Whether Saddam is building palaces and whatever else is irrelevant to the argument of whether sanctions are killing people. He did this before the sanctions right? Nothing's changed. The variable we are talking about is the sanctions and they are killing people as confirmed by every study I know of not funded by the US government. As to whether Saddam is expelling NGO's that are helping the population that may well be true. He is after all a murderous dictator. But the point is that before sanctions they didn't need NGO's to maintain their previous standard of living. In any event, I've never supported Saddamm Hussein which is more than I can say for Pentagon, State Department, US military and eitherh Republicans or Democracts. I also don't support the current dictators of any of the Gulf States, again more than I can say for the US government. Peace Now does not have a platform of Israeli surrender, it does have a platform of ending the occupation. Quite a distinction. It's the US and Israel who have rejected a Palestian State, while Arafat accepted Israel's existence back in the 80s. Israel wants an end to the violence? End the occupation. While I don't support suicide bombings, what else can you expect from an occupation. Improvement in Afganistan? Replacing one set of warlords with another, great stuff. Wouldn't want to have elections though, another US puppet in place. Glad to see the Talbian gone, not glad to see the Northern Alliance replace them and neither are independent women's organizations in Afganistan. BTW I'm not decrying the building of weapons, but the US isn't the guardian of liberty and peace, unless liberty means supporting dicatorship and occupation and peace means bombing Afganistan, Sudan, Libya, Serbia and anybody else in the "axis of evil".
"The problem with your argument is that the only reason that people are dying in Iraq, despite the huge amounts of money and aid being provided as part of the UN oil-for-food program is that Mr. Hussein is diverting the aid shipments to pay for palaces and tanks [tnr.com]" This is simply not the case. 1)Prior to the invasion of Kuwait (when Saddam was a favored US dictator) the population had a relatively high standard of living for the region, with no serious malnutrition. UNICEF in 1996 put the number of children dying *as a result of sanctions* at 4500/month. Saddamm was a brutal dictator beforehand, and remains so today. But his brutality is not what makes the population suffer the way they do. 2)The article you showed which compares the two zones should mention the fact that under the current oil for food program, the Kurdish zone gets 13% of the oil for food money. The rest of the money doesn't go to the other 87% of the population, money is deducted before it even gets to Iraq for War Compensation, pipeline costs, etc... That leaves about 58% of the money going to 87% of the population. Also, as you know most of the bombing was concentrated in the South so there is more destruction there. There are also more NGO's operating in the north, 34 there versus 11 in the north (Education for Peace in Iraq Center)
Which international organizations promote peace? There are plenty, and they don't have to be international. Peace Now in Israel for instance.
As far as Pol Pot goes, the US government can hardly complain there. Nevermind their illegal and murderous carpet bombing of Cambodia which helped create him, they actually supported him in the late 70s (along with China) when they were using him as a tool against Vietnam. It was the Vietemesse who got rid of him when they invaded Cambodia, not the US.
And while the UN has lots of problems, I doubt it's peacekeepers are any less disiplined than US troops. The point with the UN is that it is a (flawed) international organization, and doesn't attack countries left, right and center. And BTW I never claimed international organizations held a moral high ground, simply that the construction of unmanned attack fighters isn't a way to build lasting peace, particular in the hands of the dominant superpower.
Ahh, you're obviously a real humanitarian promoting the latest warplane as a means of saving lives. Give us a break.
A much more likely scenario is that the US will feel free to bomb more countries since immediate casualities may well be lower. Maybe the next time the US is wiping out water treatment centers in Iraq (because it now (unlike in the 80s) has the wrong type of dictator) the number of directly killed casulities will be reduced. But the majority will still be killed later as a result of the destruction, from disease and malnutrition just like they are now. And there will be more dead since this means there is even less to hold US military power in check.
If you were serious about peace and a legitimate humanitarian you'd probably belong to any one of a number of international organizations that have promoting peace as their goal. My guess is that you are a member of exactly zero of them. You'd rather spend time justifying military spending by the world's most powerful and aggresive nation as a means of saving lives. Then you pretend you're not motivated by idealogy?! "Dipshit kneejerkers" who crazily believe that building warplanes isn't about saving lives aren't the only ones motivated by idealogy around here.
There are "more than a few nations out there whose number one priority is to exterminate us"? Give me a break. Like who for instance? Iraq? North Korea? China? Iraq just wants the sactions lifted, and maybe Saddamm would like a piece of Kuwait but he is hardly bent on exterminating the US. If memory serves me correctly, the US attacked Iraq not the other way around. North Korea? I'd guess the number one priority there was food, not "exterminating" the US. China? Potentially a long term strategic threat to the US, but it is a joke to say that their number one priority is exterminating the US. Maybe you could save the #3 priority was taking/retaking Taiwain, but a nation with the capacity to build ICBM's (but has only built maybe a hundred or so) is hardly bent on exterminating the US. Choose your words more carefully, especially considering it is the US who has been doing most of the attacking and spends more on its military than the rest of the major powers combined. And no, Osama bin Laden and friends aren't a nation.
Re:Yet Heroin will NEVER be legalized
on
"Traffic"
·
· Score: 1
Actually tobacco is much more likely to kill its users than either cocaine and heroine (although it is close in the case of heroine). However if both drugs were legal we'd probably see those rates go down.
For the record I think PGM's are a problem, because they will allow the rich countries (primarily the US) to continue to attack the rest of the world with even less impunity. Having said that, here are my comments...
I think the atomic bombings are pretty clear cut, and I think most of the world (ignoring the US and Japan which have an obvious bias in this case) thinks they were totally uncalled for. Japan had been trying to surrender for over a year prior to the bombings, so the war could have readily been ended if there was the political will. There wasn't. The saving lives thing is an exercise in post-bombing rationalization.
I also don't think Vietnam was "hazy" in the sense you were talking about. The US invaded Vietnam to support its corrupt client state dictatorship (Diem was later assinated by the CIA when he was no longer userful) and to support American interests in the region. It's about as "hazy" as the invasion of Afganistan by the USSR As in most modern wars it is civilians who make up the bulk of the dead. I agree with your assessment as far as PGM's go, it wouldn't have made much of a difference if any.
I'm also surprised that someone who knows their politics as well as you do buys into the notion that the unprovoked NATO attack on Yugoslavia had anything to do with atrocities in Kosovo. Even leaving aside the fact that NATO does not respond that way to greater atrocities next door in Turkey, it is well reported in the foreign press that Milosevic accepted a UN peacekeeping force to go into Kosovo! The US rejected it, saying *US forces* must play a leading role leading to the war. As far as PGM's go, they wouldn't have helped considering they were simply used to better target Yugoslav infrastructure.
Body wastes don't affect business? Many businesses would disagree with you, business who time the bathroom breaks of their employees or allow employee only a few (or no) bathroom breaks during the day. What about urine testing?
Your argument that "misusing company resources is wrong" can be be taken to riduculous extremes. Some companies won't hire or promote women because they might become pregeant, thereby affecting business resources by taking maternity leave. Is this okay? Give me a break.
Considering the richest 10% own the vast majority of the country (and the planet for that matter) it seems pretty clear to me that these rich whining parasites aren't paying nearly enough taxes. You'd think that between the fat inheritance they receive from their parents, the 1st rate health care and education their parents buy them plus the government subsidies to the businesses they own they wouldn't bitch so fucking much. But oh no, they want even more. Cut the capital gains tax, give me even more money for being rich. Fuckers.
Do you even read what you post? How can you possibily argue that we didn't have food, jobs, infrastructure before "big evil corporations". Corporations didn't exist as recently as 200 years ago, yet people managed to feed themselves and do work. Also, there were no "big evil corporations in the USSR (just a big evil State), yet the Soviet Union managed to feed itself, even becoming a super power.
And no, Darwin never explained why capitalism was growing. You have a reference for that one? What you are attempting to say with your half-baked logic is that capitalism is a result of mysterious but eternal natural forces. It is however a modern economic system which did not exist even 400 years ago.
Considering Franco was a member of the fascist Falange (joined in 1955) and a personal friend of Franco this really shouldn't surprise anyone... I posted one reference for this below, but a search on google on Samaranch and fascist will turn up quite a bit more.
Welfare is really popular with voters?! Clinton slashed welfare during his 2 terms and it didn't hurt him politically. The real drain on NASA is from the defense budget, which is bigger than the defense budgets of the rest of the world put together (in US dollars not PPP).
Unfortunately your post isn't a troll, because I've seen you spewing the same crap in several other posts. However I plan on addressing your so called evidence for white sumpremacy since I believe it should not be left unchallenged.
First off, the correlation between "prosperity" and white rule in South Africa does not prove causation, in fact it proves almost nothing. With the same logic one could argue 1000 years ago that nothern "white" Europeans were hopelessly backward and had never produced anything of value by comparison to Muslims of North Africa, the Ashanti of West Africa, etc... I presume a white supremacist like you wouldn't go for this?
Also drawing conclusions on the relative superiority of "races" from less than 7 years of economic data strains the imagination to say the least. Perhaps you should do the same thing in the United States in the 1930s, blaming something as complicated as the Depression on the racial mix of the leadership of the US? It's riduculous. Particulary since South Africa is suffering from the AIDS crisis (like every other nation in Africa) which has little to do with the current leadership.
If you want to figure out why some countries or continents are poor and others are rich you are going to have to dig a little deeper. It has nothing to do with racial determinism and everything to do with history, geography, class struggle, religion, politics, etc... Read a little more asshole.
It's frustrating and enraging to watch a multi-billion dollar industry organize the creative energies of talented people for such a worthless cause. (Or at least worthless for anyone other than the major shareholders of the recording industry).
Computer geeks should be doing things like "cracking" the protein folding problem or drawing up specs for some actually useful software (not SDMI specs). Perhaps one day...
Yeah right, Linus will have his daughter take over his position as Linux kernel manager when he dies?! OSS projects have nothing to do with monarchies!
Monarchies aren't even all that effecient either, too much energy wasted on buying luxury items for the parasitical monarchy. I'd hardly call countries like Saudi Arabia and Brunei productive and effecient. They are going to be in serious trouble when the oil money runs out...
I'm far less concerned about big corporations than I am about big government. The former wants to make money. The latter wants to tell you what to do, what to think, and how to behave, and will exercise the full power of the state if you resist.
Hah! When I went to work today it was my boss telling me what to do, not the government! Government isn't the only controlling power in our lives, most workers probably deal with their employer more than than the State.
In terms of thought control, governments are hardly alone in censoring. In fact private media which produces the bulk of censorable material and has more opportunity to censor than the government. And it does just that in order to make money and to present a good corporate image in the public mind. Churches, political parties, etc... also censor, it's not just a government thing.
In terms of actual physical control over human beings corporations are not slackers in this department. They can control how you behave from dresscodes to discouraging pregancy plus a whole host of workplace rules. This even includes prohibition of speech, such as what you can say. (Like no workplace flirting, can't talk about the last strike, etc...) Government isn't the only institution with regulations and since work is something most adults deal with a lot more than the State it is a larger problem for most people.
Finally corporations are often the ones who call down the full power of the State for their own purposes. Like Britian using gunboats to open the opium market in China, or American intervention in the Middle East. It's also usually the State that smashes picket lines at the behest of some corporation.
This is similar to the good intentions behind communism, yet in practice it has proven to be a failure.
Yeah, Russia has been a real fucking economic dynamo since the USSR dissolved. It's military has collaspsed, it's economic is in tatters, and its fighting a nasty war in Chechyna. Capitalism uber alles!
First off, Napster users aren't claiming they have "the right to take whatever they want" in general, only that music should be freely shared over the Internet. It's an important point to make, because your first sentence is dishonest in portraying napster users as current or would be felons.
In addition, I think the notion of intellectual property, particulary for music is ridiculous. "Their music"?! Claiming ownership (through licensing agreements, contracts, etc...) is simply a useful tool for extracting profit. Particulary when as you pointed out, most artist actually don't own their music, the major labels do.
For most of recorded history, the notion of music as intellectual property didn't exist. The idea that profit could be garnered and control extended even after the initial sale is essentially new to the post-scarcity world of information production. So no I don't think the music is "theirs" after it is sold, and I don't think money should be made from artists after the work of creation is done. Revenue can still be generated through concerts and performances (like it was before the invention of tapes and records) and artists can go back to being self employed labourers instead of aspiring capitalists or record industry slaves.
Perhaps if you disagree with all of this, you can start by paying the inventor of the mp3 format money for their intellectual property (which I presume you use). Then again, the inventor was probably a high tech wage slave and is receiving nothing but salary for the invention. So please tell me why the intellectual work of musicans should be privledged over others?
I find that hard to believe given the record of the Philly Police Department. We are talking about one of the most (if not the most) corrupt police department in the US. I mean it is the only police department to be sued by the U.S. Justice Department for corruption! More than 300 convictions by Philadelphia courts have been overturned because of manufactured and planted evidence used by police to frame innocent people.
This is also a police department who bombed a house and burned an entire block of Philadelphia down to crush the MOVE organization. If any one gets the benefit of the doubt, it should be the protesters in this case.
Yeah, it's amazing how badly we treat the rich. They are probably so stressed out from working hard, their life expectancy is probably half that of poor people. I mean that doesn't give themselves nearly enough time to properly run the country! We are all lucky that millionaires like Bush, Gore and Nader can take time off from work to run for political office. We should sincerely thank them all.
Furthermore the cops are always hassling rich people, which explains why there are so many millionaires in US prisons. It's not like if you are rich you get yourself a good lawyer and buy your way out of jail (OJ Simpson). Rich people are so oppressed they probably don't even have time to drive those expensive sports cars, take exotic vacations, or have time to visit the doctor to receive their high quality medical care. It's a shame too, because the rich work so damn hard for their money, It's not like if you are rich you can just put your money somewhere (bank/stocks) and have it make money without doing any work! Poor people don't know it, but they are the real masters of this country!
If "sane by a human points of view" means humane, then no, US foreign policy has not been humane since (or before) the Gulf War. There are numerous such examples (launching cruise missiles at medicine plants in Sudan, selling napalm to Turkey so it can kill Kurds, killing about a half a million children in Iraq according to UNICEF, etc...) but I'll stick with the stories you think pass for evidence as to the good intentions of the US government.
First off, I do grant you that the US government would like to see a long term ceasefire and some sort of peace in Northern Ireland. This is in the foreign policy interest of the US, so it's no surprise. As far as paying Israel for the "peace process" (which is really just setting up and formalizing an apartheid type system in Israel) that is totally incorrect. Israel was still the biggest receiptient of US aid when it was occupying South Lebanon (against the UN resolution for it to withdraw) from 1982 until just a few weeks ago. They weren't paid to get out, the war had no popular support in Israel and no strategic value anymore for Israel. Domestic pressure was probably the biggest factor, not US government money.
Furthmore the idea that the US went to war to save Kosovars is ridiculous. The US government and its allies could care less about them, look how few of them they were willing to take in significant numbers as refugees. Bombing exaceberated the situation in Kosovo (as admitted by the US general Clarke) resulting in more casualties and undermining all the efforts of domestic opposition groups inside Yugoslavia to get rid of Milosevic. The bombing certainly wasn't support by them, and they couldn't even begin to organize rallies against Milosevic until after the war was over. Bombing a country isn't the best way to affect social change, as should be obvious from dealing with Iraq.
All governments make up fairy tales as to why they are attacking another country, they must do for the war to be accepted by the public. It doesn't mean it is true. If you want to see some of the real motivations for US foreign policy, go to www.stratfor.com (private intellgience agency) or if you want to read a more radical critique try reading the Noam Chomsky archive at www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm.
I'll take direct democracy over representative government any day of the week. With direct democracy, I ensure that my vote actually counts and I can't be backstabbed by an unfaithful "representative" who doesn't implement his campaign promises.
The problem with representative democracy is that it is simply selecting your master. Representatives (generally rich and powerful) often pass laws and govern in their own interests (surprise, surprise) instead of the interest of the people they are supposed to represent. It hardly even matters who the representative is, once they are in power they do pretty much the same thing. That's probably why about half of Americans don't bother to vote, they know it doesn't make any significant difference in their lives. Regardless of the representative, once they are in power they tend to do things like vote themselves obscene pay raises, declare wars which they don't have to fight (often to protect their overseas investments) and pass various laws in the interests of their financial benefactors and friends. Representative "democracy" is a poor system of government for this day and age, the ancient Greeks had it right (minus the sexism and slavery). Now we just have to write(not so hard) and implement (tricky) the software to get real democracy to work in the 21st century...
You seem to ignore certain things such as why corporations have the power they do. AOL and Time-Warner didn't just pop out of nowhere with billions of dollars. They became the powerhouses they are because *individuals* wanted the services they had to offer and gave them money for it. If the vast majority of Americans were unhappy with these corporations for a vast period of time there power would dwindle.
I think you need some courses on economics and marketing. Those corporations did not become powerful because "individuals wanted the services they had to offer", they were successfull because they were profitable.
First off what "individuals want" is molded and shaped through advertising and culture, it is not by any means solely the result of some intrinisic predefined preferences. If you don't believe this, talk to anybody who works in marketing or the "information department" (read propoganda department) of any government in the world. I mean do you really think most AOL clients picked AOL after assessing a variety of different ISPs, reading consumer reports, etc... A few did, but most of them probably got the CD in the mail, saw an ad on TV, or talked to a friend who was already a member who said it was okay. People don't have time to get good information, and advertising doesn't help matters. Just because somebody buys a product from a coporation doesn't mean they support that cooropiration, it only means at that point in time they wanted to buy that particular product or service. Buying a hockey ticket doesn't mean that the buyer supports billionaire owners, millionaire players or the latest rule change. Buying != support.
Also your argument is flawed because most of the surveys and polls I've seen show Americans hate and distrust big business (along with big government) yet they continue to purchase the products. It's not because they are hypocritical, it's that they generally don't have much choice and the alternatives presented to them (shop at little businesses) offers no real long term alternative.
What about a union? It seems like a better option to me than either quitting the job or surrendering to whatever the employer demands. Besides quitting doesn't solve the problem, this stuff is going to be going on at other workplaces, perhaps even the one you went to in order to escape the original surveillance.
No, he couldn't possibly be a freedom fighter since he is in the United States of America where freedom chimes from every street corner. Black people in the US have it real good, the fact that about a 1/3rd of young black men are in the prison system is obviously a total fluke. The fact that they are arrested more often, convicted more often, given longer sentences than the rest of the population probably is just another fluke but I'm too lazy to do the stats myself. Obviously he's a criminal, the fact that he was a member of the Black Panther Party and an award winning left wing (not "liberal") journalist was probably just to cover his being a criminal. All the people that demonstrate for his release (along with other political prisoners like AIM activist Leonard Peltier) are just deluded fools. Smart people like youself know that.38 and.44 calibre weapons are pretty much interchangable and obviously Mumia did it. All the witness who admitted to lying for the police are just backtracking to gain the attention they so desperately crave. Although Amensty International and even the mainstream media in all the countries outside the US has huge doubts about the trial and his guilt, it's good to hear that an anonymous coward like youself knows better.
What Paul George, the FBI guy, was saying is that everyone knows the FBI could be the Big Brother which is why they're regulated so tightly to prevent something like that from ever happening. He was making a point about how the FBI is being suffocated, prevented by law from being able to do its job, which is monitoring criminal activity, effectively because people are so paranoid that it could be them being monitored. You may not trust your government, but I trust mine, and frankly, I'm happy that someone out there is doing this because it's too damn easy for people to wreak havoc in this world.
The last time I checked the VAST MAJORITY of the havoc is being wrecked by governments (particulary the US government which is the world's dominant power) not by the people the FBI is going after. For instance the government that you "trust" has killed about a half a million children in Iraq over the last 8 years through sanctions which are not supported by the democractic opposition in Iraq (see the Unicef Report). It has blown up a medicine factory in Sudan, launched cruise missiles into Afganistan, invaded Yugoslavia, blown up the Chinesse embassy in Belgrade, etc... and this is just in the last couple of years. Why you want to give more power to these people is way beyond me
Slashdot Mirror
Whether Saddam is building palaces and whatever else is irrelevant to the argument of whether sanctions are killing people. He did this before the sanctions right? Nothing's changed. The variable we are talking about is the sanctions and they are killing people as confirmed by every study I know of not funded by the US government.
As to whether Saddam is expelling NGO's that are helping the population that may well be true. He is after all a murderous dictator. But the point is that before sanctions they didn't need NGO's to maintain their previous standard of living.
In any event, I've never supported Saddamm Hussein which is more than I can say for Pentagon, State Department, US military and eitherh Republicans or Democracts. I also don't support the current dictators of any of the Gulf States, again more than I can say for the US government.
Peace Now does not have a platform of Israeli surrender, it does have a platform of ending the occupation. Quite a distinction. It's the US and Israel who have rejected a Palestian State, while Arafat accepted Israel's existence back in the 80s. Israel wants an end to the violence? End the occupation. While I don't support suicide bombings, what else can you expect from an occupation.
Improvement in Afganistan? Replacing one set of warlords with another, great stuff. Wouldn't want to have elections though, another US puppet in place. Glad to see the Talbian gone, not glad to see the Northern Alliance replace them and neither are independent women's organizations in Afganistan.
BTW I'm not decrying the building of weapons, but the US isn't the guardian of liberty and peace, unless liberty means supporting dicatorship and occupation and peace means bombing Afganistan, Sudan, Libya, Serbia and anybody else in the "axis of evil".
"The problem with your argument is that the only reason that people are dying in Iraq, despite the huge amounts of money and aid being provided as part of the UN oil-for-food program is that Mr. Hussein is diverting the aid shipments to pay for palaces and tanks [tnr.com]"
This is simply not the case.
1)Prior to the invasion of Kuwait (when Saddam was a favored US dictator) the population had a relatively high standard of living for the region, with no serious malnutrition. UNICEF in 1996 put the number of children dying *as a result of sanctions* at 4500/month. Saddamm was a brutal dictator beforehand, and remains so today. But his brutality is not what makes the population suffer the way they do.
2)The article you showed which compares the two zones should mention the fact that under the current oil for food program, the Kurdish zone gets 13% of the oil for food money. The rest of the money doesn't go to the other 87% of the population, money is deducted before it even gets to Iraq for War Compensation, pipeline costs, etc... That leaves about 58% of the money going to 87% of the population. Also, as you know most of the bombing was concentrated in the South so there is more destruction there. There are also more NGO's operating in the north, 34 there versus 11 in the north (Education for Peace in Iraq Center)
Which international organizations promote peace? There are plenty, and they don't have to be international. Peace Now in Israel for instance.
As far as Pol Pot goes, the US government can hardly complain there. Nevermind their illegal and murderous carpet bombing of Cambodia which helped create him, they actually supported him in the late 70s (along with China) when they were using him as a tool against Vietnam. It was the Vietemesse who got rid of him when they invaded Cambodia, not the US.
And while the UN has lots of problems, I doubt it's peacekeepers are any less disiplined than US troops. The point with the UN is that it is a (flawed) international organization, and doesn't attack countries left, right and center. And BTW I never claimed international organizations held a moral high ground, simply that the construction of unmanned attack fighters isn't a way to build lasting peace, particular in the hands of the dominant superpower.
Ahh, you're obviously a real humanitarian promoting the latest warplane as a means of saving lives. Give us a break.
A much more likely scenario is that the US will feel free to bomb more countries since immediate casualities may well be lower. Maybe the next time the US is wiping out water treatment centers in Iraq (because it now (unlike in the 80s) has the wrong type of dictator) the number of directly killed casulities will be reduced. But the majority will still be killed later as a result of the destruction, from disease and malnutrition just like they are now. And there will be more dead since this means there is even less to hold US military power in check.
If you were serious about peace and a legitimate humanitarian you'd probably belong to any one of a number of international organizations that have promoting peace as their goal. My guess is that you are a member of exactly zero of them. You'd rather spend time justifying military spending by the world's most powerful and aggresive nation as a means of saving lives. Then you pretend you're not motivated by idealogy?! "Dipshit kneejerkers" who crazily believe that building warplanes isn't about saving lives aren't the only ones motivated by idealogy around here.
There are "more than a few nations out there whose number one priority is to exterminate us"? Give me a break. Like who for instance? Iraq? North Korea? China?
Iraq just wants the sactions lifted, and maybe Saddamm would like a piece of Kuwait but he is hardly bent on exterminating the US. If memory serves me correctly, the US attacked Iraq not the other way around.
North Korea? I'd guess the number one priority there was food, not "exterminating" the US.
China? Potentially a long term strategic threat to the US, but it is a joke to say that their number one priority is exterminating the US. Maybe you could save the #3 priority was taking/retaking Taiwain, but a nation with the capacity to build ICBM's (but has only built maybe a hundred or so) is hardly bent on exterminating the US. Choose your words more carefully, especially considering it is the US who has been doing most of the attacking and spends more on its military than the rest of the major powers combined. And no, Osama bin Laden and friends aren't a nation.
Actually tobacco is much more likely to kill its users than either cocaine and heroine (although it is close in the case of heroine). However if both drugs were legal we'd probably see those rates go down.
For the record I think PGM's are a problem, because they will allow the rich countries (primarily the US) to continue to attack the rest of the world with even less impunity. Having said that, here are my comments...
I think the atomic bombings are pretty clear cut, and I think most of the world (ignoring the US and Japan which have an obvious bias in this case) thinks they were totally uncalled for. Japan had been trying to surrender for over a year prior to the bombings, so the war could have readily been ended if there was the political will. There wasn't. The saving lives thing is an exercise in post-bombing rationalization.
I also don't think Vietnam was "hazy" in the sense you were talking about. The US invaded Vietnam to support its corrupt client state dictatorship (Diem was later assinated by the CIA when he was no longer userful) and to support American interests in the region. It's about as "hazy" as the invasion of Afganistan by the USSR As in most modern wars it is civilians who make up the bulk of the dead. I agree with your assessment as far as PGM's go, it wouldn't have made much of a difference if any.
I'm also surprised that someone who knows their politics as well as you do buys into the notion that the unprovoked NATO attack on Yugoslavia had anything to do with atrocities in Kosovo. Even leaving aside the fact that NATO does not respond that way to greater atrocities next door in Turkey, it is well reported in the foreign press that Milosevic accepted a UN peacekeeping force to go into Kosovo! The US rejected it, saying *US forces* must play a leading role leading to the war. As far as PGM's go, they wouldn't have helped considering they were simply used to better target Yugoslav infrastructure.
Body wastes don't affect business? Many businesses would disagree with you, business who time the bathroom breaks of their employees or allow employee only a few (or no) bathroom breaks during the day. What about urine testing?
Your argument that "misusing company resources is wrong" can be be taken to riduculous extremes. Some companies won't hire or promote women because they might become pregeant, thereby affecting business resources by taking maternity leave. Is this okay? Give me a break.
Considering the richest 10% own the vast majority of the country (and the planet for that matter) it seems pretty clear to me that these rich whining parasites aren't paying nearly enough taxes. You'd think that between the fat inheritance they receive from their parents, the 1st rate health care and education their parents buy them plus the government subsidies to the businesses they own they wouldn't bitch so fucking much. But oh no, they want even more. Cut the capital gains tax, give me even more money for being rich. Fuckers.
Do you even read what you post? How can you possibily argue that we didn't have food, jobs, infrastructure before "big evil corporations". Corporations didn't exist as recently as 200 years ago, yet people managed to feed themselves and do work. Also, there were no "big evil corporations in the USSR (just a big evil State), yet the Soviet Union managed to feed itself, even becoming a super power.
And no, Darwin never explained why capitalism was growing. You have a reference for that one? What you are attempting to say with your half-baked logic is that capitalism is a result of mysterious but eternal natural forces. It is however a modern economic system which did not exist even 400 years ago.
Considering Franco was a member of the fascist Falange (joined in 1955) and a personal friend of Franco this really shouldn't surprise anyone... I posted one reference for this below, but a search on google on Samaranch and fascist will turn up quite a bit more.
Utah Newspaper with Article on Samaranch
Welfare is really popular with voters?! Clinton slashed welfare during his 2 terms and it didn't hurt him politically. The real drain on NASA is from the defense budget, which is bigger than the defense budgets of the rest of the world put together (in US dollars not PPP).
Unfortunately your post isn't a troll, because I've seen you spewing the same crap in several other posts. However I plan on addressing your so called evidence for white sumpremacy since I believe it should not be left unchallenged.
First off, the correlation between "prosperity" and white rule in South Africa does not prove causation, in fact it proves almost nothing. With the same logic one could argue 1000 years ago that nothern "white" Europeans were hopelessly backward and had never produced anything of value by comparison to Muslims of North Africa, the Ashanti of West Africa, etc... I presume a white supremacist like you wouldn't go for this?
Also drawing conclusions on the relative superiority of "races" from less than 7 years of economic data strains the imagination to say the least. Perhaps you should do the same thing in the United States in the 1930s, blaming something as complicated as the Depression on the racial mix of the leadership of the US? It's riduculous. Particulary since South Africa is suffering from the AIDS crisis (like every other nation in Africa) which has little to do with the current leadership.
If you want to figure out why some countries or continents are poor and others are rich you are going to have to dig a little deeper. It has nothing to do with racial determinism and everything to do with history, geography, class struggle, religion, politics, etc... Read a little more asshole.
It's frustrating and enraging to watch a multi-billion dollar industry organize the creative energies of talented people for such a worthless cause. (Or at least worthless for anyone other than the major shareholders of the recording industry). Computer geeks should be doing things like "cracking" the protein folding problem or drawing up specs for some actually useful software (not SDMI specs). Perhaps one day...
Yeah right, Linus will have his daughter take over his position as Linux kernel manager when he dies?! OSS projects have nothing to do with monarchies!
Monarchies aren't even all that effecient either, too much energy wasted on buying luxury items for the parasitical monarchy. I'd hardly call countries like Saudi Arabia and Brunei productive and effecient. They are going to be in serious trouble when the oil money runs out...
I'm far less concerned about big corporations than I am about big government. The former wants to make money. The latter wants to tell you what to do, what to think, and how to behave, and will exercise the full power of the state if you resist.
Hah! When I went to work today it was my boss telling me what to do, not the government! Government isn't the only controlling power in our lives, most workers probably deal with their employer more than than the State.
In terms of thought control, governments are hardly alone in censoring. In fact private media which produces the bulk of censorable material and has more opportunity to censor than the government. And it does just that in order to make money and to present a good corporate image in the public mind. Churches, political parties, etc... also censor, it's not just a government thing.
In terms of actual physical control over human beings corporations are not slackers in this department. They can control how you behave from dresscodes to discouraging pregancy plus a whole host of workplace rules. This even includes prohibition of speech, such as what you can say. (Like no workplace flirting, can't talk about the last strike, etc...) Government isn't the only institution with regulations and since work is something most adults deal with a lot more than the State it is a larger problem for most people.
Finally corporations are often the ones who call down the full power of the State for their own purposes. Like Britian using gunboats to open the opium market in China, or American intervention in the Middle East. It's also usually the State that smashes picket lines at the behest of some corporation.
This is similar to the good intentions behind communism, yet in practice it has proven to be a failure.
Yeah, Russia has been a real fucking economic dynamo since the USSR dissolved. It's military has collaspsed, it's economic is in tatters, and its fighting a nasty war in Chechyna. Capitalism uber alles!
First off, Napster users aren't claiming they have "the right to take whatever they want" in general, only that music should be freely shared over the Internet. It's an important point to make, because your first sentence is dishonest in portraying napster users as current or would be felons.
In addition, I think the notion of intellectual property, particulary for music is ridiculous. "Their music"?! Claiming ownership (through licensing agreements, contracts, etc...) is simply a useful tool for extracting profit. Particulary when as you pointed out, most artist actually don't own their music, the major labels do.
For most of recorded history, the notion of music as intellectual property didn't exist. The idea that profit could be garnered and control extended even after the initial sale is essentially new to the post-scarcity world of information production. So no I don't think the music is "theirs" after it is sold, and I don't think money should be made from artists after the work of creation is done. Revenue can still be generated through concerts and performances (like it was before the invention of tapes and records) and artists can go back to being self employed labourers instead of aspiring capitalists or record industry slaves.
Perhaps if you disagree with all of this, you can start by paying the inventor of the mp3 format money for their intellectual property (which I presume you use). Then again, the inventor was probably a high tech wage slave and is receiving nothing but salary for the invention. So please tell me why the intellectual work of musicans should be privledged over others?
I find that hard to believe given the record of the Philly Police Department. We are talking about one of the most (if not the most) corrupt police department in the US. I mean it is the only police department to be sued by the U.S. Justice Department for corruption! More than 300 convictions by Philadelphia courts have been overturned because of manufactured and planted evidence used by police to frame innocent people.
This is also a police department who bombed a house and burned an entire block of Philadelphia down to crush the MOVE organization. If any one gets the benefit of the doubt, it should be the protesters in this case.
Yeah, it's amazing how badly we treat the rich. They are probably so stressed out from working hard, their life expectancy is probably half that of poor people. I mean that doesn't give themselves nearly enough time to properly run the country! We are all lucky that millionaires like Bush, Gore and Nader can take time off from work to run for political office. We should sincerely thank them all.
Furthermore the cops are always hassling rich people, which explains why there are so many millionaires in US prisons. It's not like if you are rich you get yourself a good lawyer and buy your way out of jail (OJ Simpson). Rich people are so oppressed they probably don't even have time to drive those expensive sports cars, take exotic vacations, or have time to visit the doctor to receive their high quality medical care. It's a shame too, because the rich work so damn hard for their money, It's not like if you are rich you can just put your money somewhere (bank/stocks) and have it make money without doing any work! Poor people don't know it, but they are the real masters of this country!
If "sane by a human points of view" means humane, then no, US foreign policy has not been humane since (or before) the Gulf War. There are numerous such examples (launching cruise missiles at medicine plants in Sudan, selling napalm to Turkey so it can kill Kurds, killing about a half a million children in Iraq according to UNICEF, etc...) but I'll stick with the stories you think pass for evidence as to the good intentions of the US government.
First off, I do grant you that the US government would like to see a long term ceasefire and some sort of peace in Northern Ireland. This is in the foreign policy interest of the US, so it's no surprise. As far as paying Israel for the "peace process" (which is really just setting up and formalizing an apartheid type system in Israel) that is totally incorrect. Israel was still the biggest receiptient of US aid when it was occupying South Lebanon (against the UN resolution for it to withdraw) from 1982 until just a few weeks ago. They weren't paid to get out, the war had no popular support in Israel and no strategic value anymore for Israel. Domestic pressure was probably the biggest factor, not US government money.
Furthmore the idea that the US went to war to save Kosovars is ridiculous. The US government and its allies could care less about them, look how few of them they were willing to take in significant numbers as refugees. Bombing exaceberated the situation in Kosovo (as admitted by the US general Clarke) resulting in more casualties and undermining all the efforts of domestic opposition groups inside Yugoslavia to get rid of Milosevic. The bombing certainly wasn't support by them, and they couldn't even begin to organize rallies against Milosevic until after the war was over. Bombing a country isn't the best way to affect social change, as should be obvious from dealing with Iraq.
All governments make up fairy tales as to why they are attacking another country, they must do for the war to be accepted by the public. It doesn't mean it is true. If you want to see some of the real motivations for US foreign policy, go to www.stratfor.com (private intellgience agency) or if you want to read a more radical critique try reading the Noam Chomsky archive at www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm.
I'll take direct democracy over representative government any day of the week. With direct democracy, I ensure that my vote actually counts and I can't be backstabbed by an unfaithful "representative" who doesn't implement his campaign promises.
The problem with representative democracy is that it is simply selecting your master. Representatives (generally rich and powerful) often pass laws and govern in their own interests (surprise, surprise) instead of the interest of the people they are supposed to represent. It hardly even matters who the representative is, once they are in power they do pretty much the same thing. That's probably why about half of Americans don't bother to vote, they know it doesn't make any significant difference in their lives. Regardless of the representative, once they are in power they tend to do things like vote themselves obscene pay raises, declare wars which they don't have to fight (often to protect their overseas investments) and pass various laws in the interests of their financial benefactors and friends. Representative "democracy" is a poor system of government for this day and age, the ancient Greeks had it right (minus the sexism and slavery). Now we just have to write(not so hard) and implement (tricky) the software to get real democracy to work in the 21st century...
You seem to ignore certain things such as why corporations have the power they do. AOL and Time-Warner didn't just pop out of nowhere with billions of dollars. They became the powerhouses they are because *individuals* wanted the services they had to offer and gave them money for it. If the vast majority of Americans were unhappy with these corporations for a vast period of time there power would dwindle.
I think you need some courses on economics and marketing. Those corporations did not become powerful because "individuals wanted the services they had to offer", they were successfull because they were profitable.
First off what "individuals want" is molded and shaped through advertising and culture, it is not by any means solely the result of some intrinisic predefined preferences. If you don't believe this, talk to anybody who works in marketing or the "information department" (read propoganda department) of any government in the world. I mean do you really think most AOL clients picked AOL after assessing a variety of different ISPs, reading consumer reports, etc... A few did, but most of them probably got the CD in the mail, saw an ad on TV, or talked to a friend who was already a member who said it was okay. People don't have time to get good information, and advertising doesn't help matters. Just because somebody buys a product from a coporation doesn't mean they support that cooropiration, it only means at that point in time they wanted to buy that particular product or service. Buying a hockey ticket doesn't mean that the buyer supports billionaire owners, millionaire players or the latest rule change. Buying != support.
Also your argument is flawed because most of the surveys and polls I've seen show Americans hate and distrust big business (along with big government) yet they continue to purchase the products. It's not because they are hypocritical, it's that they generally don't have much choice and the alternatives presented to them (shop at little businesses) offers no real long term alternative.
What about a union? It seems like a better option to me than either quitting the job or surrendering to whatever the employer demands. Besides quitting doesn't solve the problem, this stuff is going to be going on at other workplaces, perhaps even the one you went to in order to escape the original surveillance.
No, he couldn't possibly be a freedom fighter since he is in the United States of America where freedom chimes from every street corner. Black people in the US have it real good, the fact that about a 1/3rd of young black men are in the prison system is obviously a total fluke. The fact that they are arrested more often, convicted more often, given longer sentences than the rest of the population probably is just another fluke but I'm too lazy to do the stats myself. Obviously he's a criminal, the fact that he was a member of the Black Panther Party and an award winning left wing (not "liberal") journalist was probably just to cover his being a criminal. All the people that demonstrate for his release (along with other political prisoners like AIM activist Leonard Peltier) are just deluded fools. Smart people like youself know that .38 and .44 calibre weapons are pretty much interchangable and obviously Mumia did it. All the witness who admitted to lying for the police are just backtracking to gain the attention they so desperately crave. Although Amensty International and even the mainstream media in all the countries outside the US has huge doubts about the trial and his guilt, it's good to hear that an anonymous coward like youself knows better.
The last time I checked the VAST MAJORITY of the havoc is being wrecked by governments (particulary the US government which is the world's dominant power) not by the people the FBI is going after. For instance the government that you "trust" has killed about a half a million children in Iraq over the last 8 years through sanctions which are not supported by the democractic opposition in Iraq (see the Unicef Report). It has blown up a medicine factory in Sudan, launched cruise missiles into Afganistan, invaded Yugoslavia, blown up the Chinesse embassy in Belgrade, etc... and this is just in the last couple of years. Why you want to give more power to these people is way beyond me