Yeah, the metaphor is there, but one must consider context. Britain became a superpower when most of the earth wasn't industrially developed; it lost that power as the colonies brought in and developed their own technology. To, give an example, in the 19th century, India grew cotton but had to ship it to the UK to be processed; by 1960, they had their own factories, and thus were no longer dependent on a benevolent mother England. The US became powerful by a fluke; Europe burned itself out in 2 World Wars, and the US took advantage of that. The current leadership thinks the US is the most important country in the world; Bolton said that the UN was a waste of time, since the only thing the world needs to do is to get under its tent. People don't really appreciate it when you tell them what to do, and the US's only real advantage is that it has a massive military (which is currently going in the meat grinder of Iraq) and thousands of nukes, none of which it can use without massive public censure. Thus, US hegemony is military-based; with China on the rise, this advantage is slipping away.
Yeah, that's really true. I was recently reading an article in the New York Times Magazine on the spy agencies; one of the agents interviewed for the piece commented that it was ironic that the bureaucracy of the espionage complex was beginning to turn into the cumbersome Soviet system it fought. I was thinking, if that was perhaps true for the US as a whole; the US is loosing a war in the Middle East against an Islamic insurgency (a la Afgahnistan in the 80's); it's hated for what the world perceives as horrendous human rights abuses (rightfully so; look at Abu Ghraib, Guantanmo, and the use of extraordinary rendition); and the government is becoming increasingly, horrendoously inefficient. Now, I'm not a libertarian: if one looks at Europe, or around the world, one can see how well government-controlled (rather than HMO's) social programs can work. The fact is that the US pays more for health care than does any country in Europe, and it is impossible to dispute the European system works much, much better. I acknowledge that historical examples are tricky, and the USSR committed horrible atoricies at home (mostly because they were was no established democratic system that enshrined human rights-- there would have been no Iran-Contra hearings in Russia, or any check on government). However, the analogy does jump out at you.
Yeah, thanks for making a moral judgement on millions of people. I'm sure you're entirely qualified to decide what people deserve. Of course, people like to believe the myth that the poor somehow deserve it, but the fact is that the majority of the poor in the US* (i.e. the working poor) works 2 jobs and still can't make ends meet.They can't get affordable health care from their employers; they can't afford healthy food and, since fast food is all they can afford, their health is destroyed. Worst of all, they don't have time for their families, nor can they spend on education. The best schools in the US being private schools, or public schools in expensive areas, the working poor can't get near there, and thus their children are doomed to more low paying jobs. Even intelligent, determined people in those circumstances can't do well in those conditions.
*Yeah, I know that the US isn't the world, but for the sake of example, bear with me
The problem is that a poor kid in Africa (or Harlem even-- when one is looking at the West, the US is the country that does the least fo the poor, and it shows) may be intelligent, determined, etc. but chances are he either starve or go on the street. The problem with neoliberalism is that there is no incentive to help the poor: governments want a stupid populace they can use as cannon fodder (the US army, for example is full of people from the lowest economic statuses), and corporations want a cheap workforce they can use.
It's wonderful to think that I deserve this big screen TV, but then you realize that, by participating in the neoliberal system is standing at the top of a pile of the bodies of the poor.
The point is that, if you edit the English Wikipedia page on Guantamano Bay, or Bay of Pigs, or some other topic embarrassing to the government, there is a guarantee that you won't get send to prison. If you edit the Tinamen (sorry for the typo!) Square page on Chinese Wikipedia, then you will be in risk of getting send to prison wihtout recourse to lawyers.
Yeah, in case, you haven't noticed, China is quite possibly the most capitalist country on the face of the planet. The majority of the welfare state in China has collapsed; villagers are beaten to death so companies can get their land. The only thing "Communist" about China is that the CCP has promised the Middle class in China wealth in exchange for freedom; also, the Communist Party is no scrambling to get entrepreneurs into the Party.
It's an interesting ideas, but the very act of translation (in any language) is a form of bias. If you've translated anything, you realize that to make it actually make sense you need to phrase it in "colloquial" English (or whatever); in this way, you are changing the diction, the word choices, etc. Furthermore, words have different implications in different languages. Basically, there is no completely 1-1 translation.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, the metaphor is there, but one must consider context. Britain became a superpower when most of the earth wasn't industrially developed; it lost that power as the colonies brought in and developed their own technology. To, give an example, in the 19th century, India grew cotton but had to ship it to the UK to be processed; by 1960, they had their own factories, and thus were no longer dependent on a benevolent mother England. The US became powerful by a fluke; Europe burned itself out in 2 World Wars, and the US took advantage of that. The current leadership thinks the US is the most important country in the world; Bolton said that the UN was a waste of time, since the only thing the world needs to do is to get under its tent. People don't really appreciate it when you tell them what to do, and the US's only real advantage is that it has a massive military (which is currently going in the meat grinder of Iraq) and thousands of nukes, none of which it can use without massive public censure. Thus, US hegemony is military-based; with China on the rise, this advantage is slipping away.
Agreed. One might go as far as this is truly the blind leading the blind.
Yeah, that's really true. I was recently reading an article in the New York Times Magazine on the spy agencies; one of the agents interviewed for the piece commented that it was ironic that the bureaucracy of the espionage complex was beginning to turn into the cumbersome Soviet system it fought. I was thinking, if that was perhaps true for the US as a whole; the US is loosing a war in the Middle East against an Islamic insurgency (a la Afgahnistan in the 80's); it's hated for what the world perceives as horrendous human rights abuses (rightfully so; look at Abu Ghraib, Guantanmo, and the use of extraordinary rendition); and the government is becoming increasingly, horrendoously inefficient. Now, I'm not a libertarian: if one looks at Europe, or around the world, one can see how well government-controlled (rather than HMO's) social programs can work. The fact is that the US pays more for health care than does any country in Europe, and it is impossible to dispute the European system works much, much better. I acknowledge that historical examples are tricky, and the USSR committed horrible atoricies at home (mostly because they were was no established democratic system that enshrined human rights-- there would have been no Iran-Contra hearings in Russia, or any check on government). However, the analogy does jump out at you.
Yeah, thanks for making a moral judgement on millions of people. I'm sure you're entirely qualified to decide what people deserve. Of course, people like to believe the myth that the poor somehow deserve it, but the fact is that the majority of the poor in the US* (i.e. the working poor) works 2 jobs and still can't make ends meet.They can't get affordable health care from their employers; they can't afford healthy food and, since fast food is all they can afford, their health is destroyed. Worst of all, they don't have time for their families, nor can they spend on education. The best schools in the US being private schools, or public schools in expensive areas, the working poor can't get near there, and thus their children are doomed to more low paying jobs. Even intelligent, determined people in those circumstances can't do well in those conditions. *Yeah, I know that the US isn't the world, but for the sake of example, bear with me
The problem is that a poor kid in Africa (or Harlem even-- when one is looking at the West, the US is the country that does the least fo the poor, and it shows) may be intelligent, determined, etc. but chances are he either starve or go on the street. The problem with neoliberalism is that there is no incentive to help the poor: governments want a stupid populace they can use as cannon fodder (the US army, for example is full of people from the lowest economic statuses), and corporations want a cheap workforce they can use. It's wonderful to think that I deserve this big screen TV, but then you realize that, by participating in the neoliberal system is standing at the top of a pile of the bodies of the poor.
The point is that, if you edit the English Wikipedia page on Guantamano Bay, or Bay of Pigs, or some other topic embarrassing to the government, there is a guarantee that you won't get send to prison. If you edit the Tinamen (sorry for the typo!) Square page on Chinese Wikipedia, then you will be in risk of getting send to prison wihtout recourse to lawyers.
Yeah, in case, you haven't noticed, China is quite possibly the most capitalist country on the face of the planet. The majority of the welfare state in China has collapsed; villagers are beaten to death so companies can get their land. The only thing "Communist" about China is that the CCP has promised the Middle class in China wealth in exchange for freedom; also, the Communist Party is no scrambling to get entrepreneurs into the Party.
It's an interesting ideas, but the very act of translation (in any language) is a form of bias. If you've translated anything, you realize that to make it actually make sense you need to phrase it in "colloquial" English (or whatever); in this way, you are changing the diction, the word choices, etc. Furthermore, words have different implications in different languages. Basically, there is no completely 1-1 translation.