how do you know that the comparison wasn't made between arranged marriages in the US and love marriages also in the US? there are many second generation indians in the US.
The effective government monopoly on education is preventing math and science teachers from being paid anything more in line with what they could get in a free market
Explain your rational. If corporations ran schools, they would either have to pay science teachers less or somehow extract much higher tuition. They would probably have to do both, in order to have something left over for shareholders.
see the Edison example
I can cite one area where blogs are very important: getting a first hand account of life in peripheral parts of the world where social change is occuring very quickly. For instance, compare what someone posts [perhaps anonymously] in Khyrgystan or Uzbekistan and compare with Charles Tilly's model of revolutions.
Alternately it's a good way to learn from people who know what they're talking about and want to share. There is a very capable Arabic speaking professor of history from U of Michigan who monitors the Arabic press and posts his findings online. That link goes to his site.
Both pieces of advice above were given by my professor. In contrast, Judy Woodruff, who is now visiting professor at my university, gave a public lecture where she said that in the future, blogs might be a threat to the current news paradigm, but she didn't know how. That's because she's not that bright despite her reputation. I don't know why anyone would use blogs as an important part of news gathering. Sounds like trend following to me. As I have tried to argue here, blogs are important, but only for specialized needs.
thefacebook.com has totally taken over this market for most american college kids. as they continue to expand, they're putting a big dent in the viability of these services. I don't think anyone would bother being on orkut + thefacebook when their college educated friends are already networked together. [there is a bit of a class element to this as well.]
the kids who play sports tend to do better in school. this might have something to do with being fit and healthy or it might be due to teaching time/homework management by necessity
either way, I wouldn't give back the enless hours of high school lacrosse/soccer practices and games for anything.
Re:Neoliberal Tyranny of Enforced Competition
on
Life Interrupted
·
· Score: 1
Actually, you're wrong. The reason that competition is less of a threat in Scandinavia is that they are highly competitive economies that produce solid products that are in demand on the world market. They do NOT protect their economies. Remember that Sweden and Denmark are in the EU, which is a totally free trade zone in Europe, and Norway is also in the European customs union, which negotiates generally liberal trade policy towards the rest of the world [except for agriculture].
Scandinavia can affort high wages and high benefits because their industry is competitive. This used to be true in the US but the industrialists got lazy. Look on/. for stories about the fabled ceramic engines that could have revolutionized automaking but were quashed by the big three in Detroit. Meanwhile Japan came up with rapidly improving fuel efficient models and has been eating market share since.
I would say that socioeconomically and geopolitically, rifle-toting militiamen in highland regions of the US are similar to people who live in places like Chechnya or the Balkans. All three groups did okay at resisting state/imperial power until recently, but you are making absurd claims.
Just tell some little girl in Chechnya that guns have resulted in "massive and sustained reduction in violence" there. Russia has not given up, will not give up, nor can it give up because if Chechnya falls then so will larger chunks of the "empire".
Yes, social science tells us that cheap effective weapons promote democracy--weapons proliferation let to the downfall of the nineteench-century empires. But please, be serious before you make claims that are so self-assured but unjustifiable. And please don't point frantically at Switzerland.
I don't think you really know anything about historical capitalism or political economy. These fields don't have anything do to with human nature. Feudalism underwent gradual change throughout the 500 years of existance followed by rapid change at it's end. Capitalism has been an evolving system as well, just consider the differences and similarities between the types of companies that let the world economy in periods of Dutch, British, and American dominance [and look at what East Asia is doing now].
Also consider what some "socialist" organizations are doing now; USAA is making as much money as any financial institution of its size and type, but it also give great service because it's not squeezing profits out of the system for its shareholders. Because its shareholders are its members! and we get big refund checks at the end of the year on our insurance premiums. Also look at the success of health insurers/health service providers who run on a not-for-profit model, better service and happier employees, succeeding within a capitalist system.
You shouldn't pull out these human nature bullshit arguments against people; I'd expect that from a high school junior. You aren't approaching the question from a very serious basis. For instance money has existed forever, but the way trade and social structures were differed tremendously between civilizations as closely related Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. Greek society being the far more egalitarian one.
I don't know where you get off calling the current parties betrayers of every principle. The Republicans promised tax cuts for the rich and not much else, they sure followed through on that one.
Well I would say there is "really-existing capitalism" and "textbook liberal capitalism" and really-existing historical capitalism has generally been about building and defending monopolies.
When the British chartered exclusive corporations to trade with India, that was capitalism. When the US held a monopoly on the international automobile market, you bet that was capitalism.
It just so happens that "capitalism" has so far been more mercantilist than proponents of free trade have had us believe, because monopolists are the biggest proponents of free trade with legal protections [just think about the RIAA, MPAA encoding DVDs into regions and cracking down on pirates overseas]. These games still go on in the internet age, just look at Amazon selling CDs that cost 10 cents to manufacture for $35 in the US because they're Japanese imports with +1 BONUS TRACK.
The cleverest terrorists may already be fully in control of the world.
true, the various colonial powers killed maybe a thousand times more people [in south Asia, Africa, China mostly..] than Terrorism has managed [and usually in a far more brutal matter]
I like your article, because if anyone thinks about it the moral clarity that our leaders proclaim down on these matters is so.. hard to justify. it makes me wonder what the absolute best and most "legitimate" way to deal with such movements is, after all our founding heroes in the US were revolutionaries.
The real reasons behind terrorism are rarely discussed because they are complex. Terrorists are hardly ever crazed madmen, despite what Bush might insist upon. They are people with a grievance, but they choose to stand their ground in a way that many people find to be morally wrong. Suicide bombers don't want to kill themselves, rather they feel they have no alternative.
I think this is a good point. We know that the vast majority of terrorists aren't crazy--same point applies to war criminals. An associate of a friend of mine did a psychological analysis of the top echelon of al-Qaeda and only two were possibly mentally ill, out of a much larger number [sorry I don't have the name of the exact number]. Think about pro-Palestinian arguments and it is clear why Palestinians are becoming suicide bombers; to bring the concept closer to home, imagine what would happen if Canadians started shelling farms across the border in the northern US. Imagine what kind of chaos would ensue when the locals start forming militias to respond. I don't even want to think about what would happen if a similar dispute broke out between Mexicans and Californains/Texans, with the added racial element involved. Of course the example is contrived but I am trying to illustrate a point.
The big problem with questioning the reasons behind terrorism is that it might show that we are doing something wrong - that we are bringing terrorism upon ourselves. Those that do genuinely and honestly question the reasons behind terrorism already know that this is the case.
I think you make a reasonable point but incorrectly. Here's how I feel about it. In the case of terrorism on both sides in Israel and the occupied territories, valid claims can be made that both sides' actions as well as European powers' decisions formed the current state of affairs.
The current state of affairs between the US, the Middle Eastern states, and antisystemic movements like al-Qaeda seems more complicated. Review the history of imperialism and it is obvious how we have exploited them, as we did the rest of the world. The exploitation was wrong--but set up the same relative economic/military/political conditions and the same thing will happen every time.
What I'm trying to say is that Middle Easterners have no end of legitimate grievances against the US & UK, but those dominating states didn't exactly have many options--they were masters of but also constrained within the capitalist economic system. Giving the citizens of the Middle East a fair share of Western profits would have been economically and politically impossible, then or now.
The classic text on this is the essay "The Rise and Future Demise of the Modern World System" by Immanuel Wallerstein. Wallerstein is both very cynical and very sober in his analysis; he is also very hopefull that we can do better [in terms of equity], although I am skeptical of that.
This case reminds me of when George Soros went to Congress to explain why finance needed more regulation. He realized the power of large institutions finances [he crashed the Indonesian currency for political reasons] but he had the scruples to make the public aware of how dangerous people like him could be to world economic stability.
If you would just exercise you wouldn't have this problem. Try 45 minutes of running five times a week plus half an hour of weightlifting two or three times a week.
Nah, you should read Emmanuel Todd's After the Empire. When foreign cultural influences decrease, that is the true sign of the decline of hegemony [witness the popularity of, say sitar music peaking in the 1970s in the West]. This shift marks a movement towards isolationism.
In the current political establishment in the US, it is the politicians & Pentagon civilians who are promoting war, and the officers were generally very skeptical of what they were doing.
Basically one portion of the political elite has decided that we should start acting like Israel if we are to maintain political power in the world, and they have gone on the offensive, entering into many regional conflicts around the world. I would argue this goes back to the Clinton administration at least; Wolfowitz and Pearle have taken it to the logical extreme.
Remember how skeptical retired General Clark was of the war when he became a politician? So was Eisenhower; he warned us of the military-industrial complex, which becomes dangerous because the big money/corporate side of it has lots of influence on Washington politicians. Guys with military experience often know better than the politicians, and this is why Kerry or McCain would be much better leaders than the wide array of war cheerleaders in power now who avoided the draft in various ways [see last couple of weeks of doonesbury].
Slashdot Mirror
Typically political power trancedes the institutional facades of power.
how do you know that the comparison wasn't made between arranged marriages in the US and love marriages also in the US? there are many second generation indians in the US.
Alternately it's a good way to learn from people who know what they're talking about and want to share. There is a very capable Arabic speaking professor of history from U of Michigan who monitors the Arabic press and posts his findings online. That link goes to his site.
Both pieces of advice above were given by my professor. In contrast, Judy Woodruff, who is now visiting professor at my university, gave a public lecture where she said that in the future, blogs might be a threat to the current news paradigm, but she didn't know how. That's because she's not that bright despite her reputation. I don't know why anyone would use blogs as an important part of news gathering. Sounds like trend following to me. As I have tried to argue here, blogs are important, but only for specialized needs.
I have the exact same sentiments. I really should be doing homework right now.
thefacebook.com has totally taken over this market for most american college kids. as they continue to expand, they're putting a big dent in the viability of these services. I don't think anyone would bother being on orkut + thefacebook when their college educated friends are already networked together. [there is a bit of a class element to this as well.]
the kids who play sports tend to do better in school. this might have something to do with being fit and healthy or it might be due to teaching time/homework management by necessity
either way, I wouldn't give back the enless hours of high school lacrosse/soccer practices and games for anything.
Scandinavia can affort high wages and high benefits because their industry is competitive. This used to be true in the US but the industrialists got lazy. Look on /. for stories about the fabled ceramic engines that could have revolutionized automaking but were quashed by the big three in Detroit. Meanwhile Japan came up with rapidly improving fuel efficient models and has been eating market share since.
I'm actually a leftist radical.
Just tell some little girl in Chechnya that guns have resulted in "massive and sustained reduction in violence" there. Russia has not given up, will not give up, nor can it give up because if Chechnya falls then so will larger chunks of the "empire".
Yes, social science tells us that cheap effective weapons promote democracy--weapons proliferation let to the downfall of the nineteench-century empires. But please, be serious before you make claims that are so self-assured but unjustifiable. And please don't point frantically at Switzerland.
Also consider what some "socialist" organizations are doing now; USAA is making as much money as any financial institution of its size and type, but it also give great service because it's not squeezing profits out of the system for its shareholders. Because its shareholders are its members! and we get big refund checks at the end of the year on our insurance premiums. Also look at the success of health insurers/health service providers who run on a not-for-profit model, better service and happier employees, succeeding within a capitalist system.
You shouldn't pull out these human nature bullshit arguments against people; I'd expect that from a high school junior. You aren't approaching the question from a very serious basis. For instance money has existed forever, but the way trade and social structures were differed tremendously between civilizations as closely related Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. Greek society being the far more egalitarian one.
I don't know where you get off calling the current parties betrayers of every principle. The Republicans promised tax cuts for the rich and not much else, they sure followed through on that one.
When the British chartered exclusive corporations to trade with India, that was capitalism. When the US held a monopoly on the international automobile market, you bet that was capitalism.
It just so happens that "capitalism" has so far been more mercantilist than proponents of free trade have had us believe, because monopolists are the biggest proponents of free trade with legal protections [just think about the RIAA, MPAA encoding DVDs into regions and cracking down on pirates overseas]. These games still go on in the internet age, just look at Amazon selling CDs that cost 10 cents to manufacture for $35 in the US because they're Japanese imports with +1 BONUS TRACK.
I like your article, because if anyone thinks about it the moral clarity that our leaders proclaim down on these matters is so.. hard to justify. it makes me wonder what the absolute best and most "legitimate" way to deal with such movements is, after all our founding heroes in the US were revolutionaries.
The current state of affairs between the US, the Middle Eastern states, and antisystemic movements like al-Qaeda seems more complicated. Review the history of imperialism and it is obvious how we have exploited them, as we did the rest of the world. The exploitation was wrong--but set up the same relative economic/military/political conditions and the same thing will happen every time.
What I'm trying to say is that Middle Easterners have no end of legitimate grievances against the US & UK, but those dominating states didn't exactly have many options--they were masters of but also constrained within the capitalist economic system. Giving the citizens of the Middle East a fair share of Western profits would have been economically and politically impossible, then or now.
The classic text on this is the essay "The Rise and Future Demise of the Modern World System" by Immanuel Wallerstein. Wallerstein is both very cynical and very sober in his analysis; he is also very hopefull that we can do better [in terms of equity], although I am skeptical of that.
They are marked Void after 120 days.
This case reminds me of when George Soros went to Congress to explain why finance needed more regulation. He realized the power of large institutions finances [he crashed the Indonesian currency for political reasons] but he had the scruples to make the public aware of how dangerous people like him could be to world economic stability.
If you would just exercise you wouldn't have this problem. Try 45 minutes of running five times a week plus half an hour of weightlifting two or three times a week.
He doesn't quite fully explain himself though.
no way. I thought the second film was as good as the first. the third one had too much religious idiocy.
I just have to say that I agree with you, despite the naysayers.
:]
In the current political establishment in the US, it is the politicians & Pentagon civilians who are promoting war, and the officers were generally very skeptical of what they were doing.
Basically one portion of the political elite has decided that we should start acting like Israel if we are to maintain political power in the world, and they have gone on the offensive, entering into many regional conflicts around the world. I would argue this goes back to the Clinton administration at least; Wolfowitz and Pearle have taken it to the logical extreme.
Remember how skeptical retired General Clark was of the war when he became a politician? So was Eisenhower; he warned us of the military-industrial complex, which becomes dangerous because the big money/corporate side of it has lots of influence on Washington politicians. Guys with military experience often know better than the politicians, and this is why Kerry or McCain would be much better leaders than the wide array of war cheerleaders in power now who avoided the draft in various ways [see last couple of weeks of doonesbury].