I just had a friend come back from India, and it pisses me off that the airwaves are getting choked up with manufactured news when there are PREVENTABLE tragedies that are happening all over the world. But, we don't talk them because fixing them would require eating into corporate profits, and we can't have that...(yes, that's sarcasm)
Yes, as are the stories of babies getting trapped in a well, etc., because those last a few days and can be built up. What about if it happens immediately, does it get any publicity? What if those miners died right away? I just wish that people would take time to get upset about other things(not just what the tv decides to make important), such as the growing number of working poor in our country, sweatshops, etc., which can contribute more to loss of life, and even more tragicly, these things are PREVENTABLE, but it requires us to spend money, which is probably why our corporate controlled news doesn't report it.
And yes, I agree it IS a tragedy any time human life is lost, and as Americans and people of the world, we should have same sympathy ANY time human life is lost, not just for well publicized events such as this.
If these same seven individuals were coal miners that lost their lives in a coal mine collapse, and the space shuttle was unmanned, and blew up on the same day, which would get more news coverage and why?
Re:Ramblings on overpriced labor & ecology
on
Giant Sucking Noise
·
· Score: 1
No, you outsource to where the skills are at the best price. Its called a free market economy. Its kinda the same concept that American became properous under. Bit of a two-edged sword, huh?
That might be a good point if it weren't completely false. If you'll study American history, industries were built up through massive social spending and government regulation, not the "free market". If we didn't impose tariffs when our industries were first forming, they would have been decimated by European textile industries, which were far more advanced. The same is true in agriculture, which to this day is heavily subsidized in the US(but we don't allow third world countries to subsidize their agriculture, because it would violate "free" market principles). In fact, almost every country that is industrialized, without exception, has become industrialized by violating the principles of the "free market". Not only that, almost every major industry has gotten massive government subsidies at one time or another, either in the form of market manipulation, or in the form of direct subsidy. Now that we know this is true after thinking about it for a couple of seconds, why would the rich in our country be so eager to force poorer countries to remove tarrifs to the "free" market? Could it be that they want unhindered, unbridled domination over industries in the third world, and to use their population as slave labor?
Gee, I must be talking crazy talk again, you're right, corporations are doing it for the good of the third world, and we just need to learn to give up our labor rights(including weekends, benefits, etc.), which of course are irrelevant, and start working like slaves.:)
Getting paid $11,000 a year in a place where others only get $1,0000 a year is not exactly 'getting screwed'.
Sure it is, only unlike the rest of the population of India, they are getting screwed with a smile on their face, at least for now. I never said that they weren't doing well in a relative sense compared to the majority of Indians. What I did say is that it is only temporary, and that they are not being paid enough to start their own businesses and compete on equal ground with American companies. The true assets of India, such as power generation, water production, natural resources, etc., are being bought out by multi-nationals such as Enron, and unfortunately, Enron is the only one that was corrupt enough to collapse. The rest are able to keep their dishonesty and corruption under enough control to use it to screw over others and not themselves. Yes, they are getting used, and taken out of context, it seems great. Put it back in the context of reality, the big picture, and what is really happening is that there employment will only last as long as it's profitable. As the purchasing power of the majority of American's fades, so will the need for much of this software, leaving a ghost town where currently there is a thriving industry. This doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out.
Here is a decent article that describes in better detail the crisis that is happening in Mexico. They show the adjusted salaries of Mexicans in 1993 pesos, rather than using the misleading numbers that you show, which fail to adjust for the complete collapse of the peso in 1995(a year after NAFTA was implemented, it must have been a coincidence). Take a look at table 2-3, which shows a 40% drop in Mexican wages between 1991 and 1998. Their wages have eroded further since 1998, since they are getting hit even harder by our economic downturn than we are. In case you are wondering where this paper get it's numbers from, it is getting the numbers from Mexico's census bureau, which is much more in-depth, and quite a bit less white-washed than the corporate PR crap than the "better numbers" that you have submitted.
Do you ever ask yourself why people voluntarily walk into sweat shops?
Of course not, as I'm sure you can tell, I don't do much thinking at all. I agree with you that those horrible jobs are the best ones available currently. However, people shouldn't be allowed to make outrageous sums of money from it. You are correct that local businesses are getting driven out of existence. However, many local elites in government are getting rich. Since the wealthy and government are inextricably linked in most 3rd world countries, the ultra-rich do just fine with free trade. It is the middle class businesses that get destroyed.
Much of globalization is about allowing multinationals the power to buy previously publicly owned resources such as land, water, oil, metals, etc. The wealthy elites in these 3rd world governments are getting enormously wealthy off the kickbacks they receive for selling off these resources. There is a small percentage of very wealthy people in Mexico whose wealth has increased dramatically due to free trade, and those numbers are skewing the statistics. The numbers you show from unido fail to take into account the collapse of the peso(nor do they even mention it), which was an absolute economic disaster for Mexico. That is why the salaries are hyper inflated. They also fail to show the rising disparity in income between the rich and the poor in Mexico, and the growing poverty levels as small businesses in Mexico are getting destroyed by international competition. It fails to discuss the fact that if Mexicans try to organize for higher wages, they risk getting shot, and that companies laying off their entire staff in order to clear out the rif-raff and drive wages down is a common practice. But hey, if you want to tell yourself it's a great system, feel free.
Firstly, what exactly are they supposed to do about it?
That's the whole point, free trade makes it nearly impossible for governments to set a fair wage for it's workers. It effectively reduces worker's rights to zero. It gives all the power to corporations to shop for the cheapest labor, while keeping the barrier to market entry extremely high for businesses in 3rd world countries. So, the end result is that 3rd world countries are not enjoying the profits from this labor, since they aren't the ones that own the businesses.
Secondly, how do you figure that it's $60,000 worth of work?
How does a price for anything get set? It's a balancing act of supply and demand and competitive pressure. When there is no longer a balance, then certain things end up being grossly undervalued, while others are grossly over-valued. So, for example, with a huge amount of labor, and competition, wages are kept low, and are getting lower. However, on the top end, businesses are consolidating and are giving people less and less options. The end result is that the current system is creating an artificial imbalance, and yes, it is by design.
Part of this artificial imbalance is the extension of corporate power and priveledge that was granted at the end of the American civil war. It effectively allows businesses to grow very large and last an indefinite amount of time. The end result is that businesses are allowed to consolidate and increase their bargaining power vs labor which is fragmented and weak. On the other side, labor has Unions, but they have no investors, and only go as far as the government lets them. With free trade, corporations are allowed to usurp labor regulations and pit country against country, pushing them to get rid of labor rights.
That's the problem, the free market rewards capital(and those whose only "contribution" is owning it) more than it does labor. We are quickly entering an age where the need for labor is effectively being reduced year after year, both by modernization and extreme concentrations of wealth. People always talk about these fairy tale visions where businesses will keep busting their ass to find a way to use the "excess labor". But, that's only true if there are people with money to spend. Once the majority of people have nothing to spend, the economy will stagnate, and people will be laid off in massive numbers. After all, what business reason can you come up with to create a product to sell to people with no money and no hope of making money?
The only way we can keep the free market even remotely fair and competitive is by evening out wages and not allowing consolidation of business and wealth. If the majority of industries are allowed to consolidate, and then pay the lowest wages possible to workers, the end result is that competition will disappear and the free market will collapse. It will become a dictatorship of the wealthy, where wages are as low as possible, and hopes of starting one's own business that can compete with multi-national conglomerates will be a far away dream.
As I said in the post below, a violent revolution is the worst way to solve social problems and would likely set our society back 100 years. It would also be catastrophic, in the sense that huge numbers of people would be slaughtered, it might literally wipe us off the face of the earth. 200 years ago, people didn't have to fight against modern weapons. Violent struggle is not an option. Waking people up is an option. The wealthy don't want strife any more than we do, and will back off if people organize. In our current society, we don't need a violent revolution, the only revolution that needs to happen is for people to turn off their tv sets and quit buying into the corporate public relations assault on their mind.
The only difference is that in a global economy, the plutocrats are much harder to find. For example, how many multi-millionaires live in your city, and who are they? You don't know? Exactly, you don't know. Historically, people knew who they were. The weatlhy in our society live insulated existances, and given the power that "free" trade and globalization gives them, they can always move to an island if things get too rough. The second factor that makes this different than history is technology. If you don't believe me, take a look at countries where wealth differences are huge, like Mexico. Why aren't the leaders hanging from lamp posts? Because, modern technology allows a relatively small group of men to slaughter much larger unarmed groups with ease.
200 years ago peopls didn't have to fight against an arsenal of nukes, biological weapons, armored tanks, remote controlled missiles, and machine guns that can rip them to shreds. Modern armies, such as the US army, are also much better trained. Now, by training, I'm not talking about physical training, I'm talking about brainwashing, so that if they get the kill command, they'll go out and slaughter whatever is in front of them. And, just in case there is any twinge of guilt, the wealthy in our country are working on developing more and more "manless" planes and weapons, that won't have the weakness of a conscience. Surveillance and control are also much greater in our current society, which is another obstacle people would have to overcome in order to organize in large enough groups to "hang people from lamp posts". And, finally, there wasn't tv 200 years ago. Ideological propaganda consisted mainly of religious control, and once people started questioning the church all hell broke loose. Today there is much more sophistaced propaganda, and it is much, much more effective. Given all this, can people overcome these obstacles? Yes, they can. But don't think that it will be a cake walk. Don't think that it will happen so fast that people will realize what is happening. It might take 20-30 years, and chances are, people won't quite understand what is going on. If they do hang someone from the lamp posts, it might be figureheads such as politicians, but the people behind the scences will be safe and sound. A true revolution that you speak of would be extremely difficult, and to be quite frank, is the absolute worst way to solve social problems. All that is necessary is that people become aware of what is going on enough to organize for their rights. Once this happens, the plutocrats will back off(yes, they are aware of history enough to back down, but only when necessary). Unfortunately, waking up Americans is the most difficult task of all.
2. Don't pass the savings(caused by using cheaper labor) on to middle class Americans, thus causing money to move from the middle class, which is getting laid off, to the utlra-rich.
Yes, it is disgusting, which is why I am trying to educate myself as much as I can about what is going on so that hopefully I can make a difference. You have to at least try, there isn't much choice, either that or you can watch your livelihood and freedom disappear. What's more disturbing than this is the complete control over information that the media here in the US has. I was talking about free trade with a co-worker of mine, and he is a bright guy, in his 40's and completed his undergrad and masters at MIT in 4 years. He had no understanding whatsoever of what free trade is doing. I told him that wages have dropped 60% for Mexicans workers since NAFTA was instated in 1992 and that it is destroying their economy as well as hurting ours and he didn't believe me. He honestly thought that it was helping Mexicans and that things would get better in America once things evened out. While Mexico's GDP has in fact risen, the majority of workers are making much less, while a very small percentage is profiting immensely. He honestly did not understand that if we only pay Mexican workers $2 a day that they won't have enough to spend on products that we produce, and that the money that is being made is flowing into the hands of the ultra-rich, with only a fraction going to 3rd world workers. Programmers in India are the exception, not the rule, and even they are grossly underpaid. Most foreign workers barely survive while working grueling days in sweatshop conditions. But people here in the US don't know about it. And, programmers in India are too short-sighted to realize that by only getting paid $11,000 a year for $60,000 worth of work, that they are getting screwed too.
Exactly. Free trade is all about consolidation, not about helping 3rd world countries. Here's how consolidation works.
1. Move jobs overseas, and pay a mere fraction of what you are paying to American employees. 2. Don't pass the costs on to middle class Americans, thus causing money to move from the middle class, which is getting laid off, to the utlra-rich. 3. Encourage Americans to make up for loss of income by working longer hours and going into massive amounts of high-interest debt. 4. Lay off more American workers. 5. As US workers begin to default on home loans and auto loans, buy back their homes and their possesions for pennies on the dollar. 6. Use this massive amount of wealth to buy the capital of other countries(such as land and natural resources) for pennies on the dollar, since there is no way that an Indian worker making 11,000 a year will have the buying power of a multi-billion dollar company. 7. Now that Americans are as destitute as the the 3rd world, and the economy has slowed down, there is no longer a need for 3rd world workers, so fire 3rd world workers and grab all of the productive resources. 8. Smile, as you and the top 1% of the world's population own the majority of wealth of the world, and have a desperate, hungry population willing to do anything to serve you.
Here is the thing to keep in mind about the worker in India. There increase in wealth is only temporary! The majority of profits from their work is flowing into the hands of ultra-wealthy Western investors. While it is arguable that they can "live like kings" on $11,000 a year, this does not mean that they can buy capital. And this is the problem, since if they can't form their own business and make profits of their own, then they are getting used just as bad as the American middle class. Think about it, if someone in India wanted to compete head on with US software, they would have to market their products in countries that would buy these products for the most money, such as the US. But marketing and advertising, as well as buying capital such as computers, is expensive, and US companies have a distinct advantage in this area, since they have alot more capital. So, while it may appear that Indians are propsering, the majority of these profits are going to the ultra-rich. Once the leaching of wealth from the 1st world middle class is complete, there will no longer be a need for foreign workers, the economy will collapse in a very similar way to the 2001 "market correction". Only, it will be much worse.
So, let me repeat, this isn't about increasing profits, it's not about helping the 3rd world, it's about consolidation, pure and simple.
Still a bit silly, but Big Pharma isn't willing to spend the R&D $ on it without that protection.
What you really mean is that Big Pharma isn't willing to take tax payer dollars that are used to fund biomedical research with the "right" to patent that research? Hmmm, since it's the American taxpayer that is funding much of this research, doesn't turning and giving these companies the "right" to patent this stuff reek of corruption? I know, I must be insane to think that we have a corrupt government that could allow for the trampling of rights to make a few people extremely rich.
If the new techologies were easy, cheap and simple to make, I think you're right, we'd have them by now. But they're at least as hard to make as LCDs (in quantity), and even if there are operational advantages to the new panels the display makers aren't going to junk billions in LCD fabs just like that.
Actually, this isn't true. Once the OLED displays are mass produced, it is estimated that they will at most cost 80% of what it costs to make a similar LCD. I think you had it right when you said that it was the barrier to entry. LCD displays have a big lead in scale of economy, and it will be awhile before OLED's ramp up to the same volume. In fact, manufacturers have said exactly what you are saying, so it's not a conspiracy. They have already introduced this technology in the mobile phone market, and are starting there first. Then they plan on moving to laptop displays in the next 5-10 years, and then finally tv sets. The reason they are doing this is exactly for the reasons that you have mentioned, the price to entry for the mobile phone and small display market is cheapest, while laptop and tv display manufacturing is alot more cutthroat. So, there's no conspiracy, just simple logistics of transitioning to a new technology.
But the person I was speaking to claimed that America does not "deserve" democracy because in order to wield such self-determinative power effectively, one has to be capable of forming an informed opinion. This is something she apparently thought little of the American public's ability to do.
I had a friend of mine say a few weeks ago when discussing the war on Iraq that "People are sheep.". After debating his low opinion of American society I finally retored, "Then you are a sheep." He seemed confused and wondered what my point was. The point I made is that that elitism is part of the game that is played against us to keep us in line. A lot of us don't know about the issues. Those that are able to become educated are encouraged to become elitist, and the system that we have in place encourages people to do this. However, this only serves to work against the majority of us who do not have economic power. By working against the rest of Americans, rather than educating them and mobilizing them in our cause, we are actually alienating them from our cause. By doing this, we serve those who have power over us.
But is she right?
No, NO, absolutely not. She is completely, and absolutely, wrong. I'll give you some advice about how to debate with points such as this. Any time someone tells you something, and your gut tells you that they are wrong, just remember that ideas, and philosophies, cannot be evaluated without a proper context. Strive to put discussions of politics in the context of the real world, and you will be greatly aided in your efforts.
She may actually have a point. How are we to form opinions regarding the direction of our communities, states and the country at large? By reading the newspapers?
Well, if you want to know how, you're looking at it. The internet. It's the first two-way mass media medium that our society has ever had, and it IS having an affect on society.
I also find the use of the word DESERVE, to be offensive. Freedom and rights are inalienable. Freedom and power should only be given to leaders if there is strong evidence for doing so. The fact that our leaders have failed at designing a fair educational system that gives the same opportunity to every one does not make a strong case for handing power over to them. In the real world, the reason a person drops out of high school is usually the fact that they belong to an oppressed group. They are victims of the racially motivated "war on drugs", which attacks primarily poor people, who just happen to be black. They are victims of economically depressed areas. So, what does your friend say is the solution to the fact that many Americans are given substandard education, and as a result are forced to work oppressive, low paying jobs that leaves them little time to become educated? Her solution is to oppress them further by claiming that they aren't of the same class of human. She is implying that stupidity is an inherent trait, that cannot be remedied through education or a change in environment. This kind of thinking has spawned all sorts of movements, from eugenics to genocide, and should be challenged any time it rears it's ugly head.
Why is this reasoning attractive to your friend? It's attractive for the same reason it's attractive to the true elites in America, that top 1% that owns 40% of the wealth(and climbing). The reason it is attractive is that it justifies power without responsibility.
I'll quote a comment I made in a previous topic:
"In order to understand the position of the wealthy, just imagine yourself in room with a bunch of people who are homeless or are members of the growing working poor in our country. Try explaining to them why you make $60,000+ a year for 50 hours a week, while many of them work for 70+ hours a week for a third of that. Well, of course your first defense is not to put yourself in that position, so you will tend to avoid "those kinds of people". You will also spend a great deal of time justifying your extra wealth and economic power by saying, "I work hard", "I'm smart", and "You guys are just as free to go to a college as I was", nevermind the fact that many of them went to substandard schools and were constantly told that they were stupid throughout their lives by their parents and society in general. Now, take someone that makes a million a year, and multiply the amount of time spent justifying that power and wealth by a few orders of magnitude. Pretty soon, their entire way of life is not about working hard to actually produce something, but instead justifying why they need so much power. Of course, they won't call it power, they call it freedom, so that you will think that you are just as "free" as they are. Entire ideologies will be formed to justify and promote this power, with armies of men and women working in public relations to support your position to the public at large. Then, jump up to the level of a billionaire, and it becomes obvious what the agenda is about."
Unfortunately for your friend, unless she has somehow managed to find her way into that top 1%, she is also on the losing side. By allowing herself to be divided from the classes below her who could be her best allies in the fight for justice, she is also a sheep. With globalization looming on the horizon, it is only a matter of time before US capital is sent around the world at the expense of Americans and workers everywhere, while entire populations are held hostage by national borders. It's a shell game that is being set up to empty your pockets, and play entire countries against each other. Democracy is our only weapon against this.
Well, that certainly helps more than watching the five o'clock news, but is that even as good as reading publications like the Foreign Affairs [foreignaffairs.org] quarterly or watching the BBC World News? Personally speaking, I think these are a better source of information on the world scene than most newspapers that I am personally aware of. I also don't think these sources of information are quite on the scale of the five o'clock news. But even I don't have the will or wherewithal of time and energy to acquaint myself with all of the issues facing my own elected officials. I certainly consider myself no activist, but more aware than the average "USA Today" reader.
I'll check out those websites, currently I read http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm for my information.
Theoretically, having a republic should work in a similar manner to an ideal direct democracy. The issues plauging our democratic republic are not necessarily inherent in representative government. They are inherent in representative government that is corrupt. The sources of corruption are of course the funding that comes from sources such as PAC's, which have a huge influence on legislation. If you don't beleive me, just look at the DMCA, it passed 99-0. NAFTA had similar numbers, and both seek to screw over Americans while promoting corporate interests.
As far as not having time goes, I wouldn't worry about that. With the way the economy is going, many of us could find ourselves with more free time than we bargained for. The solution in my opinion is not just promoting democracy. We need to try different economic models. Capitalism results in large excesses and only works if there is quite a bit of intervention. The "free market" that we preach to the rest of the world is nothing more than a con game to get thirld world countries to completely open their borders to our industries. Here in the US, we subsidize our industry all over the place, in the most undemocratic manner possible, and the wealthy people who benefit from these subsidies are then allowed to lay off 1,000's of workers and move to Mexico. Then, in cooperation with the corrupt goverment of Mexico and other countries, they are allowed to work people for pennies on the dollar, while at the same time enjoying US government subsidies, at your expense.
So, what she had to say made me think of Robert D. Kaplan's [barnesandnoble.com] view that democracies require a few basic elements in order to function, and without them they fail as they have repeatedly in places like Africa and South America:
High Literacy Rate Functioning Beureaucracy Functioning Economy
Yes, but they failed for other reasons too. We have a high enough literacy rate. The solution that we need is getting information to people, and promoting different economic models, such as Parecon and prout. You can read more about these at www.parecon.org and www.prout.org.
I haven't read much about prout, but I have about parecon, and they both seem like they could compete with normal businesses in the "free market". In other words, these are democratic institutions that do not promote having a central planner, or dictator in charge in the way that the soviet union and Marx did. So, as a result, change over to these economic systems would not require a revolution or for all of society to join in. They retain some socialist principles, such as promoting economic justice, while ditching others, such as the idea of having a class of economic planners or rewarding people based on need rather than effort. Whatever we do, we need to get the truth out that markets are not free, nor has any developed society ever had completely free markets. If we left it up to the free market, entire industries would collapse, and agriculture, which is heavily subsidized, would be subject to a volatile market, can you imagine that? Can you imagine not having certain kinds of food or doing without food because of market fluctuations? No one in their right mind would promote this, not even the 'free market' zealouts in government.
I would agree with all three of his requisite conditions, but how can we have it work and work really well if the all of the major news media organs of our culture are owned by fewer and fewer multinational corporations as author Ben Bagdikian [barnesandnoble.com] pointed out with such ominous presciense? What company would allow one subsidiary openly criticize another subsidary, both of which are funneling money upwards? If you ask me, we are neither a true democracy nor a republic, but a coropate oligarchy.
This problem is also described in Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent". Yes, the conflict of interest is there in the media, and the way to combat it is to turn to alternate media. So, how do we solve this problem? The answer is to take it upon yourself to educate people. Turn them on to the media that is out there on the internet. The internet provides an incredible opportunity to go to a country's website and get their opinion on things. Tell them to go to the many alternative media websites that are out there and explain why it is better than watching the news on tv. This stuff takes time, but it is worth it. Change is possible, and many of the freedoms that we enjoy today are there because people such as you and I got off our butts and did something about the problems around us. It's not impossible, hell, I've got my 55 year old mother reading Chomsky, so anything is possible.
I agree, having a shadow government is a good idea. It would be informal, at least at first, but it would be a good way of holding politicians accountable. You are correct about security being an issue, but it's not impossible.
In the current state of affairs, we are sorely missing a fourth check, in the US system of checks and balances. The problem with our current system is that is soley based on representation. There should be a fourth channel to directly represent popular opinion. Of course, representative government is only a problem in societies where there is a huge imbalance in other forms of power such as economic power, and where this power is allowed to influence government. There are two solutions to this, the first is that we could get rid of the huge differences in wealth, and try to minimize them as much as possible. The second is to get rid of PAC's.
So, if someone kills people, seeks NBC weaponry for use against an undefined threat, denies any form of rule by the people, and consistently acts as a violator of human rights...then it's fine with you as long as he wasn't involved with 9/11? You mean to say that the only reason to stop evil is if it was tied to a single incident? EVERYTHING IN OUR LIVES MUST REVOLVE AROUND THAT ONE INCIDENT?! Holy shit. I can't brush my teeth, because there's no connection between plaque and 9/11. We can't prosecute criminals, because they aren't tied to 9/11. We can't fight the DMCA, because it's not tied to 9/11. Thanks for telling me. I was going to be for all that behavior. But I didn't know they were not tied to 9/11.
Taken out of context, your point makes alot of sense. Taken in the context of the current discussion, we can see that ZoneKeeper is using the implied accusation the Hussein funded the Al Queada network as an excuse to attack Iraq. I then made the point that Hussein has nothing to do with Al Queada.
I never said that absolving Hussein of responsibility for the terrorist acts of 9/11 would remove all justifications for having a War with Iraq. So, while your point is valid, I'm really not sure who you are arguing with.
Here's why: If we say we want to attack Saudi Arabia, various European countries will scream like they are now over Iraw. Even if we provide proof that they are tied to terror, they all have their own deals with Saudi Arabia in regards to oil (yeah, it may surprise you, but the US isn't the only buyer of Middle-East Oil).
This is only partially true. Not only does Europe have deals with Saudi Arabia, but so does our government, which provides them from quite a bit of immunity from any retribution that the American people might want for their funding of terrorist networks. The whole point of this comment was to show that we really aren't attacking Iraq because they are funding terrorists, which is what ZoneKeeper was implying.
So...if we try to stem radicalism in another country by supporting someone and that someone commences doing bad stuff, we shouldn't stop him? Oh year, we can't. He's not tied to 9/11.
By studying logic one learns that simply proving the antecedent is false does not necessarily imply that the consequent is also false. I have merely shown that the antecedent, which is the assumption, "Hussein supports Al Queada", to be false. It does not follow that just because I have proven that this is false that we should not go to war. This is not a strong proof, I am not proving that without a doubt that we should not go to war with Iraq, and yes, I am aware of that fact. The idea in proving the antecedent is false in this case, is to raise a level of doubt to the truth of the consequent, which is, "we should go to War with Iraq". By removing all pretexts and justifications, I therefore have created a strong level of doubt, which is the purpose of stating that the antecedent is false. By no means does a false antecedent necessarily imply a false consequent. And, all ZoneKeeper needs to do is come up with a good reason, and justification for a War with Iraq might make more sense. He has not done this.
Furthermore, raising a level of doubt about the guilt of Iraq is all we should have to do. When waging War, we should always operate with the idea that when in doubt about the truth of the statement "therefore we should go to war", that we should in fact assume this statement is false. I don't have to prove that the above statement is false. I merely need to prove the pretexts false. It then follows that since we are a civilized society that we will avoid war. So, I don't have to prove that going to war is always a bad idea, just that it is in this case.
This is also the reasoning behind our court system of "innocent until proven guilty". The same concept should apply to pretexts for a just war. Unless a strong case is made for going to war, then we shouldn't.
Well, those in the US who were taken away, most have been returned (watch the news closely. The liberal news media loves to avoid reporting things that make the military look decent, so they bury it below the fold on page A32), except the ones with shady backgrounds and connections (like traveling back and forth between the US and Iran several times a year on a $10,000 a year job while going to college without parental funding). And most of the people going on the "military tribunal" trials are guys who were found in the field with other fighters wielding AK's and shooting at US troops. I know, you hate the US military, even if the guys you join are people just like you, they have less of a right to live, because they decided to take a different path to achieve financial security and a strong educational background.
Who do you think you are to question my level of support for Americans, including those who join the Military? You have alot of nerve, I'll give you that, but you certainly won't convince me of anything by using that tone. I may not always support the actions of our Military, but that does not mean that I wish them ill will, nor would I blame some kid fresh out of high school, looking to get a leg up in life, for following the commands that he is required to follow. Instead, what I question is the ability of a hawkish president, who was AWOL for the first year and a half of his term in the Coast Guard to be able to empathize or even give a shit about the needs of the working and middle class people such as my friends and family.
Also, I have yet to understand when "innocent until proven guilty" is a "liberal" concept. If that's the concept of a liberal, then yes, I suppose I'm guilty of that belief.
It is? I'd think that if we were only after oil, we'd go take over Kuwait, which has more oil, and no military to speak of.
Why bother? They are an ally of ours, and we are able to get the kind of agreements we want out of them. It's not about turning Iraq into the 51st state, it's merely about economic control. It's about the ability to set prices and negotiate terms of agreement. This is very difficult to do with the current Iraq regime, but it does not give us the right to attack them.
In addition, you seem to have a laspe of intellegence here. If we were after oil (because having Bush in your name automagically makes you a war-mongering, oil-chugging beast), why would we put out the fires that Saddam set to the oil wells in Kuwait, then rebuild the oil fields...and turn them over to the Kuwaiti government. We were under no requirement to do so. We could've occupied those oil wells. Technically, they still belong to American companies, but they were stolen from those companies when these Middle-East monarchies nationalized all oil-related property. In addition, if Bush was going after helping his oil buddies, why would we want MORE oil?
Controlling oil isn't simply about helping a few of his buddies. Certainly this will help out the major oil distributors, who are the middlemen in the is equation. However, it's also about economic control of other countries. By taking control of Iraq's oil, either directly(unlikely), or through heavily influencing their government once the war is over, the US will have the power over a vast amount of the world's oil resources. This is yet another way to hold entire economies of countries that don't do what we say hostage. So, for example, if North Korea does not do what we want, then we can simply cut off their supply of oil. See how it works?
Technically, they'd want less oil, because in the US, texas oil fields are still a major part. We actually get alot more oil from Russia, Mexico, and a few other non-Middle East countries, in addition to our own oil supply (which, while not filling 100% of our oil needs, is nothing to balk at).
Good point, but it's not about filling our oil needs. It's also not about helping out a few oil millionaires in Texas. It's about obtaining the power and control to drive the massive corporate globalization campaign that is taking place under the guise of "free trade". It's about economic imperialism. Controlling the majority of oil is a huge advantage.
Logically, if Bush was looking to satisfy his American oil friends, what he'd do is lower the amount of imports, so the Texas Oil guys could jack up prices and increase profits.
Again, your focus is a bit too narrow. NOTE: I AM AGAINST THE WAR IN IRAQ. I am simply tired of stupid reasons against the war, rather than the one simple reason why not: We shouldn't have one single soldier in the Middle East, unless he or she is on vacation.
You should have been here to see the expression on my face when I read the above comment, your corrossive comments up until this point certainly had me fooled. We have no business meddling in their affairs. End of story.
I agree. It's not about oil, it's not about 9/11 (and noone has ever linked it to 9/11, except scattered media reports about Mohammed Atta), and it's not about democracy.
It is about oil, but I agree with the rest of what you say. It is about the globalism that the UN started. This is the road that the UN paved, interventionism at any cost.
That's so far off base that I won't even laugh. First, Bush and his administration are the ones trying to go to war with Iraq, with next to no support from the rest of the world, and Bush had to lobby quite a bit to get UN support. Bush dicates his agenda to the UN, not the other way around.
A future where national sovereignty and elections are a thing of the past. Just think about it. Have you ever voted on your UN Delegate? Didn't think so. Odd they have the power to do a ton of things to people's countries.
Yes, you are correct, globalization will destroy national sovereignty. However, the globalization that is behind the War on Iraq is part of the corporate and elite agenda, not the UN's. The UN merely acts as a puppet for US interests. And when it does not, it is rendered irrelevant. If the UN had any real power over us, then we would have had a much harder time going to war with Afghanistan. We also would be subject to the same weapons reduction programs that other countries are subject to by the UN. I also agree that UN delegates should be elected, and that in order for it to be truly democratic corporate sponsorship of election financing (through the use of PACs) should be made illegal.
Get rid of the first three words in the above post and it will make sense. Again, sorry, this is what happens when you revise sentences as you type them. I must need more caffeine.
remove the words this sentence: "Believe me, the complete lack of evidence when it comes to linking Iraq with Bin Laden isn't without extreme lack of effort on the part of our government." should be: "Believe me, the complete lack of evidence when it comes to linking Iraq with Bin Laden isn't without extreme effort on the part of our government." Sorry about that.
"Regarding Point 1. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. They may be bitter enemies, but they have a common enemy they hate worse than each other. Us. Applying that little nugget from there on, the rest of your argument falls by the wayside."
One could use that same reasoning to say that since both the US and Iraq hate Bin Laden, that the US and Iraq are friends. Of course, we know that this is not true, and it follows that your proposal is equally without merit. If there were merit, then there would have been proof by now. Believe me, the complete lack of evidence when it comes to linking Iraq with Bin Laden isn't without extreme lack of effort on the part of our government. They've been trying for years, and they haven't come up with anything. I think that if you were able to convince them that easily, then the people that you have been talking to simply aren't aware of the issues, or are not used to arguing against skilled opponents.
Sorry it took so long to respond. No, there aren't any consumer oriented hi-def DVD's out there. You can make your own, but basicly, what that amounts to is encoding the content on your PC, and playing back on your PC. Unfortunately, the industry hasn't agreed on a standard for hi-def DVD's(i.e., whether to use blue laser DVD's or use better encoding, or both), so although the technology is there(at least as far as better encoding is concerned), it will be awhile before you can go to blockbuster and buy a DVD in hi-def, however, you CAN buy hi-def tapes. Currently, if you want to buy stuff that plays in hi-def format, you have to fork out about $900 for JVC's HM-DH3000U, which is a hi-def VCR. I think the tapes hold something like 28 Gigabytes of material, which will last for I think 2-4 hours in hi-def mode. That's the problem with current DVD's and mpeg2, there is no way that you can fit any appreciable amount of hi-def content on the current DVD format IF you are using mpeg2. Using Mpeg4 is one way to work around this. Another way is to increase the storage capacity, which requires a different medium.
As to your question of what broadcasters are doing. This is my best guess from what I have read, so it might not be entirely accurate, but I do know that they aren't getting their hi-def content through DVD. Most of their stuff is stored on tape or some other proprietary medium, such as keeping it on hard disks. With movies, HBO takes the movies and converts it to digital. Or, they take the master digital copy(if the movie producer already has it in digital format), and then optimize it for hi-def showing. With the advent of consumer oriented players such as the JVC unit described above, soon they will be able to ditch these proprietary methods and avoid having to do this work themselves.
ABC delivered football in 720p back when it was doing Monday Night Football in hi-def a couple of years ago. I think CBS is 1080i for everything, and currently they are broadcasting playoffs in HD. Fox uses their own crappy Fox widescreen, which isn't true hi-def. It's broadcast at 480p in 16:9 format. It's still better than interlaced, but not as good as hi-definition.
"If, on the other hand, you mean that Americans understand rewards based on results, and not on effort, then that's something else entirely. Traditionally, Americans have been in favor of hard work--because it's associated with results, and it's the results that get rewarded."
Yes, this is exactly what I mean. Unfortunately, we don't always notice that usually people acheive great results only with the help and hard work of others. So, for example, and this is just one example, Bill Gates would not be where he is without many hard working "microserfs" working under him. However, if you challenge the assumption that Bill Gates and others deserve the huge amount of power that they have, many Americans react in a very hostile manner. If you try to explain that there is no way that one could really work hard enough to have all that wealth, well, the concept is lost on many.
"If, on the gripping hand, you mean that America has developed a culture of entitlement, where every class asserts their right to the rewards, without any effort at all... that sounds about right, if quite stereotypical."
True, however, I think the unfortunate thing is that entitlement of the poor and middle class are under constant attack, and people don't even realize it. Furthermore, most people don't even know about how much the wealthy benefit from government intervention and support. The end result is that we have a society that constantly promotes the "entitlement" of the rich to own even more and more, while the rights and freedoms of ordinary Americans are ignored. To suggest that the poor and middle class are entitled seems to be heresy, even among those who would benefit. This, in my opinion, shows how much the media and ideology has caused the majority of people to ignore their own plight. In order to fight this, people need to understand how our propaganda works, and that it is real, and it does affect them. Then they need to start finding ways of promoting their own interests. A well functioning democracy requires this.
Please substitute East India Tea Company for Boston Tea Company. My lack of sleep is catching up with me. Sorry about that. The concept still holds true.
Slashdot Mirror
I just had a friend come back from India, and it pisses me off that the airwaves are getting choked up with manufactured news when there are PREVENTABLE tragedies that are happening all over the world. But, we don't talk them because fixing them would require eating into corporate profits, and we can't have that...(yes, that's sarcasm)
Yes, as are the stories of babies getting trapped in a well, etc., because those last a few days and can be built up. What about if it happens immediately, does it get any publicity? What if those miners died right away? I just wish that people would take time to get upset about other things(not just what the tv decides to make important), such as the growing number of working poor in our country, sweatshops, etc., which can contribute more to loss of life, and even more tragicly, these things are PREVENTABLE, but it requires us to spend money, which is probably why our corporate controlled news doesn't report it.
And yes, I agree it IS a tragedy any time human life is lost, and as Americans and people of the world, we should have same sympathy ANY time human life is lost, not just for well publicized events such as this.
If these same seven individuals were coal miners that lost their lives in a coal mine collapse, and the space shuttle was unmanned, and blew up on the same day, which would get more news coverage and why?
No, you outsource to where the skills are at the best price. Its called a free market economy. Its kinda the same concept that American became properous under. Bit of a two-edged sword, huh?
:)
That might be a good point if it weren't completely false. If you'll study American history, industries were built up through massive social spending and government regulation, not the "free market". If we didn't impose tariffs when our industries were first forming, they would have been decimated by European textile industries, which were far more advanced. The same is true in agriculture, which to this day is heavily subsidized in the US(but we don't allow third world countries to subsidize their agriculture, because it would violate "free" market principles). In fact, almost every country that is industrialized, without exception, has become industrialized by violating the principles of the "free market". Not only that, almost every major industry has gotten massive government subsidies at one time or another, either in the form of market manipulation, or in the form of direct subsidy. Now that we know this is true after thinking about it for a couple of seconds, why would the rich in our country be so eager to force poorer countries to remove tarrifs to the "free" market? Could it be that they want unhindered, unbridled domination over industries in the third world, and to use their population as slave labor?
Gee, I must be talking crazy talk again, you're right, corporations are doing it for the good of the third world, and we just need to learn to give up our labor rights(including weekends, benefits, etc.), which of course are irrelevant, and start working like slaves.
Getting paid $11,000 a year in a place where others only get $1,0000 a year is not exactly 'getting screwed'.
Sure it is, only unlike the rest of the population of India, they are getting screwed with a smile on their face, at least for now. I never said that they weren't doing well in a relative sense compared to the majority of Indians. What I did say is that it is only temporary, and that they are not being paid enough to start their own businesses and compete on equal ground with American companies. The true assets of India, such as power generation, water production, natural resources, etc., are being bought out by multi-nationals such as Enron, and unfortunately, Enron is the only one that was corrupt enough to collapse. The rest are able to keep their dishonesty and corruption under enough control to use it to screw over others and not themselves. Yes, they are getting used, and taken out of context, it seems great. Put it back in the context of reality, the big picture, and what is really happening is that there employment will only last as long as it's profitable. As the purchasing power of the majority of American's fades, so will the need for much of this software, leaving a ghost town where currently there is a thriving industry. This doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out.
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/NAFTA@7/mx.htm l#fn1
Here is a decent article that describes in better detail the crisis that is happening in Mexico. They show the adjusted salaries of Mexicans in 1993 pesos, rather than using the misleading numbers that you show, which fail to adjust for the complete collapse of the peso in 1995(a year after NAFTA was implemented, it must have been a coincidence). Take a look at table 2-3, which shows a 40% drop in Mexican wages between 1991 and 1998. Their wages have eroded further since 1998, since they are getting hit even harder by our economic downturn than we are. In case you are wondering where this paper get it's numbers from, it is getting the numbers from Mexico's census bureau, which is much more in-depth, and quite a bit less white-washed than the corporate PR crap than the "better numbers" that you have submitted.
Do you ever ask yourself why people voluntarily walk into sweat shops?
Of course not, as I'm sure you can tell, I don't do much thinking at all. I agree with you that those horrible jobs are the best ones available currently. However, people shouldn't be allowed to make outrageous sums of money from it. You are correct that local businesses are getting driven out of existence. However, many local elites in government are getting rich. Since the wealthy and government are inextricably linked in most 3rd world countries, the ultra-rich do just fine with free trade. It is the middle class businesses that get destroyed.
Much of globalization is about allowing multinationals the power to buy previously publicly owned resources such as land, water, oil, metals, etc. The wealthy elites in these 3rd world governments are getting enormously wealthy off the kickbacks they receive for selling off these resources. There is a small percentage of very wealthy people in Mexico whose wealth has increased dramatically due to free trade, and those numbers are skewing the statistics. The numbers you show from unido fail to take into account the collapse of the peso(nor do they even mention it), which was an absolute economic disaster for Mexico. That is why the salaries are hyper inflated. They also fail to show the rising disparity in income between the rich and the poor in Mexico, and the growing poverty levels as small businesses in Mexico are getting destroyed by international competition. It fails to discuss the fact that if Mexicans try to organize for higher wages, they risk getting shot, and that companies laying off their entire staff in order to clear out the rif-raff and drive wages down is a common practice. But hey, if you want to tell yourself it's a great system, feel free.
Firstly, what exactly are they supposed to do about it?
That's the whole point, free trade makes it nearly impossible for governments to set a fair wage for it's workers. It effectively reduces worker's rights to zero. It gives all the power to corporations to shop for the cheapest labor, while keeping the barrier to market entry extremely high for businesses in 3rd world countries. So, the end result is that 3rd world countries are not enjoying the profits from this labor, since they aren't the ones that own the businesses.
Secondly, how do you figure that it's $60,000 worth of work?
How does a price for anything get set? It's a balancing act of supply and demand and competitive pressure. When there is no longer a balance, then certain things end up being grossly undervalued, while others are grossly over-valued. So, for example, with a huge amount of labor, and competition, wages are kept low, and are getting lower. However, on the top end, businesses are consolidating and are giving people less and less options. The end result is that the current system is creating an artificial imbalance, and yes, it is by design.
Part of this artificial imbalance is the extension of corporate power and priveledge that was granted at the end of the American civil war. It effectively allows businesses to grow very large and last an indefinite amount of time. The end result is that businesses are allowed to consolidate and increase their bargaining power vs labor which is fragmented and weak. On the other side, labor has Unions, but they have no investors, and only go as far as the government lets them. With free trade, corporations are allowed to usurp labor regulations and pit country against country, pushing them to get rid of labor rights.
That's the problem, the free market rewards capital(and those whose only "contribution" is owning it) more than it does labor. We are quickly entering an age where the need for labor is effectively being reduced year after year, both by modernization and extreme concentrations of wealth. People always talk about these fairy tale visions where businesses will keep busting their ass to find a way to use the "excess labor". But, that's only true if there are people with money to spend. Once the majority of people have nothing to spend, the economy will stagnate, and people will be laid off in massive numbers. After all, what business reason can you come up with to create a product to sell to people with no money and no hope of making money?
The only way we can keep the free market even remotely fair and competitive is by evening out wages and not allowing consolidation of business and wealth. If the majority of industries are allowed to consolidate, and then pay the lowest wages possible to workers, the end result is that competition will disappear and the free market will collapse. It will become a dictatorship of the wealthy, where wages are as low as possible, and hopes of starting one's own business that can compete with multi-national conglomerates will be a far away dream.
As I said in the post below, a violent revolution is the worst way to solve social problems and would likely set our society back 100 years. It would also be catastrophic, in the sense that huge numbers of people would be slaughtered, it might literally wipe us off the face of the earth. 200 years ago, people didn't have to fight against modern weapons. Violent struggle is not an option. Waking people up is an option. The wealthy don't want strife any more than we do, and will back off if people organize. In our current society, we don't need a violent revolution, the only revolution that needs to happen is for people to turn off their tv sets and quit buying into the corporate public relations assault on their mind.
The only difference is that in a global economy, the plutocrats are much harder to find. For example, how many multi-millionaires live in your city, and who are they? You don't know? Exactly, you don't know. Historically, people knew who they were. The weatlhy in our society live insulated existances, and given the power that "free" trade and globalization gives them, they can always move to an island if things get too rough. The second factor that makes this different than history is technology. If you don't believe me, take a look at countries where wealth differences are huge, like Mexico. Why aren't the leaders hanging from lamp posts? Because, modern technology allows a relatively small group of men to slaughter much larger unarmed groups with ease.
200 years ago peopls didn't have to fight against an arsenal of nukes, biological weapons, armored tanks, remote controlled missiles, and machine guns that can rip them to shreds. Modern armies, such as the US army, are also much better trained. Now, by training, I'm not talking about physical training, I'm talking about brainwashing, so that if they get the kill command, they'll go out and slaughter whatever is in front of them. And, just in case there is any twinge of guilt, the wealthy in our country are working on developing more and more "manless" planes and weapons, that won't have the weakness of a conscience. Surveillance and control are also much greater in our current society, which is another obstacle people would have to overcome in order to organize in large enough groups to "hang people from lamp posts". And, finally, there wasn't tv 200 years ago. Ideological propaganda consisted mainly of religious control, and once people started questioning the church all hell broke loose. Today there is much more sophistaced propaganda, and it is much, much more effective. Given all this, can people overcome these obstacles? Yes, they can. But don't think that it will be a cake walk. Don't think that it will happen so fast that people will realize what is happening. It might take 20-30 years, and chances are, people won't quite understand what is going on. If they do hang someone from the lamp posts, it might be figureheads such as politicians, but the people behind the scences will be safe and sound. A true revolution that you speak of would be extremely difficult, and to be quite frank, is the absolute worst way to solve social problems. All that is necessary is that people become aware of what is going on enough to organize for their rights. Once this happens, the plutocrats will back off(yes, they are aware of history enough to back down, but only when necessary). Unfortunately, waking up Americans is the most difficult task of all.
number 3 above should read...
2. Don't pass the savings(caused by using cheaper labor) on to middle class Americans, thus causing money to move from the middle class, which is getting laid off, to the utlra-rich.
Yes, it is disgusting, which is why I am trying to educate myself as much as I can about what is going on so that hopefully I can make a difference. You have to at least try, there isn't much choice, either that or you can watch your livelihood and freedom disappear. What's more disturbing than this is the complete control over information that the media here in the US has. I was talking about free trade with a co-worker of mine, and he is a bright guy, in his 40's and completed his undergrad and masters at MIT in 4 years. He had no understanding whatsoever of what free trade is doing. I told him that wages have dropped 60% for Mexicans workers since NAFTA was instated in 1992 and that it is destroying their economy as well as hurting ours and he didn't believe me. He honestly thought that it was helping Mexicans and that things would get better in America once things evened out. While Mexico's GDP has in fact risen, the majority of workers are making much less, while a very small percentage is profiting immensely. He honestly did not understand that if we only pay Mexican workers $2 a day that they won't have enough to spend on products that we produce, and that the money that is being made is flowing into the hands of the ultra-rich, with only a fraction going to 3rd world workers. Programmers in India are the exception, not the rule, and even they are grossly underpaid. Most foreign workers barely survive while working grueling days in sweatshop conditions. But people here in the US don't know about it. And, programmers in India are too short-sighted to realize that by only getting paid $11,000 a year for $60,000 worth of work, that they are getting screwed too.
Exactly. Free trade is all about consolidation, not about helping 3rd world countries. Here's how consolidation works.
1. Move jobs overseas, and pay a mere fraction of what you are paying to American employees.
2. Don't pass the costs on to middle class Americans, thus causing money to move from the middle class, which is getting laid off, to the utlra-rich.
3. Encourage Americans to make up for loss of income by working longer hours and going into massive amounts of high-interest debt.
4. Lay off more American workers.
5. As US workers begin to default on home loans and auto loans, buy back their homes and their possesions for pennies on the dollar.
6. Use this massive amount of wealth to buy the capital of other countries(such as land and natural resources) for pennies on the dollar, since there is no way that an Indian worker making 11,000 a year will have the buying power of a multi-billion dollar company.
7. Now that Americans are as destitute as the the 3rd world, and the economy has slowed down, there is no longer a need for 3rd world workers, so fire 3rd world workers and grab all of the productive resources.
8. Smile, as you and the top 1% of the world's population own the majority of wealth of the world, and have a desperate, hungry population willing to do anything to serve you.
Here is the thing to keep in mind about the worker in India. There increase in wealth is only temporary! The majority of profits from their work is flowing into the hands of ultra-wealthy Western investors. While it is arguable that they can "live like kings" on $11,000 a year, this does not mean that they can buy capital. And this is the problem, since if they can't form their own business and make profits of their own, then they are getting used just as bad as the American middle class. Think about it, if someone in India wanted to compete head on with US software, they would have to market their products in countries that would buy these products for the most money, such as the US. But marketing and advertising, as well as buying capital such as computers, is expensive, and US companies have a distinct advantage in this area, since they have alot more capital. So, while it may appear that Indians are propsering, the majority of these profits are going to the ultra-rich. Once the leaching of wealth from the 1st world middle class is complete, there will no longer be a need for foreign workers, the economy will collapse in a very similar way to the 2001 "market correction". Only, it will be much worse.
So, let me repeat, this isn't about increasing profits, it's not about helping the 3rd world, it's about consolidation, pure and simple.
Still a bit silly, but Big Pharma isn't willing to spend the R&D $ on it without that protection.
What you really mean is that Big Pharma isn't willing to take tax payer dollars that are used to fund biomedical research with the "right" to patent that research? Hmmm, since it's the American taxpayer that is funding much of this research, doesn't turning and giving these companies the "right" to patent this stuff reek of corruption? I know, I must be insane to think that we have a corrupt government that could allow for the trampling of rights to make a few people extremely rich.
If the new techologies were easy, cheap and simple to make, I think you're right, we'd have them by now. But they're at least as hard to make as LCDs (in quantity), and even if there are operational advantages to the new panels the display makers aren't going to junk billions in LCD fabs just like that.
Actually, this isn't true. Once the OLED displays are mass produced, it is estimated that they will at most cost 80% of what it costs to make a similar LCD. I think you had it right when you said that it was the barrier to entry. LCD displays have a big lead in scale of economy, and it will be awhile before OLED's ramp up to the same volume. In fact, manufacturers have said exactly what you are saying, so it's not a conspiracy. They have already introduced this technology in the mobile phone market, and are starting there first. Then they plan on moving to laptop displays in the next 5-10 years, and then finally tv sets. The reason they are doing this is exactly for the reasons that you have mentioned, the price to entry for the mobile phone and small display market is cheapest, while laptop and tv display manufacturing is alot more cutthroat. So, there's no conspiracy, just simple logistics of transitioning to a new technology.
But the person I was speaking to claimed that America does not "deserve" democracy because in order to wield such self-determinative power effectively, one has to be capable of forming an informed opinion. This is something she apparently thought little of the American public's ability to do.
I had a friend of mine say a few weeks ago when discussing the war on Iraq that "People are sheep.". After debating his low opinion of American society I finally retored, "Then you are a sheep." He seemed confused and wondered what my point was. The point I made is that that elitism is part of the game that is played against us to keep us in line. A lot of us don't know about the issues. Those that are able to become educated are encouraged to become elitist, and the system that we have in place encourages people to do this. However, this only serves to work against the majority of us who do not have economic power. By working against the rest of Americans, rather than educating them and mobilizing them in our cause, we are actually alienating them from our cause. By doing this, we serve those who have power over us.
But is she right?
No, NO, absolutely not. She is completely, and absolutely, wrong. I'll give you some advice about how to debate with points such as this. Any time someone tells you something, and your gut tells you that they are wrong, just remember that ideas, and philosophies, cannot be evaluated without a proper context. Strive to put discussions of politics in the context of the real world, and you will be greatly aided in your efforts.
She may actually have a point. How are we to form opinions regarding the direction of our communities, states and the country at large? By reading the newspapers?
Well, if you want to know how, you're looking at it. The internet. It's the first two-way mass media medium that our society has ever had, and it IS having an affect on society.
I also find the use of the word DESERVE, to be offensive. Freedom and rights are inalienable. Freedom and power should only be given to leaders if there is strong evidence for doing so. The fact that our leaders have failed at designing a fair educational system that gives the same opportunity to every one does not make a strong case for handing power over to them. In the real world, the reason a person drops out of high school is usually the fact that they belong to an oppressed group. They are victims of the racially motivated "war on drugs", which attacks primarily poor people, who just happen to be black. They are victims of economically depressed areas. So, what does your friend say is the solution to the fact that many Americans are given substandard education, and as a result are forced to work oppressive, low paying jobs that leaves them little time to become educated? Her solution is to oppress them further by claiming that they aren't of the same class of human. She is implying that stupidity is an inherent trait, that cannot be remedied through education or a change in environment. This kind of thinking has spawned all sorts of movements, from eugenics to genocide, and should be challenged any time it rears it's ugly head.
Why is this reasoning attractive to your friend? It's attractive for the same reason it's attractive to the true elites in America, that top 1% that owns 40% of the wealth(and climbing). The reason it is attractive is that it justifies power without responsibility.
I'll quote a comment I made in a previous topic:
"In order to understand the position of the wealthy, just imagine yourself in room with a bunch of people who are homeless or are members of the growing working poor in our country. Try explaining to them why you make $60,000+ a year for 50 hours a week, while many of them work for 70+ hours a week for a third of that. Well, of course your first defense is not to put yourself in that position, so you will tend to avoid "those kinds of people". You will also spend a great deal of time justifying your extra wealth and economic power by saying, "I work hard", "I'm smart", and "You guys are just as free to go to a college as I was", nevermind the fact that many of them went to substandard schools and were constantly told that they were stupid throughout their lives by their parents and society in general. Now, take someone that makes a million a year, and multiply the amount of time spent justifying that power and wealth by a few orders of magnitude. Pretty soon, their entire way of life is not about working hard to actually produce something, but instead justifying why they need so much power. Of course, they won't call it power, they call it freedom, so that you will think that you are just as "free" as they are. Entire ideologies will be formed to justify and promote this power, with armies of men and women working in public relations to support your position to the public at large. Then, jump up to the level of a billionaire, and it becomes obvious what the agenda is about."
Unfortunately for your friend, unless she has somehow managed to find her way into that top 1%, she is also on the losing side. By allowing herself to be divided from the classes below her who could be her best allies in the fight for justice, she is also a sheep. With globalization looming on the horizon, it is only a matter of time before US capital is sent around the world at the expense of Americans and workers everywhere, while entire populations are held hostage by national borders. It's a shell game that is being set up to empty your pockets, and play entire countries against each other. Democracy is our only weapon against this.
Well, that certainly helps more than watching the five o'clock news, but is that even as good as reading publications like the Foreign Affairs [foreignaffairs.org] quarterly or watching the BBC World News? Personally speaking, I think these are a better source of information on the world scene than most newspapers that I am personally aware of. I also don't think these sources of information are quite on the scale of the five o'clock news. But even I don't have the will or wherewithal of time and energy to acquaint myself with all of the issues facing my own elected officials. I certainly consider myself no activist, but more aware than the average "USA Today" reader.
I'll check out those websites, currently I read http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm for my information.
Theoretically, having a republic should work in a similar manner to an ideal direct democracy. The issues plauging our democratic republic are not necessarily inherent in representative government. They are inherent in representative government that is corrupt. The sources of corruption are of course the funding that comes from sources such as PAC's, which have a huge influence on legislation. If you don't beleive me, just look at the DMCA, it passed 99-0. NAFTA had similar numbers, and both seek to screw over Americans while promoting corporate interests.
As far as not having time goes, I wouldn't worry about that. With the way the economy is going, many of us could find ourselves with more free time than we bargained for. The solution in my opinion is not just promoting democracy. We need to try different economic models. Capitalism results in large excesses and only works if there is quite a bit of intervention. The "free market" that we preach to the rest of the world is nothing more than a con game to get thirld world countries to completely open their borders to our industries. Here in the US, we subsidize our industry all over the place, in the most undemocratic manner possible, and the wealthy people who benefit from these subsidies are then allowed to lay off 1,000's of workers and move to Mexico. Then, in cooperation with the corrupt goverment of Mexico and other countries, they are allowed to work people for pennies on the dollar, while at the same time enjoying US government subsidies, at your expense.
So, what she had to say made me think of Robert D. Kaplan's [barnesandnoble.com] view that democracies require a few basic elements in order to function, and without them they fail as they have repeatedly in places like Africa and South America:
High Literacy Rate
Functioning Beureaucracy
Functioning Economy
Yes, but they failed for other reasons too. We have a high enough literacy rate. The solution that we need is getting information to people, and promoting different economic models, such as Parecon and prout. You can read more about these at www.parecon.org and www.prout.org.
I haven't read much about prout, but I have about parecon, and they both seem like they could compete with normal businesses in the "free market". In other words, these are democratic institutions that do not promote having a central planner, or dictator in charge in the way that the soviet union and Marx did. So, as a result, change over to these economic systems would not require a revolution or for all of society to join in. They retain some socialist principles, such as promoting economic justice, while ditching others, such as the idea of having a class of economic planners or rewarding people based on need rather than effort. Whatever we do, we need to get the truth out that markets are not free, nor has any developed society ever had completely free markets. If we left it up to the free market, entire industries would collapse, and agriculture, which is heavily subsidized, would be subject to a volatile market, can you imagine that? Can you imagine not having certain kinds of food or doing without food because of market fluctuations? No one in their right mind would promote this, not even the 'free market' zealouts in government.
I would agree with all three of his requisite conditions, but how can we have it work and work really well if the all of the major news media organs of our culture are owned by fewer and fewer multinational corporations as author Ben Bagdikian [barnesandnoble.com] pointed out with such ominous presciense? What company would allow one subsidiary openly criticize another subsidary, both of which are funneling money upwards? If you ask me, we are neither a true democracy nor a republic, but a coropate oligarchy.
This problem is also described in Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent". Yes, the conflict of interest is there in the media, and the way to combat it is to turn to alternate media. So, how do we solve this problem? The answer is to take it upon yourself to educate people. Turn them on to the media that is out there on the internet. The internet provides an incredible opportunity to go to a country's website and get their opinion on things. Tell them to go to the many alternative media websites that are out there and explain why it is better than watching the news on tv. This stuff takes time, but it is worth it. Change is possible, and many of the freedoms that we enjoy today are there because people such as you and I got off our butts and did something about the problems around us. It's not impossible, hell, I've got my 55 year old mother reading Chomsky, so anything is possible.
I agree, having a shadow government is a good idea. It would be informal, at least at first, but it would be a good way of holding politicians accountable. You are correct about security being an issue, but it's not impossible.
In the current state of affairs, we are sorely missing a fourth check, in the US system of checks and balances. The problem with our current system is that is soley based on representation. There should be a fourth channel to directly represent popular opinion. Of course, representative government is only a problem in societies where there is a huge imbalance in other forms of power such as economic power, and where this power is allowed to influence government. There are two solutions to this, the first is that we could get rid of the huge differences in wealth, and try to minimize them as much as possible. The second is to get rid of PAC's.
So, if someone kills people, seeks NBC weaponry for use against an undefined threat, denies any form of rule by the people, and consistently acts as a violator of human rights...then it's fine with you as long as he wasn't involved with 9/11? You mean to say that the only reason to stop evil is if it was tied to a single incident? EVERYTHING IN OUR LIVES MUST REVOLVE AROUND THAT ONE INCIDENT?! Holy shit. I can't brush my teeth, because there's no connection between plaque and 9/11. We can't prosecute criminals, because they aren't tied to 9/11. We can't fight the DMCA, because it's not tied to 9/11. Thanks for telling me. I was going to be for all that behavior. But I didn't know they were not tied to 9/11.
Taken out of context, your point makes alot of sense. Taken in the context of the current discussion, we can see that ZoneKeeper is using the implied accusation the Hussein funded the Al Queada network as an excuse to attack Iraq. I then made the point that Hussein has nothing to do with Al Queada.
I never said that absolving Hussein of responsibility for the terrorist acts of 9/11 would remove all justifications for having a War with Iraq. So, while your point is valid, I'm really not sure who you are arguing with.
Here's why: If we say we want to attack Saudi Arabia, various European countries will scream like they are now over Iraw. Even if we provide proof that they are tied to terror, they all have their own deals with Saudi Arabia in regards to oil (yeah, it may surprise you, but the US isn't the only buyer of Middle-East Oil).
This is only partially true. Not only does Europe have deals with Saudi Arabia, but so does our government, which provides them from quite a bit of immunity from any retribution that the American people might want for their funding of terrorist networks. The whole point of this comment was to show that we really aren't attacking Iraq because they are funding terrorists, which is what ZoneKeeper was implying.
So...if we try to stem radicalism in another country by supporting someone and that someone commences doing bad stuff, we shouldn't stop him? Oh year, we can't. He's not tied to 9/11.
By studying logic one learns that simply proving the antecedent is false does not necessarily imply that the consequent is also false. I have merely shown that the antecedent, which is the assumption, "Hussein supports Al Queada", to be false. It does not follow that just because I have proven that this is false that we should not go to war. This is not a strong proof, I am not proving that without a doubt that we should not go to war with Iraq, and yes, I am aware of that fact. The idea in proving the antecedent is false in this case, is to raise a level of doubt to the truth of the consequent, which is, "we should go to War with Iraq". By removing all pretexts and justifications, I therefore have created a strong level of doubt, which is the purpose of stating that the antecedent is false. By no means does a false antecedent necessarily imply a false consequent. And, all ZoneKeeper needs to do is come up with a good reason, and justification for a War with Iraq might make more sense. He has not done this.
Furthermore, raising a level of doubt about the guilt of Iraq is all we should have to do. When waging War, we should always operate with the idea that when in doubt about the truth of the statement "therefore we should go to war", that we should in fact assume this statement is false. I don't have to prove that the above statement is false. I merely need to prove the pretexts false. It then follows that since we are a civilized society that we will avoid war. So, I don't have to prove that going to war is always a bad idea, just that it is in this case.
This is also the reasoning behind our court system of "innocent until proven guilty". The same concept should apply to pretexts for a just war. Unless a strong case is made for going to war, then we shouldn't.
Well, those in the US who were taken away, most have been returned (watch the news closely. The liberal news media loves to avoid reporting things that make the military look decent, so they bury it below the fold on page A32), except the ones with shady backgrounds and connections (like traveling back and forth between the US and Iran several times a year on a $10,000 a year job while going to college without parental funding). And most of the people going on the "military tribunal" trials are guys who were found in the field with other fighters wielding AK's and shooting at US troops. I know, you hate the US military, even if the guys you join are people just like you, they have less of a right to live, because they decided to take a different path to achieve financial security and a strong educational background.
Who do you think you are to question my level of support for Americans, including those who join the Military? You have alot of nerve, I'll give you that, but you certainly won't convince me of anything by using that tone. I may not always support the actions of our Military, but that does not mean that I wish them ill will, nor would I blame some kid fresh out of high school, looking to get a leg up in life, for following the commands that he is required to follow. Instead, what I question is the ability of a hawkish president, who was AWOL for the first year and a half of his term in the Coast Guard to be able to empathize or even give a shit about the needs of the working and middle class people such as my friends and family.
Also, I have yet to understand when "innocent until proven guilty" is a "liberal" concept. If that's the concept of a liberal, then yes, I suppose I'm guilty of that belief.
It is? I'd think that if we were only after oil, we'd go take over Kuwait, which has more oil, and no military to speak of.
Why bother? They are an ally of ours, and we are able to get the kind of agreements we want out of them. It's not about turning Iraq into the 51st state, it's merely about economic control. It's about the ability to set prices and negotiate terms of agreement. This is very difficult to do with the current Iraq regime, but it does not give us the right to attack them.
In addition, you seem to have a laspe of intellegence here. If we were after oil (because having Bush in your name automagically makes you a war-mongering, oil-chugging beast), why would we put out the fires that Saddam set to the oil wells in Kuwait, then rebuild the oil fields...and turn them over to the Kuwaiti government. We were under no requirement to do so. We could've occupied those oil wells. Technically, they still belong to American companies, but they were stolen from those companies when these Middle-East monarchies nationalized all oil-related property. In addition, if Bush was going after helping his oil buddies, why would we want MORE oil?
Controlling oil isn't simply about helping a few of his buddies. Certainly this will help out the major oil distributors, who are the middlemen in the is equation. However, it's also about economic control of other countries. By taking control of Iraq's oil, either directly(unlikely), or through heavily influencing their government once the war is over, the US will have the power over a vast amount of the world's oil resources. This is yet another way to hold entire economies of countries that don't do what we say hostage. So, for example, if North Korea does not do what we want, then we can simply cut off their supply of oil. See how it works?
Technically, they'd want less oil, because in the US, texas oil fields are still a major part. We actually get alot more oil from Russia, Mexico, and a few other non-Middle East countries, in addition to our own oil supply (which, while not filling 100% of our oil needs, is nothing to balk at).
Good point, but it's not about filling our oil needs. It's also not about helping out a few oil millionaires in Texas. It's about obtaining the power and control to drive the massive corporate globalization campaign that is taking place under the guise of "free trade". It's about economic imperialism. Controlling the majority of oil is a huge advantage.
Logically, if Bush was looking to satisfy his American oil friends, what he'd do is lower the amount of imports, so the Texas Oil guys could jack up prices and increase profits.
Again, your focus is a bit too narrow.
NOTE: I AM AGAINST THE WAR IN IRAQ. I am simply tired of stupid reasons against the war, rather than the one simple reason why not: We shouldn't have one single soldier in the Middle East, unless he or she is on vacation.
You should have been here to see the expression on my face when I read the above comment, your corrossive comments up until this point certainly had me fooled.
We have no business meddling in their affairs. End of story.
I agree.
It's not about oil, it's not about 9/11 (and noone has ever linked it to 9/11, except scattered media reports about Mohammed Atta), and it's not about democracy.
It is about oil, but I agree with the rest of what you say.
It is about the globalism that the UN started. This is the road that the UN paved, interventionism at any cost.
That's so far off base that I won't even laugh. First, Bush and his administration are the ones trying to go to war with Iraq, with next to no support from the rest of the world, and Bush had to lobby quite a bit to get UN support. Bush dicates his agenda to the UN, not the other way around.
A future where national sovereignty and elections are a thing of the past. Just think about it. Have you ever voted on your UN Delegate? Didn't think so. Odd they have the power to do a ton of things to people's countries.
Yes, you are correct, globalization will destroy national sovereignty. However, the globalization that is behind the War on Iraq is part of the corporate and elite agenda, not the UN's. The UN merely acts as a puppet for US interests. And when it does not, it is rendered irrelevant. If the UN had any real power over us, then we would have had a much harder time going to war with Afghanistan. We also would be subject to the same weapons reduction programs that other countries are subject to by the UN. I also agree that UN delegates should be elected, and that in order for it to be truly democratic corporate sponsorship of election financing (through the use of PACs) should be made illegal.
Get rid of the first three words in the above post and it will make sense. Again, sorry, this is what happens when you revise sentences as you type them. I must need more caffeine.
remove the words this sentence :
"Believe me, the complete lack of evidence when it comes to linking Iraq with Bin Laden isn't without extreme lack of effort on the part of our government."
should be:
"Believe me, the complete lack of evidence when it comes to linking Iraq with Bin Laden isn't without extreme effort on the part of our government."
Sorry about that.
"Regarding Point 1. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. They may be bitter enemies, but they have a common enemy they hate worse than each other. Us. Applying that little nugget from there on, the rest of your argument falls by the wayside."
One could use that same reasoning to say that since both the US and Iraq hate Bin Laden, that the US and Iraq are friends. Of course, we know that this is not true, and it follows that your proposal is equally without merit. If there were merit, then there would have been proof by now. Believe me, the complete lack of evidence when it comes to linking Iraq with Bin Laden isn't without extreme lack of effort on the part of our government. They've been trying for years, and they haven't come up with anything. I think that if you were able to convince them that easily, then the people that you have been talking to simply aren't aware of the issues, or are not used to arguing against skilled opponents.
Sorry it took so long to respond. No, there aren't any consumer oriented hi-def DVD's out there. You can make your own, but basicly, what that amounts to is encoding the content on your PC, and playing back on your PC. Unfortunately, the industry hasn't agreed on a standard for hi-def DVD's(i.e., whether to use blue laser DVD's or use better encoding, or both), so although the technology is there(at least as far as better encoding is concerned), it will be awhile before you can go to blockbuster and buy a DVD in hi-def, however, you CAN buy hi-def tapes. Currently, if you want to buy stuff that plays in hi-def format, you have to fork out about $900 for JVC's HM-DH3000U, which is a hi-def VCR. I think the tapes hold something like 28 Gigabytes of material, which will last for I think 2-4 hours in hi-def mode. That's the problem with current DVD's and mpeg2, there is no way that you can fit any appreciable amount of hi-def content on the current DVD format IF you are using mpeg2. Using Mpeg4 is one way to work around this. Another way is to increase the storage capacity, which requires a different medium.
As to your question of what broadcasters are doing. This is my best guess from what I have read, so it might not be entirely accurate, but I do know that they aren't getting their hi-def content through DVD. Most of their stuff is stored on tape or some other proprietary medium, such as keeping it on hard disks. With movies, HBO takes the movies and converts it to digital. Or, they take the master digital copy(if the movie producer already has it in digital format), and then optimize it for hi-def showing. With the advent of consumer oriented players such as the JVC unit described above, soon they will be able to ditch these proprietary methods and avoid having to do this work themselves.
ABC delivered football in 720p back when it was doing Monday Night Football in hi-def a couple of years ago. I think CBS is 1080i for everything, and currently they are broadcasting playoffs in HD. Fox uses their own crappy Fox widescreen, which isn't true hi-def. It's broadcast at 480p in 16:9 format. It's still better than interlaced, but not as good as hi-definition.
"If, on the other hand, you mean that Americans understand rewards based on results, and not on effort, then that's something else entirely. Traditionally, Americans have been in favor of hard work--because it's associated with results, and it's the results that get rewarded."
Yes, this is exactly what I mean. Unfortunately, we don't always notice that usually people acheive great results only with the help and hard work of others. So, for example, and this is just one example, Bill Gates would not be where he is without many hard working "microserfs" working under him. However, if you challenge the assumption that Bill Gates and others deserve the huge amount of power that they have, many Americans react in a very hostile manner. If you try to explain that there is no way that one could really work hard enough to have all that wealth, well, the concept is lost on many.
"If, on the gripping hand, you mean that America has developed a culture of entitlement, where every class asserts their right to the rewards, without any effort at all... that sounds about right, if quite stereotypical."
True, however, I think the unfortunate thing is that entitlement of the poor and middle class are under constant attack, and people don't even realize it. Furthermore, most people don't even know about how much the wealthy benefit from government intervention and support. The end result is that we have a society that constantly promotes the "entitlement" of the rich to own even more and more, while the rights and freedoms of ordinary Americans are ignored. To suggest that the poor and middle class are entitled seems to be heresy, even among those who would benefit. This, in my opinion, shows how much the media and ideology has caused the majority of people to ignore their own plight. In order to fight this, people need to understand how our propaganda works, and that it is real, and it does affect them. Then they need to start finding ways of promoting their own interests. A well functioning democracy requires this.
Please substitute East India Tea Company for Boston Tea Company. My lack of sleep is catching up with me. Sorry about that. The concept still holds true.