the job skills demanded by the corporations, leading to inprecedented importation of skilled labor. Strangely enough, none of the highly skilled laborers most in demand and making the most money are represented by labor unions! The 3 most important factors in getting a rewarding job: education, education, and education. "Immoral" corporations like Intel have even stooped so low as to subsidize education, to help meet their demand for skilled labor. Hardly sounds like exploitation to me...
while older workers are down-sized, re-engineered, laid off in droves. Countless millions of workers - from kids to the elderly - have been victimized and brutalized worldwide by modern corporatism and the ruthless way it competes. Spoken like a true socialist -- can't compete? Whine about how brutal competition is. Personally, I think it's unfair that computer geeks can't get laid by supermodels, and I think the government should pass an affirmative action law mandating a quota of supermodel dates shall be with computer geeks. And while we're at it, Asians are massively underepresented in the NBA...
Nike, which has been accused of making products in sweatshops ...which doesn't seem to have hurt their sales any... the human rights campaign that targets Royal Dutch/Shell in Nigeria. ...which doesn't seem to have hurt their sales any... Or Microsoft, which has been accused of monopolizing software and information markets for years ...which doesn't seem to have hurt their sales any...
Ironically, some of Microsoft's employees joined in the demonstrations in Seattle. Can you say "hypocritical"? I knew you could! Did they wear their Nikes to the demonstration? Drive there in their new SUVs? Stop off at Starbucks for a mocha frappacino on the way?
There have also been protests against Monsanto's genetically engineered foods in Europe; Don't like 'em? Don't eat 'em!
Sounds like the protestors are not enlightened, merely confused. Next time, try going after the demand side, not the supply side. Bear in mind how successful going after the supply side was in the "War on Drugs"; even with government intervention and billions of dollars spent, results were dismal. You've just accused corporations of having the same morals as a Columbian drug cartel (they don't really) and now you expect them to be changed overnight be a little street protest?
The majority of Americans have their retirement savings in IRAs and 401(k) plans now; which means the majority of Americans are, in fact, corporate owners! (Albeit indirectly.)
Ultimately, the prophetic words of Pogo appear more and more appropriate: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
..with Jon (for once :-))
I don't think the idea of large corps. being evil is anything new. They're motives have been questioned for well over 100 years in the USA, with several episodes of violence.
England's "Machine Breakers" are another example of violence against change that would increase the wealth of a few, while lowering (or eliminating) the income of many. The "Machine Breakers" actually killed some company owners, I believe.
As far as Corp. layoffs and cutbacks while making record profits, this behavior really had its heyday during the 1980's "Reagan Era", when corporations were (more or less) encouraged to raise profits by thrashing their employees.
A more recent case -- in the USA, there are two major "check printing" firms. One is named "Deluxe". Several months ago, they annouced (amid RECORD profits) that they were laying off most of their labor force in the USA, and replacing them with automation. This was a lie; they are actually moving the labor to India, where the average wage will be $0.80/hr, vs. $8.47/hr. here in the USA. The explanation is a philosophical one -- the Corp. must serve it's shareholders before employees, and that means increasing profits by any means necessary. I don't agree with this, but they have a legal obligation to do so or face lawsuits from the shareholders.
That's the real issue of globalization, tranference of low wage/labor jobs from the higher income countries to the lower income countries. Corporations are legally bound to increase profit for the shareholders, by any means necessary.
At any rate, the USA is having an economic boom right now, so most people can get new jobs in the face of displacement. But if the US economy falters, the transference of jobs will increase with NO REPLACEMENT. Many people will be totally screwed in the rich "western" countries as the corps. move jobs overseas to China and India. Then there will probably be real violence. No wonder the US government is so desperate to outlaw guns.
In the West, money talks. The "Fortune 100" (of the USA) eyes China and India as gold mines -- lax labor and environment laws, low wages -- just like "The Good Old Days" -- when they could beat women, children, etc. into working harder, and those people had no choice but to cooperate.
All that money Red China has been funneling through the Democratic Party (The "Fortune 100" gets record profits from foreign labor, then turns around and throws that money at the politicians...and the wheel keeps spinning) has really paid off for them -- look how quickly the police state crushed the demonstrators, and Clinton moved in fast with a pro-WTO speech.
The future looks bright for emerging countries, but could rapidly dim for the West.
After reading Katz's latest article, I wonder exactly how much attention he really paid to what went on in Seattle? After reading it, I get the impression that he's just trying to jump on the bandwagon of the moment.
Firstly, the protests weren't only about human rights issues or the issues of low paid workers. There were a lot of people out there that were farmers and business owners who feel their livelihood threatened due to the practices of corperations in third world countries. (Low cost of operations and nearly-nil labor wages.)
Another point Katz seemed to miss was the fact that the protesters were NOT on the side of the vandals. Even they realised that the destruction only hurt their cause.
It's one thing to want to get us angry at the practices of the WTO, but give us ALL the facts, eh? Enough with the sensationalistic journalism.
(How many even heard about the striking Kaiser worker who stopped other protesters from flying the flag at the jail upside down?)
Interesting attempt to get some anti-MS sentiment in there:
Or Microsoft, which has been accused of monopolizing software and information markets for years, but which is only now facing tepid government regulation. Ironically, some of Microsoft's employees joined in the demonstrations in Seattle.
I was at the protest on Tuesday and I can report seeing absolutely *no* anti-Microsoft placards...and believe me there were people protesting almost any issue you could think of.
I am also fairly certain that the violence was not targeted at specific stores. Almost every place downtown was defaced with graffiti, and only a few windows were broken. The one place that was specifically targeted was a McDonald's, due to their use of genetically modified beef, but that was on Monday and was led by a French framer. One Starbucks in particular was trashed on Tuesday, but I think that was just a coincidence, since it happened to be at an intersection where unruly protesters had lit a fire, and it also coincided with the 6 o'clock news and the resulting camera crews.
- ac
Unfortunatly the protest was not about the power of corporations. It was fueled to a great degree by labour unions wishing to protect their industries in advanced countries at the cost of third world workers and the wealth of all countries including the working class in all countries!
Yes, this treaty will help third world countries (they aren't signing it just to give money to america). Sure some sweat shops might spring up but people work in these sweat shops b/c it is better than what they have without the sweat shops in all but a few countries they are not forced to join the sweatshops.
Yes it will help even the working class in the US as we get more goods at cheaper prices. If steel jobs go oversees this is because steel will be produced cheaper there. This means we will get steel cheaper and more jobs will open up here doing what americans are more efficent at doing than foreign workers. Heck worse comes to worse open up the WTO and decrease the tax rate on those who earn less and increase it on those who earn more. The WTO makes the pie bigger for EVERY country so with proper governmental policy no one should be left out to dry.
For more in depth discussion read this informative salon article.
Marriage is the "pseudo-ethics" that cloaks the messy truth of sexuality in the raiment of propriety -- it's "Don't Ask,
Here is an account by a friend-of-a-friend. I have sanitized out the names, I hope. :) > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 11:00:00 -0800 (PST) > From: > Subject: What Tear Gas Smells Like > > I've decided to write up some stuff about my experiences yesterday during > the protests, because the media has completely dropped the ball (this is > why it's a bad idea to have all the major news networks controlled by > large corporations). If you feel comfortable doing it, please forward > this information on to anyone and everyone, so that the word can get out > that what happened yesterday was not what the major networks say it was. > > How I Learned What Tear Gas Smells Like: The Events of November 30th from > Another Perspective, by Beth Stevens > > Yesterday, I arrived at the National Lawyers Guild nerve center at around > 8:30. The NLG is one of the groups that sent out volunteer legal > observers to the WTO protests. LO's are not lawyers necessarily, they're > just people who were watching to ensure that there were objective > witnesses should anything go wrong. The nerve center was set up to take > phone calls from observers about arrests and other incidents, and to help > coordiate the placement of observers with the different protests going on. > The nerve center is located in a building on 4th Avenue and Union Street. > > We knew Tuesday was going to be a busy day, because the largest scheduled > march was going to be starting at 12:30, and because it was the opening > day of the official WTO sessions. We expected a large number of arrests, > because the city had set up a special system for processing large numbers > of arrestees, but we didn't expect there to be many violent confrontations > between the police and the protestors, since the vast majority of the > groups espoused a nonviolent viewpoint. > > Around 9:15, we began to receive phone calls from our LO's telling us that > police in riot gear were arriving at the protests around the Sheraton > Hotel, bringing with them tear gas, peppery spray and armored personal > carriers (or APC's, which the police and the media would later > euphamistically call "peacekeepers"). It wasn't until around 9:45 that we > began to get frantic phone calls from our LO's saying the police were > throwing tear gas canisters at the crowd and then spraying them with > pepper spray. At least one of our LO's told us that they heard no warning > from the police before the gassing began. > > After the first use of tear gas, the police seemed to believe that it was > appropriate to use tear gas on all protestors, whether they were peaceful > or not. The building we were in was locked down around 10:00 because of > the chaos outside, meaning we needed to vouch for any of our observers who > needed to go in our out. We received reports all morning from LO's asking > for more observers to be sent to their locations because they were being > sprayed with pepper spray and tear gas. One of our observers came in > carrying a rubber bullet he had picked up off the street after the police > shot rubber bullets at him and the protestors he was observing. > > It was about this time that we began talking to one of the local > newspapers, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. We were on the phone with one > of their editors when the observer came in with the rubber bullet, and the > editor told us that the Seattle Police were denying using rubber bullets. > We told her that we had one in our office. The bullet was about 3/4 of an > inch across and made of hard rubber that felt like plastic; I held it in > my hand and felt it. It also had white scrape marks on it, from bouncing > off the street. Later in the day, LO's brought in more rubber bullets, > some of them much smaller. The smaller ones, they reported, were used in > shotgun-type shells and sprayed out at the crowd more than the larger > ones. > > Around 11:45, a few of us went across the hall from the office were in to > another office because we heard the police were amassing a strike force in > the intersection just below us. We were on the 9th floor and had an > unobstructed view of the intersection. We could also see down 4th Avenue > about a block, and up Union about two blocks. The police had union > blocked off between 4th and 6th; there was an APC parked in the > intersection of 6th and Union, and there were mounted police at 5th and > Union. In addition, there was a line of police (all the police I saw all > day were in riot gear, including gas masks, helmets, bullet-proof vests, > face guards, and sometimes shields) standing at the intersection of 4th > and Union blocking protestors from moving up Union toward the Sheraton. > There were about 200 protestors in the intersection, playing drums and > chanting something we couldn't understand. A few of the protestors > brought dumpsters over to the intersection and knocked them over, creating > a partial baracade in the street. > > Around 11:50, we saw more police heading towards the intersection, > marching. It was clear to us that they were the reinforcements, and that > the police had decided to clear the intersection. The protestors must > have realized this too, because about a third of them decided to sit down. > There was nothing thrown at the police, nor did any of the protestors try > to come up to the police and confront them. The only act which the police > could have seen as threatening was the semi-baracade, and only a handful > of the protestors had built it. > > At noon, a police officer came out and said something to the crowd through > a megaphone. Later, an observer who was on the street at that point told > me that the officer had said the protestors were violating state law, and > had 2 minutes to leave the area, and then would be subject to arrest. > About fifteen to thirty seconds after the police made their announcement, > we saw tear gas canisters flying at the crowd. Then the line of police > began to advance, walking around the overturned dumpsters and spraying the > still-seated protestors with pepper spray. The protestors began to flee. > Some of the protestors threw tear gas canisters back at the police, but > since the police were wearing gas masks, they simply ignored the > canisters. Once all the protestors had run away, the police set up lines > on both sides of the intersection, leaving Union Street entirely empty of > protestors from 6th avenue through 3rd. > > The afternoon brought more of the same: the police threw tear gas at any > protestors who were beligerant, were breaking windows or damaging > property, or were in a location where the police didn't want them. Very > few people were arrested, despite the elaborate system of processing > arrestees that the city had developed; in the morning, we only heard about > 3 arrests, and by about 5:00, we had only heard of 19 total arrests. > > The scheduled AFL-CIO march had to change its route, because the police > had blocked off the streets. Any protestors who didn't want to comply > with the change in route were pepper sprayed or tear gassed. By then, it > was clear to us that the city had literally descended into complete chaos. > > The NLG attorneys drafted a letter to the mayor, which was also sent to > the city council and any news organization we could think of, demanding > that the tear gassing of peaceful protestors be stopped. The letter was > faxed out at about 2:30. It received some attention from the press; a few > news agencies called us to follow up on it, but the mayor obviously > ignored the letter entirely. > > About 4:30, we heard that the mayor was probably going to impose a curfew > on downtown. When the curfew was announced, we realized that we couldn't > keep the nerve center open that evening as we had planned. Instead, we > started to close up and go home. The phone wasn't ringing anymore, since > most of the protestors had been chased out of town both by the curfew and > by the tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets. > > An NLG attorney and I left the building at about 5:10. Since the buses > weren't running because of the street closures, the attorney had offered > to give me a ride home if we could get to his car, which was parked at the > north end of downtown near the Paramount Theater, where the opening > sessions were to have taken place. Since we couldn't cross Union Street > (which was to the north of us), we walked down 4th one block to University > Street, then over to 3rd Avenue. On the corner of 3rd Avenue and > University is an entrance to the bus tunnel which runs underneath > downtown. We asked the police officers stationed there if the tunnel was > open. They told us that buses were running through the tunnel, but that > only certain stops were open, and the stop nearest the car was closed. So > taking the bus wouldn't help us. > > Next, we walked about two blocks up Third before we came to an > intersection where there were police. We could see that further up 3rd, > there was tear gas. We asked one of the police who wasn't wearing a gas > mask which street we could go up to get to the north end of downtown. He > told us to take 2nd Avenue, so we walked over to 2nd, but there was a > large tear gas cloud visible up the street. So we headed over for 1st > Avenue. > > We managed to go about a half a block up 1st before we started to smell > tear gas. We tried to walk a little further, hoping the gas would > dissipate, but it only got stronger. We turned around and headed back to > the street we'd been on before, and followed it towards the waterfront, > which is two blocks west of 1st Avenue. We knew that the breeze off the > ocean would help dissipate any tear gas, and we figured that there > wouldn't be any protestors on the waterfront, since it's somewhat > seperated from the rest of downtown by staircases and cliffs. As we > headed towards the waterfront, we took some lost out-of-town protestors > with us, most of them very young and clearly shaken by their experience. > > The attorney with me decided to head back into downtown to try to get to > his car, and I decided to keep walking up the waterfront to try to get to > a bus. I ended up having to walk halfway around the city to find a bus > headed towards my house. I got home around 7:00. > > It was clear to me from my experiences yesterday that the rioting that > ensued last night didn't have to happen. Tear gas didn't need to be used > on peaceful protestors who posed no threat to the police or to WTO > delegates. The police chose to gas and spray protestors instead of > arresting them and removing them from the scene. The protests would have > been much easier to manage had the police followed normal procedures and > arrested protestors. Instead, they ended spending most of the day chasing > the same people around downtown with tear gas, peppery spray and rubber > bullets. The people who rioted all last night could have been arrested in > the morning and held away from downtown, and much of the property damage > and, more important, the injuries would have been prevented. > > I urge all of you to follow the coverage of these events by the Seattle > Independent Media Center. Their website is www.indymedia.org and their > reports are far more accurate than the ones the major networks are > producing. The CNN reporters don't even know where the bus tunnel goes, > let alone what actually went on in the crowds yesterday. There were no > major networks covering the clearing of 4th and Union that I witnessed, > but there were independent media cameras there. And the independent media > aren't owned by large corporations which have a vested interest in the > WTO. > > Remember, this could happen in your city too. All it takes is for a few > police officers to feel scared, and an entire city can become a war zone. > Be careful out there! > > ===== > > ************************************************** ********** > "I say let's put on some tunes > Sing a long and do little all day > Go down to the riverside take off our shoes > And wash these sins away..." Indigo Girls > ************************************************** **********
We need a new economic principle based on giving rather than having, see http://www.focolare.org/en/peco.html. What you thing about it ? rebhan@bigfoot.de
When I worked for (a big store chain grocer a letter S logo) I was rather offended that they used their customer loyality cards to profile customers for sales propaganda on top of using it with the philosophy of charging every customer the max that their willing to pay. Anyhow they were so political that I left there and went to work for a very large high tech company (sounds like phyladepphia but is a screwdriver name) who is not doing any innovation at all. Rather they buy up a bunch of patents and do the minninum ammount of innovation necissary to put the screws to all the smaller companies of the world that are doing the real innovation and productive activity. I'm beginning to be very embarassed to work at these types of companies - but they simply pay a shitload of money for a miniscule amount of work. I guess at the very least I owe all the truely productive prople in the world at least the acknowledgement if not an outright appology and begging for mercy. please forgive me.
I think the protesters do have strong anti-corporation values, but does that mean by default individualist?
x ties-were-about." Most of those there, were not alive at the time, and are more concerned with current issues. (It pains me to agree with a 'not there' doctrine.)
Personally, I believe most want government regs to control the power of "trans-nationals" on many issues. (environment etc..)
It premature to encorporate the protesters into the individualist camp. (Much as I'd like to also.)
Claiming that these protests are empty callbacks to the sixties *is* a display of 'Baby Boomer' arrogance. As it is often stated, most of these people "weren't-there-so-how-could-they-know-what-the-si
To me, even the popularity of things like "Woodstock II" is not even evidence of a 60s callback phenonemon. That was not dreamed up, financed, promoted, and organized by 20 somethings, but by the music industry.
Those folks do have valid concernes, right or wrong. We do deserve better run Int'l organizations. Running the WTO like the Int'l Olympic committee is going to get them in trouble and they ought to have realized it.
I just don't have it in me to protest on the street, but in the spirit of the week:
1)
Let us all hope for a more open, transparent WTO. Sure allow labour goups in, but also consumer groups too. It was so lame to see the WTO official claiming that they were currently trying to end trade restrictions on the poorest countries. Instant populists!
2)
Let us all hope for less reporting of a window breaking incident. It had to be the most reported crime this year. Normally it should be reported, but it is so unrepresentative of the 000s of people there. (I don't like to see this happen either, but here it is not the issue.)
3)
Let us call on government agencies to respect the right to peaceful protest. These are not terrorists. In many ways the peacefull politically active are the most responsible of citizens. So beat on them a little less.
4)
It has been said that rights are valid only if they cannot be temporarily revoked. Let us work to limit the power to limit protest. For instance, civic, state or national political embarassment is not a valid reason to limit the right of protest.
That is all.
B.
I have never had a problem where I was unable to find out who made a product I had purchased (for which I had a complaint).
Of course, smart ass!!! If you have no way of knowing it, you have no way of ever realising you were wrong either!
Just wanted to thank you all for the lively debate. The world gets a little smaller everytime we all share like this. I feel like the smaller the world is and the better we think we know each other the less likely that there will be someone who wants to take advantage of the situation. When you get right down to it, people are inherently good and living in a small world is a great way to keep people honest.
--
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
I dont think he meant knowledge and technology. We have a finite number of trees, a finite amount of oil and coal, a finite amount of iron, aluminum, titanium, and uranium. Hell even the amount of solar energy hitting the earth in a given day is finite (huge, but finite).
Corporatins exist for the sole purpose of making money. If strip-mining, dumping waste in the empty lot behind the factory, and paying the workers $0.50 a day is allowed, what is their motivation for them to do otherwise?
If a company is looking for a place to relocate, are they going to pick Nation A, where the minimum wage is $6.50/hour, and there are strict environmental regulations, or Country B, where there are no environmental regulations, low taxes, no worker safety regulations and no minimum wage?
If the WTO's goals come to fruition, the US will be faced with a stark decision: lower wages and taxes, loosen environmental and safety regulations, or face the fact that the vast majority of manufaturing jobs will move overseas.
0 1 - just my two bits
I didn't see anything in this article about what I consider to be one of the most disturbing features of the WTO -- their policy of closed door tribunals.
If a country (or a multi-national corporation with the proper officials working for them) has a problem with another country's policies, the issue is argued before a WTO tribunal BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. Other parties are not allowed in, NGOs are not allowed in, interested onlookers are not allowed in.
___
Cognitive Overflow
more than yo
I am tired of the simplicity of analysis so commonplace in any sort commentary today, not just by Mr. Katz. Maybe my position in the technnology industry and the huge amounts of factual information available to me on lots of different subjects makes my jaded, but I'm partial to taking a little bit more time and doing more analysis.
Lets talk about young kids being exploited and coutries being figuratively raped. Cheap labor?
how about the alternatives? Prostitution, eating and scavenging from garbage heaps, living in hovels or having no housing at all. These conditions were commonplace before companies in industrialized nations starting searching for cheap labor outside of their home country's borders. Now children might only make $1.75 a day
but they don't have to sell their bodies to eat garbage. Often, these companies provide some level of schooling and housing. They provide basic medical care and counseling.
Changing conditions for people in the 3rd world is something that is going to take time. As is common in most efforts, THERE ARE NO QUICK FIXES. These countries will have to go through the same growing pains that we (the US) did.
Some time there are lesser evils. Keep that in mind.
I went back and reread Katz's article. While I did not see any outright condemnation of the violence, I also didn't see any advocacy of it. Instead, Katz seems to be saying something like: The media has totally missed the boat on why the protestors were there. Isn't that the real story? Let's take a look at what they're saying.
Regardless whether you agree with Katz's analysis, he's right to focus on what the protestors are saying. I find the context of violence underscores the gravity of these issues.
In the meantime, the mainstream media has found a sideshow in the rioting and Seattle's reaction. I'm not sure what the bigger criminal aspect to the rioting was: the property destruction or the distraction that it caused.
-Jennifer
Great article.... but I think the issue IS wider than just about corporatism, although I'd agree that capitalism-with-no-holds-barred is one of the more visible manifestations.
...) and of course globalisation of trade and commerce.
.... you name the baddies, they're benefitting from the net also.
The issue is globalisation - globalisation of commerce, globalisation of money, globalisation of culture, globalisation of environmental risks and threats, globalisation of control mechanisms (IMF, WTO, UN,
And, the internet is a huge catalyst. But it cuts both ways: the internet provides huge opportunities for bottom-up activists and levels the playing fields in a way which previous generations could only dream about. But by the same token, the internet opens up magnificent opportunities for abuse -- I'm sure all the drug barons are well hooked up, as is the NSA (hi there!), the Australians govt, the Saudi central computer
Summary as regards the internet itself: it increases risk and opportunity. For any possible factor, for any possible user. For good and for bad.
As for me, I know on whose side I'd be in Seattle, having been through tear gas sessions in non-US "democracies" myself.
So why then didn't we see any headlines for Buy Nothing Day ?
Everything that was founded in the 1980's and beforehand seems to have come to a head now. Before the great leaders of the western nations decided to 'let go of the reins' of the corporations, we knew there was a clear defining line between what was political, what was ethical, what was moral, and what was financial. Companies and corporations called themselves such, and made no apologies for their behaviour. After all, this was the cut-throat world of business, and you kind of expected it.
Fast-forward to the 1980's, and the free-market boom. All of a sudden, the corporations start swallowing each other whole, and they grow, and mutate, until they are bloated multinationals (Yes, I know there were multinationals before the '80s, but...) or they have become part of the multinationals. By the '90s small businesses depend on partnership or buyout by a multinational as the only method of guranteeing success. Prior to this, multinationals were primarily for basic needs (food, chemicals et al). Now, in the '90s due to continuation of free market policy, multinationals have hit critical mass, hence we face multinationals that deal with everything, from music, to computers, to pretty much anything we have. Everything on my desk is owned/produced by a multinational at some stage. Problem is, the multinationals have the same business-above-all ethic as they have always had, which means standardising, dumbing-down and nipping innovation in the bud (if innovation refuses to be bought).
Everyone is expected to purchase multinational product, and is persuaded by a barrage of advertisements designed to extract money from them, sometimes in the most devious way. (Can anyone put their hand up and with a clear conscience say that advertising directly to children under the age of 10 is a Good Thing(tm)?)
But it's doesn't end with the erosion of people's choice and rights to choose what they eat, drink, listen to or watch. That is a crime in itself. Censorship is a bad thing in a totalitarian state, however, I think that censorship for profit is equally disturbing, if not more so. Companies censor for profit by deluging the public with the 'news' that their product is the ONLY one worth having, and because they have more money than a smaller rival, their product dominates the market, simply because the public are unaware that a choice exists.
What scares me the most, however is the fact that multinationals control the media. Jesus wept, they can actually control what people THINK!! (Bearing in mind most of the world's population will believe what they're told, if you say it loud and brash enough...) Corporations like News International are putting the personal beliefs of their CEO into print, TV and films and people are taking it as gospel. That's scary. (Example: By conjuring up images of WWII, and by repeating it over and over, over a period of months, The Sun (UK tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch's News International) attempted (and pretty much succeeded) to persuade every one of thier readers that joining the European single currency was a bad idea. The real reason? Murdoch has so many $$ tied up in the US that anything that may weaken UK/US relations also weakens his financial position. It's amazing the number of people who haven't worked this out. And of course, every paragraph on why the euro was evil was followed by a long piece on how the US system was the one to emulate (Funny how it supports the system most friendly to global megacorps....)
Anyway, sorry, I'm ranting again. But think for a second. The global music industry is now effectively 3 companies (Sony, BMG and Universal) - The reason we get 3 different versions of the most successful thing of the time (Britney and Christina - 2 different multinationals)
The computing world is dominated by one company which (hopefully) has now bitten off more than it can chew.
Global book publishing is now owned by but a few companies
Scary, isn't it?
- "How do we do it? Volume!" - The Bursar of Unseen University.
Cheers to people finally standing up in Seattle and letting it be known that things are not as rosey as corporate media leads us to believe. If the voice of protest sounds unorganized or unfocused it's because the tactics of big business are working. They go about making their money. They slip a sweatshop by here. Maybe there's a little stink about it; big deal. They get away with razing forest; maybe a few people tie thenmselves to trees. Keep the subjects in factions, though, keep them separeted. Don't give them any solid target for protest, and it's business as usual. So people are groping in the dark for something to lash out at. And there's the WTO.
- Rich people in rich countries like the WTO.
- Poor people in rich countries hate the WTO.
- Rich people in poor countries like the WTO.
- Poor people in poor countries like the WTO.
Guess which side wins?America is one of those rare nations where the poor are fat.
What a typical Katzian gesture to be the first one to singularly and originally "observe" this little facet of modern life, and to officially declare the "beginning" of the battle between big business and the individual. Or not. As it is, we should give kudos to Katz for even noticing the struggle which has been going on since the Industrial Revolution, or earlier, and forgive the fact that he thinks he's "discovered" it. Well, a clue from the rest of us, Katz: the battle of the "have vs. the have-nots" predates your slashdot punditry by a few centuries. The reason Katz's heros, Orwell and Huxley, were able to write so poignantly and accurately about bigness, facelessness and blind consumerism is because it existed in the world they lived in! 1984 and Brave New World weren't predictions, they were observations. Our generation has this obsession with deluding ourselves that we're the first people to see things the way they truly are, and that we're rebelling against things that our parents and grandparents blindly and shallowly accepted. And believe me when I say that there have been far more profound and meaningful struggles for the working man (though not by our generation) than that of this sneering throng of vandals and would-be saboteurs delivering WWF-patented "Suck It!" gestures to the police. Katz was right about one thing, though. This is an internet-inspired protest if ever I've seen one: loud, violent and completely devoid of any hint of accomplishment or productivity whatsoever.
- The police deliberately allowed a small group of perhaps 40 black-clad punks into the area and allowed them to smash windows and burn dumpsters in order to get an excuse to brand all protesters as "rioters".
- Once they had their excuse, rioting was deliberately provoked by the police using tear gas, rubber bullets, and pepper spray in an effort to get an excuse to invoke martial law.
- Once the corporate media had compliantly reported that all of the protesters were "rioters" (rather than the 40 or so black-clad punks who were the only rioters in the area), the mayor and governor declared martial law (or, rather, "a state of emergency"), and dispatched the National Guard to clear the streets. Possession of a gas mask was also declared criminal intent, and you were immediately arrested if you had one. National Guardsmen and police officers blocked all entrances and exits from the area and stopped all who wanted to get in to ask them for identification and about their business in the area (shades of USSR!).
It was not reported on the national media, but one of the so-called "riots" was actually residents of the Capitol Hill neighborhood protesting the police presence in their neighborhood. Nothing to do with the WTO at all, but that didn't matter, the cops were in full-bore panic mode and coming down with jack boots on anything that looked like it might be public expression.To get leads on the "real scoop", follow Salon's links to various independent news sources from the OTHER (non-corporate press) side.
All in all, I think this may be the sort of turning point for labor activism in America that Mayor Dailey's violent breakup of the '68 protests in Chicago were for anti-war protests. The big difference is the way these were covered. In Chicago, the pre-corporate-media national news covered jack-booted thugs whacking peaceful protestors over the head with jacksticks. In Seatle, the corporate-owned national news media did not show those events, and instead showed the rare events where the forty or fifty black-clad thugs that the police had allowed into the area looted and vandalised things.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Katz has exagerated the half-truths which he uses (and, on a side note, why is this even posted in /. ? Replies sometimes get labelled as off-topic, this entire story should have been.)
First, my position: I am not against the WTO; I am against how the WTO operates. Secret meetings with no public input, undemocratic representations in the WTO, and decisions which can overrule the hard won environmental regulations of any nation is unacceptable.
Here in Seattle, the message from the protesters has rarely been missed by the news agencies. Those few times when the reporters get onto a tangent re: the destruction, they still follow up afterwards to make the distinction between the protests and the rioters. The local news agencies have never labelled the protesters as throwbacks to the 60's, or wanting to relive the 60's. If that message has gotten out in other areas, it's not coming from here. As for the internet, the only mention I've heard on local Seattle news is that it helped organize the protesters both here and in some other cities. While other news sources outside this area may be attempting to blame the internet in some way, I'm yet to hear such a suggestion from local sources.
On the first day of riots, the police were severely outmanned (oddly, the only persons who didn't seem to realize that the crowds would get as big as they did were the Mayor and the Chief of police; everyone else fully anticipated the size crowds which appeared). Each side points to the other as the initial "flash point" of the violence. Quite simply, I blame both sides for a back-and-forth escalation which resulted in the large scale destruction of the downtown area. Who caused the destruction? One of the main groups getting blamed is "The Eugene Anarchists". A group which promotes violence as a means to an end (this group existed prior to using the internet to better organize and recruit). Of course, while destroying the front of the Nike Town store, it would have been more believable that they were protesting Nike's labor practices if the main person kicking apart the store front hadn't been wearing Nikes at the time (yes, it was caught on tape, you had to watch close to see it though).
Later, the teens and "gang" wanna-be's came out and began looting; not carrying signs, logos, or any other label that declared themselves to be anti-WTO. And, when asked, only one out of nearly a dozen questioned by the media even knew what the complaints about WTO activity was about.
Regretably, this violent activity completely overshadowed the true protests. Here, the numbers of people involved and the unified messages have left a lasting impression on everyone who saw them. But in much of the rest of the world, only the images of violence and destruction were broadcast. It's unfortuneate, but for those not here the message from those protests was lost.
While a relatively small subgroup promoted violence to oppose the WTO, most of the true protests were peaceful. It's unfortuneate that the destructive individuals used the peaceful protesters as shields - running into them to hide whenever police came too close. These violent demonstrators even used the police as targets for throwing bottles and rocks - taunting the police and forcing a responce.
I do not hold the police blameless; their misconduct Wednesday night - gassing a peaceful protest and unnecesary use of force - was unprofessional, unwarranted, and should result in the immediate suspension of the officers involved and possibly the removal of the police chief. However, thru most Tuesday the police did as best they could with their limited numbers.
Events in Seattle are finally quieting down. Thursday's protest (partially anti-WTO and partially in responce to police misconduct) was a much needed return to sane and sensible action. Peaceful civil disobedience accomplished more in terms of relaying a meaningful message than did the violent multi-million-dollar destruction previously. Katz' attempt to legitimize the destruction is misguided, and the accomplishments of the peaceful civil disobedience proves that violence is not the most direct means to accomplishing the anti-WTO goals.
Oh, get real. The vandals and the bottle throwers weren't fighting against the WTO - they were opportunistic leeches piggybacking on the much larger true protests against the WTO. Most of them didn't even know what the WTO acronym meant - they just wanted to cause trouble and "have fun".
The real protesters had real reasons - just as my friends who live on Capitol Hill had to leave their apartments due to gas attacks and had reasons to be upset at the gestapo tactics of the police. Just as people I know on City Council were yanked from their cars for being black and well dressed and thus obviously protesters. Just as my coworkers were gassed just for waiting for the bus.
So stop the diatribe and point out that you're not even a real Seattleite. I live in Ballard and I'm moving to Fremont (both Seattle) - most of my friends live on Capitol Hill or Queen Anne or First Hill. We pay the salary of the police that gassed us and we're not thrilled that our city budget just got blown for a bunch of corporate greedmeisters - heck, I've got tens of thousands in overseas companies, and they'd probably gas me - but I still got into the Westin with Scott yesterday and did lunch with the WTO delegates.
Will in Seattle
The secret to Kabbala is to know how to interpret the numbers.
:)
taking placement in the alphabet
W=23, T=20, O=15
taking each digit, 2 3 2 0 1 5
(2 * (32)) 0 + 15
(64)0 + 15 = 655, which is real close.
Even better, the differences between each number can be added 23 (3) 20 (5) 15.
so (233 * 2) + 0 (5+15), suitably rearranged,
466 + (20)0 = 466 + 200 = 666!!!!
I'm sure people can do better than this. At any rate, this is proof that the WTO is evil
What are the problems with corporations?
They are amoral, faceless and un-accountable.
Why are corporations amoral?
They are bound by law to follow their official "mission statement" (I forget the proper term) which usually says nothing about morals, and plenty about maximizing profits. The shareholders will sue if they take action to throw away potential short term profit. Also, the structure of corporations means there is nearly never anyone to whom an appeal can be made on a person-to-person level, who has enough power to change anything.
Why are corporations faceless and un-accountable?
The concept of corporation quite deliberately diffuses responsibility. The law treats the corporation as if it were a person who acts according to the directions of its many owners (the shareholders) and is steered by hired employees (the board of directors). The corporation acts as a sort of standing wave in a sea of people, with no one ever taking ultimate responsibility for the actions of the whole, lacking the ability to question the assumptions coded into its mission statement. The corporation itself is a fiction, but people behave as if it was a person - a person without a heart, interested only in profit.
Can corporations be made moral, personal, accountable?
In my opinion, no. It is possible for corporations to be structured around some charismatic leader (eg: Richard Branson, Steve Jobs) and to temporarily act as though they had a heart. But the situation is unstable, because there is no guarantee this person will stay around - and without them or a replacement, the corporation snaps back to the heartless norm.
What solutions are there?
I can only see three:
[1] The corporation has a charismatic leader (and so acts like that person is in charge),
[2] All the owners and shareholders (including the corporate shareholders) decide to act morally and act as if they were required to take responsibility, or
[3] Delete the legal fiction called "corporations"
Whaaat? You cannot be serious! What will replace them?
There are already two perfectly good ways of doing business apart from corporations - a "sole trader" who owns and is resposible for the whole business, or a "partnership". In either of these cases there are individuals fully responsible and able to make changes.
Won't that just make the fat cats fatter?
No, because they will still need to seek investment, to borrow in return for profit sharing (like shares) etc. They will get richer mostly if at all for the reason that they remain in place longer.
Won't that weaken the economy?
It might in the short run as people become more cautious taking decisions they are actually responsible for. But in the end I think that's a preferable situation to the careless and heartless way decisions are nowadays often made.
Seattle is the birthplace of the coffee house revolution, grunge music, slackers and other
Gen-X habits.
I have my own contribution to the revolution. It's called ompages.com. The goal: total and undeniable individual control over his or her own commerce and communications; to snatch one's self, one's image from the purview of all things corporate. And guess what, technology is the tool we've chosen for peaceful liberation.
Katz is right about one thing. Corporations were created so that man can gain a sense of immortality. The corporate form is a kind of 'virtual reality' that has been around since very early in British history. The virtual reality is of an immortal unnatural person. In the legal texts there are two legal terms for what we commonly call 'persons', there are 'natural persons' (i.e., humans), and 'corporate persons' (i.e, marked automatons), and this terminology has been around since at least the 1700s if not earlier. I believe there may be foundations in Roman jurisprudence for this terminology.
Know this. When you work for a corporation, in the eyes of the law, you are the servant of an unnatural master. Let the natural persons rule and the corporate persons serve, not the other way around.
The people aren't whining because things aren't perfect. They're upset because the WTO is an international organization that's not accountable for it's actions that no one voted for. The WTO also has closed door sessions. They don't even pretend to care what the public opinion is. The WTO has the power to put trade sanctions against any country who doesn't abide by their rules. The United States policy, oft referred to as 'the last superpower,' is to buckle and overturn any laws which are deemed illegal under the WTO. These are laws put in place by the people of our country turned over by an international organization that bows to corporate concerns only. Do a little research before you call a position extreme. Read about how it's "illegal" that the united states subsidizes farmers. Or how "legally" the european union can't ban the sale of animals that have been given growth hormones unless they can prove to the WTO that it's actually dangerous to the consumer.
Anarchists would be nowhere without a relatively stable society against which to shove. Their goal of an 'equal' society is a fantasy that would quickly fade when the water stops running and the electricity is gone.
Anarchy is the 'political' expression of the primordial infantile 'ME!' we each utter after taking our first breath outside of the womb.
Power structures are a neccessity, simply because they are inevitable when dealing with groups of people and limited resources. If not created intentionally (as in 'founding fathers'), they will arise 'naturally', as various forces congeal and battle for influence. The results are rarely pretty. Look at Africa. Lot's of potential, riddled with extremely violent disagreements based on ethnic and tribal nonsense.
Boring, Sidney. Reeeeeally boring.
**>>BELCH
and double nay!
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
This isn't a very catchy name. I prefer 'corporate feudalism'. I think it much more correctly captures the essence of the problem, and is reminiscent of a form of government we understand the evils of.
As far as Katz is concerned, I always think he's being rather nieve (sp?) in his estimations of the power of the Net. I stoped reading Wired when their glowing descriptions of technological utopia began to wear on me.
Not that I want him to stop seeing his writing. He always makes me think, and the little doses of tech utopia here are easier to stomache than the steady diet that was Wired.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
The city, state, and federal government are perfectly within their rights to force these protests to act reasonably (e.g., not blocking all traffic and trade in the city)--these laws are just and moral. The actions of the protesters are hardly civil disobedience as defined by Martin Luther King, or that of our forfathers. The protestors are trying to FORCE their view on others by blocking traffic (et. al)--this is not a right. The others, whom i'm sure you'll refer to (e.g., King), did not use such tactics. Yes, King did defy some local laws, which were leveraged unfairly against them to quash their protest. He himself said the law was "...just on its face and unjust in its application." He was arrested for protesting without a permit, but the permit was unjustly denied as a means to maintain the status quo. This is simply not the case here.
When the revolutionaries "broke" laws, they were breaking unjust laws. Namely, that England did not have the right to impose such law on them in the first place. Compare this to our laws regarding assembly. We are a democratic nation, and the laws were promulgated justly and for good reason. We, as a nation, can't allow every group, minority or majority, to have their way by force of numbers.
The people in Seattle could make themselves heard by simply protesting in an organized and reasonable fashion. In other words, they have to leave a means of entrance and exit (according to law). Futhermore, the people have other means to address their concerns. They can cast their vote, if they are indeed as significant a part of the population as indicated, they can sway the elections considerably. The early revolutionaries had no such options.
Force is not the way of developed nations--it is disruptive of our democracy. Put this in perspective. If we allowed such "protests", relatively small groups of people can force the hand of democracy by force of numbers. Civil rights would have never happened. Abortion clinics, and other such controversial places can be trivially shutdown by only a handfull of people. [Atleast the pro-lifers (though I disagree with them) are acting directly against the percieved injustice, by attemping to block entrance and consequently the "injustice".] What do you propose we do when some nutty group (e.g., the KKK) tries to force their viewpoint like that? Is the majority supposed to come down there and push them out of the way? That would result in inevitable violence and damage. The practical alternative is to have such laws, and police to enforce them.
The fact of the matter is that reasoned debate, application of just law, and protest in accordance with justice have proven an effective means for securing democracy. To deviate from this, to allow the few [perhaps there is broad support for these protestors, but we have no vote on this yet] to bully an entire city and governance, is sheer insanity. Regardless of your personal views on the subject, you must be consistent above all else.
That's right. This is an official 'Me Too' post!
**>>BELCH
If you want the real reason why people in Seattle are more willing to protest here, it's because we had a series of Stupid Sports Stadiums hoisted upon us that we have to pay for, but they ignore our (Seattle) votes against them. And now the WTO - we never voted for it, we didn't want it, and now we pay MILLIONS for it at a time when our city budget is slashing services.
So, if you're a sports fan, just remember - we will riot against your control of our city - and we will take no prisoners!
First ones up against the wall during the revolution will be those with SkyBoxes and Corporate Team Sponsorships. Then we Open Source the sports teams - no private ownership - no Ken Griffeys selling out Seattle for Big Bucks.
Will in Seattle
**>>BELCH
What does this mean? Well, for starters, pay off your credit cards. And your car. And your house. That's right: be debt free.
I know this is not really the point of your post... but for those who choose to live a little less modestly as you, here is some advice:
Debt is an effective tool if used wisely. Why do you think the majority of succesful companies and governments have debt?
By all means, pay off your credit cards. People often ask me what their best first investment should be, and I always answer, "Pay off your credit card debt". Hell, where else can you easily make 15 - 19%!!??
But for other purchases, do not be afraid to take on debt. Especially with mortgage rates being so low. I will use the example of a house (one a lot of us have experience with):
Who makes out better; the person taking on debt (a mortgage) or the person issuing the loan (the bank)?
I think everyone here can tell me the owner makes out better... not the lender. In most cases the value of the house increases at a faster rate than the mortgage rate, making the debt clearly worth it.
Thanks,
ARJ
"Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product."
-Ferenc Mantfeld
.. You wouldn't fire him, because the serfs appreciate his trivial, no real world basis, analysises of situations. Its all about the benjamins remeba. And Katz's shitty reporting on the web (just like shitty reproting on TV) catches the attention of most of the /. crowd.
A lot of this talk about the evils of "corporatism" and of companies making their employees "flexible" and removing job security is not all the fault of 'Big Industry', and furthermore, it's not bad for workers or consumers. First, I am convinced Jon Katz does not know what corporatism is. Corporatism is the practice in a lot of European states (most notably Austria, with countries like Germany and Sweden following a close lead) where trade organizations and unions are highly organized, and are subserviant to "peak" unions and manufacturer/employer trade groups. Those "peak" groups are authorized to formally interact with the government on policy issues on behalf of their members. They also can enter their members into contracts. The closest analogy we have is the AFL-CIO, which speaks for ALL organized labor.. Although the AFL-CIO peak oragnization is not able to enter into contracts with its members. Such an arrangement is common in Europe, and although I disagree with it on principle, forms of corporatism ahve been around Europe since the middle ages. Second, the issue of workers not having job security is the fault not only of companies but also of the workers themselves. Workers have become very sensitive to changes in wages and so forth, and as the transaction cost of changing jobs falls (i.e., to change a job all you have to do is get your next employer to sign off on your 401(k) and get your medical insurance transferred, then put in your 2-week and clean out your desk... 20 years ago changing jobs meant kissing that retirement away and other nontrivial hassles.) As a result, the worker is less loyal to the company and that causes the company to not expect its workers to be loyal. Hence, the lack of job security. Now, to be fair, you also have to look at the effect of 'downsizing' in the 80's... This is just a natural corporate process. It sucks, but then again, what is the benefit to society of having 15 layers of middle management making $50-$60k/yr pushing paper? Very little. Sure, you keep people employed, but if they'er not contributing anything meaningful to the company, they're a source of inefficiency. One final comment. Everyone here speaks of the cold hearted nature of Big Business, and how evil they are, but HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE STOCK PORTFOLIOS? And 401(k)'s? And money market accounts? The vast majority of the earnings from the stock market find their way into the hands of the "little people," not the tycoons! Real people benefit from the effects of profit and from entrepreneurship and capitalism. It works. If you disagree, go to Red China or go to your favorite socialist country in Europe and stand in line for 6 months at the doctor's office until you can be seen.
And, pray tell me, which morality are you talking about? There are plenty of moralities around, a lot of them are incompatible.
Twaddle. How about the morality where people and human rights are valued, freedom is respected, and the power is not held exclusively by faceless organizations whose explicit purpose is to hoard money and power, but by communities of individuals who for reasons of self-interest or spiritual beliefs or simple geographic proximity or professional affiliation hold beliefs that protect the value of human lives and freedoms not because it is profitable, but because it is good.
So is that a Buddhist value? Is it Confucian? Judaic? Muslim? Quaker? Techno-anarchist? Elk's club? Which of these describes me? Now which 'centric' are you? Do you have the guts to answer, or just the stupidity?
The rest of your post is so fucking incoherent that there's no way to make sense of your knee-jerk, ad hoc philosophizing. Stick your head up your dead-end ass and just sit there and enjoy the freedoms others fight for while you sing the praises of your jailers.
While checking on friends in Seattle came accross some informative E-mail. I've removed message headers and full names but the rest is the genuine article:
- --
-
-
-----------------------------------------------
> I'm writing to all of you to let you know about what happened on Capital Hill last night - I have seen some media coverage about this, but in my opinion, it's not very accurate.
Yesterday, I was in support of the police. Now, I don't trust them and I am left feeling upset and nervous about what's going to happen next.
Last night, at about 9pm, all was pretty much normal on Broadway. Some shops were closed, but most restaurants were open. Bill and I walked down to Cafe Septieme for a drink.
We were there for about 20 minutes when we noticed some people going by with scarves around their noses and mouths. Then we saw more people... now running...down the street. It wasn't a huge crowd...mostly just the normal number of people wandering down Broadway at 9 in the evening. Next thing we knew, there was an overwhelming show of force by the police and the National Guard. It looked like 100 or so riot police, parading down Broadway, firing tear gas indiscriminately as they went. The restaurant locked down, put towels under the door and we just stood there, amazed. We motioned from the restaurant window to the police to stop. We called the mayor's office from the payphone but his voice mail was full. The street was filled with a cloud of tear gas. Just enough tear gas to sting the eyes made it into the restaurant.
Just a little background - Capital Hill is NOT in protest free zone, nor is there a mandatory curfew there. The police followed a group of protesters from downtown who peacefully left there at the 7pm curfew. So why was the Riot Force on Capital Hill to begin with? To keep the peace? Is tear gassing a neighborhood with a large population over a handful of protestors appropriate? I don't think so.
As we tried to get home, the police were blocking Broadway about a block south of where I live. A group of angry (but peaceful) crowd of residents was gathering and chanting, "GO HOME". I found myself joining in with "NOTHING VIOLENT IS HAPPENING HERE! WE LIVE HERE! WHY ARE YOU HERE?"
No one was overturning trash cans or breaking windows - we just wanted the cops to stop tear gassing our neighborhood. So the police decided to start firing tear gas again. Let me tell you, that stuff really hurts. I feel like I have a sunburn today under my eyes.
The crowd scattered, and the police finally started to retreat. We then made our way back to the apartment. I'm not sure what happened next, but a large crowd of people followed the cops as they retreated. There was no violence and not a single window was broken.
The crowd wound up in a standoff with the police near the East Precinct. The media started to report that there was looting. It didn't look like any looting was going on. From my apartment, you could see flashes of light and hear the booms of the tear gas being fired. When it quieted down, we decided to go down and see what was happening.
Down on Pine street, between Broadway and the KFC, there were hundreds of Capital Hill residents gathered. A few (and I mean 2) people had anti-WTO signs...but this was a group of mostly residents. they were chanting "OFF OUR HILL!" at the police. A few people started trying to start trouble by turning over dumpsters - they were quickly stopped by everyone else who didn't want to tarnish the peaceful intent of the residents. But there was certainly no vandalism, window breaking or looting.
The cops stood their ground for a long time. And around 2 in the morning, people started to disperse. It looked like the police were just riding out the standoff and people were leaving peacefully. So we decided to leave (as it was cold and we were soaked by the rain). We relieved that they didn't start tear gassing again. The police outnumbered the crowd at this point.
As we got about 5 blocks away, we started to hear chanting...then we heard about 13 rounds of tear gas go off. We looked down Broadway, and saw a cloud of tear gas emerge from the scene. Then, immediately, 5 blocks away, we could feel it. It was strong, strong stuff. I couldn't see and I was in some serious pain. Yet I was no where near the standoff at that point. I'm sure that stuff made it into people's apartments, where there are families.
I don't know what's going to happen now. It seems that this is no longer about the WTO. The police, who underreacted on Tuesday are now overreacting and involving the general population in stopping a handful of irresponsible protestors. The unwarranted presence and force of the police is adding fuel to this problem. So now, we get to live in a police state until this stupid conference is over.
Great.
Ginny
-----------------------------------------------
The author of the following is described as being "pretty right-wing, and doesn't acknowledge a big distinction between protestors & vandals here"
-----Original Message-----
Subject: capitol hill = warzone
I figure you guys would like to here what happened yesterday other than what was on the news.
At about 8:pm if you were on Broadway last night, you were royally screwed. About 1000 protestors marched up Denny, crossed over to Pine, and made there way to Broadway and Harrison, about 1 diagnal block from my apartment. All through this they were being basically pushed out of the curfew zone by police and nationl guard.
At this time I was in Broadway Bar & Grill with 2 friends waiting for my girlfriend to get back from work (she is a sound person for a the press). Next thing you know the National Guard and riot police make their move. Now remember this is not a curfew zone, and the cops basically pushed these protestors (mostly out of towners) into our residential neighborhood.
Within minutes Broadway is being teargassed and concussion bombs and rubber bullets and rubber grenades are going off. This all at 8:pm on broadway, when alot of residents are out. Broadway Bar & Grill was getting filled with tear gas even though they locked the doors.
Then it stops....or so we think. All is quiet for about a half-hour as they stand on the north side of Broadway (both pretestors, cops, and majorly pissed of capitol hill residents). I meet my girlfriend (whose apartment building is right on Broadway). We go to her apartment, and then leave to go to mine (I wanted to put Banky in his doggy kennel so he wouldn't be running around all crazy because of the noise and ruckus). We walk outside, get about 5 feet mout the door and the riot police launch a rubber grenade and fire rubber bullets and tear gas at us. I got hit in the back and my calf, my girlfriend got hit in the back. So we both have huge welts from these things. We also were tear gassed which hurts like a bitch. You could not walk down Broadway (and up or down 2 blocks in each direction due to the wind) without getting hit with tear gas. There were parents outside with their kids looking at everything and they got hit, and the tear gas and rubber was fired without any warning. It was a mess. It was really like a war zone on capitol hill.
I went to home (now rememb er this is only like 8:30).So I turn on the news and see now the residents got pissed and had a stand off with the cops because they were bringing this into their neighborhood. This was at Pine and 11th by the KFC.
2:am all of a sudden all these explosions go off, and people start running down broadway. The cops and national guard gassedand shit more mrubber bullets and grenades at the residents, not protestors. So much tear gas was used at just one intesection Pine & 11th, you could heavily feel it at my place and thomas.
The protestors suck, the cops over-reacted, and the citizens and residents of Capitol Hill payed for it.
-----------------------------------------------
I know this is pretty long but I have one more short one with a good thought:
-----------
On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Todd wrote:
Oh, yeah, and one other thing: I am going to be writing a letter to the editor and to Tina Podlodowski (head of the Public Safety Committee for now) regarding identification of police. Police in riot gear need to be wearing identifying marks (numbers, perhaps) so that complaints can be made. Anonymity is a scary, dangerous thing.
Podlodowski is being very reasonable (i.e., horrified) regarding the last two days. If the city council has any power at all, some things may change.
[hope, hope, hope]
All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
what i do not understand:
if these people protested against the WTO because they think that it is only
in the interest of big corporation why don't these people portent against
the USA? the USA is not a real democracy but for the most part is bought by
big corporate $$$. (in the USA politicians are payed mostly by private money
where in europe a political party gets fund from the budget according to
the votes they got at the last election). so the USA is the country which
causes most pollution and waste of environmental resources of all..
so hopefully the angry people from seatle will soon turn their anger against
the US political system so corporate dictatorship can be replaces with
democracy..
greetings from vienna,
mond.
I lived in Seattle around 92-95, and I used to tell everyone that the people there were the most spinless wusses on the planet. They proved me wrong this week. Congratulations Seattle! You have earned some cred.
It's events like this that warm my heart when I see people actually getting off thier asses to do something instead of moaning about it, which is what Americans typically do.
I could care less that there was some minor inconevience to a couple multibillion dollar mulitnational corporations. I'm sure it will not break them to get thier stores cleaned up. No one was killed. Windows can be replaced. Oh but I forgot you people place money (that isn't even yours!) above your own personal freedom. Don't think it's true? When's the last time you saw someone run for office on the "liberty and freedom for people" platform? Oh sure freedom is fine for corportions, just not people.
Ironic isn't it? We give lip sevice to freedom, however when it come time to actually see any freedom in action, we don't know what to do and the state is so afraid, they only know how to react by let the cops go on a rampage. In America, personal freedom only means freedom to shop.
Last night I was lucky enough to hear Jello Biafra speak here in Anchorage, fresh from the Seattle protests. As expected he spoke on a wide range of topics written over the years (as a result he did contradict himself in a few places but that's not important now) including alot of new stuff about the WTO and the Seattle protests, which he activly participated in.
/.er from Calif mentioned the other day) Clinton/Gore have been rolling over pretty quickly saying that they can't easily repeal the laws but will stop enforcing them. Didn't this duo used to be somewhat green? At any rate the US is also just as guilty of using WTO/GATT powers to overturn enviromental/health regulations in the name of Free Trade, already having sued the EU and Canada on diverse issues such as genetically altered food and labeling, to gasoline additives. It's all fucked up.
;-> A good chunk of what he had to say about corporations was basically an emotional rant, kinda like Katz. Biafra went on to talk about how grassroots/underground forms communication were becoming the best source for information that mainstream news tends to ignore. Sorry to say that he didn't mention Slashdot (though I was tempted to shout "Read Slashdot!" a few times during the show ;-> ) In fact he only mentioned the Internet in passing and placed alot more importance on printed zines and pirate radio/tv of all things. This I found pretty silly, I think Katz had it right when he said that the 'Net was the driving force behind the Seattle protests and will be the primary means of communication and organization for all future grassroots social movements.
/. fashion) to give my own opinion. Where I disagree with Katz and Biafra on the issue of corporatism is that neither aknowledged the massive benefits those of us in the First World, specifically the US, enjoy because of corporations. For starters I personally don't have a bleak economic future because of corporations and technology advances and I doubt the most /. readers do either. As long as I'm willing to do a little hard work and make the best use of my natural Geek abilities I'll most likely have a profitable and rewarding career(s) for the rest of my life. Hell I have freinds my age (early 20's), who bypassed college, that are already making more money than my parents, because they work for large companies! That is the one point that Katz/Biafra really missed, corporations aren't a cohesive borg-like unit. They are made up of individuals like me and you. Here's a good example of huge company not screwing me over. I have a mobile phone through ATT Wireless, recently like a dumbass, I broke the beltclip off while unloading my winter tires from storage. On a whim I called ATT Customer Care to see how expensive it would be to get the phone cover fixed, Instead of charging me for repairs or depriving me of the phone for a week while they fixed it, I was sent a brand new phone (same model ;-( no upgrade for me) within two days of calling and a prepaid airbill to send the broken one back. It's a small thing I know but it goes to show that even ATT is in fact composed of real people and can avoid screwing consumers. Hell I was only on hold for about 15 seconds after calling. With the exception of Micro$haft customer support I've always had pretty decent service when dealing with large/very large companies from DEC to HP to IBM. In fact I've been treated worse and screwed over more by local businesses, particularly local monopolies than I ever have by the big boys. So from a purely consumer point of view I have no problems with companies getting really damn big, just so long as they still have competition, monoplies in any market are a Bad Thing(tm).
Alot of his sentiments were echoed by Jon Katz just now, in fact It's not an issue of left or right," e-mailed Mark, a college student arrested during the first day of the protests. "It's an issue of top to bottom." is a direct quote from Jello's performance last night, a sentiment he expressed several times.
Jello made several good points about how corporate media effectively censors the news by ignoring important stories in favor tabloid like headlines (Monica and the presidental staff for example) and non-news like parades and tree lightings. Meanwhile really important changes have been taking place quietly behind the scenes, without the American people knowing (according to him other industrial nations arn't quite as bad off as the US when it comes to current events) he had some examples of the WTO and GATT (General Agreement on Trade and Tariff's, this created the WTO) treaty provisions gutting American enviromental laws, are at least threatening them seriously. For example, the laws concerning the dolphin safe tuna stickers we have all come to know and love, have been in effect taken off the books. After the USA signed the GATT treaty non-US industrial fishing concerns sued (well not exactly, under current WTO policy only soverign nations can bring up greivences against other nations to the WTO, but more on that later) the US government claiming that the US dolphin safe laws restricted free trade and were illegal under WTO/GATT provisions. Federal and state clean air acts have also been challenged (as a
Previously I mentioned that only another soverign nation could challenge the laws of other nations in a WTO tribunal. Which BTW takes place behind closed doors, and the nation who's law(s) are being challenged is not allowed to attend and defend it's position. Not long ago an addition to GATT was in the works called MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investment) that gave multinational corporations soverign status in the eyes of the WTO. This of course meant that any company that felt that it's free trade rights were being stifled by pesky enviromental or human rights regulations could challenge those laws at a WTO tribunal and have them tossed out if it was found that they unduely restricted free trade. Fortunely news of this got out in Europe (France I believe but am not sure) and alot of people raised alot of hell and the WTO backed down. Actually part of the WTO's Seattle agenda was to add provisions from the MAI to GATT itself so a whole new treaty wouldn't have to be ratified by members and potentially come under public scrunity again.
The above was the meat of what Jello had to say about the WTO and the corporate world, that he could back up with facts. I havn't had a chance to check the facts he presented either so if I turned out to be wrong on the details please don't flame me
Ok now that I've summarized someone else it's time for me (in true
What does bother me is corporate involvment in goverenment, at any level and to any degree. We can't exactly blame the corporations though, they in all reality have NO social obligations and are legally and morally required to act in a manner that will increase profit and give the largest return to their shareholders, period. It's the role of government to deal with social/legal issues. It's our government that should protect the enviroment and human rights. And of course it's the responcability of each and every citizen in a democracy to elect a honest and ethical government that represents the people they govern. In this sense we have failed, by electing and re-electing leaders that whore themselves out to the highest bidder and pander to the lowest common denominator during elections.
We do have to rise up and take a stand. Protests like the ones we saw in Seatle are a good first step, they make us take notice of issues and think about them. Commentary by people like Katz, Biafra and even Limbaugh are good things to listen to/read even if you don't agree agree with a word they say you at least have to THINK about why don't agree. Slashdot is even better because not only do you have to think about about it, if you post, you also have to take the time to (hopefully) rationally consider your opinions and put your thoughts in a reasonable order. And best of all you have the opportunity to read hundreds of opinions on the issue. Places like this are where it all starts.
Remember, the price of freedom is eternal vigilence.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
Are you gunning for a job as a writer at People magazine?
/., try and tackle a tough issue like that frustration in Seattle, instead of putting the same tired spin on everything that happens in the world.
You state that the media is missing the point, but here you are (again) trying to twist the WTO thing into a techno/geek/internet issue.
It's always easier to blame someone else than to accept responsibility. Corporations aren't the Satan's of the new millenium, they are just figureheads for our morally bankrupt society, and thus easy targets for frustrated people.
If you're gonna take up space on
To save my fingers effort, jump to this URL (same thread, different branch) for my reply:1 8248&cid=284
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/12/02/16
Thanks,
The difference between Chicago '68 and Seattle '99 is that in Chicago, the national media was still independent and thus covered the "riots" in loving detail, including details that were unflattering to Mayor Dailey and the Chicago police department. Now they are corporate owned and report what their corporate owners want them to report. The corporate overlords support the goals of the WTO, so they report that anybody who opposes the WTO is a rioter. Ask Jon Katz why he resigned from his high-paying job with a network news department, why don't you?
Personally, I support the goals of the WTO, but that does not change the fact that Gestapo-like tactics are being used against peaceful protesters and that the corporate media is blithely going along with the "party line" that these are rioters, not peaceful protesters.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
For those who are claiming that corporations opening factories overseas will NOT be damaging, I fail to see how this follows...
Labor is directed away from local industry. This should be fairly obvious - Nike can easily out-pay any local industry and still do much better than they would operating out of America. So I don't see how local industry can develop with a labor sink - and an increasingly strong one, as they globalize more and more. (Then again.. there's hundreds of millions of potential workers in Bangladesh)
Of course, if one does NOT allow corporations to invest/export factories overseas, one wonders how small, third-world nations are supposed to start developing global economies. Maybe WB loans.. this is questionable at best, although I am by no means informed on this point.
But, at the same time, I'm wondering how, exactly, does money flood in, when, say, Nike builds a Thai factory? Nike products are being exported and profits retained in America... What do the Thai folk get out of it, other than a pittance? Nike products? My ass.
Obviously, though, the 3WCs must have SOME reason to admit American corporations - other than maybe Nike slipping a few million into the pockets of some Thai government official, which, despite my cynicism, I doubt is what happens. So what do they get out of it?
Note that I am not condemning anyone yet: I am uneducated. I am asking for a brief tutorial, here. (Email would be appreciated.)
SA
I'm pro-trade and WTO (for the most part), but Nike is a marketing company, nothing more. Their prices are higher than just about every shoe. They practically created the 100 dollar tennis shoe. And their quality? Well I atleast don't think it to be any better than the competitors at similar prices levels.
There has apparently been some drift in the definition, but my experience has been that the word "corporatism" refers to the subjugation of individuals (and any other independent entities) into the body of the state, under the control of a single leader or party. For instance, Pinochet believed the state was almost a living organism, people being little more than cells or worker bees. North Korea is considered a model of corporatism (in Bruce Cumings's history of Korea).
The idea of separate businesses or organizations in society is antithetical to this ideal, and I believe that Orwell or Huxley were referring more to this definition of corporatism than to the problem of multiple large, transnational businesses operating in an anarchical fashion.
---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
They increase the supply of child labor, which makes it possible to pay smaller hourly wages to such workers. Analysts expect the hourly wage to drop from 2 cents/hr to 1 cent and a beating/hr. This will make it possible for westerners to buy cheaper luxury items.
I don't view the whole anti-corporate message as anything new. People are complaining that everyone is insecure, vulnerable and dispensable, everyone's role and mission is continously subject to change? Fine, let them complain. Being secure, invulnerable, and required, with a static role and mission is, in a word, inefficient. This is why corporations have moved away from static invulnerable security. Efficiency is not a bad thing; it gives us more necessities (and more toys) for the same amount of work. The complaint, it seems to me, is not about efficiency but about security; people want the Big Friendly Corporation to take care of them. This is antithetical to the supposedly net-generated individualism being touted here. I will be frightened when corporations start having the resources to take care of people. ("GigaCorp. My Corp, My Life. Have a GigaNice day!" Insert catchy jingle.)
Also, what is the deal with this: Corporations have increasingly acquired and sought to monopolize whole elements of culture, from movies to books to the press. This has sparked an epidemic homogenization of popular culture - not a dumbing down, but a dulling down - as controversial, profane, sexual or other "controversial" cultural offerings from books to movies to music are eliminated or pushed to the margins so that safer products can be mass-marketed. Er, say what? As far as I can tell, it's exactly the corporate influence that has encouraged the controversial, profane, and sexual over the past forty years. Why? Controversy sells. Profanity sells. Sex sells. What do corporations do? They sell things. Left to our own devices in the absence of constant advertising and fierce competition for business, people can be quite happy without a constant influx of profane sexual controversy.
There have also been protests against Monsanto's genetically engineered foods in Europe; but this has nothing to do with anti-corporate sentiments. There's a very strong anti-genengineering sentiment in much of Europe, without any apparent factual basis. The rhetoric is not anti-corporate, it's pro-health. In many cases, genengineered foods are safer than the traditional alternatives as far as we can tell; only the pesticide-supertolerant plants seem to pose a health risk. The fear seems, therefore, based largely in lack of information, of blindly following the crowd of popular opinion. This isn't an internet/individuality phenomenon.
Come to think of it, neither is vandalizing Starbucks. Anyone can vandalize Starbucks as part of a mob. What would show true cooperative individuality would be if the people who had a unique and compelling message--the individuals--were to stop the random hoodlums from stealing the spotlight with their socially destructive actions in a situation where they think they can get away with it. The mainstream media has the perfect excuse now for ignoring valid arguments: "they're a bunch of irrational rioters".
I know that things have come on in leaps and bounds in real terms, but only from those that were marketed successfully, as opposed to the best. Note how Intel-based machines have dominance (due to the better marketing campaign - bearing in mind that x86s are all built upon enhanced 8-bit page-flipping architecture), as opposed to, say, Motorola (better design, 32-bit from conception - lousy marketing) (OK - techie-innovation quashing case study over.)
(And now.. my motivation)
It's just sad that kids look at the TV and come away thinking that McDonalds is healthy, or that labelled clothes are somehow better-made, or that they are wothless if they don't have a mobile phone. I'm sorry if I skirt the issue too much for you, it just makes me angry
I'm being as real as I can be. I'm not saying that megacorps haven't done at least some good, but that the bad that they perpetrate (for the most part) far outweighs it.
- "How do we do it? Volume!" - The Bursar of Unseen University.
Perhaps I missed it, but precisely where does Katz the Drooler condemn the violence perpetrated by some of the protesters? I find this comment, which is more of an excuse than a condemnation: "the birth of political movements is usually neither pretty nor coherent". Elsewhere Katz excuses these brutes thusly: "Small wonder the protesters were furious." Great, Katz.
Katz fancies himself a social commentator, and he may suppose that as such he need not condemn that upon which he comments. But given his eager readiness to condemn other things with which he disagrees (e.g., the "corporatism" which he attacks throughout this column, or those who hold to anything resembling a Judeo-Christian ethic -- whom he attacks in almost everything else I've ever seen that he wrote), I can't help but wonder about this omission.
So tell us, Katz: do you condemn violence or not?
The protestors in Seattle made some telling, nearly irrefutable arguments.
And which ones were those, Katz? The ones where they were destroying public and private property, or the ones they made while protesting peacefully?
Corporatism has, in fact, damaged the environment by creating incalculable amounts of products that pollute and trash the earth.
Tell us, Katz: do they just litter the countryside with those products, or are they purchased by someone? And if they are purchased by someone, that suggests that the corporations provide a product that someone wants, doesn't it? Tell us Katz: Are YOU buying any of these products? You are? What does that tell us about your moral standing for criticizing those who produce what YOU want, Katz?
controversial, profane, sexual or other "controversial" cultural offerings from books to movies to music are eliminated or pushed to the margins so that safer products can be mass-marketed.
Is this why a supermajority of the movies coming out of Hollywood are rated R or PG-13, while only a tiny handful get the "safer" rating of G? Katz, do you think at all before you spew this stuff?
Younger workers are forced into dead-end and poorly paid positions with little chance of advancement or meaningful work
Is there any conceivable way there could be an actual REASON for this, Katz? Like this: maybe those "younger workers" are typically so inexperienced and underqualified that they cannot get the hot jobs.
The roots of the demonstrations lie in the notion that companies are behaving immorally.
What's this? Katz is complaining that someone is behaving immorally? I thought that Katz the Drooler resented all those who have systems of morality to guide their behavior. Let me check...yes, he surely does despise them. This is some remarkable hypocrisy here, Katz. You condemn the Christian, yet here you are trying to impose your OWN morality on corporations. Very nice indeed. You set a good example for your children (if any).
Corporatism is a civic menace. It pushes the individual aside. It spawns greed, passivity and conformity.
I'm happy that you're such an impartial commentator, Katz. Now tell us: do you condemn the violence in Seattle or not?
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
I have read Jon Katz in the past and even wrote him once to remind him not to give up his day job while he was trying to install linux over 3 or 4 months. (!) I live here in Seattle and have had to endure this whole WTO thing from both a first hand perspective and wading through the local and national media coverage. And let me tell you on Tuesday while most people were simply (and peacefully) protesting WTO those punks were tearing up as much of the city as they could get away with under the "we are anarchist, hear our roar" bandwagon. BULLSHIT! It wasn't pretty or in any shape or form anything other than an excuse to see how much mayhem and distruction they could cause. There were also plenty poised to seize the opportunity to loot right behind the rioters. Don't tell me "young and old alike" They were nothing but do nothing very young punks bored because they never bothered to learned to read or write in the first place. I didn't see any gray haired old geezers busting anything up. And it certainly wasn't as glorifed a cause as Mr. Katz hints at as a disorganized corporate America rebellion. Simply put the police should have loaded live rounds in lieu of the rubber bullets. And then declared open season on these punks. These people are a danger and menace to society as a whole, are taking up valuable resources such as air and water, and are doing absolutely zero to justify their presence on the planet. They will likely go on to reproduce there by imposing future little "do nothings" for society to have to deal with in the future. Eliminating them now would be the best for mankind in the bigger picture of the universe and save everyone else a lot of grief. It truly was a sad day for humanity.
The Message from Seattle: Girding For The Fight Of The 21st Century
Is this really _Katzbot_? o_O
The protestors had many causes, whether related or not, but that's not the main point. The thing that interests me is that the protests occurred. My Generation (X, Y, whatever) has offten been criticized for not caring about anything, for not taking a stand. We've been told that we're living in affluent times (economy up, no war, etc) and that we are selfish, unmoved, etc.... I think that Seattle goes a long way in showing that we DO care and that we are ready to fight for our causes (whatever they may be) It was actually refreshing to see that theere were so many causes; people with different ideologies and from different social, economic and political groups were protestng together against what they believe is a threat to their freedom.. isn't that democracy is all about???
There are two obvious lessons: (1) These protests have yanked American political discussion away from business as usual and brought new issues into public view. Probably the issue of closed process at the WTO will actually be addressed. (2) Technology, including cell phones and the net allows a new way of organizing protests. Since these protests were so effective at making an obscure organization, the WTO, front page news, they will probably be repeated.
Some of the anarchists were pacifists and were opposed to the vandalism committed by others. Other anarchists saw the vandalism as bad tactics, but didn't really care if a bunch of big corporations had to pay a few bucks to replace some windows.
What the different groups of anarchists had in common, though, is that they cared less about "getting their message out" and more about directly shutting the WTO meeting down, directly causing economic damage to big downtown businesses by preventing them from operating during the WTO, and in generally making the WTO conference a big mistake for the city of Seattle. The next time the WTO meets, other cities will be more hesitant, making it difficult for the WTO to operate. And even the most "violent" of the anarchists didn't attempt to burn down any buildings, roll over police cars, or other actions that might be expected to seriously injure human beings. Sure, many anarchists have little respect for the property of corporations, but it was clear that even after being clubbed, tear-gassed, and shot with rubber bullets, they did not want to intentionally or accidentally injure anyone.
As for the reports of people not caring about the WTO because people were acting against businesses in general... The attitude is that the WTO is just the latest manifestation of what big corporations have been doing all along. It is their tool to use against us. In response, the anarchists have fought back, both against the corporations directly, and against their latest tool.
Yeah, some of the young people out there might not have a firm grasp of all the details of the politics they advocate. But that's hardly limited to anarchists. You think the average person that voted for Bill Clinton has a good understanding of capitalism and the American brand of representational democracy and the ideas they are founded on, even though that is what they are supporting?
People are prescribing way to much authority to the WTO, just as they do to the United Nations. It's a forum for ideas, and discussions not some fanatical black-helicopter owning splinter group of SPECTRE. And like the United Nations countries will continue to ignore it when convenient and not overly embarassing to do so. The only only decent article on the WTO mess in Seattle comes from the British magazine the ECONOMIST: http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/curr ent/index_ld3572.html
People are on here rallying against corporations, yet...they're posting on a website owned by a corporation.
Call on God, but row AWAY from the rocks!
You okay now?
I live and work in downtown Seattle, and I can tell you; it ain't all that.
While there is a crew of net-savy people out here who are pushing for the next revolution (into WHAT?) and an end to "corporate homogeneousness", their numbers are very small.
This is just buisness as usual, but with a twist of 90's to it.
What you saw is a vision of the future under WTO. The multinational corporations that were attending the WTO pressured the local, state, and federal governments to handle the problem.
The goverment meekly rolled over and punished the crowds for daring to speak out against the WTO. How dare these peasants speak out against their overlords? Don't they know how hard these delegates are working for them?
As the WTO gets stronger and stronger it will become the defacto world government. Do we want our representative to the world government to be appointed or do we want to directly elect our representative? Why are the existing government so against this? Because right now the person appointed represents the coporate interests, no the peoples interests.
If we continue down this path then we will get the kind of government that an apathetic people deserve. A dictatorship that rules with an iron hand, what you saw in Seattle will be a daily occurance when the coporations take command.
If we can change the course, and aim towards agreements that protect the weak and allow a common person to place greivences before the WTO then we will have a bright peaceful future where there is universal high wages, health care and democracy.
--
One People, One Earth.
I am sorry if this have already been posted, but I would appreciate if someone posted some links. One thing that media stated that seems to be true is that the protests represent the variety of groups. What they never stated, and what I didn't see here (although I probably missed it) is what are the specific demands beyond general categories. I feel that knowing what I am talking about would help... Thanks you.
It's good to see that this topic hasn't just been allowed to scroll off the Current Items page. Here is an account of what I saw on Wednesday, followed by more of an analysis.
Note that while the police have (wisely) backed way off in the last 24 hours, they still have a lot of questions to answer. A black Seattle City Councilmember was pulled from his car last night and nearly arrested for attempting to go to a WTO reception. Fortunately there were other politicians there to witness it, so his complaints won't be ignored.
There is another rally tonight for protesting police aggression. Volunteer Park at 8. Hope to see some of you there.
Warning: the following is long and includes occassional profanity. Thank you for listening.
So I went to an impromptu demonstration tonight, the message of which was "get the fuck out of our neighborhood". While not as wild as Kevin's experiences yesterday (don't expect to see *me* on the cover of USA Today), I thought I'd let you all know about it.
Though the media has more or less ignored it, the police kicked ass on Capitol Hill, away from the convention center, both nights of the conference so far. Tonight I heard that they were beating up a gathering of people (one would almost hesitate to use the word "protesters"; they weren't doing much more than being a bit of a crowd) at Olive and Broadway. There was no mention of crowd violence, but people were being removed in ambulances, and I got angry. My reason for going was fear that the media might try to ignore it again. I felt that the more of us there were, the more likely it was to make headlines.
I drove to Seattle and parked at the north end of Broadway. I didn't see much at first. People were talking about it some but there were no concussions or cheers that I could hear at first. As I walked south, I ran into an aquaintance. I asked if he knew what was going on and he said he'd been doing his best to avoid riot police (understandable...), so he didn't have any specific details. I got to the intersection where the initial altercation took place, and there were no cops or protesters visible. I kept walking south.
The crowd was at Pine and Broadway. At first it was hard to tell what was going on, but eventually the situation became clear. Riot police were stationed two blocks east at 10th and Pine. Behind them was the armored vehicle poice have been using to fire the concussion grenades and the tear gas cannisters. At Broadway, there was a large mass of people watching from what they percieved to be a safe distance. Then the next block and a half towards the police was filled sparsely with people, then about 10 yards from the police there was another smaller mass of people. A lot of people didn't really seem to know what was going on. I learned that the police had forced the crowd down Broadway (good thinking, police) and then had established their position here. I found a spot about halfway between Broadway and 10th where I could stand on a large stone and see things pretty well. at this point I estimate that there were about 5-600 protesters.
Shortly after I stationed myself, the Blackhawk helicopter arrived, with the brightest goddamn spotlight i've ever seen on a moving vehicle. It was clearly sweeping nearby buildingtpos for snipers or whatever, as well as the crowd. About 10 minutes later, the first round of gassing started. I should note for the out-of-towners that it is at this moment illegal to buy, sell, or posess a gas mask in public in Seattle. The police weren't moving, just dumping a lot of gas canisters in front of the front group of protesters. There were some people kicking canisters away. The police appeared to be using a lot more gas than they had been at other protest sites. It became impossible to see the police through the gas. There were also concussion grenades being used. More people were showing up to watch, though. Some idiots broke a car window on the other side of the street and were immediately surrounded by angry protesters. Some kids near me threw a rock into a window and then looked really sheepish (and dumb). Mostly we watched. A dumpster was rolled out into the street at the front of the crowd.
For a while, there would be a flurry of gas, then a pause; some of the gas would clear, and they would start again. It was very loud. The protesters were fairly quiet, which suprised me. It was pretty intense to watch, with the line of cops just standing there and a handful of protesters hanging out right in the gas cloud. It sounded like war, too; huge booming percussive blasts.
Another pause and then the police advanced. They volleyed gas and grenades farther out in front of them than before and the line of rito cops started moving. There was some initial panic. People were running. A number of people, including me, yelled for people to walk and people calmed down a lot. The police were paving their approace with a ton of gas. I walked north down a small street between 10th and Broadway, and got hit with a hefty dose of tear gas. I was breathing through my scarf, so it wasn't too bad in my lungs, but it was difficult to keep my eyes open. I cut through a parking lot over to Broadway, where it didn't appear the police had reached yet. I walked north on Broadway along Seattle Central Community College. There was tear gas here, too. I shared my scarf with someone next to me as we walked. The breeze was blowing in the direction I was walking.
I circled around the main building of the school and headed back to Broadway. By the time I got there, the police had fallen back somewhat and the crowd appeared to be substantially smaller. I found Joey and we talked about what had happened. It became apparent that the crowd had grown to several thousand, maybe more. The police were back to their original positions. We headed up to the front and I lost track of Joey. Shortly, the street between 10th and Broadway was filled with people, though not densely packed. I talked to several people around me who were angry at not being able to get home. The crowd started engaging in a fair amount of chanting. There were a lot of attempts by some protesters to get everyone to stand on the sidewalk. A lot of time passed. Rumors started circling that the national guard was coming.
Eventually the police made statements through a loud speaker. They told us we were all guilty of unlawful assembly and we must leave immediately. Everyone tensed up, as this has consistently been followed within seconds by teargas, rubber bullets, and police advances. But they didn't come. After a long while the hellicopter returned and circled. People were still anticipating action. I went and made sure the streets leading away weren't blocked. I was afraid they would trap everyone and make a mass arrest. The crowd had thinned quite a bit by now, maybe to less than a thousand. I hung for a while and then walked away to a vantage point about a block away. I watched as the crowd chanted loudly, then after a while I decided that it would end when all the cold, tired protesters realized that nothing was going to happen and left. About 5 minutes later I was at the Lillian visiting Kevin and Lanie when we head the loud concussive sounds that the teargas and grenade deployments make. One cable news station had the story about how it ended... They broke up the demonstration. I don't know if they arrested anybody. That's the end of the blow-by-blow.
Also, I posted the following to discussion groups at the New York Times and NPR web sites. It's not the most coherent thing I've ever written, but it's late and I had a long day.
I just returned from Capitol Hill, a dense residential area where, for the second night in a row, police used tear gas and rubber bullets (I got souveniers!) in an attempt to disperse a crowd that was peaceful and frustrated. I estimate that at it's peak there were at least 3,000 protesters, mostly neighborhood residents who were angry that they were being treated like criminals.
The police hospitalized a number of protesters, tear gassed virtually everyone, and repeatedly asserted that everyone there was guilty of "unlawful assembly", because some protesters were standing in the street (most of the standoff was spent on a quiet side street, though the early beatings occurred on the main street in the neighborhood). The protesters made it very clear that all they wanted was for the police to go home so that they could go home. They chanted "you go home, we go home" and "whose streets? our streets". A King County Council Member attempted to negotiate with the cops but was told that they had no interest in any resolution other than everyone dispersing immediately.
Whatever feelings I have about curfews and no-protest zones, I think this is intolerable. The word that best describes the scene in my mind was 'invasion'. To enter a residential neighborhood where a small crowd is peacefully gathered and create a sitution where hundreds of passers-by are tear-gassed and many people are prevented from going home (due to the arbitrary nature of where the police took up their position), and then to blame it on the protesters, is criminal. And the worst part is, I am afraid the media is going to ignore the story.
These are the things the police did wrong:
1. Sending riot cops
2. Initiating violence against protesters
3. Failing to realize that their withdrawl would put an immediate end to the situation
4. Tear-gassing eveything that moved
It was wonderful to see that there were many hundreds of people who came out to protest when they realized what was going on. I spoke to a number of locals who told me they didn't care about WTO protests, but they weren't going to stand for police telling them that the streets and sidewalks in front of their homes were off limits. This is two nights in a row that police have attacked peaceful protesters in this neighborhood, and I suspect that if it happens again the protesters may attempt to take direct action against the cops.
What's with your worthless paragraph: "For you information..."? I was not referring to those others countries when describing the slave labor practices of China. Your slovenly apapthetic approach to life is disgusting. The fact that you lack the ethics to realize that you don't make things better solely by "increasing contact" with totalitarian regimes, says all that I need to.
Subject: COLLATERAL DAMAGE IN SEATTLE
COLLATERAL DAMAGE IN SEATTLE
by Portland student/reporter Jim Desyllas
Called-in from a pay phone outside Seattle. Wed., 7:30 pm Pacific time.
(Posted at www.emperors-clothes.com 12-2-99. Feel free to distribute in full including this note.)
I just spent 4 days in Seattle. The "information" people are getting from the mass media is false. This was not, as Pres. Clinton claims, a peaceful protest marred by the actions of violent protesters. This was a massive, strong but peaceful demonstration which was attacked repeatedly by the police with the express purpose of provoking a violent response to provide photo opportunities for the Western media. I know because I watched it happening. I'll tell you how they did it.
As Michel Chossudovsky says in his "Disarming the New World Order" (See Note # 1 at end for link to that article) - the government put a lot of effort into making sure the protesters in Seattle were a "loyal opposition" who wanted to reform the WTO, not get rid of it. But the people in Seattle - American steel workers, Canadian postal workers, college kids from all over, environmentalists from Australia - you name it - were not for reforming the WTO. They were for getting rid of it.
And this wasn't just true of the protesters. I interviewed delegates. None of them had anything favorable to say about the WTO. Two delegates from the Caribbean were angry about job loss. One delegate from Peru took a bullhorn and got up on a car and spoke to the protestors against the World Trade Organization. He said it hurts the workers and farmers. I interviewed a Norwegian guy from Greenpeace. Totally against it. Even a delegate from Holland said it had hurt the farmers there. He said though it is supposedly democratic, that's actually a lie: the US, England and Canada and a few others get together and decide what they want to do. Then they ask the rest of the countries to vote and if they vote wrong they threaten,"You won't get loans," or whatever. They get them to do what they want by blackmailing them. The Italians we interviewed were upset too. I couldn't find any delegates who were in favor.
So the government instigated a "riot" to discredit the movement against the WTO because they couldn't dilute it. I am not guessing about this. I was there. I saw it happening. And I will tell you I am frankly shocked to see, close up, just how little our leaders care what happens to ordinary people. Clinton can pose and speak a lot of flowery stuff but the truth is - we are nothing to them. I saw this with my own eyes.
Sunday and Monday, there was no violence. None. The people were aggressively non-violent; they were self-policing. Up until Tuesday at 4pm there was one window broken in the whole city - a McDonalds window. This compares favorably to the typical rock concert, let alone a demonstration of people who were non-violently barring entry to the World Trade Center!
At this point, a new group of police - tactical police - moved in and started gassing people and shooting rubber bullets. Is it any surprise that people got mad? Of course, the young kids hit back by breaking some windows in retaliation for being gassed, sprayed with very painful pepper gas, and shot with dangerous "rubber" bullets. The police instigated these kids, plain and simple.
Sunday and Monday they had young cops, using them to block the streets. These were trainees. But Tuesday they had the real cops; none of them were young. They were trained to attack people. A small group, maybe 100 people total, struck back. Then these cops herded that group around the city, making sure there were plenty of photo ops of "violent protesters."
A number of times they had these 100 or so protesters caught between buildings and walls of police. They could easily have arrested and detained this small number of people and gotten it over with. Instead they would gas them and let them go. Then trap them again, gas them again, and again let them go. The cops made no arrests that I know of until late Tuesday night though the skirmishing was going on from three till 9:30. The cops would blockade three or five blocks of an area, give the angry kids room to operate, keep gassing them - when you gas a person, let me tell you, it gets them fighting mad.
Tuesday night the police gassed all of downtown. This was going on from 3 PM, till 6 PM.. Gas everywhere. The kids broke a few windows - McD's, Starbucks - small stuff - burned a few garbage cans. The police were using these people as extras. It was staged. I believe also the police had their own people in there, encouraging people to break stuff - if people think I may be exaggerating, I saw supposed protesters - they were screaming and so on - and then later, when everything was over, the same people tackled other protestors and put handcuffs on them.
At 6pm they issued a State of Emergency. At that point they had pushed the 100 people outside the city limits, so the police went outside the limits too, and they started gassing that area too, gassing the neighborhoods where the regular people live. I am not exaggerating. The police were relentless.
This was in an area from the city limits for about 10 blocks to the Seattle Central Community College. If you were alive, the police gassed you. People coming back from work, kids, women, everyone. People would go out of their houses to see what was happening because these tear gas guns sound like a cannon - and they would get gassed. A block away there was a Texaco gas station - they threw tear gas at gas pumps, believe it or not - they were like vandals. They gassed a bus. I saw it with my own eyes. A bus. The driver, the riders, the people just abandoned it .
I was sitting in a little coffee shop called Rauhaus, [Jim did not spell this - the spelling may be wrong.] They were shooting "rubber" bullets at the glass. I picked up a dozen of the things in a few square feet. They were also shooting this paint that you can only see with a florescent light. They would paint anyone and everyone and then go hunting them.
Anyway, because they were gassing everybody, the local people got mad too and they joined the 100 who had been herded out of the city. So soon there were 500 including the neighborhood people and all very angry. Naturally. Because they had been gassed and hit with pepper spray, that stuff does a number on you. And shot with these damn bullets. Then people set up barricades at Seattle Central Community College. The cops organized themselves for about an hour and then moved in and gassed that area.
Today they started mass arrests. That was because Clinton - the Greeks call him the Planitarchis, Ruler of the World - was coming. Weeping crocodile tears about how he just LOVES peaceful protest, which of course you'd have to be two years old to believe he had nothing to do with the police action. This whole thing, this police attack, this was US foreign policy, not some action decided by some bureaucrat in Seattle. This was the State Department. They wanted to discredit the people.
When things started on Sunday, there was a protest rally of solidarity involving people from different walks of life. Monday it got even bigger. Tuesday there was a big sort of carnival where people were doing different things, a band was playing music and people were blocking the World Trade Center. And about 3 PM the cops started throwing tear gas.
The thing that drove Clinton crazy was that on Tuesday the protesters had succeeded in making nonviolent human chains and had therefore stopped everyone from going into the World Trade Center. Only maybe 27 delegates got through, mostly US and British. There were what seemed like tens of thousands of protesters involved. So the police did their gassing number against these nonviolent people to break up the human chains and make the protesters look violent.
Today (Wednesday) I followed the union protest put together by the Longshoremen's Union. They went down to the docks and had a rally then marched to Third Avenue. As soon as they got there the cops started gassing them. There was an old lady there. She had gone downtown by bus to buy something. This lady was in her 70's and I saw her trying to run, but she couldn't breathe. She was in shock. I carried her to a building entryway. She was gasping, terrified. She had been in Germany, and it was like she was having flashbacks. The tear gas sounds like gunfire and there were helicopters overhead, sirens, cops on horses, everything.
They had clearly made a decision to destroy this movement.
So anyway there I was with her in this building and she wanted to go to the hospital but there was tear gas everywhere and I was afraid if I tried to move her she'd be gassed again. I went to this line of cops and begged - I mean begged - these riot police to help her. They ignored me. A girl told me later that a one year old had been gassed. And I myself saw a girl no more than 18 - a cop had busted her lip wide open - she was bleeding - and then they gassed everyone including her. After that she was kneeling on the ground crying like a baby and praying for 15 minutes, Hail Mary, Hail Mary. Over and over. She was in a state of shock. They just gassed these people who were sitting down non-violently and doing nothing. Nothing.
At one point the Seattle Mayor said his boys were not using rubber bullets. Miraculously, by then I had ten in my pocket. I could open a little market, sell the things. They are everywhere. I and other people started giving them to delegates and stuff. "See what they're doing? They're shooting "rubber" bullets and lying about it." We showed them to the media. I guess enough people and the media got the information because the Mayor made a new statement then that they were using them. As if he hadn't known.
They shot rubber bullets from four feet away into the face of a guy next to me, broke all his front teeth. When that happened I lost it. I forgot I was supposed to be getting the news for all of you and I started yelling at the cops, "What the hell is wrong with you? Are you sick, man?" So this cop aimed his gun right at me. That was his answer. So I first put my hands in front of my face because I didn't want to lose my teeth. And then I thought, to hell with it. I was wearing my target shirt that said "Collateral Damage", you know? With a bullseye target, like they wore during the bombing in Yugoslavia. And I told this guy, "Go ahead, shoot! Here! Here's the target!" He didn't shoot me.
I want to emphasize, these protesters were NOT violent people. They were the most non-violent people I have ever seen. Even when I was screaming at the cop, this girl came up to me and said, "Do not scream. This is non-violent." These people were too much to believe. They must meditate all the time, I don't know.
Clinton said he supports nonviolent protest. That is baloney. Today (Wed.) the protesters were causing absolutely no "trouble". In downtown the cops had people running who weren't even protesters - like that old lady or just people going to work or shopping - everyone was getting gassed. The busses weren't running because of the gas. I was lucky to catch one with a driver who could still see. I begged him to drive the old lady home - the driver changed his route especially for her. If you want to find human decency, stay away from the Planitarchis. Go to the to regular people. They have some. The Planitarchis lost all his years ago. Now he wouldn't know human decency if it came up and bit him.
So now I have made personal acquaintance with the people who run this country, and they are quite simply scum. There were people at work, people with babies, they were all getting gassed because the government would not allow an assembly of people speaking their minds. It is the same as what happened in Athens. Clinton's requirements on the Greek government created the riot and he did the same thing here. And then he says he supports nonviolent protest? How? By shooting rubber bullets? And today they outlawed gas masks. They want to make sure everyone gets his money's worth.
Today, just like yesterday night, the police were in the residential neighborhoods. People in cafés were getting gassed and shot at, you could hear it on the windows, bang, bang, bang. A guy trying to cross the street to go to his house got gassed. First a drunk guy outside a bar yelled at the cops "Get out of here!" so they gassed him. And then this other guys was just crossing the street to go home so the cops figured, might as well gas him too. People got gassed for coming out of restaruants and bars and coffeee shops. I'm amazed that nobody died who had asthma or something.
Or maybe somebody did die and they didn't talk about it. I mean after all, it's just collateral damage..
***
Note # 1 - For a critical look at the World Trade Organization, click on SEATTLE AND BEYOND
If you would like to browse articles from Emperors-Clothes.com, click here: Click here: The Emperors Clothes
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
I'll grant you that free trade helps everyone economically; but not everyone is interested solely in economic help. What about being able to enact your own laws without a faceless organization stepping in and nullifying them? What about representative government? What about the environment? These things aren't covered in most Economics classes, and I have a feeling that they're extremely hard to quantify.
The Kulturwehrmacht
Finding God in a Dog
Look, smarty-pants, this isn't Jeopardy or Knowledge Bowl. You're right, technically, the United States of America is a republic, not a democracy. But the point being made is that what we have in the U.S. is (in most people's opinion) not a monarchy, not fascism, not communism, not a theocracy, but a democratically elected goverment. The Soviet Union was a union of republics, so does that mean they had the same type of government as the U.S.?
NAY! This world needs more discussion of, and action against, big business. These are real issues, and they can't be dispelled by the flippant, summary rejections of adversarial slashdot intellectuals. I am thankful that Katz is around. He brings sorely-needed perspective to the table.
I'm a firm believer in the theory of Wired, namely that the world is getting better, not worse. In terms of corporations v. the individual, I think in 20 years they won't be distinguishable. Thanks to E*Trade and the like. To take examples from my personal life, I'm a restaurant worker, not even a waiter, because I'm not old enough. I'm a food runner and a dishwasher ( maybe soon to be prep cook, let's keep our fingers crossed. ) Yet I own stock in Big Blue, Motorola, and numerous other companies. There's a cook at my work who is a hard-core blue collar democrat and family man, who I talk to about the tech sector and the economic status of Japan. He's heavily invested in blue-chip mutual funds. It's my opinion that Marx was right, and the workers are destined to own the means of production, but here's the good part: Thanks to the rising popularity of the stock market, capitalist competition and innovation will be preserved. I think this WTO thing is no more than the final cries of the labor movement. No person or thing dies quietly, so don't assume that just because something's making a lot of noise, it's growing in power. So, I've still got half a glass of beer left. But when I'm finished, I can just go buy some more thanks to the money I'm making investing in Apple, and await the coming Utopia.
-- I don't really have anything useful to say. ~Tuts
Corporations only listen to money. Stop feeding them and they will listen.
You don't need a new SUV that wieghs more than a 54 Cadilac and gets worse mileage. You don't need name-brand runners. You don't need a home theatre. You don't need shiny rocks.
Corporations are mearely pandering to consumers greed. Stop being greedy.
First, I'm wondering where you get the idea that Seattle is the "Yuppie Capitol", since the vast majority of citizens here are ordinary blue-collar types.
Second, there have been an estimated 40,000 protesters in town. Of these, about a hundred or so were the so-called "anarchists". This lot came here for the sole purpose of breaking windows, setting fires, stealing, beating up other people and generally being assholes! They had nothing whatsoever to do with the WTO protests- in fact, people who did come here to protest the WTO tried to stop them. They simply used the protests as a screen to hide behind, like they hid behind their scarves and masks, so they could trash MY town with impunity, knowing that the police were busy elsewhere.
This group were condemned by the main-stream protesters (the other 39,900). Some real protesters even helped to try to clean up after the "anarchists". Yet in your article you seem to glorify these jerks, Mr. Katz. They are not part of a political movement any more than the person who breaks your car window to steal your stereo is, or "gangstas" that do drive-by shootings. They're just crooks! Period!
I'd like to get a few thousand fellow Seattlites to go down to Eugene and smash their town up a little to see how they like it, but I think a sweeter revenge would be to go through the system, no matter how long it takes. Manage to find out who they are and somehow prove they were the ones that did these acts, if possible. Prosecute them with due process, convict then and sentence them. I think using the system, which anarchists have traditionally been opposed to, to get those jerks would be lovely- rub a little salt into their wounds.
The vast majority of protesters were here to exercise their (and your and my) constitutional rights to free speech and peaceful assembly and as a citizen I have no real quarrel with them (although they have made this week pretty strenuous. No one ever knows if or where the busses are running, and if I walk 5 or 6 blocks northeast of where I work I'll get arrested just for being there, on a public street! Yesterday afternoon my building was locked down, with no one allowed to enter or leave, from about 2 to 5 PM) I won't say the protests should stop simply because it's inconvenient for me, but how I do wish that, having already made their point, they'd all GO HOME! I want my town back! I'm tired of having to walk two miles every night to where I just might find a bus home, dodging protesters, riot police and tear gas as I go.
I don't want to insult other people in more difficult situations such as those in Beirut, Northern Ireland or Yugoslavia by comparing things that have happened here this week with their plights- no one here has been killed or seriously injured so far- but I do have more sympathy for them now. Before, news stories about those places have been just pictures on the TV but now I can relate to them. I've had a taste of it.
Phew. Thanks for giving me a forum to vent. Like the man with the small scar on his forehead, "I feel MUCH better now!"
bah
"News for nerds, Stuff that matters" Does this matter? Yup Is this news that will directly affect you and me sometime in the near future? Yup. I rest my case.
The reward of a job well done... is to have done it!
"The confusion about the protestors' political goals is understandable," wrote a New York Times columnist Thursday, "this is the first movement born of the anarchic pathways of the Internet. There is no top-down hierarchy, no universally recognized leaders, and nobody knows what is going to happen next."
Sure.
"When your only tool is a computer, everything looks like the Net."
I'm sorry to disagree with the KatzBot on this one, but anti-corporatism has long and deep roots, and existed long before the Net did. In America, for example, the Green Party has consistently inveighed against corporations from its very arrival here in 1987. Several demonstrations from the '60's attacked corporatism; perhaps the most famous being Mario Savio's impassioned diatribe at the Sather Gate on the University of California's Berkeley campus during the Free Speech Movement of 1965. ("There comes a time ... when you have to make clear that the Machine will be prevented from working at all..."). While the Net undoubtably played a role in organizing the upcoming protests (I was hearing about them quite consistently for a couple of months before they happened), it is not the *cause* of the protests, but merely its conduit.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
Undercover law enforcement officers or conspirators are also known to contribute to the riot phenom by instigating. Someone mentioned that known gangsters were in action, perhaps at the invitation of the police?
We need to remember two things that will help us keep some perspective about the radical change occuring in our lifetimes.
First, the same technology that is pushing power down to so many individuals is also enabling corporations to maintain global control of large organizations.
Katz would have us believe that it is OK for physical individuals to utilize technology to further their disparate aims, but for the virtual individuals that corporations are a different set of rules must apply.
Second, these same corporations, as evil and conscienceless as some imagine them to be, consist of real, ordinary people.
While people can vary in appearance and behaviour in the most confounding ways (as any parent of more than one child will attest), corporations IMHO do not. This is especially true of the largest ones because they get the most attention. Legions of lawyers are employed to manage the boundaries of corporate behavior.
Where will this lead?
Eventually, everyone will get their IP address, and the pace of change due to the communication revolution will slow or stop. Since wealth is change and vice versa, corporations (which are vehicles for translating change to wealth) will need either a different source of change or they will divide themselves into commodity and customized offerings. At this point, cultures will again develop, but they may not be as geographically distributed as we know them now. Instead, with the capability to communicate information and to transport products with ease, these "cultures" and the "communities" that support them can be quiet dispersed.
heheheheheh... ironic...
it's ridiculous to read the responses to katz's articles. it seems every single one of them is "katz is stupid, katz is an idiot, katz doesn't know what he's talking about", and that's it. no facts. no dialog. no reason. i live in seattle and what pisses me off more than anything is the media reaction to it. there are a lot of really intelligent protesters who have a lot to say, however, the media has zeroed in on the punks, the ones who loot and pillage, while totally ignoring the intelligent protesters. that's simply because the media is owned by the mega-corporations who have a lot to lose if the wto gets whacked hard, like they are in seattle, so instead of attacking the ideas, they attack the messenger. unfortunately, most americans are idiots and can't see that. instead, they believe everything the media feeds them. i believe our constitution is sacred. mayor schell has called a state of emergence and suspended all civil rights in seattle. he even suspended people from using gas masks, so if a poor bloke wants to get to his home, he has to walk through tear gas and pepper spray, but will be arrested if he wears a gas mask. i say, the real criminals here are the wto, the press, and the police.
I was there, this is the first pseudo mainstream media article that didn't leave me queasy... granted, it is a bit too optimistic (i don't think this is the beginning of anything, just an anomally) but someone finally got most of it right.
what's your definition of a "really good article?" have you talked w/ anyone who was present in seattle in the past few days? are you willing to trust a corporate dominated media to tell you the truth about anything that threatens it? (NPR has roundly refused to air interviews w/ Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn or any of their contemporaries... I wouldn't trust anyone who's afraid to interview people w/ outside of the mainstream opinions)
Are you joking? The open-source slashdotters bristling about a criticism of the corporate copyrighting of the gene pool? Give me a break! Go Katz go!
Furthering the hatred to the police and government is a wonderful thing. It will increase violence against them which in turn will expediate their destruction. It's time for a change. The current government has long outlived it's usefulness and has become an ugly monster controlled by those who have great wealth. These people are selfish and don't give a damn about anyone or anything unless it affects them.
Pigs eat shit
Pigs eat shit
Pigs eat shit
Pigs eat shit
The truth is that the vast majority of anarchists do not advocate absolute license to do whatever the hell you want, regardless how it affects people.
As for spouting ideology or lighting a dumpster on fire being the only choices for anarchist tactics, that just isn't true. Sure, those are tactics that many anarchists might choose, but many other anarchists see them as ineffective.
For example, while spouting ideology and burning dumpsters certainly went on at the WTO protests in Seattle, the Industrial Workers of the World (not exactly anarchist, but close enough) were able to persuade thousands of rank-and-file AFL-CIO members to break off from the labor march and join with demonstrators downtown rather than follow the planned march route that just looped back to the starting point. This by itself probably helped keep the WTO conference shut down for at least another hour or two that day, and also it also helped to further radicalize quite a lot of already pissed-off union members. It doesn't make a great sound-bite or front-page picture, but it gets the job done...
Sorry, Russ, I interpret your statement as evidence of ignorance or heavy drug use. The argument in Seattle is not about economics, it is about sovereignty, and the input of democratic principles in policy. "Free trade" as imposed by the WTO helps only a select few elite. It is about externalizing corporations costs at the expense of indigenous peoples. It is about limiting the mobility of labor while increasing the mobility of capital. It is about marginalizing the have-nots to an extreme that resembles explicit slavery. It is about removing checks on corporations. Dave
actually, every single demonstrator i talked to held a belief similar to what katz was saying, they were all (the ones i talked to, can't vouch for the rest) way more informed and articulate about what the wto was and where corporations stood than the typical citizen. they all had ideals, they all came here at their own expense and danger... no one seems to realize that these people know why they're here and what the consequences might be for them BUT THEY'RE STILL WILLING TO RISK IT... maybe the rest of you should really evaluate what would make 30,000-60,000 (depending on your estimate) people risk tear gas and riot cops to make a statement.
that was well said.
Interesting you should mention "truth in advertising." One of the fundamental tenets of the WTO is that "like products" must not be allowed to be differentiated in the global marketplace. For example, beef produced with hormones must not be identified differently than beef produced naturally. Organic produce must not be differentiated from produce grown with pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and genetic engineering (and you don't even want to know the relaxation of rules on pesticide use they support). Shoes made by 10-year olds in slave labor camps must not be differentiated from those made by adults in fair working conditions. THAT is what the WTO is about! Still think "Free Trade" is inherently fair? -- An Educated Seattle Protestor
protesting because there's nothing better to do? how 'bout the protesters from africa and tibet? chinese slave laborers working for 25 cents a day CAN'T AFFORD TO COME ALL THE WAY TO SEATTLE TO PROTEST! They're too busy trying to feed their family. i know people that lost their job to come up here and protest... and these people have known about the wto and what it does for years and have felt this way strongly, not because they had nothing better to do than actually think about what's going on in the world... but because, being a citizen of the world, they felt a NEED to make sure things are done right. if you really think that these people are the lazy ones, maybe you should consider what lack of effort it takes not to care about neighbors and humanity.
Actually, I haven't seen too much about this on the mainstream news. Yes they've reported, but it seems subdued, and I'm not hearing what it is really about. Maybe noone is sure, as Katz implies, but--and im definately not a conspiracy theorist--I suspect it hits too close to home for the corporate owned media. They want to depict the violence (good ratings), but avoid the anger spawning it. Corporations do things that would get individuals thrown in jail for extended periods. They get away with it, or are fined. Free trade does not benefit people working for 25 an hour; they have no ability to buy the kinds of goods they produce, and they do not buy anything significant from the wealthier country they trade with. On top of that their environment is destroyed. Their children no longer starve, instead they polluted with chemicals that will cause illness' when they are adults. I don't have to go to Seattle to know the anger and frustrated belief that nothing I do will change things can create. Disclaimer: Non-responsive comments will be stricken from the record.
Proprietary Apple shite. Won't play in xanim.
!
So what if France or Germany or any scientist alive today cannot "prove beyond any doubt" that hormone-raised meats or genetically engineered foods are unhealthy for humans or the environment? So what if no one can "conclusively prove" that certain industrial practices are harmful to people and the environment?
WHERE DOES THE WTO GET THE AUTHORITY TO SUBVERT A NATION'S RIGHT TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES??? If I think hormone-fed beef is PROBABLY unhealthy, I have the right to avoid it. And if my county, nation, or continent agrees, we have the right to regulate or BAN it! The WTO is trying to FORCE Europeans to adopt THEIR health, environmental, and human rights standards, which are as LOW as the GREED of corporate attorneys will allow.
Oh, and in case you are preparing the "you can just decide for yourself" answer: Also on the WTO chopping block is the right of any producer to identify HOW their product was produced. I.E., they want to prevent anyone from differentiating their product from anyone else's based on whether it is genetically engineered, organic or pesticide-laced, etc. Effectively PREVENTING any consumer from making a personal choice about the nature of the product they buy.
Make no mistake: the WTO wants to bring all production of food and products in the world down to the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR. The LOWEST environmental standards, the LOWEST labor and workplace safety standards, the LOWEST health standards, and the LOWEST cost.
By doing so, I concede, they will maximize the world economy. Until, that is, the resources (like forests, which they want to liquidate) start to run out, pollution reaches critical levels, and half the world population are wage slaves for the other half.
Do you think it's worth it?
-- An Educated Seattle Protestor
This is the best article on slashdot yet. I was at the protest and this article completly and accuratly sums up what it was all about. The Revolution has come!
All this talk about Corporatism being the bad guy I think gets away from the real problem. All of these goods-for-sale and methods to corporate domination are possible but to say that we are helpless is a falsehood.
Corporations are based on money. If money stops coming in, a corporation dies. So if you think that the largest consumer nation on the planet is helpless to Corporatism then maybe we should rethink where we are spending our dollars. None of these corporations, publishers, etc. who work against the environment would be worth anything if we didn't keep giving them our money.
Bottom line- if we, as a people, control the corporations' capital morally, they will have to follow suit.
But we don't. We buy disposable everything, we buy in to sensational journalism, we like our 2 cars per household, we support companies which cut environmental corners by always buying their cheaper goods. And, in so doing, we perpetuate the problem. I'm not saying the blame doesn't lie at all with the corporations but we've been unwitting accomplices for a long time.
The protestors in Seattle can plead with the corp's to think morally and exercise some judgment. But they have to remain competitive to stay alive. So, if the corp's who are selling the most were the ones that act globally with some morality, then this will become the corporate trend.
In our capitalist society, it's quite true that money talks and bull$@#t walks. What has your money been saying lately?
Do not flame me, I am not saying that they didnt do anything wrong, I am saying that I am ignorant of the actual wrongdoings that the WTO took place in. And please do not say that there is no form of democratic feedback. I would like to know actual cases in which the WTO either broke the law or drastically inhibited the civil rights of the American public. Any feedback would be very appreciated so that I could make an educated opinion regarding this current problem.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
I'm 18. Before reading about all these happenings in Seattle, I thought the police were generally a competant law enforcing bunch, even if this did on occasion cause me and my drinkin buddies to flee down fire escapes to avoid bein arrested. Whatever.
In light of their needlessly violent treatment of the mostly non-violent protesters, my opinion of the police has fallen signifigantly, from "irritating people with opposite but valid views" to "incompetant goat-diddlers". It is only my hope that other people my age will come to the same resolution.
I'm starting to be optimistic.
-gaffney
"Violence never settled anything." -Ghengis Khan
Merrion-Websters dictionary has it as:
Main Entry: democracy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people
and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
Webster's dictionary has it as:
2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.
A precise definition of democracy might be had by consulting the OED. Democracy is government by the people; a form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In modern use it vaguely denotes a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege.
My definition is in fact the most widely accepted definition. Furthermore, it does not conflict at all with any of the pertinant definitions put forth by the widely regarded academic authorities on the English language. If you wish to argue semantics, you should atleast be fully apprised as to the actual situation. This is particularly true, given that you haven't an inkling as to my education.
Thank you for your kind words,
~Fall
They are our streets, if we The People want them back from the cars, for a few days, then we The People will take them back. Having militias out there to protect us from the police would of helped the situation. You don't know what it's like to be in a group of peaceful non-violent citizens engaging in consitutional protected behavior and being attacked by huge armored robot-looking things. The police were totally dehumanized in their riot gear, they were just big stormtrooper looking things attacking us, WITHOUT WARNING AND WITHOUT PROVOKATION. Most of the violence was provoked by their attacks. Formerly peaceful nonviolent people became very agitated after being senselessly attacked. Yes there was a small group of trouble makers but they were as much an enemy of us the nonviolent protesters as they were of the police. Until the police began attacking us we did everything we could to stop them (the "anarchists") from damaging property.
WHAT???
You concede that the process occurring in the WTO, essentially corporate interests taking complete control and democratic interests falling by the wayside, are happening in DC today.
No, it can't be! You're kidding! If only I had known! I'm quite sure that all the environmenal, health, labor, and Third World protestors in Seattle were quite UNAWARE of this problem, and if they had only known, would certainly have marched in DC, in front of the White House, while Clinton was in Seattle!
You acknowledge that there is a problem here, not only in the WTO, but in our government as well, and then criticize the protestors for not knowing about it. WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY ARE THERE FOR??? DID THEY TRAVEL HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF MILES AND STAND IN FRONT OF ANGRY COPS IN RIOT GEAR, JUST TO TRASH A STARBUCKS? Trust me, it is NO FUN to confront riot cops. They are terrifying!
And as for your Nike tirade: I have owned Nikes in the past, but do not buy them now. I have driven a car a lot in the past, but recently sold it because I wanted to be a part of the public transportation solution rather than traffic and global warming problem. I buy organic, local produce whenever I can, but sometimes cannot. I flew to Seattle, rather than staying at home, unheard. Does this make me a hypocrite?
Not as much as a person who acknowledges a problem then criticizes those who are addressing it.
-- An Educated Seattle Protestor
I was at the protests, Katz summed up what is going on perfectly. The Revolution is starting.
AYE
Go read this article: http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/28/usa.html
I have two perspectives on this conference and the protests, one as a journalist for NewsBlip.com, and another as a resident of a besieged neighborhood.
(You can say it was besieged by a loud mob, or besieged by riot police, or just besieged with the conflict, etc., based on what you saw or heard.)
Here are some of my experiences, from mildest to wildest:
1. Overheard from protesters after the action of Tuesday night: "Dude, you want to go drinking or something?" "Nah, I've got to go home and write a term paper for my International Business class. But I don't know what to write about." Hello?
2. In press conferences, I asked Undersecretary Larson and Ms. Barchefsky's panel what specific process reforms they'd like to see to make the WTO more open and responsive. The proposed working group on core labor standards was the only on-point response (which is issue-based, not process-based).
3. Became immobilized by tear gas (due to a change in wind). Stings, but blurring of vision is more disabling.
4. Worried whether bad eggs in that crowd 2 blocks from my home were going to cause me trouble. Or whether police would prevent me from getting home. In the end I was fine, but it was a little worrying.
5. In an alley between a police vs. protester standoff, saw some kids start to push a dumpster toward the police, downhill. They gave up shortly and left, but if they got it going, the police would have had to either risk injury by trying to stop it, or risk the it going off the Pine St. bridge, falling onto the highway below.
I haven't reached many firm conclusions yet, as I keep reading about new stories from different angles. There are certainly some people who behaved in ways that I can not excuse.
By the way, when I checked in to get my press credentials, I was given a nice set of gifts, paid for by Boeing, Microsoft, and other sponsors of the [Seattle] Host Organization. These corporations have a lot at stake with the WTO (Boeing: ability to move work overseas. Microsoft: wants to extend ban on e-commerce taxes.) I'm not sure what the delegates themselves received.
I've put the gifts up for auction on ebay, with all of the proceeds going to the Fund for Investigative Journalism (http://fij.org).
is that you either don't know or don't want to know about the true nature of the "Trade Liberalization" policies of the WTO. I looked at the pictures of your house. Very nice. Is it made out of foam blocks? Interesting...
Let's use the foam blocks of your house as an example: Foam Block International (a fictitious company, believe it or not) designed a new product for building houses. They have the factory in Indonesia for building the foam blocks. Raw materials make their way from the MidEast, where waste products from their manufacture are inexpensively dumped into the Persian Gulf, thanks to a secret WTO ruling that a local pollution law was a "barrier to trade"!
In the factory, teenagers work 12-hour days at gunpoint to make the foam blocks with much care and precision, due to the fear of death or starvation. The labor expenses of this factory can be significantly controlled, thanks the the trade liberalization policies of the WTO! Without it's protection, poor companies like Foam Block International might be subject to all kinds of expenses like fair wages, worker safety regulations, and god forbid, trade unions!
The foam blocks are then transported by ship across the Pacific Ocean by freighter. Again, costs are controlled by the lack of labor and environmental standards. Crew members can be forced to buy their own food, and of course, due to WTO rulings on International dumping laws, ships can dump pretty much any waste they want into the ocean, instead of accruing costly treatment fees at port!
As the blocks travel across the USA, the truck buys Venezuelan gasoline which has higher contaminant levels than allowed by US regulation, thanks to a (REAL) WTO ruling! The gas may pollute more, but it sure is cheaper! Costs cut at every turn!
The truck passes by an American factory of an competing company, Foam Blocks USA, where wages and safety standards have plummeted to compete with cost-cutting international companies like Foam Blocks International. Those poor sods may lose their jobs soon, but they'll be able to buy foam blocks at the lowest price possible!
It's really amazing how many people, places, and toxic dumping sites come together to bring production costs down for our foam block products. And it's all thanks to the WTO!!
A dramatization, yes in some instances, but how much?
-- Seattle Protestor
Tear gas cannisters flew whenever the Seattle police wanted them to fly. Sometimes warning was given, sometimes not. Sometimes violent protesters were targeted. Sometimes peaceful ones. Sometimes the neighborhood residents were getting hit.
There is certainly an injustice taking place here: it's the way Mayor Schell and the Seattle PD have been treating this whole situation. Citizens have rights which are being stomped on.
SEAL
Understand, Mr Katz, these protests are also about our city. A city RUN by baby-boomers who've grown to benefit from (and endorse) a vision they happen to like, whatever the realities of Seattle today. That vision accounts for what the official media portray, it is what even "lefty" city council members endorse, it is the source of all that "Seattle, such a _nice_ place" bullshit you hear.
Reality is very different.
Reality: a city run from behind closed doors by developers - like Mayor Schell, who panicked after a few phone calls from his downtown business cronies and imposed unconstitutional restrictions on citizen movement and expression. He and his colleagues supported unconscionable police behavior, denied basic amenites and legal rights to detainees and endorsed leaderless police attacks on neighborhoods where nothing was even happening.
Reality: a "beautiful" city with the second-worse traffic in the nation, losing its historic buildings to stucco condominiums built below code standards - its actual landscape hostage to the every whim of a few billionaires (Schultz of Starbucks, Gates & Allen of M$soft, Condit of Boeing, McCaw of cellular fame, etc). Yeah this *is* about technology, and in a complex sense
Reality: a city of big talkers out-of-touch with daily reality...guys who invited a bunch of international delegates to a half-built Convention Center which is essentially a construction site
Reality: a city with plenty of official media, none of which is honest, so that the majority of the population feels disenfranchised. Most people organized, communicated and monitored events online - as usual here, official sources proved irrelevant.
Reality: no "official" media outlet published the full story about:
- The WTO delegate pulled a handgun on (nonviolent) protestors
- A "warehouse" building local artists were recently evicted from was taken over as an organizing HQ (constantly referred to as "an abandoned building")
- 12,000 people make a "human chain" around the entire football stadium parking lot - it hardly gets an inch of ink
- protestors are held in buses for 10 hours with no bathrooms, food or access to counsel
- a black city councilman on his way to a WTO meeting is handcuffed by police who throw his business card on the ground
Reality: right now, Friday, four arrests have been made *inside* the WTO convention center; another huge march is underway in the "no protest" zone. What's on the website of Seattle's largest paper? "Mr & Mrs Santa" being led back into a downtown store. A store which happens to buy a lot of advertising in their pages.....
All global politics have local constituents. If you're going to generalize about what happens here, get an informed Seattleite to do it - not Katz. Plenty of truthful posts from here have hit the
ok - first of all I live in Seattle.
Second of all I am from Croatia (small European country). So I get points of this story.... and what should I say?
- Wake up... Most of the people protesting were union members scared for their jobs. Excuse me, but these people wernt there because they were concerned about enviroment or slave labor...they were scared for short term possibility of loosing their jobs. Simple as that.
Other people were either unemployeed, or student, or just came to see whats going on.
They were protesting for because of low wages in Africa or China? If you think that NIKE factory in China causes problems to them - you got to be crazy and very stupid. They are very happy to work there, because they can feed their families with that money! And they probably get better than an averge pay so guys keep quiet.
Protestors dont have clue whats happening over there...not a single one clue...
And about peaceful demonstrations - excuse me, but blocking the whole downtown area and not letting ANYBODY go through isnt peaceful.
If you dont cause disturbances to anybody else - thats peaceful. People couldnt go to court since demonstrators didnt let them in....what the hell does me going to court have to do with WTO first of all? I belive they violated my constitutional rights by doing so...
And BTW, so do most of people who live in Seattle area - locals can listen to radio and %95 of people dont support it - except for few enviromentalist who say that they have a right to protest - yeah, you can protest as much as you want, but please dont involve me into it.
And btw, I am very much sure that all of these countries would LOVE to get into WTO - it will bring them higher payed jobs...
I live in Seattle and a couple of things that I think are important are being overlooked. In particular, I believe that the Secret Service and, indirectly, President Clinton need to share some of the blame for what's gone on here.
Tuesday night the rioters (as opposed to protestors) seemed out of control. Seattle is such a pretty place with a vital, interesting downtown core. It was a shame to see the damage -- but it was only property damage. It rates about a two on my outrage meter.
Local news reported Tuesday night that the Secret Service was "discussing" the possibility of canceling the President's trip to Seattle if his safety could not be guaranteed. The Secret Service seemed to be saying to the Seattle police: "Get this thing under control or we're going to embarrass you in front of the whole nation." No police chief wants to ridiculed like that.
The Seattle police seemed to go overboard the following night. From my vantage point -- mostly through the live reports that ran constantly both nights, it seemed like they were trying to prove that they were in control at any cost. The stuff that the Police did Tuesday night rates about an eight on my outrage meter.
The Police and the local media are saying that there have been a few isolated problems with Police overreacting. I don't buy it. What I saw was not a few rogue cops -- it was a directive from the very top.
I just wonder how much of that had to do with the Secret Service's intervention and "threat" to cancel the President's trip. It seems that Chief Norm Stamper didn't want to be seen as the next Darrel Gates and would do whatever it takes to make sure it didn't happen.
I think that Mayor Schell and Chief Norm Stamper should be held accountable by the voters of Seattle and removed from office at the next opportunity.
You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake -- but you could be if you got off your ass.
Great article. Katz really understands this situation and its meaning. Thanks Slashdot for posting it.
i'd agree with you, but no protester i talked to actually thought that closing down the 1st day of the meeting was going to cripple the wto, the fact is that the central core of protesters here have been very angry and very loud in the past to the extent that they got 30-60,000 people to listen and agree with them, they're still doing the same thing, just trying to get people thinking about it and writing letters to politicians... the march is just a way to get attention to their issues. the fact that people claiming to be anarchists seem to have ruined the message was unavoidable, the fact is that the message got out to more people... as long as there is discourse of an educated nature, only good can come of it.
"Corporatism bad" != "Luddite good"
Got news for you- most mortgages end up being ahead for the lender. Fact is, they wouldn't be loaning you that money if they didn't get the upper hand in the deal in the first place. (Fact: My loan on my house was for 100K on a 120k valuation. I seriously doubt that this house will be worth $160k by the time the note is paid for- in fact it's likely to be only worth $140k at best in about 27 years... This is your average mortgage loan, by the way.)
Reality is that in a boom market with a substantially LOW interest, you might get away with it- but we don't have those condtions everywhere, now do we?
Simply put, as the original poster put it, it's ideal to have absolutely NO debts whatsoever.
The point is that government action is often absolutely necessary, as opposed to what libertarians would want us to believe.
http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/28/doctors.html http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/28/desire1.html http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/28/school.html Go read that stuff. Our culture is shaped by corporate propaganda. The vast majority of people in America are blind to this and accept it. Look at those millions of girls buying N'Synch and Britney Spears CD's, look at how much money and scientific research is put into advertising. It is clear that people are being brainwashed by corporations.
We'll they have paved the roads, the aqueducts, crimes down.....
a) All are rational
b) All have access to perfect information.
We might be running out tomorrow of resource X that we need to live. However, since science hasn't gotten around to finding this out, we DON'T KNOW IT. And then, it WON'T AFFECT THE PRICES, right?
You mentioned in another post that "trees are growing back". This is bullshit. They are not growing back fast enough. They are usually planted by human in a single species environment. A new disease that affects only a certain kind of tree might kill only 0.01% of a forest population where the forest is an old, "natural" biodiversive forest. However, if it is a man made forest were all the trees are the same species, they might all be wiped out. And there are animals who REQUIRE old trees. Chopping down old forests and replacing them with all young trees might kill off these species too.
BTW - the link you published is rubbish. It is flawed logic used to rationalise greed. The guy who wrote it should study some basic biology instead of sitting with his nose in economy books all the time.
************************************************ ***
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
It's all about change. Now, I'm not trying to sound vague here, but always Keeping Things The Same(tm) is one of man's strongest motivating forces. I tend to agree with the mainstream media (for once in my life) that most of the protesters don't fully grasp they concept of what they are protesting against. However, some outside "reliable" source seems to have instilled the idea that the WTO is going to change our working conditions for the worse.
We fear change because it violates our sense of security. Most salaried people, if they lost their jobs tomorrow, would not be able to support themselves for even a month. By that token, I have seen far too many coworkers afraid of changing jobs, because it would mean a period of no income, even though the new job might pay three times more. Most older people rather sit at the same desk job for forty years for a measly pittance than take a risk with something better out there. Why? Because no one wants to sacrifice security in the process of trying to find a better foothold in life. Ironically, we continue to teach this mentality to our kids - we teach them how to find a job, but we never seem to teach them to start and run a business. Once we engender those philosophies into the next generation, the next generation becomes slowly conditioned to be complacent with the first stable foothold in life they can find. They learn that taking risks must be reduced to a minimum, a course of action only utilized when the mainstream media promotes a Sure Thing(tm); can we say "Success Stories" of Online Daytrading, Boys and Grrls?
I do not deny that an organization like the WTO, at full strength, would usurp the socio-economic structure of the American Workplace as we know it, but as Dr. Rudy Volti, sociologist at Pitzer College, once said, "...Technology [or any change in policy, in my opinion] does not destroy jobs; it merely changes them. The end of the horse-pulled carriage, heralded by the introduction of the automobile in the American market, may have reduced the need for groomers and stablehands, but has also effected a tremendous upsurge in technicians and mechanics, several specializations of which did not exist before."
OTOH, Technical Contractors, it seems, are always prepared for change. They always have some knowledge of positions lurking behind their current contract, and are never out of work for more than a few days, if not a few hours. I believe we are simply used to the instability, and we have learned to professionally adapt to it. My point? People who are accustomed to change, like contractors, aren't protesting in Seattle. If anyone disagrees with me, I'd like to hear out your counter-examples.
*Flamebait alert*
In short, I believe the protesters in Seattle are a bunch of weak-kneed, spineless, even sometimes Anonymous Cowards who are doing everything in their power to prevent losing some perceived security. Those who believe themselves threatened by the WTO should take a moment and consider, "Can I use the upcoming times of change to improve my financial outcome?" before they protest.
Even though Ben Franklin said, "Those that give up their freedom for security deserve neither," in this modern world, it is highly improbable, if not impossible, for any individual to gain both at any point in his life.
Oh, and before you start pointing out to me that the WTO will destroy the environment and exacerbate child labor in Third World countries, I believe the opposite to be true: as the policies of a single organization grow to encompass a larger demographic, the number of people affected by that selfsame organization will acquire proportionately greater collective power to alter policy within the aforementioned organization. This gain actually becomes exponential with the introduction of cheap communication between the oppressed constituents, who will often acquire external sympathizers. Slavery was ended this way - our world was growing smaller, and the more the South had to deal with the rest of the world, the more visible the oppressed minority became, until the issue became significant enough to bear the attention of top level politicians. For this same reason, I don't believe the Third Reich would have lasted very long if the Axis won WWII.
Alright, I've ranted enough for now. I'm going to put on my heat-resistant abestos body suit now...
Solomon Kevin Chang
Database Programming and Design
Disney Televentures
"Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
"mindless protesting" is an oxymoron. The protestors are VERY MUCH there because of their minds. Just because you apparently disagree doesn't make something "mindless."
Since this guy doesn't know the difference between a hollow rubber ball and a rubber bullet, look at the following link for a more accurate explanation. Try this and this and this
Indeed!
riots like this one lead to the sheep being forced to wake and realize that big brother is not the kind and generous sibling that looks after his younger siblings' well being but is the kind of sibling that takes beats up his your siblings daily and robs them blind anually
Once the corporate disonformation system is dismantled and people really begin to see what our ages-old philosophy of greed has done to us, the corporate system really has no chance of surviving. Perhaps distributism will take its place; perhaps capitalism will even die off eventually.
Its nice to say things like that. Warm and fuzzzy, like most illusions and few truths. Katz is perhaps too optimistic: the hard, more factually based truth is that the system is not going to give up and fall down as soon as a few protestors start showing up in a few cities. The corporations have power, and histroy has been nothing if not a record of _just_how_far people will go to hold on to their power, at whatever cost to the current morality of convenience. Champion the liberating power of information technology all you want, we need planning. The system has all the resources, historical inertia on its side, and it has the advantage of being the defender. McTimes, the Gore and Bush campaigns (both brought to you by Shell (tm)), The disillusined rhetoric of those who have tried to change things and have failed (read: the advice of the boomer generation), social power/money, the established literary base (bought and propped up by the affluent, who like to think of themselves as *good*) which proclaims that our system is th best ever thought up, tax collectors, the army, the police---all of these are forms of power, each capable fo inflicitng violence of one flavor or another on any attmpt to steal power from those who have monopolized it for so long.
We need a plan.
There are plenty of smart people here. Perhaps we can start providing some real ideas, stuff taht might work, ways to Fight against the corporate machine and all the ways the Status Quo has of attacking proponents of change. With the help of people like the folk at Znet, maybe we can actually get something done. This is as good a place as any to begin the fight against corporatism. Slashdot is pretty much immune to corporate attack tde to its size and popularoty, something not true for most independent media outlets, and we have long discussed the issues behind corporate stupidity and greed (patents, world-domination efforts, monopolies: read the $ in M$!!), privacy abuses, and the dangers of unregulated self-interest. We are an educated communityu, many of us with enough influene within the corporate world to actually change things...something present in almost no other commmunity as committed to social change as Slashdot is.
We are Geeks! Hear us roar! Lets F$%! some shit up! (constructively, of course ;-)
"Do not doubt that a small, comitted group of people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead
The truth is out there - we'll let it back in after it sobers up a bit. -The Cube
But it's not.
Got in touch with friends and family back in Seattle. Heard about the bashing of the Niketown store. Heard about the girl who led the charge kicking in the glass door - how she was wearing Nikes.
Heard about my friend who just wanted to get to work on time and ended up getting tear gassed.
Heard about how peaceful protest was banned in certain areas of Seattle - not rioting, not looting, not violent anarchy, but peaceful protest was prohibited and people were arrested for doing such near the convention center. The ACLU and Amnesty International issued statements.
On the other hand heard firsthand from people who were peacefully protesting many grievances how youthful, net using, educated, affluent white kids wearing Rage Against the Machine T shirts came down to S Town looking for a ruck - and nothing more. Ask them what it was about the WTO that gets their goat - they can't answer. Then they start kicking the Starbucks stores. Terrific. It's like that moment in Fight Club where all the Space Monkeys start chanting "His name is Rob Paulson... His name is Rob Paulson..." We're all part of the movement - we just don't know what the fuck it is.
Heard about how gas masks were declared illegal in the Seattle city limits. Now guns, on the other hand... Next time I fly into Seattle the chances of me not being able to buy a gun on I-5 from Sea Tac (which seems, near the airport, to have an inordinate amount of adult video stores and gun shops) - jack shit and jack just left town.
Saw a picture of a cop dressed in new Robocop TM style armor kicking a protester in the balls while forty people took pictures around him.
And for all the news coverage I could plug into, the story was civil disobedience (and I love how this was continally referred as the worst act of protest since Vietnam - what about the L.A. Riots? Or does that not count as protest? When white Trustifarians - Rastas with trust funds loot and riot it's an anarchic marxist statement, but when African Americans in the ghetto do it, it's just looting) with very, very little content about what was the contentious issue in the first place.
At least Jon Katz gets that right. But in some instances he doesn't get it right. Because this is not a simplistic, reductive issue, despite many forms of media attempting to make it one. So much easier to get your air time with images of tear gas attacks than to actually address the complexity and the hyprocisy and the hopefulness this last week signifies.
But when he says:
"This has sparked an epidemic homogenization of popular culture - not a dumbing down, but a dulling down - as controversial, profane, sexual or other "controversial" cultural offerings from books to movies to music are eliminated or pushed to the margins so that safer products can be mass-marketed."
This is patently untrue. The truth and the problem and the hyprocisy that doesn't make this such a wonderful unifying movement for us youngsters to get invovled in - is that the zeitgeist, the interstitial cultures (whip out that copy of All Tomorrow's Parties) - they are part of the large corporations and the media now. They have become absolved of geographical space, and been absorbed by the OmniCorps of the world. Traditional non net based media - and a hell of a lot of net based media - is part of the corporate world. Why's there so much porn on the net? Any time there's a major advancement in communications technologies porn is involved. What's interesting today is how Middle of the Road porn now is. Bohemian attitudes to dress, sex, clothing, tattoos, your choice of books, your films - all can now be traced back to some piece of the fragmenting culture pie - now owned and sold at the local mall. A wad of spunk in hair - which would have gotten the Farelly Brothers burned at the stake only forty years ago - is now okay in cineplexes all over the world. Our attitudes culturally have not been dumbed down - they've been accepted and compromised and sold back to us. Despite the odd lunatic's attempts to attempt thought control, we do live in a period of, historically, relatively liberal cultural values. It's just that none of them seem honest or free or genuine.
As for environmental arguments - the broader issue is not that large corportations pollute and waste so much - it's a simple economic one, and by that I mean the anthropolgical definition of a civilization's economy. It's that money is generated by turning natural resources into products. Large coroporations go to an area, loot as many resources they can, then leave selling those resources to the highest bidder, maximizing profit - and giving nothing back to that area. Now all the resources are gone and those who make a living agriculturally - which is probably 80% of the planet, since the Third World lives off of agriculture - have no resources, and no job.
The real boon of this net communication is that our culture is fragmenting so rapdily. We don't have single unifying causes or defintions or causes, and Seattle should be proof of that. We have a diversity, with non geographical bohemias like Slashdot here - and look at all the differing opinions. What's important is not that we are all against the Corps of the world - but that we are in so many different ways.
So this is a confused post. Because I am confused. Because there is no easy way to spell this out. And it's so stupid to label the complex systems that make up a protest crowd nowadays. Those people in Seattle were not Techno Idealists. They were people.
You can either opt out and kick in the Niketown store with your Nikes. You can protest peacefully and get arrested. You can just try to lay low and do your job and get tear gassed. You can post messages on Slashdot and then read a thousand differing opinions.
But I suppose, most importantly, what you must do is consider how complex the maelstrom of human reaction the past week signifies.
** http://www.nkhumanrights.or.kr/ ** Human rights in North Korea. 1 million estimated dead from starvation.
Wednesday Eye-witness account (Until the teargas blocked my vision)
1. Major imposes Martial Law.
Martial what!?!?! What year does he think this is? Constitution ring a bell? I don't care much about the WTO, but if he starts taking away the right to assembly,....
2. Police sweep major street (Broadway) which was outside the No Protest Zone, or Police Blockade Zone, or whatever they want to call it. Tear gas and rubber bullets are in effect. People are shocked as the coffee shops they are in fill with teargas.
3. People go to the Police Precint to inform the aforementioned protectors of public safety that they need to get a grip on reality and knock it off with the chemical irritants. Others go protest capitalism or turtles or show their support for the right to assemble and the right to drink coffee. Many go down because they saw it on the television and it looked better than repeats on ABC.
4. Drums are in effect. So are flags, and hippie chicks. Beer also makes an appearance.
5. I roll to the front to get a good view. Remember in college when a party got busted,.. the look on all the under-agers when they pull up the paddy wagon and start checking ID. That's what it looked like, except this time the cops were looking nervous.
6. People are told to disperse because they are interfering with public safety and blocking traffic by hanging out in the middle of the street. I wonder how traffic will be able to get past the legion of TV vans and police cars in the next block if we move?
7. People start throwing taunts and the occasional lewd gesture at the police.
8. Police start throwing tear gas canisters and the occasional flash grenade at the crowd.
9. Kind passer-by offers water to wash tear gas out of eyes.
10. I proceed to bar to obtain Guiness to wash tear gas out of throat. On the way, I see two youths protest against capitalism and 'the man' by smashing the window of Play it Again Sports and stealing snowboards to protest that companies disregard for human rights and the situation in Tibet.
11. I call the cops and report the above crime.
12. I obtain Guiness (for medicinal purposes) at bar one block from protest. Discuss situation with other patrons while watching crowd regroup on television. Place gentleman's wager on exactly how long people will last due to increasing rain and, as I suspect another volley of tear-gas in the works.
13. Police launch another volley of tear gas at protesters. This time, not only were they blocking the street, but they were singing Xmas Carols. I don't see that the Police had much choice but to break out the tear-gas. Protestors/Carollers scatter and head home.
14. Man in blue cap wins bet by coming closest, although I beleive his girlfriend, or possibly wife, told him when to guess. Bartender gives the couple a free round.
15. I say goodbye and walk 1/2 block home. I've got to get up and go to work tomorrow.
Overall I learned:
Tear gas clears up the sniffles.
Here's a good site to check out for some in depth information about anarchism and pointers to where you can read more: Anarchism FAQ
Hey. I'm from Seattle and I thought that I'd share a little on the situation here. I was at the center of things for a while Tuesday morning before all the violence broke out at 12 (I left because I sensed that it was going to get bad). I've seen and heard some very wrong stuff both on my local TV stations and in the press. Basically what happened was that there were two types of protestors: actual protestors and people who were there to break stuff. The actual protestors were fine. They protested and were legal and were nice people - more on them later. The bad part was the "Anarchist" folks. They were not there to protest at all. They were not even real anarchists. They were there to f*ck up whatever they could, be it protestors or buildings. They were probably the most organized groups of protestors outside of the labor unions. They had thought out tactics on their violence long before the WTO thingy started. Anyways, they went around breaking things and used the protestors by hiding behind the human walls and breaking stuff so that the cops were forced to attack the human walls in order to stop the violence. I am not even going to talk about all the police brutality around here... Anyways, the actual protestors were good people. I liked them. For the most part, they knew what they were talking about and did a good job. Unfortunately because of the violent folks, all protesting was banned on wednesday, so all the real non-violent protestors are now rotting in jail while the a$$holes who were there to make trouble are laughing about it.
Okay, this is a bit long, but one more point: Seattle is not the yuppie capitol of the world. Seattle is where normal people live and the rich upper/middle class come to work. They take all our money and polute our town with their SUVs and then go back to live in Bellevue or Issaqua or Redmond...basically the Eastside suburbs of Seattle where all the rich white folk live.
"Im a 21st century digital boy, i dont know how to live, but ive got a lot of toys, my daddy's a lazy, middle class intellectual, my mommies on valium, so innaffectual...." thats it. sums up ALL theads here =p Send all flames to: lupusgentry@ureach.com
The millenium ends in a bit over one YEAR! Sheesh, get a clue!
GET REAL!
What happened to the right to protest???
KILL????????
You moron!
a much better /. story would have been that some people set up police radio scanners and rebroadcast them through the internet using streaming mp3 as well as realaudio, www.elsewhere.org/wto and i forget where the realplayer link was (doesnt matter now since its mostly over i guess) furthermore there were hundreds of testimonies from actual participants in the event online, some people say its the most documented protest in history. almost everyone had a cam corder. wanna see a story about the internets role in this,... sometime...
a much better /. story would have been that some people set up police radio scanners and rebroadcast them through the internet using streaming mp3 as well as realaudio, www.elsewhere.org/wto and i forget where the realplayer link was (doesnt matter now since its mostly over i guess) furthermore there were hundreds of testimonies from actual participants in the event online, some people say its the most documented protest in history. almost everyone had a cam corder. wanna see a story about the internets role in this,... sometime... also the DOT cameras were up at some intersection in seattle so you could log on and watch protestors.
"Outside of the official left-right spectrum, the nonpeople have other values and commitments, and a quite different understanding of responsibility to somehting other than themselves and of the cause of democracy and freedom. They should also understand that solidarity work is now becoming even more critically important than before. Every effort will be made to de-educate the general population so that they sink to the intellectual and moral level of the cultural and social managers. Those who do not succumb have a historic mission, and should not forget that."
-Noam Chomsky, Deterring Democracy (emphasis mine -j)
I disagree with Katz's assertion that this thing is specifically about anti-corporatism. While i agree with that agenda, and do not deny its place in the incidents in Seattle, this is much, much bigger than that one idea, bigger than you or me. It's about solidarity, about me watching your back and you mine. It's about Community. It's about time.
"Cogito ergo es... I think, therefore you is." -The King of the Moon's Head,
Don't ask. Go see.
The possibility bothers the Cato Institute ("22 years of promoting public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace").
Here's a link to their report Warrior Cops: The Ominous Growth of Paramilitarism in American Police Departments. (This links the summary page. You can download the whole report there. Warnings: (1) There's a LOT of reading (14 pages), and (2) it's in PDF format.)
This is not just about your personal individual freedom. This is about human rights world-wide. People everywhere have the right to not be abused by their employers. They have a right to live in an environment that is clean and that will survive to support their children.
while you are whining about your choice of cell-phone, millions of people (including children) are subject to poor working conditions, many of which will lead to injury, death, or long-term illness, only to be paid a barely subsistence level wage.
these workers, you might say, have the individual freedom to work somewhere else! but its not so simple. often jobs such as these are the only ones available. often the problems with the working conditions are largely invisible to the untrained eye, such as environmental pollutants or poor safety features. these people are not factory inspectors.
and what of environmental concerns? the environment wont stand up and say, im exercising my personal freedom to not be abused, pardon me while i step over to Mars. Not to mention that by destroying the environment, we are hurting ourselves as much as anything..
even if the WTO takes no moves discriminate based on human rights and environmental concerns, it could at least allow the consumer the choice to do so The WTO threatens to remove the freedom of companies to label their products as environmentally safe and humane. (remember the bovine growth hormone ordeal - if big business had its way, and it did for a while, smaller companies would be unable to label their milk as RBGH-free - thus removing your freedom to buy milk without the hormone) The WTO threatens some of the same labeling restrictions, in the name of free trade. I want to have the freedom to buy products that are not made by workers in unsafe conditions, or in an environmentally unsound manner. -- and in order to have that freedom, information like that must be available.
Also - the WTO supports lifelong patents and intellectual property policies that are quite obviously anti-competitive - obviously an anti-capitalist, pro-big-business move.
men are not islands. you cannot claim personal freedom is justification for any act if it interferes with another individuals human rights or individual freedoms. there is a limit to your holy right to individual freedom -that is,
your right to extend your fist ends at the other guys nose
sure, you have the freedom to punch him in the nose, just as you have the freedom to buy a cell-phone made by indonesian workers who aren't being paid enough in a YEAR to buy a quarter of said cell-phone
but that doesn't make it your right
When your actions affect thousands, millions, billions of people, i think taking those people into consideration is more than imperative. obviously most large corporations are not of the same mind.
sorry for this incoherent rant, this whole issue, and all those surrounding it deeply sadden and enrage me
mcdaniee@reed.edu
The Progressive Review (Washington, D.C.) has a good list of sites. This link will take you to the right place ("Seattle Action") on its homepage.
So similar to the AC posting (#328) above!
And such a simple solution... only you'd better hope that you never wind up on the wrong side of those in power, lest they decide that doing away with you would mean one less idiot running around.
Wait a minute... never mind, just, um, ignore this warning. Yeah, that's it!
I do like reading Katz's articles. They are a nice alternative to the usual crap media.
Not being there, I wonder if the political protests were totally spontaneous or if they may have been manipulated. Sorry to get conspiritorial but some US corporations and political institutions really don't benefit from the WTO at all. Are some of the large industry lobby groups and political organisations financing and organising the protests?
I can't help feeling that the WTO are something of a convenient scapegoat now that we don't have the commies to blame things on.
Unix was created by Ken Thompson, Brian Kernighan, Dennis Ritchie and various other hackers who happened to work at AT&T at the time.
AT&T 'IS' a legal incorporation document, the original of which probably sits in a safe somewhere. So is Microsoft. So is Intel. So is RedHat.
Nearly all of the intellectual and material property of the world is owned by documents, which, due to their inherent inertness, are incapable of 'creating' anything.
Katz often makes some sense, but in this case he has totally swallowed the liberal, PC, hippie-crunchy party line. He's 100% WRONG. The so-called "protesters" had absolutely NO idea what they were supposed to be protesting. They just had some kind of vague "capitalism is bad" notion, and too much time on their hands between lattes.
Yuppies should wake up and realize that politics are something you have as a belief, not something you march about because it's fashionable and they guy across the hall is doing it, and you can chat with him after the protest (whatever it was about, who knows?) and maybe get some business from him for you web design firm.
I have ZERO respect for the "protesters". they were morons who had no idea what message, if any, tehy were trying to get across. Whatever they may or may not have intended, the message which came across loud and clear was "We are idiots. We are out here for fun. Ignore us. We're just looking for something exciting to chat about at the next cocktail party."
Be sure to check out Corporate Watch for more non-mainstream info and opinion about WTO and related issues.
Zontar The Mindless,
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
So you valiantly chose to force those who drive cars to subsidize your cheap public transit (since huge chunks of federal highway taxes are diverted to support nowhere-near-solvent programs and similar idiocy happens at local and state levels).
Gee, thanks.
People: "Oh, no, Portland is being paved over and becoming another Los Angeles!"
Transit authorities: "We'll stop that!"
People: "How?"
TA: "By emulating the city with the least miles of roads per capita in the US, of course."
People: "Where's that?"
TA: "*checks* Los Angeles. Step 1..."
Story Here
Sorry, but it's all bullshit. Corporations don't pollute. People decide to pollute. *INDIVIDUAL* people make these decisions. Sometimes in groups, but a group of people won't end up doing something decisive without one of them advocating it.
We, the people, have made choices. Some of them have been bad. The entire idea that "corporations" are at fault is an attempt to throw the blame at someone else.
Sit back down. Take your licks. You earned 'em.
Wanna do something useful? Let's start by seeing how we can foster freedom and choices for people. Hey, guess what! Corporations. Free trade.
More choices, better. Fewer choices, worse. That's the end result of individuality.
Am I an individualist? You betcha. And if you want to take away my right to band together with others, be it a corporation or a marriage, you're gonna have to kill me first.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
I wish we could moderate articles, because this one needs a big fat (Insightful) stamped on it.
Michael Gentili
- He's just some guy, you know?
No, the industrialized nations PRODUCE most of the world's wealth.
And the free market will scale very well in the future even as its "alternatives" start to show cracks at the seams.
Most importantly, the poor nations ARE developing, and absent the "keep the darkies down" mentality of tariffs aimed at preventing them from exporting, they will continue to do so.
Not that I support the WTO. It does not exist to free trade, but to advance the trade theories of the administrations of the most powerful nations that are members. We should just finally abandon protectionism as the bad idea it was known to be in the first place.
It reminds me of Hinduism which, unlike western churches, has no central authority; yet whose literature provides a much more profoundly penetrating analysis of core spiritual issues than the western tomes.
bring back the Indus valley civilization!
Mr. Katz certainly paints a stirring picture of these protesters, valiantly decrying the Corporations' attempt to stifle individual creativity and culture through their faceless bureacracy. Up with people! Rage against the machine! Think Locally, Act Globally.
... The tarrif was imposed as part of a trade dispute starting with jet engines. Hence the need for some form of WTO). One proposal is to limit the number of American movies imported into France each year. Arguments about freedom of speech aside, this hardly improves the quality of movies getting into France. If you can only have 10 movies imported, would you choose subtle, artistic films which might have limited appeal, but have real cultural value, or would you choose Titanic, which will appeal to the largest segment of the population, even if it is of dubious quality (Oscars notwithstanding). Of course, the French elite still gets to see everything at the Cannes festival, but average joe doesn't have the oportunity to see a Woody Allen film or Buffalo '76. This forces the French public to get ONLY that portion of American culture which is most dulled by corporatism, and prevents any free exchange of ideas which we take for granted (unless you live in a small town, and never get to see a good imported movie). Yes, America has an impact on the French film industry, but it has for decades, and the French have still made many of the finest films. Indeed, the free exchange of ideas across the Atlantic has given fresh ideas to both Hollywood and France. My point here being that government and trade-restrictions are a ham-fistedand counter productive response to corporatization of culture.
Unfortunately, there is something of a disconnect between what the protestors want and what they are likely to achieve if their protests are successful. WTO. Corporatism. Anarchists. "You keep using these words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean."
The world is changing minute by minute, and no-one can be sure where they stand. My job isn't secure. Lower wage workers in India and Brazil constantly threaten to steal our customers away with lower priced products. The corporate honchos may decide any day now that my department can't compete and give us all a miserly severance (if they're feeling generous) and 15 minutes to clear out all our things. This is bad for me. So should I go traipsing off to Seattle to protest the WTO? Before I do, there are two important questions I should ask. A) Is my job inherently more valuable than those of and Indian or Brazilian worker, and should I try and put a stop to this unfair competition? And B) If so, is the WTO responsible for my plight?
We'll start with A.
From my stand point, SURE my job is important. I built real value. I make better products. I work hard! I deserve a job. Why should I be cast aside just because I cost more than some third-worlder willing to work for peanuts! What about the American Dream?
Now I'll walk a mile in the other man's shoes, and see how they feel.
"Well, here I am, I have done what America has done, I went to school. I got an education and have real technical skills. Ok, so my education isn't as good as those Americans, but I work hard! I don't demand as much money, I just wan't enough to feed my family, and maybe get a little better education for my children!" (Its easy for me to role play this because I went to public school in the South, and I sometimes feel that way about Ivey League frat boys and Stanford/Berkeley Silicon Valley types... the grass is always greener).
Well, why shouldn't he have a job? What right do I have to say, "Sorry, pal. You're interfering with business-as-usual, and that's a threat to me, so I'll have to keep you in the gutter." Yes wages go down. Yes jobs are exported. But what right do we have to keep them here in the first place? Nope, I don't want to loose any of my cake for you, so you can't come to the party.
I just don't feel comfortable with the concept that we are the chosen ones, so we should use our government to keep everything to ourselves through tarrifs and trade restrictions. So I'd better start looking for new work. Well, if I am so educated I should try and find something else that adds value to the world that isn't done elsewhere. I should unleash my creativity on some other sector of the economy. I have already begun planning to do just that.
But for the sake of argument, lets set aside this view of free trade and the chaos of global markets, and look at what the WTO is versus what we would want to accomplish. Most of the protesters fall into two camps. One has to do with labor (the Blues) and the other with the environment (the Greens). there is also a small detatchment who are concerned more with the evils of what the French call "cultural polution" (We'll call these the "Anything-but-Teals" or ABTs for short).
First the Blues. Lets examine how the WTO will hurt the cause of labor. Is this a tool of the Corporations to outsource all our jobs to foreigners? That is likely to happen without the WTO. If trade opens up, labor will flow. But the argument against this is very similar to the arguments against allowing immigration. We can't let THEM take away our jobs!!! I think Pat Buchanan and the ALF/CIO are wrong to restrict immigration and I think we are wrong to stop trade. It works both ways. BMW and Mercedes have both built plants in the US in areas that have traditionally had little industrial investment. Why? Because people in those economically depressed areas were willing to work for less than their German counterparts. You won't find Alabamans going to the EU and arguing for sanctions against Mercedes. (A quick note on the piety of the AFL/CIO: During the UPS strike the AFT (a member union of the AFL/CIO) were paying my bother low wages without benefits as a temp worker in a permanent position)
What about Child Labor? Well, what of it? Increased trade with China is hardly going to promote child labor. China has a massive abundance of laborers, so much so that they have an inconceivable amount of make-work positions in the state-run factories. With a little representative government, they might actually get some child labor laws passed. But political reforms will not happen if we shut them out. The WTO will hardly force us to repeal any laws about our own children. And as numerous people have pointed out, child labor is most prominent in agricultural and service segments. These industries will be propped up by trade barriers, not torn down.
On to the greens. The basic argument is that the WTO is used by corporations to strip environmental and consumer safety laws. Well, are those laws really all so utopian? Recently a chemical company went to the US EPA and said that an insecticide in common use was dangerous (the patent for which was expired). The EPA banned it in the US. The chemical company was then free to sell its own, patented, expensive (but EPA approved! I feel safe!) insecticide. This might be legitimate, but might also simply be a shallow corporate tool to stifle free competition.
And dolphin safe nets! The WTO has ruled that the US laws are anti-competitive and unfairly restrict foriegn fishermen. Well, we have four options. One, fold. Cave in and let the WTO gut our policies. Two, modify our restrictions such that foriegn fishermen have the same capability to comply with our laws that domestic fishermen have. That is the problem in the WTOs eyes, so lets fix it. Third, if we cannot protect dolphins without being WTO non-compliant, then lets just protect the dolphins, and then take our lumps from their courts. The trade sanctions which have been allowed by the WTO in cases of unfair trade have always been fairly limited in scope and we make our case look stronger if we seem willing to stick to our guns on these issues. Fourth, tune in, turn on, drop out. Screw the WTO! We're AMERICA, DAMN IT!!! We'll be damned if were going compromise an inch in trade disputes! God is on our side.
Fifth, of course, we can just stop eating tuna. The oceans are massively overfished anyway, so stop eating seafood. I have. (except sushi. I am weak there. but I don't eat much and I will never eat shark (massively threatened by overfishing), I avoid shrimp (sea turtles aside, shrimp nets are horribly destructive), and I don't eat Octopi because I think they are cool)
And finally the ABTs (save us from MTV and the Gap!). While I could point to a litany of the abuses of the power of the state to enforce ideas of culture (Nazis against jazz, because it was "negroe" music, and other attempts to keep the master race pure; Mao's brutally repressive Cultural Revolution.), such extreme examples aren't necessary. A quick look at a much more moderate attempt shows how such restrictions on corporate freedom ends up hurting the cause of culture. The French government thinks that America is wiping out France, turning it into one big McBlockbuster (Although it turns out that Bove' was not mad at McDonaldization when he attacked the local Mickey D's with his tractor, but infact mad at American tarrifs on his cheese products
Remember, a lot of smaller towns would never have had cappuccino if not for Starbucks. Barnes and Noble became popular more because of great selection and nice atmosphere than cuthroat pricing and backroom deals (couches to sit on while you browse through your books were rare in bookstores prior to B&N's explosive growth). So corpratism has its benefits. It envigorates stagnant economies, even as it stifles some elements therein. This is not to say that B&Ns business practices are saintly, far from it. I myself tend toward used bookstores unless I really want to support an author.
Don't like Nike? Don't buy it. I don't. Think Coke is too omnipresent? That's your beef, but don't tell me I can't have it, or you'll have a fight on your hands.
A note of caution now. As the economy turned down in 1927 and 28, countries around the world began to fear the ills of foreign competition and tariffs went up. Trade was slowed, causing an acceleration to the recession that was beginning. The Great Depression was preceded by an upsurge in protectionism and anti-internationalism (nationalism/isolationism). Our economic upswing cannot last forever. If we clamp down on trade, we risk more than just corporate dividends.
I wish there really were some anarchists in Seattle, rather than the handfull of labor/green bosses and some masses who are filled with righteous zeal by their messages of Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. The protesters in Seattle seemed more to be raging against their own insecurities than any carefully reasoned arguments against the wonks of the WTO itself.
I understand the emotional appeal of standing up against the faceless monolith. On the other hand, I am wary of trampling on the dynamic nature of human interrelations, and trade is an important part of that. If we seek to keep the internet free, why not that great global sneakernet which is the marketplace? Step back and see if your emotions are leading you the right way.
"Gummi Bears don't spread darkness and death, do they?"
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
I'm a resident of the area. If you had half a clue what was really happening out here, you wouldn't have even started that post.
Yes, I agree the police should be dealing harshly with vandals. In fact, I wish they had spent more time worrying about this than the legitimate protestors. Fortunately I didn't have any property damage to deal with - it was mostly businesses as far as I know.
But what's your definition of innocent protestors? People gathering peacefully, quietly in protest? Perhaps people restricting themselves to the sidewalks?
Guess what? Both got gassed. Sometimes without warning (yes I did experience that). Rubber bullets were used sometimes too. Fortunately I did not get on the receiving end of those. But hell - go read some news articles. The mayor and police have already confirmed that they used them.
Also, residents have been roughed up and generally treated as criminals. Hell the police even roughed up a city councilman. I don't have a link offhand, but that article was on msnbc.com somewhere.
On top of all that, they suddenly decided that purchase or possession of gas masks in the area are illegal. But if I have to walk home through the shit they've caused you can be sure as hell that I'm not happy about breathing tear gas.
And I AM doing something about it. I'm writing a letter to my representative. Others are filing a class action lawsuit already. You're right - this IS a democracy, but the local government in this situation is not respecting people's rights.
If you weren't there, then kindly don't accuse me of lying.
SEAL
Still don't get it do you... If man didn't exist most of those things would not be finite, but since we do exist and we are being corporated and immoral, their is no limit to what a corporation can do when not regulated by government. If they were not regulated, stripping this planet of its resources would be more sloppy then growing or finding new materials, but it would get more resources quicker for the mass market and cheaper for them (not for us). And so what if we have all these wowwing technologies by the turn of the century, if those technologies cost more and an unregulated corporation is left with a decision to either do the high profit way, or to help save the environment way... its cynical to think they'll want to increase profits and think exactly as you do (its no big deal) but not far off from reality, and not moral...
But also remember that this is just the local repercussions of an event with a larger message. Katz doesn't really address this in his article, probably because he overlooked it. Seattle is going to be transformed because of this. I know people who live around Capitol Hill and they say everyone there is extremely pissed at how the police handled it and how most of the media seems to ignore it or miscontrue events. Some serious stuff is going on in the world.
can 50,000 people express a point of view without blocking traffic?
I was there. The police used started to use gas and beat people at 9:10 on tuesday, 2 full hours before the first windown was broken.
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
I have friends and family who were there. The protestors were TRYING to block traffic. The police made certain requests [legal/just] of them (e.g., backup), which the crowd refused to obey. Then they started trashing buildings and the like. Though I suspect the protestors were hostile long before the police were, who "started" the hostilities makes little difference.
I have little doubt that some of the police went a little overboard, but nor do I doubt that the protesters left them with few choices. The police had to walk a very fine line. On one hand they must maintain order, on the other hand they're heavily outnumbered by a mob of angry people. It is difficult to treat everyone with white gloves in such a situation (as you would under normal circumstances). Particularly in a city such as Seattle, which, unlike many cities on the east coast, has never once had to contend with this kind of situation--the police and the city were illequipped to deal with the situation (they didn't show enough 'force' at the get go). Though a few individual police officers may have stepped over that line, the police on the whole were right to enforce the law. I seriously doubt that the Supreme Court will frown on Seattle's actions (not on an individual basis), if it ever reaches that stage.
Petrol bombs and barricades - Anything to have our say. Consequence of no choice at all - Empires rise and empires fall. It's time to flip some coins and it's time to turn some tables. Cause if we have the vision I know that we are able. Suck on my words for a while and choke on the truth of a million dead. There is no prestige in your title, we are after your head. The destruction of everything is the creation of something new. Your new world order is on fire and soon you'll be too Sabotage will set us free. Throw a rock in the machine.
It's true, the very first time the police used gas, at 5th and Union, it was preceded by an order to back up/clear the street - as well as being accompanied by beatings. However, I was gassed 4 times; at no time was the gassing preceded by any kind of announcement. (I was acting as a legal observer for the National Lawyer's Guild, as a witness to police violence).
By late afternoon, I had a snorkel mask to protect myself from gas. Therefore, when the police gassed us down Pike from 6th to 2nd at 5PM, I could actually see clearly, although I was choking and about to vomit. For that entire four-block distance, the crowd was retreating in as orderly fashion as possible. There were cries of "walk, don't run" to prevent panic. The only people facing the police were cameramen walking backwards. Everyone was retreating. At fourth street, the police began firing rubber bullets at this unarmed crowd.
However, in some sense I agree with you. The majority of police violence on Tuesday was legally justified. In a very limited manner, it did serve to preserve the freedom of movement of delegates.
I do not believe that it was was morally justified. I do not believe that it served to protect property. In fact I believe that it encouraged property destruction. I do not believe that it was necessary to protect the physical safety of the delegates. Even the black-hat anarchists breaking windows and the opportunistic looters (obviously different groups, and both numbering under 50 out of 50,000 people) were absolutely non-violent when it came to human beings. The only violence I saw was from police, from delegates -- I personally saw a delegate punch an elementary school teacher who was not physically interfering with him in any way -- and from aggressively "non-violent" protestors attempting to stop property destruction. In short, I think the opposite of what you do; that an early "show of force" from the police was a tactical error, so huge as to make them morally culpable.
The story on Wednesday was far worse. Wednesday morning, hundreds of people were arrested for peaceful demonstrations that interfered with no-one's freedom of movement. Many simple passersby were arrested. A friend of mine, a calm 35-year-old-man, was arrested for standing alone on a street corner passing out an op-ed he'd photocopied from the New York Times.
Wednesday afternoon and evening, the cops rioted. First it was down by pike place market, outside the unconstitutional "protest free zone", where demonstrators were literally herded 8 blocks with tear gas, hemmed in on all sides, before being arrested. Then it was up on capitol hill, where an annual Free Mumia march unrelated to WTO was attacked - I'm sure you've seen the pictures of police misconduct there, and I have heard many personal accounts of abuse that was not caught on camera. I talked to one woman who called the National Lawyer's guild from jail; she'd been arrested for going out of her front door to ask the police what was going on. During both of these police riots, the weaponry being used was in fact stronger than that on Tuesday. There was 18-gram wooden dowels as bullets, tear gas so strong it is actually classified as a nerve agent, and voluminous pepper spray. I've seen physical evidence of all of this
For Wednesday's actions, the police are most definitely liable. And that's not even getting into the sickening abuse that went on at the Sand Point detention station and the jail; abuse that I've heard about first-hand in personal conversations. All this, of course, while arrestees were illegally being denied access to the lawyers just outside.
But you never even answered my question. How are 50,000 people supposed to express an opinion without blocking traffic?
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
check out this image
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
I don't really know what this protest was about, personally, because I heard of it for the first time today here on slashdot, but I am happy to have had access to the eyewitness accounts, and they will affect how I read news stories about this that I encounter in the mainstream media, so he's clearly not completely wrong.
To answer your 50k people question, the protestors could have NOT blocked off all surrounding roads (sidewalk included) [As I said earlier, the protestors tried and planned to interfere]. When the police asked them to backup, many of the protesters refused and were very confrontational [mistakenly believing it is their right to do so]. The police soon discovered that mere requests were insufficient, and thus were forced to resort to force. When I say the police should have "shown more force", I mean that the police could have been better organized. They should have displayed their authority more clearly (e.g., highly visible riot horses) early on in the game. By being as outnumbered and inexperienced as they were, it encouraged an escalation of unruly acts, and consequently leading to more excessive USES of force by individual officers. However, none of this is to say that the city was not right to use what means that they did. (e.g., the directive to use tear gas, in general)
Do the people of Seattle have the right to make use of the downtown area free of unnecessary blockage? Yes. Does the WTO have the right to meet? Yes. What is a right if you can't use reasonable means to protect it? I, for one, believe the police first tried to be reasonable. Failing that, they were forced escalate the use of force in correspondence with the problem. In short, the police used reasonable force to support just laws on the aggregate. In an ideal world, every person (protestors included) would have had immediate protection and access to a lawyer. [They didn't have enough officers to process everyone properly, particularly those who refused to cooperate] However, we don't live in an ideal world. Past a certain point [the crucial point--where I believe the city might have averted the situation, as I mentioned above],the city had no other option then to weigh the rights of the crowd [those few who would cooperate or the "innocent"] against the rights of the people of Seattle and the WTO. I'm not inclined to say "Oh well, Let's just ignore the problem", particularly when store fronts are being torn up and fires are being started. It was a dangerous situation.
To reiterate my previous comments, reverse the situation. What if instead of the WTO, it was the NAACP that was meeting. If 50k white supremists (et. al) suceed in blocking off and shutting down the convention [not to mention looting], what would you do? The NAACP and the city have a right to meet. What are the city's options? Legally, the city can't arbitrarily discriminate between the protestors [white nuts && WTO nuts]. I suspect you, and most others, would follow the Seattle's line of reasoning, and consequently actions, when the shit hits the fan. Though some of the white supremists might be protesting within the law, and some outsiders might be assaulted, the police can't sort them all out logistically. In action, is effectively denying the rights of the city and the convention. The situation mandated action. I'm not convinced Seattle could have used any less force, on the aggregate, to secure their rights.
1. not "fires"; one fire, at 4th and Pike. In the middle of the intersection, fueled by trash, a danger to no person or property. Notice that every media picture of a fire is that one dumpster? Don't you think the media, which was omnipresent that day, would have shown all the fires they could find?
2. You're still only talking about Tuesday. No justification whatsoever for police behavior on Wednesday.
2. Note that I already said that the police, in the main, acted legally Tuesday. Just not morally. Your argument is basically: what the protestors did was immoral, so the personal violence offerred by the police was moral. Of course, many of the protestors would turn it around. What the WTO does and plans to do is immoral, so their actions were moral. The difference being that the protester's violence was directed solely against property.
My own view of morality isn't so tit-for-tat; I'm more pragmatic. On a concrete level, the question is, would police actions predictably do more good than harm? I have to say no. They failed to prevent ANY property damage, and probably exacerbated it. They failed to allow the opening ceremony to happen. They hurt a lot of people, including a lot of those who were simply there to express first-amendment rights. Some individual policefolk were carried away to vicious extremes, and their fellow-cops did nothing to apprehend these lawbreakers. All of these things were predictable. I also think this problem was strategic and not tactical. Your "harder, sooner" hypothetical doesn't acknowledge the level of organization and preparation among the most militant protestors.
Note that on this level, the protestors, even the vandals, were justified. They prevented certain people from getting where they wanted to go for a period of a few hours; and, in their own view, they acted to prevent or bring to light crimes much larger than that. There are a lot of things you'd accept that prevent people from going where they want to go, and many of them bear as weak of a relationship to preserving health and well-being.
On a meta-level, things are more even. Here's where your NAACP argument comes in. If everybody, including your 50k white supremacists, felt that their particular ends justified any means short of bodily harm, you're right, we'd have big problems. That's why I do not support the actions of the more militant protestors.
And on a meta-level, the cops regain some shred of justification. (Not because the protestors are unjustified here; it's not a zero-sum-game.) If the cops had not demonstrated their willingness to use violence to protect freedom of movement (note that I don't mention property, as the police did nothing to protect property; in fact, demonstrators themselves in many cases prevented vandalism as the police watched), people in the future may have been encouraged to use such tactics. However, this argument is weak. Will fewer people be willing to restrict the movement of others through mass action as a result of this week's events? I really doubt it; I think outrage and triumph are stronger than fear.
So what should the police have done? Simple. Ringed the convention center, the gap, old navy, niketown, banana republic, Starbucks, and B of A. With about 10 officers in a loose line at each of those stores and a solid cordon at each entrance of the convention center, they would have used far fewer than it took to block off at least 8 intersections with double-ranked badgeless troops. They would have done more good and less harm.
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
If anyone is interested in photos and comments from Seattle about the Police Riot, try SeattleRiot.zmbh.com. You can add your own thoughts if you want.
Speaking of not conforming to ideas...
As for Katz and his "corporatism vs. the individual" battle, he should love corporations! Its the reason he has a job! I know if I owned and ran Slashdot myself, Katz would have been fired and firewalled a long time ago!
> Eventually the police made statements through a loud speaker. They told us we were all guilty of unlawful assembly and we must leave immediately. Everyone tensed up, as this has consistently been followed within seconds by teargas, rubber bullets, and police advances.
Been there. Cape Town, South Africa, 1988. Some things (Ie police behaviour) are universal.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
I am sick and tired of hearing about this and that being immoral. America (and other countries too, I suppose) needs to get off its 'my morals are better than yours' high horse and start acting ethically, not morally. Everyone has different morals, but ethics are something that, for the most part, we as individuals can all agree on. We are such a politically and religiously diverse country that coming to a moral focal point is impossible. On the other hand, I think it is possible for each and everyone one of us to treat other people with respect and dignity.
from my relatively inexperienced perspective, it would seem to me that mr. Katz may have missed the point. The WTO needs some sort of protest. They are more secretive then the Masons. They are completely closed to the public. They don't keep minutes of their meetings. They don't produce press releases.
its not so much that the WTO is evil. Its more that they need to change the way that the organization is structured. The only way that we can really show them this is by protesting the organization at large.
Until you get information from a source that is not funded or owned by a large corporation you have only heard the corporate perspective on the WTO protests. Maybe you should broaden your reading.
I seriously hate it when people attempt to rationalize or dramatize the events of last week. As both a resident of Seattle, and someone who faced tear gas (w/ out actually being involved in any of the protests), I can seriously say that this doesn't need to be on slashdot.
That definition does much to explain the many sides of the conflict, both in small and large scope. Thanks for the info.
Yeah, so the message out of Seattle is confused, according to the media. Why are you surprised? They don't *want* it to be coherent.
"They"...in '89, Molly Ivins, a syndicated columnist, looked around, and noted that 90% of *all* the media in this country (US) was owned by, count 'em, 29 companies. This past Halloween, she did the count again, and it's *NINE*.
The WTO is *explicitly* about corporations, and the bigger they are, the more they're involved (never heard France, and other countries, complaining about US media dominating their markets, or fear of that?). Even NPR hardly mentioned anyone but the environmentalists - certainly almost *none* of 'em talked about the labor unions.
Just what percentage of the demonstators were violent? More than 5%? As someone who *was* active back in the sixties, including Chicago in '68, let me tell you that even then, the press played up the miniscule numbers of crazies, and ignored the majority of us. They have even more reason now - most of 'em only cover action-adventure news: if it don't involve violence or sex, it ain't news.
And the guys that don't think this involves them, and ain't new fer nerds...whaddya gonna say when *your* job goes overseas, to a linux hacker from Mexico, or China, who will get paid a pittance?
This is news that matters. Just try and find out what the corporate owners of the media don't want you to think about.
mark "been there, done that,
got the tear gas"
When you have a crowd of people that large, they are capable of denying the democratic rights of the city and the convention, WITHOUT having to even resort to violence--mere force of numbers is sufficient. As others [and I believe you] pointed out, they suceeded in interfering with the WTO, by denying them their rights to move freely [not to mention generally making the event costly for Seattle, forcing the city to deny the WTO a longer visit]. In my belief, the city did what it had to do when the situation reared its ugly head. Occassionally it is necessary to declare martial law and deviate from normal modes of law, in order to preserve democracy. It was simply not possible for the city to do much less on Wednesday (e.g., Sand Point, arrests, etc.). I don't believe the cordon you described would have been effective; the protesters were many thousands strong and could still encompass the entire perimiter, thus denying the WTO movement. Not to mention that the protestors could still deny reasonable use of the city for its citizens, thus leveraging it to deny the WTO its rights. What the police did was both legal and moral [on the aggregate]; it is moral to protect democracy, and the police are the means to do so. Though a few individuals [perhaps even the majority] in that crowd may have had their rights trampled on, the city believed it could do nothing less [I happen to agree from what I've seen, read, heard, etc.]
I believe it is necessary for the law to take the long view. Namely, that, by allowing any group the power to deny democracy by force of numbers is a far greater threat, than the city's temporary treatment of a few in that crowd. You happen to agree with the WTO protestors, thus the city's actions strikes you as unfair and immoral. The city can't arbitrarily decide who deserves protection under the law. Democracy must be allowed to work it's course. All groups deserve protection, be that the WTO, the NAACP, the KKK, you name it. The circumstances in Seattle mandated an increased use of force. The only people that can be really blamed for the clash are the anarchists/looters and those who blocked off the roads--they forced the city's hand on the protestors as a WHOLE.
I'm sure Rob and the crew meant well, but it is apparent to anyone else that reading an article about how horrible businesses are while sitting on a web-page owned by a big business and reading corporate advertising at the top of one's screen is horribly ironic? Just my several bytes.
The idea "Big corporations are bad" did not just arise. It is in fact as old as the industrial age itself. What do you think prompted the massive strikes during the 1840s? What do you think prompted the Commune in Paris? What do you think Communism was all about? These protests are just rehashes of the same idea. Only this time, the people who are protesting have no idea what they are protesting against. What cracks me up is that most of the protestors have never been to countries that they believe are oppressed by the WTO. They have never seen the inside of a big corporation, or have participated in round-table talks about International Trade. Most of them have in fact no idea how the WTO works. A little reminder: the WTO is neither a pawn of the US nor is it an faceless entity bound on taking over the world. It is a forum where countries settle their trade grievances, and where government representatives hammer out agreements that they think will do more good than harm to their country. Yes, it is not perfect. But it is far better than going back to the original way that existed before the WTO or even the UN: a world where everyone can do whatever they want, where there is no discussion and where agreements are simply based on who has the biggest guns. On a final note: yes, the Internet was a powerful tool in bringing all these people together. But it also shows that it doesn't mean that people know more. It is still up to everyone to search out knowledge - and quite frankly, the lack of knowledge was appalling during the protests.
Nice focused rioters, strange situations.
The internet being the source for this "revolt" against coporate bigness. Too bad the internet has promoted and is now fueling increased coporate bigness with the whole IPO thing.
Granted only a small fraction of internet IPO's actually become the behemoths that promote this bigness, but all of the IPO's are trying. I wonder how many of these people are still tring to get in on these amazing "opportunites"
Hypocritical? Prolly not, but hmmm nonetheless
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
Sure while Bush and Gore may have flaws they ain't Hitler and Stalin. I think we get the candidates we get are the candidates we deserve. There's nothing in the system to prevent good people from running. Now is today's America that different from the America of 10, 50, 100, or even 200 years ago? President John Adams had during the Quasi-War, which was undeclared, restricted american freedom and immigration on a larger scale than any since then. Adams was one of our forefathers and a signer of the Constitution and a Co-author of the declaration of Independance. We over-scrutanize our polititians too much. History tends to erase bad qualities and hypocracy. America, with no common enemy has entered a period of great cynacism. I don't worry though, it won't ammount to anything and it means that we don't have any immediate threat of nuclear destruction. People have allways lacked faith in the system. Only during times of crisis, usually war, have people had a positive consensis about the government. Things aren't perfect but they haven't really gone downhill that much.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
No, you've got it backwards, you chose to drive a car and force me to subsidize your driving. Roads are built from property and income taxes, not from YOUR gas taxes or vehicle registrations, MY taxes. Even though I don't drive I pay for the roads that you use.
Interstates, which are built mainly with the federal money you mention, are the worst example. They're built over the old highway routes that anyone could use for transportation but in most states it is illegal for cyclists and pedestrians to walk or ride on the interstate. I'm prevented from using what I've paid for simply because I don't take a 2000 pound object with me where ever I go.
Don't even try to make it sound like the people who aren't greeedily choosing to waste resources are the people your supporting.
Several years in Internet make me thing that a new and strong movement is being created around the Internet philosophy. I believe that in the next years it will become stronger, and in a near future it will change the world.
I use to call it or AnarcoNet, but Techno-Idealist is also a good name. In any case, what I see as the basic ideas of the movement are:
NO LEADERSHIP: Although some people has a stronger influence, there is no leaders.
NO TOP-DOWN HIERARCHY: It's clear, isn't it?
LOT'S OF PEOPLE INVOLVED: A project success if an only if lot's of people is involved. The basic strength of the AnarcoNet is the big amounts of people involved.
INTENSIVE PARTICIPATION FOR SHORT PERIODS OF TIME The persons that push the movement change, and it base in a strict meritocracia. Some people highly involved collaborate for long periods, but then they should be very tolerant to new ideas. Although, some persons have more influence in the movement that others NEVER there is a declaration of any kind of hierarchy.
NO ENFORCEMENT: Never there is obligation to do anything. If someone is against something everybody else, he will do whatever he want.
MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE One objective is pushed forwards if there are multiple reasons. For example, the Linux project is done by people that wants a political change, people that likes to code, that wants to be recognized for their talents...
WIDE TECHNOLOGY USE: Utilization of technology to facilitate the communication and share of information.
FREE INFORMATION: All the information should be free, accessible for anyone, at anytime, in any place.
NO EXTERNAL CONTROL: Protection between all the members against abusive forms of control. This also seems to appear in other political organizations, but now the idea of common good do not exists.
two thoughts: leaderless movements are defanged easily. The sight of young men looting stores is the best way to demonstrate that there was no real ideology at play, just an anti-social consumerism. Anger is foolish in politics as it is in sports. The object is to sustain an argument and win at least some elections. Anger focuses on what the other guy does, and leaves the initiative to the other side. Todd Gitlin has written some good material on this aspect of the 60s. Secondly, the corporation is less and the sole problem. Individualism is curbed more effectively by communitarianism and its off-spring paternalism. To change politics and promote individualism, we must end prohibition. Currently idealists promote the idea that government should intrude on the most intimate moments of our lives. We urgently need alternative policies.
eVillager
I'm not the most up to date on modern philosophy, but I do happen to know that this is one of Chomsky's main arguments, the sixth right - the right to make money, which is protected more so than the others.
Although these people have the right intent as far as I have read(and I have read 300x my monthly quota for slashdot today), nobody brought up any real philosophy or philosophers. Kind of disappointing, but I am glad to see that consumerism has been realised(yes, it's not the masses' faults - manipulating people's minds has beeen a science since the 60's), and that the individual is standing up for him/herself.
"Hex, Bugs, and Rockn'Roll"
Tuesday afternoon I observed police officers at 4th And Union acting reasonably well -- some of them admireably.
Wednesday night I think they used excessive force in Capitol Hill.
Anyway, here is my account of Tuesday downtown:
You've probably heard that there is a "state of emergency" and a
curfew in downtown Seattle today because of the WTO protest.
According to the news, most of the protest is nonviolent. My
coworkers and I watched one of the most violent part of the protest
from our third-floor office windows on Fourth Avenue between Union and
Pine. It was unlike anything I've seen before.
Fourth Avenue filled up with protesters who seemed nonviolent at
first. But were other contingents bent on causing random property
damage and intimidating the police. They pulled dumpsters out of the
alleys, dumped trash on the road, overturned them in a line across
Union street to form a barrier. On Pine Street they set them on fire
-- I can't remember whether they burned the ones on Union Street also.
They also used newspaper machines, trash cans, and sewer grates. They
smashed windows and spray painted anarchist symbols and slogans like
"WTO GO TO HELL", "IT'S COMMING [sic]", "ZAPATISTAS DO IT", and "THE
REVOLUTION STARTS HERE" (at Men's Warehouse). They climbed
two-story-high street lights to replace the "Seattle welcomes the WTO"
banners with their own. They even tore out one of our potted trees to
roll the big pot on to Fourth Avenue -- I assume these particular
vandals were not environmentalists.
Most of the protesters just stood around, chanted, beat drums, or
danced. Some of them tried to undo the damage others had done,
uprighting one of the trash containers and repotting our tree in a big
plastic bag. I saw some of the antivandals on the news scrubbing
graffiti off a store window.
The riot police -- when they were able to move in to the area --
entually they formed a line across Fourth Avenue at Union Street to @áEventually they formed a line across Fourth Avenue at Union Street to
contain the crowd. Protesters responded by pulling barriers into the
street against the police line. For a long time they stood off like
this, the police ignoring taunts from the protesters at the skirmish
line. The first of three armored cars appeared and backup riot police
arrived. Police used pepper spray on people who threatened them too
directly, and tear gas or CS gas occasionally. I assume they also
used rubber bullets but couldn't see this directly.
Usually when police threw tear gas (or CS gas or whatever) canisters,
protesters (often wearing gas masks themselves) would throw them back
towards the police. Sometimes sort of a soccer game would ensue, with
both sides kicking the canisters back and forth until they sputtered
out. Since the breeze tended to blow the gas back towards the police
it was often hard to see them through the fog. For some reason very
little of the gas found its way into our office.
As we learned on the news, a (peaceful and organized) AFLCIO march had
to be rerouted around the police standoff at Fourth and Union. We
watched one of the AFLCIO activists ask the crowd to disperse, but not
enough people co-operated. As a result, the unionists were not able
to make their point as directly to the WTO delegates.
The number of protesters ebbed and flowed, but there was always this
residual group up against the police line.
After repeated warnings the riot police reclaimed the block in front
of our office in a dramatic, military-style assault. Something they
did right at the beginning spooked most of the crowd (maybe this was
rubber bullets?), then they used numerous flash-bang grenades and tons
of gas to keep the bulk of the crowd running. A few protesters with
gas masks were left in the street trying to throw the canisters back
and such. I watched one of them try to stand down a police officer.
The officer had leveled some type of weapon at his head, approaching
closer and closer, until he and another officer grabbed him, pulled
off his gas mask, and dragged him away.
Counting that, I think I only saw three arrests throughout the whole
incident. I guess the police were probably too outnumbered to worry
about anything but crowd control, but now the same rabble-rousers will
be defacing our city tomorrow. I know from riding the bus that many
or most of the protesters are from out of town, so I'd guess a similar
percentage of the violent ones are also. The Seattle *I* know
celebrates diversity, and tolerates free speech -- even between WTO
delegates.
Tonight I'm less impressed with the police than I was yesterday. The
only good things to be said about it are that they did restore the
WTO's delgates ability to convene (Tuesday protesters violated the
delegates's freedom of assembly, IMO), and they did arrest about ten
people suspected of violence.
In Capitol Hill -- my neighborhood -- they've used so much tear or CS
gas for so little apparent reason the regular residents are upset. I
wasn't as close to the events in Capitol Hill tonight as yesterday.
I was in Hollywood Video on Broadway and Olive (Broadway is the main
drag in Capitol Hill) when I heard on the news a group of about 300
protesters were marching towards Capitol Hill, basically being driven
out of downtown because of the curfew. One of their leaders announced
to the police that they were a peaceful protest with no intent on
disrupting traffic. The police didn't interfere with them then.
When they got to Broadway they did in fact obstruct traffic by
marching and hanging out in the middle of the street. The thing to
remember is that anyone who lives here knows you can't really drive
anywhere on Broadway anyway -- there are too many traffic lights and
pedestrians. Broadway is a natural street to have a protest march.
It's also the site of the "Gay Parade" every year. While the
Gay&Lesbian Parade is a planned demonstration with a permit and this
obviously wasn't, to me it seemed reasonable to let the WTO protesters
demonstrate on Broadway. By leaving downtown they were complying with
the curfew. This group didn't seem violent and I didn't see them
vandalize anything -- though there was some new debris in the street.
(Note that The Gap, Urban Outfitters, and other retailers on Broadway
had boarded up their windows due to previous vandalism.)
Around 9PM they were gassed, along with all the residents of Capitol
Hill who were out shopping, eating, seeing movies, watching the
protest, and such. Heejay and I realized gas had been released when
stepped out of a small grocery store. She started coughing, and my @ánose and eyes started burning. We ducked back into the store.
Neither of us expected the gas because we were blocks away from the
protest which seemed to be petering out anyway. I thought we'd wait a
few minutes in the store and then leave for our movie. We realized it
was getting worse when we heard the flash-bang grenades and saw
red-eyed people fleeing with their faces covered. The Korean family
owners of the grocery store locked the front door (facing Broadway)
and asked us to leave out the back. We jogged with our own faces
covered.
We still wanted to see our movie at Harvard Exit. While the theater
is only a block off Broadway, it was six or seven blocks north so we
thought it was worth seeing whether the air was OK there. We had been
inside all day, too restless to just go home after all this
excitement. We walked north and approached the theater from the far
side. But a guy with red eyes coming the opposite direction warned us
to turn around. So the north end of the Broadway area was also
saturated.
Today I can see how a protester would get the feeling he will be
gassed no matter what he does. The guy who warned us to turn around
got caught in the CS gas while trying to get dinner at Taco Bell --
QFC and Safeway are closed because of all this. The gas obviously
travels a lot farther than any megaphone warnings there might have
been. On TV we watched other Capitol Hill residents complain they
were gassed going about their normal, nonprotesting business.
I wish the police and the peaceful protesters would work together to
apprehend the smaller number of true troublemakers rather than playing
in this shoving match that involves gassing entire neighborhoods. Now
there is this "us vs. them" thing going on. It doesn't make sense
because the majority of protesters say they want the violent ones to
stop, and the local government says it wants people to be allowed to
protest (as many of them did in the 60s).
Another strange thing about this is we feel safe. It doesn't feel as
dangerous as the pictures make it look. The police are using
nonlethal (if annoying) tactics. Even the stupid anarchists (from
Eugene, Oregon I read) are attacking property rather than people.
It's not like a Rodney King kind of a riot at this point. I've even
gotten used to the 24-hour helicopters.
Did you hear Seattle made the top ten list of "Mannerly Cities"?
This is on /. because of its relation to the internet. In order for us to fully understand how the internet played a roll in this movement, we have to understand the movement. And frankly...I am glad that /. reported this story because slashdot is one of the only news sources that I trust...the only other one is the onion.
Before I get too far into this, I'll mention the obvious fact that everyone who reads or writes a message on the Web does so with products and technologies made possible by large organizations and corporations. Most of the readers of Slashdot probably owe their livelyhoods to multinational corporations in one form or another. Considering this, blanket condemnation of big business is outright hypocracy.
If you don't like working for a large corporation, go work for a mom'n'pop outfit or start your own business. Tired of your unrewarding mind numbing high tech job? May I suggest that you learn the phrase "You want fries with that?". If you don't find that rewarding, learn to operate a lathe or figure out which end of a broom to push. No nation on earth has ever said that interesting and rewarding work is an inalianable right.
Multinational business has existed for thousands of years. The trade routes beteen Asia and the Middle East existed long before Nike. If anyone thinks that workers have it bad today, perhaps they should try serfdom. Working conditions are "better" today. In the US and many other places, more opportunity for individual advancement exists than at any other time in the history of civilization. Consider the concept of low interest micro-financing which makes it possible for individuals in developing countries to borrow the US$50 they need to start or improve a business.
"Techo-Idealism"? Please. Those of us who communicate on the Net rarely remember that most people in the world (or even in the USA) do not. Let's not be too quick to pat ourselves on the back for believing that the freedom of speech we are allowed to excercise on the Net is the root of the Seatle protests. Mob behavior has been around much longer than the Internet. Anyone who studies the history of power will realize that rulers throughout history have attempted to limit individual freedoms and that this is not in and of itself a "Bad Thing" (think about it for five minutes please). The freedom of free assembly which exists in the US and some other nations is a Good Thing. The ability to publicly express an opionion which opposes the establishment is also a Good Thing. Americans are exremely lucky that they have been guaranteed these rights for more than 200 years now. Even in this short period of history, the issues raised in Seattle are hardly new. Even the questions of the morality of business has been around for thousands of years. I would guess that human fear of change and the unknown has also been with us for quite a while. Breking the windows of a store is not going to relieve the fear of do anything about what caused it.
None of the above is meant as blanket agreement with current business practices nor is it meant to show a total disregard for individual workers. I have both benefitted and been harmed by multinational business practices. I used to work in the US, was assigned to another country and not too long afterwards, the company which sent me here was bought by a larger company. Eventually I was restructured and was unemployed for a few months. As they say "sh*t happens". I found another job with a small company and life went on. Even in between I managed to feed my family by doing different kinds of work.
In more than 10 years of working in the computer industry in the US and overseas I'd have to say that laisez faire capitalism seems to produce more interesting jobs than economies where non productive companies are kept on permanant life support. My personal opinion is that fear of multinational business is sort of like fear of the UN and it's "Black Helicopters" just waiting over the hill, ready to steal our precious bodily fluids. I'll just take what you wrote as your opionion and nothing more.
OK, this is my last post this thread. If you want me to reply any more (which I doubt you do, but who knows) email me personally.
I agreed that the crowd was denying rights to others. I simply said that police actions on Tuesday were ineffective at protecting those rights, either immediately or in the long term. Police violence on Tuesday was thus unjustified. Yes, I am saying they should have given up on protecting those particular rights for that day. I completely understand if you disagree. We actually agree to a surprising degree about Tuesday.
On Wednesday, I think you totally fail to appreciate what happened. Police arrested over 500 people on wednesday alone. The three largest locations for arrests were, in descending numerical order, westlake in the morning, first ave in the afternoon, and capitol hill at night.
In Westlake there was a peaceful protest which was blocking nobody's access anywhere. It was no danger to persons, property, or freedom of movement. Hundreds were arrested, dozens were pepper-sprayed.
On first ave, there was a demonstration that initially did break the law by blocking traffic (a pretty minor infraction). This demonstration was warned to disperse and then tear gassed. This to me is excessive, but it's what comes next that's inexcusable. After being gassed, demonstrators asked the police what they should do. The police told them to go south down first. They were told that if they did so they would not be arrested. When they did, they were hemmed in on two sides by police cordons and gassed again, chased 8 blocks with no possibility of escape, and then arrested. I consider this excessive force.
On capitol hill, you had an annual Mumia protest march, unrelated to WTO, attacked without warning by gas. When local residents, angered at this assault on their neighborhood (most houses are not airtight) joined the protestors, police went on a rampage. You have seen the images of beatings, of Brian Derdowsky the county councilmember gassed and pepper sprayed as he attempted to broker a peace. Homeowners were arrested for coming out of their front door and asking the police what was happening; shoppers at QFC were gassed as they walked out with groceries; there were several beatings that were not caught on camera. I saw the 18-gram wooden bullets that were used, and I saw the massive bruises they caused. No excuse whatsoever.
Aside from these three mass-arrests, there were many other arrests with as little justification. A friend of mine, an unassuming 35-year-old, was arrested for standing alone on a street corner passing out an op-ed xeroxed from the new york times. The curfew was enforced very selectively, based on age and "alternative" appearance. My Italian friend's legal observation notes were taken from her and destroyed before her eyes as the officer made racist comments.
On the matter of Tuesday, I can respect your position and agree to disagree. When it comes to Wednesday, I cannot. I do not expect you to simply take my word on all that happened, although in no case am I reporting that I did not hear first-hand. I do expect you to either admit you don't know enough to talk informedly about Wednesday, or to take the trouble to inform yourself more fully.
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
Money doesn't vote, people do. No amount of money alone is going to get Forbes or Trump elected. It might increase their visibility, but ultimately people need to vote them in [Unless you're going to claim that the ballots are rigged, which is bs]. Now wealthier people might vote in higher proportions, but they don't elect people, as they are a minority. If the middle class felt particularly strongly about something, and voted anywhere near 90%, the middle class would prevail every time. Even though 90% of the middle class does not vote, they still can, and usually do, ultimately determine the outcome.
The strength of the middle class, even in this day and age, can't be underestimated. For example, flat taxes aren't going happen precisely because the middle class won't go for it. Existing tax structures today take a much much higher percent of wealthier people's wealth, than it does the middle class. You have capital gains, estate taxes, luxary taxes, property taxes, income.....I can go on. Most all are sloped significantly higher past the middle class hump. The fact remains that most all significant tax laws are in accordance with middle class perspectives [not necessarily in their ultimate best interest though]. Even though you occasionally get something which slips by, all in all, the middle class desires normally prevail.
That being said, I think lobbying needs to curbed [not just the "evil" corporations, but unions, and other interest groups as well]; it does have some influence [not the last word]. However, I have very little sympathy for the population as a whole when they fail to exercise their voting rights properly. If they voted properly, it would essentially be a non-issue. Thus, it still is a democracy, as the power does ultimately rest in the hands of the people, even if the people choose not to exercise it. No system of law, short of forcing people to vote a certain way, is going to fix that.
The behavior that we've effectively agreed upon on Tuesday is not relative; it IS wrong. The protestors willing broke the law. They left the city with no other options than to use force to secure democracy. The law simply can't selectively enforce its laws, by applying them to one party (e.g., KKK), but not another (e.g., WTO protestors).
On Wednesday, I admit I don't have all the facts. On the other hand, I don't believe you do either. You witnessesed what you saw with your own eyes [limited by perspective, travel, etc], everything else is 2nd hand [like me]. Nor are you privy the information or the experience the police had, on the whole. They had status reports coming in from around the city. I, in fact, used to live just a couple blocks off Broadway [towards Volunteer Park]; some of my old neighboors had complained to the police about the traffic, a possible reason for the police to take action. The protestors certainly did not have a permit for that, in violation of the law. Neither can you account for the actions of a few in that group, who would loot and cause problems [yet again, some of my neighboors and friends had problems], forcing the police to take action against the whole. Furthermore, it is a mistake to view Tuesday and Wednesday as entirely independant events, the crowds were the essentially the same group of people with the same objectives.
As to the actions of a few individual officers, I can't excuse that. Racist remarks and cruel actions [strictly for some sick pleasure] are wrong. On the other hand, some of these complaints are inevitable. That is to say, when you send police officers [or any human] into that situation under those circumstances [faced with such hate, outnumbered, taunted, assaulted, etc], some will lose their cool. Should the city tolerate those acts where it can stop them? No. Are they preventable? I'm not convinced they are. Should the city stop enforcing the law because a few officers can't handle the situation and commit wrongdoings? That comes down to proportionality; however, the proportion in this case would seem to favor action. The fact that a few "innocents" got hurt [from what information I do have], is better than to allow groups to systematically shunt democracy. That is to say, that even though the act might [and that's a big if] be MORE costly [from a human perspective] in the short run, it is the only option in the long run.
However, none of this is to give carte blanche to law authority. We, as a democratic society, still require overview and public scrutiny. Groups such as the ACLU, whatever new fangled organization you're part of, and others serve valuable function in our society. You're right to challenge them and expose what happened [atleast as to how you percieve it] that is all part of democracy. Meanwhile, I do not see this case as a black and white. I can envision [seen/heard/read evidence for some of] complete justification for most of the overall actions of the police. In the final analysis, neither of us decides the law, that is why we have courts. Out of these conflicting accounts and reasoning (e.g., WTO, protestor, cops, city, citizen, you, and me) a decision will emerge. All we can gaurantee is due process, let us hope that people don't attempt to brute force this as well.
JK, you can pat yourself on the back in public as much as you want, but there will still be people who don't agree with you. Yesterday I thought you were just uninformed, today I think you are childish. I hate to ask, but how old are you anyway?
/.
Chris Barker
Tokyo, Japan
gaijin_yutz on
it is also true, that portraying a helplessness against corporations will never help and will never set the wrong doings right.
Protests are required. People need to be able to say no. The problem happens when the politicians are in cahoots with the corpoarations. all corporations have lobbies powerful enough.
Yet, there is hope.
You see, what most people don't realize is that they're controlled by the little things. It's semantics that dictate how all of those laws, codes, rules, regulations, et cetera, affect your life. They're everywhere, yet nobody really ever reads the fine print, now do they? You should know that all the really messy stuff is in the fine print, the stuff that's so often sprung upon the unwary.
I didn't intend to start an enormous debate, it's just that the tendency to over-romanticize our "democracy" annoys me to no end. Nobody will get off their ass and do anything about their situation. Nearly 100% of the people I know go to work for 40+ hours a week, pay a quarter of their wages/salary to various taxing agencies, and then complain about it. Rinse, and repeat, ad nauseam. You tell them to do something about it, and they tell you you're nuts, one person can't change the system. So they go out and vote for the same regime every election. You've got one half of the US Party, the Republicans, and then you've got the other half, the Democrats. Just because they look and act a little different, and call themselves something else, doesn't mean they're different. Things change cosmetically. Some would argue that they get better or worse, but that's life. Do you get more freedom or less should be the question. Anyway, these same people elect these parties over and over, with either some misguided notion that it will get better, with the cynical notion that it doesn't matter, because they'll get elected anyway, or just out of blind loyalty. Most people fall somewhere in between. Nothing really changes because most people haven't changed. I know I can make a difference with one vote. My one vote doesn't add to the Republican Democrats, and it does add to someone more deserving, even if they're not likely to be elected. That's not the point.
Okay, the USSR was a bunch of republics. So is the UASR (United American Socialist Republics). I personally see very little difference in philosophy. Yes, there is a great difference in the quality of life for most individuals, but I'm speaking of freedom, not quality of life. When was the last time you could do something without having to get a permit, or a license, or some sort of permission from a controlling gov't agency? You pay property taxes, don't you? (only for those property owners out there.) You've got your government bread lines. You have a worker's permit number (SSN, in case you were wondering. Try getting a job without one.) so that the gov't can take their portion of your livelihood. You've got your federal retirement benefits, so you can live off of all the other people with worker's permit numbers when you're old, instead of families taking care of each other like it should be. You have to have assembly permits. The government dictates how you can and cannot use your property. You have to get a license to carry the few types of firearms that are legal for civilian use, and nearly all other weapons are banned. Your children are sent to state schools to learn state-approved material, or you're fined and/or arrested. You can homeschool in most states, but in many (and growing), you have to have a license.
Are you catching the general trend here? People should be allowed to do what they wish as long as they don't infringe on the rights of other people. Period. Can you tell me one thing that is intrinsically wrong with that statement, that is harmful or detrimental? I doubt it, but I'd like you to try. (Note: Use of the pronoun "you" is not intended to specifically target any one person.)
For those of you with more of a bent towards individual rights over government rule, check out the following. I wish the main points of the TC2K were adopted in every state. As with most, I disagree with parts, but on the whole it's awesome. As for the second, if you've got Libertarian tendencies, vote your conscience, don't swallow the party line.
Texas Constitution 2000
Libertarian Party
You were wrong. You asked me to look 'democracy' up in the dictionary. All the major respected dictionaries [especially Oxford English Dictionary] agree with my definition. I knew I was right to begin with and the dictionaries more than agreed with me. Just because there is, what is in your opinion, a more fitting definition, does not make me incorrect. More particularly, you should not attempt to snub me when you're neither a respected authority, nor is your opinion widely accepted. To effectively call me an ignorant fool is foolish; there are many [arguably, most all] highly respected and intelligent individuals who've called the US a democracy.
Furthermore, "republic" is not any better of a definition. Not all forms of republics even vaguely approximate the US, thus it is far from a complete definition. Let me remind you that the point of language is to convey meaning. When I say "democracy", every remotely educated person knows exactly what it is that i'm referring to, namely, freedom and just law. This is not the case with "republic"; the word does not capture the essence of what the US stands for (witness the U.S.S.R, D.R., and other countless states). Thus "republic" would be a poor choice, and I would argue that the user completely missed the point of English [not to mention other subjects such as History (et. al)].
On another note, the mere fact that a few people fail to excercise the right to vote, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you have a billion dollars in your bank account, but don't want to take the trouble [nominal] to spend it, does that mean you are poor? If you have a car that works perfectly well, and you arbitrarily refuse to drive, does that mean you're not mobile? In this day and age there is no excuse to not vote. Your country isn't failing you, you're failing your country.
Ok, I'm too tired for the rest (already responded to most of these earlier threads), but in this article you both attempt to say that the US is not a democracy and that people have no choice, while simultaneously asking us to vote Libertarian? Not to mention, you compare the US to the USSR [which is qualitatively and quantitively vastly different in effect, but that is another story. Tell me, if this were the U.S.S.R, do you really believe you would even be allowed to form a libertarian party? And if we're not a democracy, and people don't actually "vote", aren't you just spinning your wheels as a supposed libertarian? There are some fundamental contradictions here. As for the "party" line, there is plenty of that in both the Republican and the Democratic parties, but as for blind and irrational dogma, the Libertarians take the cake.....
anyways, bed time.
Bye
The point of writing is to convey meaning; the word 'republic', alone, simply could not have filled that function [in my earlier thread]. Yes, I've studied and read the Constitution, documents pertaining to federalism, and much more. Yes, Republic is used most often [remember languages do evolve, particularly depending on your audience.]. Yes, there is an important distinction between the two words [None of the dictionary definitions draw the distinction that the founders percieved]. However, "republic" in and of itself does not necessarily mean rule of the people [as even your dictionary definition gave]--that which makes our laws just. While democracy alone does not define our nation, it is the essential feature. That is to say, that, we are not only a nation of laws, we're also a nation of the people. Laws can be unjust. People can be unjust. By striking a balance between the two, maintaining a certain internal consistency, we have attained a superior form of government.
That being said, I simply could not have plugged republic in, in place of democracy, in my earlier threads. Neither the popular perception of the word 'republic', nor the dictionary definition [more strict], necessarily include rule of the people. A republic, by your definition, can indefinetly sustain arbitrary laws which defy 100% of the population's will [except for those in power], not true of democracy. It is true that sometimes "pure" democracy [unrestrained democracy] can be unjust (e.g., tyranny of the majority), but I never pretended otherwise. You must realize that both democracy and republic had significantly different connotations when the Constitution was promulgated. The modern definitions of democracy, even those in the dictionaries, simply does not mean that the popular will of the people is unrestrained. In either case, I was not attempting to redraft our nation. It was only that essential feature, rule of the people, that, I was driving at.
No King, no monarch, no dictator, no nobles, no outside authority imposed city ordinances on the protestors; put simply, the laws are democratic. Not only do the laws not violate the Constitution, but they protect it. They protect not only for the majority rights, but also minority. Not even your libertarian doctrine can consistently and rationally argue that the people have the right to do this. Libertarians (as much as I find their thinking incomplete and naive) believe in law too, and it is difficult to argue against such laws. The majority's will is not only a threat in law, but also a threat in force. In addition, when it comes to force the protestors needn't even be a majority. The mob can be less than 1% of the population (e.g., tree huggers, KKK, et. al), but by strategically violating the law, they can shunt everyone's (including your own) Constitutional rights. You believe in the Right to bear arms [not that I do, per se]? Then you also have the right to purchase arms when and where you please [atleast in accordance with the law]. Do you doubt that a sufficient section of our population could be mobilized to baracade [or otherwise interfere (e.g., smash every window in the city till the city evicts them] entirely the operations of gunshops? Obviously they could. So what do we have? Laws to restrain people from doing this, and police to uphold them. It is the only reasonable alternative.
I never once said that popular opinion changes our country's form of government. Not once. This is nothing like Galileo.
People create language. It evolves. There is no single central administrator / developer. The accepted definition IS what the definition is (well for most words). Thus if "democracy" comes to allow a representational democracy into its primary definition, the country can be properly called a "democracy". Educated people, uneducated people, dictionaries, academics, and many others call the US a democracy. Most understand that we have a representational democracy/republic, even if they don't have the word for it. Some liberals may attempt to redefine how our country is run; I never did. However, I did use the word which conveyed meaning to the largest group of people without breaking the definition or redefining how our country is run.
What the fathers of our nation called a republic is now also a democracy [inclusive]. What is called a republic today is not necessarily a democracy (e.g., "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president"). I used the most fitting word given the forum and the readership. If I were trying to reconstruct our nation, I would use much more exact language. No single word alone could be used to properly recreate our country, not republic, not democracy, nothing. Most particularly, neither of the words alone address the balance of power, a crucial feature of our particular "republic". The point being that you can go on overdefining ad nauseam.
You wrongly assumed that: a) I'm not educated b) I failed to "look it up" c) The dictionary definition of democracy doesn't allow for a representational democracy. Not only did you make these mistakes, but you have consistently taken on airs. I have two pieces of advice. First, Lose the edge in your words. Second, if you believe so strongly in the difference [between democracy and republic], make an argument and explain why you believe the difference is important. Otherwise, you are wasting your words.
Major misinterpretation. Did I anywhere say that you espoused the belief that popular opinion changed the government? It actually does to an extent, but that's neither here nor there. What I was comparing the example of Galileo and popular opinion to was what we have purportedly been talking about the entire time: the semantics involved between "republic" and "democracy." You were speaking of the popular opinion as relates to what the government is called, not what the government is. Nobody has mentioned anything about what the gov't is, so isn't it a little pointless to throw that in here now?
;)
I again relate you to various countries calling themselves that which they are not. It might be colloquially understood and correct, but it doesn't translate correctly to that which is understood anywhere else. If people started calling the US an oligarchy, the definition would change and be understood locally, butn the rest of the world would know that the US was a bunch of quacks. (Not saying they don't think so already.
Anyway, it is still legally considered a republican government. (On a side note, I was looking at a case on FindLaw and noticed for the first time that they have a searchable online legal dictionary. On a lark, I put in "republic," and it spit out your latest def. of democracy verbatim.) Then there's the reference to republican gov't in the Constitution, still generally considered to be accurate legally. *shrug*
As for a republic not always being a democracy, I agree. A republic is always in the form of elected respresentation. A democracy is not always so. I've held that the entire time, so it is an irrelevant point.
I did not wrongly assume you were uneducated. I did not assume you were uneducated. I was not even directly speaking to, of, or about you. I was addressing a point regarding the usage of the word democracy. It has been molded over time into a political device used to instill nationalistic pride/superiority in those it's used on, it is consistently used as a large, blunt instrument to say, "we're better because we're democratic. That's the American Way." You can disagree, but it's true. You used it to help justify the actions of the Seattle police, and the laws they were enforcing, by invoking nationalism. Anyway, just because someone is educated does not mean they actually think about their motivation in speaking the way that they do. A large portion of those who use the term do so because of social indoctrination. They never bother to learn history. You just happened to be one person that used it, and I used that opportunity to express my agitation on the issue.
I would be surprised if you had delved into this subject before I brought it up, but anything's possible. Since you unequivocally pronounced me wrong in your first reply, instead of bringing up immediately regarding historical relevance what you brought up later, it stands to reason that you did not, in fact, "look it up" before the fact. Again, it's possible that you did, but you approached your argument from the wrong perspective if you did.
Another statement you claim for me that I never made. I said nothing about the definition of democracy not allowing for representational democracy. I merely said that "republic" was the more technically correct term (both from a legal and a historical standpoint, though I did not make that point then.) Basically, we were arguing at, and not debating with, one another. You with your popular linguistics, and me with my technical. There is a place for both, but again, I dislike "democracy" for its nationalistic connotations, so I opt for "republic," which is much more individualistic than the mob-rule "democracy."
In closing, you claim to offer two bits of advice. Like many who offer their advice, I counter with the statement, "You should consider following your own advice first, before dispensing it to others." You say I have put on airs. Are you not just as guilty? I happen to like debating semantics. If you think I have acted superior, that is something you have to deal with. I merely argue what I believe to be true. You say I have an edge to my writing, while you yourself started off with a long, pointed response, ostensibly in attempt to crush my feeble statement regarding word usage, as you stated with much superiority, "You have no inkling as to my education." (Note, that is as close an attempt to an exact quote as I'm going to get, but the spirit is there.) I will admit that my choice of words in my original post could likely have been taken as a direct insult, but they were not intended to be. You chose to respond in a very edged manner, which, even though I instigated it, was not necessary. I am not attempting to excuse what you may consider to be a continuing edge to my posts, but this is the way I write. I will apologize for my first post, but for none of the rest, unless I have truly made a direct statement about you that is unequivocally wrong. I don't believe that has happened as yet. Finally, you say that I should make an argument for why "republic" is better than "democracy." I've already said several things about each. Democracy as it is used today is very much a political construct that has been molded to achieve a certain effect in the listener when it is used. It is statist and nationalistic, both of which I find abhorrent. It promotes the "people" over the rights of the individual. It's about "us" and "we" over "and each together." It justifies all the laws in this country today, because they're "democratic, so they can't be unjust." Semantics are everything, my friend. Just ask your neighborhood lawyer. And if you don't think so, who do you think is running this country? That's right, the lawyers. And what do lawyers like to do? Right, confuse the issue with legal words where each is explicitly defined and put together with other legal words, which are combined in double-speak. Yes, semantics are everything, especially when you're speaking of an issue like the above article which involves police, the law, and politics.
Ok, this thread is getting tiresome, but....
a) This argument is essentially pointless. Under the dictionary definitions, virtually every so called democracy today, is also a republic (e.g., they are run by elected officials). Logistics have long mandated representational forms. The mere fact that the US is a republic is not what sets us apart; it is our Constitution and division of powers that does. Simply having an representational government does not avoid mobocracy. For example, if we had no Constitution, popular opinion could cause what we have long recognized to be rights, to be trampled on (e.g., "Free Speech"). If we made impeachment a trivial matter, increased the number of representatives so as to better reflect the views of small communities, or held elections regularly we would not even be recognizable today. In short, you are arguing the wrong issues, there are no pure democracies in sizable governments.
b) Under the dictionary definition(s), a republic is not necessarily 'always in the form of elected respresentation'. If it is "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president" that is all it takes to be a republic.
c) I know plenty of lawyers, good ones at that. Most will tell you how poorly educated most lawyers today are, hence "legaleze". Good lawyers don't mince words (atleast not when they don't mean to). Most of what is known as legaleze is the product of a mediocre education, not a necessity of law.
d) If semantics are everything, and our government is a "republic" (as you read into it, too much if I might add), why are you concerned about mobocracy? According to you, "republics" preclude the possiblity of mob-rule, "us" over the "individual". You should be relatively safe, if you proceed under your assumptions atleast.
e) I was not making a nationalistic argument to justify police actions in Seattle. The fact of the matter is that democracies [and republics] do tend to more closely follow the needs of the people as a whole than any other system of government--the laws are less arbitrary. I never once stated that democracy alone makes laws just. The particular laws [regarding assembly, and the like] that I was supporting, exist for everyone's benefit on the aggregate, and they're applied consistently against everyone and for everyone [nothing moblike about it]. That is to say, that, while, in the short run, it may be preferable to you to deny the right of the WTO and the city to move about, it is not in society's best interest on the long term. In fact, I argued very much against mobocracy (only in this case, a mere mob is sufficient, not even a majority). We are a nation of law, not merely the temporal will of some mob. To fail to protect these rights, would be inviting anarchy.
In summation, I have restrained myself throughout most of this thread. Not once did I call you stupid, or even imply it. Where you took a jab at me, I blocked. I may have done so a little more harshly than I should have, but it is of vastly different nature than saying "people who attempt to comment on history prior to learning it annoy me."--that is an aggresive act. I maintain my assertion that you should moderate your behavior (even if you think me a hypocrit). I suggest that you take another long good look at your behavior, as I suspect this behavior manifests itself in your day to day behavior as well (perhaps THIS is edgey). Sure it's still a free country, but why create strife? Particularly when it doesn't serve you?
PS: This thread bores me, I probably won't read or reply, unless you have something particularly new and insightful. Nice talking to you. Bye