Globalism Post 9/11 1021
We seem to be running away from the world, and much of the world hates us for it. Such forces make America not only the world's leading superpower, but probably its most feared and hated nation. As the U.S. evolved rapidly from an industrial to a data-based economy, much of the world hasn't come along, or doesn't want to.
Our technology is running away from the rest of the planet, from genomics to supercomputing to bio-tech research to weaponry. Globalism, arguably the single most significant political issue on the planet even before 9/11, is even more critical now, even though there is little consensus on what it is or how we should feel about it or even define it. Deep-thinking billionaire philanthropist Soros jumps in with a significant new book -- George Soros on Globalization -- in which he advances some exciting and startling ideas about the future.
Anti-globalization protests have become a staple of international summit meetings, Soros points out, a sort of "fragmented potpourri of laments about life in the modern world." A ferocious advocate of open societies, he takes on what's good and bad about globalism, and how we might put it to better use. We'll take up that discussion here.
As Soros points out, 'Globalization' is a much overused term with a wide variety of meanings and contexts. Soros uses it to mean the development of global financial markets and the growth of trans-national corporations, along with their increasing power over national economies. "I believe that most of the problems that people associate with globalism," writes Soros, "including the penetration of market values into areas where they do not traditionally belong, can be attributed to these phenomena."
One could also blame the globalization of information and culture; the spread of television, Internet and other forms of communication; and the increased mobility and commercialization of ideas.
But Soros understandably concentrates on economic issues. Globalization as he defines it, is new. At the end of World War II, most countries strictly controlled international capital transactions. International capital movement accelerated in the early 1980s under Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and financial markets became truly global only in the early 1990s, Soros says, after the collapse of the Soviet empire.
That period also happens to coincide with the most explosive growth of the Net and the Web, perfect engines for the new data-driven economies and systems for the rapid movement -- literally -- of capital.
By contrast, as we can see on the evening news most nights, while governments may not be able to restrict the flow of capital, they're still fairly effective at controlling the movement of people. (Although even there, the Net ultimately makes that more difficult, at least in terms of intellectual property and ideas. This kind of content is liquid, no longer confinable within territorial boundaries.
Since capital is the essential ingredient of contemporary production and economies, countries compete to attract it. It's no accident that nations who can't or won't are also incubators for political discontent and terrorism. Globalism has transformed our historic economic and social arrangements. Since capital can move anywhere in seconds, any nation-state's ability to exercise control over an economy has been radically undermined. This was a huge club the British held over the Chinese government during negotiations over the transfer of Hong Kong. The Chinese were forced to be somewhat more democratic when, with the stroke of a key, billions of dollars in capital could have fled Hong Kong in a micro-second, even if its people couldn't.
"The globalization of financial markets," argues Soros," has rendered the welfare state that came into existence after World War II obsolete, because the people who require a social safety net cannot leave the country, but the capital the welfare state used to tax can."
This was no accident, he explains, even if few Americans had any idea it was happening. The Reagan administration (along with Thatcher) was determined to reduce the state's ability to interfere in the economy and, helped enormously by globalization's rise, it succeeded.
So, exuberantly costumed demonstrations aside, globalism is not about to evaporate or even weaken, not any time soon. Quite the opposite: nation-states and their constituents now have to choose between globalism (and its attendant prosperity) or religious fanaticism. This leaves us with the central question:
Next: Is Globalism good or evil?
a little nonsense, but hey - it's near April Fools (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh - you're right. Poor Saudi Arabia.
Having Deja vu?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope, just do a simple search [slashdot.org] (for the afraid, this is Jon's EIGHTH Globalism story).
Rehashing old stories?
You bet!!!
The Globalism horse is DEAD.
Please please please please please come up with a better buzzword/topic to use in your stories, and lets move on.
No after versus before here (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey editors, if you're hurting for money (see also: subscriptions), maybe you should tell Katz that either he comes up with original material or you're taking him off the payroll.
Evolution (Score:2, Insightful)
running away from the world (Score:5, Insightful)
Much of the world hated us when we weren't running away from it.
For example [nationalreview.com]
Running Away? (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, I thought they hated us for sticking our noses in their business.
running away? um (Score:1, Insightful)
sorry running away? you have a culture that by its nature invades and polutes every other. how are you running away from the rest of the world? in fact i would say its quite the opposite. for years the government of your country has meddled in the affairs of others. that is why Osama is pissed as well as many many other countries. The USA is a bully and the last thing bullies do is run away from a fight.
Re:a little nonsense, but hey - it's near April Fo (Score:4, Insightful)
But then, that's not surprising in an economy so full of patronage that 40% of the labor force is in government.
The US already knows this (Score:3, Insightful)
But just because "they" may not like our ways, doesn't mean it's a bad thing, in some places there are no womens rights. The women might not even care because they've had it drilled in to their brains all their lives that they were meant to stay at home and not vote. It's been part of their culture for centuries, what makes the US right all of a sudden? Nothing really, but that doesn't make it easier to sit back and watch the women be oppresed and say "oh, they don't mind." So it's kinda, might makes right, and the US has the might.
There is the myth that church and state are seperated in the US. But none of the constitutional rights go against the ten commandments and we're one nation "under god". Why? Because we had to go by *something*. We couldn't make laws to make everybody happy, so we decided on "Christian" laws. We choose that adultery is bad, but in some parts of africa, it's expected to give your wife to company. Again, what makes the US right? Well, we have the aids problem a little more under control, but the only moral reasoning is that it comes from the bible. Still, in the US it's illegal.
What I'm trying to say is, we can't decide for people what is right or wrong. But if another culture sees our culture and likes it, why stop them from joining? Where does it cross the line from preserving their culture to oppressing them and isolating them from the outside world?
The effect of September 11. (Score:3, Insightful)
The secondary enduring effect is that some psychotic, paranoid redneck idiots are using September's attacks as an excuse to increase their destructive interference in other people's lives in the name of national security, patriotism or whatever.
Believe in an economy, invest in it (Score:2, Insightful)
This is where the Hong-Kong story is wrong, it doesn't matter what the British Government do or say, it is the markets themselves that will judge. A significant factor in the case of Hong Kong would have been the Bank of China that was putting most of its Forex transactions through Hong Kong. They would also have advised retaining the status quo, even though it would cost some face.
The issue though is the trans-national corp. Who regulates it? This is a separate issue to capital flow. Here the corporate HQ gravitates to the best tax/regulatory environment. Is that really correct?
Good to see misinformation is alive and well. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah yes, thank you for pointing that out. It's not because much of the world hates us for running into shit we should of kept out of and then exploiting everything around us.
We were truly "running away from the world" as the United States killed over 100,000 Filipinos in the 1899 Filipino-American War. (And consequently returning to the Phillipines in 1945 to defeat the leftist Huks and install a series of puppet presidents, namely Ferdinand Marcos who sucked the country dry of capital for three decades and then retired into Hawaii).
They most certainly don't hate us for the CIA's 1953 takedown of democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh in Iran and the subsequent installment of a repressing and torturing Shah.
Or the other takedown of 1953, Jacobo Arbenz, who was a democratically elected president and had such "evil" plans like land reform, civil liberties and nationalizing the Washington-connected United Fruit Company. More US political installments and US trained death squads leads to another 100,000 victims.
Or the US attempts to overthrow the Syrian goverment. Twice.
It's not that we're hated because we still, to this day, Israel with billions of dollars of aid, despite its harsh treatment of Palestinians and massacres in Lebanon.
Or the million or so who died as a result of 1957 Sukarno-Indonesia scandal (which had such tidbits like the CIA making a fake sex film to try to blackmail him).
Or Vietnam.
Or the '69 carpet bombings of Cambodia where hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians died. The end result being the US helping the genocidal manial Pol Pot to take over who declares "Year Zero," kills anyone with an education, or even wearing glasses, and sends everyone to the countryside to work in agricultural labor camps. More than two million die in his "killing fields".
Certainly, the world doesn't hate us for the infamous Congo/Zaire affair where a man calling for the liberation of Congo's economy and politics, Patrice Lumumba, is assasinated with the help of the CIA and then chopped into little bits and then burned in acid. Mobutu Sese Seko takes over, changes the name to Zaire, and begins one of the most corrupt and bloody dictatorships in modern times. Thirty years later, despite its rich natural resources, the people of the Congo are still dirt-poor, Mobutu is a multibillionaire, and the country is in chaos. In 1997, Mobutu is overthrown, and retires to the Cote d'Azur. The country slides into a civil war that has killed more than one million.
I guess that our "running away" consists of violence in Cuba, Chile, East Timor, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Colombia.
So Katz, before you point the finger to an "invasive American culture" as a cause of hatred from lots of the world, why don't you try pointing the finger at an "invasive America"?
As a 17 year old, I get enough of this "They hate us because we have all this good shit" on the news and at school. At least places like this news website should be reserved for some insight past what the media feeds us and into the real matters at hand.
Re:No after versus before here (Score:2, Insightful)
The sad truth: foreigners gobble up US culture (Score:2, Insightful)
As for the "culture war" between the West and the Islamic countries, it boils down to one simple truth - a closed repressive culture is being overrun by one that glorifies and even exploits openness.
These regimes are frightened by Western culture because they realize their rule cannot withstand open examination, but instead must be enforced autocratically or through religious dogma.
It's not about Ideas, It's about getting even (Score:2, Insightful)
Does it really matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've reached the point where I'm becoming more discriminating in what I let effect me. Just because the media reports on something doesn't mean I have to have an emotional response. People get worked up over the Middle East but really, unless you have relatives over there or you are going broke from paying $0.10 more a gallon on gas it doesn't matter the least in your life.
The amount of news pouring in from all over the world simply requires some sort of prioritizing. It is like classified information, if everything, no matter how trivial, is marked secret then nothing is really classified. If you allow everything you see on TV to effect you then nothing truly effects you because you are emotionally spread out so thinly.
Re:-1 troll (Score:4, Insightful)
And that's our fault??
I'm an American and currently live in Mexico. Almost all the movies down here are the same movies we see in the U.S., just subtitled (or dubbed, in the case of Disney films meant for children).
A couple of years ago there was actually a law proposed before the Mexican Congress whereby Mexican movie theaters would be required by law to show a minimum percentage (40%?) of Mexican movies.
The law didn't even get passed. It went down in flames because most of the Mexican public knows that Mexican movies are crap and they don't want it forced down their throats. Movie theaters complained because they knew no-one (relatively) would go to see the latest BS turned out by the Mexican movie industry and their ticket sales would suffer as a result.
So now, years later, even though Mexicans sometimes think Americans are arrogant (until they actually MEET us in person!) and academics and critics complain about the American cultural invasion, in the end, it is the Mexican population and culture that craves it. They watch our movies. They watch our sitcoms. They drive to the Texas border to buy CD players, DVD players, laptops, PDAs, washing machines, etc.
The United States isn't forcing anyone to watch our movies, buy our products, or accept our culture. They are doing that all by themselves.
If they don't like it they have an option: abstain!
If Mexico stops watching American movies and Hollywood succeeds at having a military invasion launched against Mexico, ok, valid point. Until then, these people should find something else to bitch and moan about.
Yes, the United States is the most powerful country. Yes, we're not perfect and will use that power when it behooves us. But NO, we are not the source of the world's problems. Most of the worlds' problems are much closer to the source than to the United States (i.e., lack of democracy, dictatorships, governments exploiting their people, etc.)
Globalism _as_ religion (Score:5, Insightful)
All of this leads me to my contention: Globalism-as-the-worlds-savior is a religion just as much as any other religion is. We've yet to see it pay off across the board (obviously, many have made gains, but those gains are overshadowed by an increasing number of ultra-poor in many nations who've had to borrow from the IMF.)
I always felt that the whole game was no different from religion - a promise that will come to fruition 'in the future sometime' (according to WTO/IMF aligned proponants of globalisation), if only we accept that many will suffer in the meantime.
Any ideological system that is sufficiently complex takes a whackload of faith in order to implement, usually gets abused by those at the helm of the decision making, and is gobbled up by the majority of those who benifit directly from said system with little question or belief that that system could be having negative effects on out-of-sight societies.
That globalisms 'empower society by encouraging the desire for material gain' ideology is directly in competition with Islamic religions' view that material gain (becoming richer than your neighbour) is something to be discouraged (or in the very least, not encouraged) goes a long way, IMHO, to illustrate the underlying ideological conflict we're seeing in current events.
I just can't shake the feeling that 'globalism', as a buzzword, and as a trend whose sordid details most people are unaware of, requires just as much faith to live by as any other religion. And that, I find, is kind of interesting.
Re:-1 troll (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess if you can convince yourself, you don't need anyone else to do it for you.
A reason that globalization is bad is because "globalization" is, from one point of view, the erosion of corporate accountability. For a corporation all about maximizing profits. What is supposed to happen in "democracy" is that government is accountable to the public, and business is accountable to government (and thus, the people), but this has been shifted; more and more, government is accountable to business, and the public is moving to the bottom of the heap. Businesses can and do get away with exploiting people and environment (think sweatshops, mercury-laden mine effluent) because they are only accountable to the bottom line, and not the people they affect.
Re:"Islam is a peaceful religion." (Score:1, Insightful)
(Still FortKnox, but anon for Karma)
True Christians don't judge. Sure, I'm not homosexual, and I think its bad, but I have no hatred for homosexuals. You are speaking about fanatics still.
There are different levels of fanaticism. Any "hatred"... ANY... is a form of fanaticism of Christianity. Sure, its a minor form, but its still fanaticism.
"Running away from the world" (Score:3, Insightful)
"We seem to be running away from the world, and much of the world hates us for it."
The US is establishing bases in areas of the world where it never had any influence before: Tajikistan,Uzbekistan and Georgia to name but three.
What we are seeing is both Globalisation and a new kind of military Imperialism and it is very frightening.
Re:running away from the world (Score:4, Insightful)
I love it when people just point to money.
Sure, there are economic concerns that come in to play. But mostly it's political and strategic interests that U.S. acts on.
Did we get involved in Kuwait because of oil? Yes.
Did we care about the oil because of its economic worth? Perhaps a little, but the main reason is because our country depends on that oil. Not just economically, but socially and militarily. Take away that oil for long enough and the U.S. can't defend itself, can't travel, and society itself changes--if we're not invaded.
Sure, money was a concern. But it was way down on the list compared to strategic reasons to get involved.
Yes, we get involved all over the world. Sometimes it's annoying even to us Americans. But after December 7th, 1941, can anyone say that the United States should simply look the other way? That's what got us bombed at Pearl Harbor. We got caught with our pants down and NO, we're not going to look the other way.
Yes, we are interested in our wellbeing. Of course we are. Every country is. As the most powerful country we have more enemies and, thus, tend to be involved in more places. That with the goal that we'd rather fight in a foreign country than have our country bombed. That's just plain logical.
So before you go blaming every U.S. move on money, look at it from a strategic, political, and military standpoint. Sure, money is always a consideration, but strategic and political reasons are almost always the immediate reason for U.S. action... money is secondary.
An English stance (Score:5, Insightful)
America seems to have adopted the 9/11 tragedy as a tragedy for the world. It is not. It is a tragedy for those in the WTC. Of course we sympathise for those. I don't know the exact figures, but less than 4000 people died. How many people do you think there are who are starving, dying of famine, etc etc? I'm sorry, you do not merit our totally undivided sympathy.
Americans seem to think that they are so powerful that a terrorist attack on them is a terrorist attack on the civilised world. This is simply not true. It is a terrorist attack on America, and nothing more. What gives America the right to assume that the whole world is hugely affected by what happens to them? I can certainly say that absolutely nothing has changed here.
I hate to be so totally against America like this, but I cannot help but feel that you've got to realise that there's a lot of other non-Middle-East countries out there who remain unaffected and who do not have such a superiority complex about themselves as to assume that they reflect the feelings of the world. As for the Middle East itself, well they have their opinions too, and they're not so uncivilised as you might think.
Re:Good to see misinformation is alive and well. (Score:3, Insightful)
Anything that happened between 1943 and 1989 is a result of the Cold War and blame can be placed on any number of countries/leaders. There is no excuse for killing of any kind in my book (except maybe capital punishment). None of these things were necessarily 'right' or 'good', but they may have been the best thing at the time to do. Besides, countries make mistakes just like you and me. Throwing up a list of the brightest and most horrible as an attack is childish and naive.
It's not that we're hated because we still, to this day, Israel with billions of dollars of aid, despite its harsh treatment of Palestinians and massacres in Lebanon.
Tell that to the jews in America that have tremendous political clout. The US is a republic that more often than not listens to it's constituents and that is why Israel gets the guns and planes. Add to that the need for an American interest in the region and you have a strong impetus for the US to stay involved in Israel.
As a 17 year old, I get enough of this "They hate us because we have all this good shit" on the news and at school.
Maybe you should spend some time in a foreign school where they feed you the "We hate Americans because they starve our children" line every day when in fact the dictator has 58% of the countries wealth, food, electricity and clean water in his 100 palaces. Then you can begin to be justified in claiming to want to know "the real matters at hand."
Re:Good to see misinformation is alive and well. (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you have any idea how *bad* the rest of the world is too? Fine; it is okay to continually beat ourselves up over things that happened in the past. But if you must do so, don't forget to compare atrocities and ill-actions done by other governments in the same time period.
The US is full of faults, even today, but we are no scourge of the world.
Re:running away from the world (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying that America is at the same time insular and has profound reach and influence in the world is a convenient argument of fiction designed to drag America's name through the mud either way you go. No nation is perfect and all nations are guilty by their collective natures.
I would agree with you that the free movement of corporations amongst nations can represent a risk, but it can also represent a protection. Nations must be able to compete with each other for the benefits that corporations can bring. The consistent basis for protection against abuse of that flexibility is norms of international law that protect individuals as well as corporations from harmful and illegal influences.
It's really tiring to hear the old line though of "it's America's fault" when either a) barely a shred of discussion is offered to support the argument, or b) no contrary examples are offered to explain the horrible actions perpetrated by other nations.
The problem is not that the world is overrun by American influence and culture. The problem is that the world needs to stop being so obsessed with America and get on with the business of minding their own business, with a healthy understanding that both 1) extreme attachments to nationalism and 2) knee-jerk accusations of nationalism represent the same kind of prejudice.
I find it ironic and interesting that the same people in one breath accuse America on the one hand of being isolated and ignorant of the rest of the world, and on the other hand of being too involved and too present in the world.
Nothing will satisfy such people. They argue toward self-defamation, and not toward the truth.
Re:Its about -concentration- of wealth (Score:4, Insightful)
I think I heard somewhere that this is almost always true for countries that derive their wealth from natural resources. So, paradoxicly, striking oil can actually be bad news for the economy.
It's probably part economics and part psychology. People get the idea that they don't really have to create to be wealthy. They figure they can just sell all their natural resources, and that will supply the wealth. In the short run, this is true. In the long run, they are actually depleting their wealth.
Now, that need not be the case if people turn towards activities that are sustainable and not dependant on the resource (gold, oil, diamonds, whatever).
To do this, the Saudis need to develop industries that don't have anything to do with oil. The problem is, that's such a leap, and because they are still swimming in oil wealth it is probably a very hard sell.
If I were the King of Saudi Arabia (that sounds so quaint, doesn't it?) I would be pushing for the development of automotive plants, chip fabs, irrigation projects, and innovative urban designs to take advantage of the desert environment (think ubiquitous solar power). That's plainly the future after the oil runs out and/or the west stops needing it. However, can you imagine trying to sell this vision to the Saudis now?
So, the Saudis supply the raw material, but we supply the "human capital" and in the process of doing so we enrich ourselves while the Saudis impoverish their land. They are in very deep doo-doo if they don't wake up.
Useless babble (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing like a bad mix of George Soros and techno-futurism to come up with vapid social analysis.
We seem to be running away from the world, and much of the world hates us for it.
Americans are doing a good job of ignoring the rest of the world, thanks to the woefully narrow focus of most of our news media. The U.S. government, on the other hand, continues to get better and better at interfering with the rest of the world, often in ways we don't even hear about. How many ./ers know there are American "military advisors" (a la Vietnam) in Colombia and the Phillippines right now?
As the U.S. evolved rapidly from an industrial to a data-based economy, much of the world hasn't come along, or doesn't want to.
Mr. Katz, who do you think manufactures your sneakers? Your car? Your computer? Regardless of whether the U.S. now has a "data-based economy," someone has to do the producing. And, quite frankly, the fact that good-paying industrial union jobs in the U.S. have evaporated, only to be replaced with temp work for 13-year-old Indonesian girls earning a few dollars a day, doesn't strike me as much cause for celebration.
A ferocious advocate of open societies ..
No, Mr. Soros is a ferocious advocate of open markets. Big difference.
Since when does "people == content"? I'm all for the Net's revolutionary impact on intellectual 'property,' but it doesn't have much effect on whether peaceful people can cross borders freely. That privilege is reserved for capital.
nation-states and their constituents now have to choose between globalism (and its attendant prosperity) or religious fanaticism.
This is a false choice: Enron or Osama. I pick neither. Unfortunately for Mr. Soros, the romantic notion that ordinary people, not financial markets, ought to make the decisions that affect their lives, lingers in the hearts of many.Re:The Problem Isn't Globalization, But Our Hypocr (Score:2, Insightful)
As a Canadian we have to live a breath the American influence... Trade between Canada and the US is in the worst state it has ever been. The US uses its massive influence and power to get its way... If Canadians stand up for what we believe we'd be considered terrorists and they would blow us to pieces...
It could be said that Microsoft is to the US and the US is to the World.
Re:a little nonsense, but hey - it's near April Fo (Score:5, Insightful)
So what do you care if Americans have guns?
And this is why I will never move to the States, I'd be fearful for my safety and the safety of my family.
I wish more people would adopt this philosophy instead of coming to America and tying to make it more like their home country. When you come to America know that we like our guns (among other things). Don't come over here and say "Back in my country...". If your country is so much better, then go back.
I have never criticized any other nation's internal policies. It is none of my business.
rhetoric aside (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with Globalization the way Katz/Soros defines it is that those in power are not accountable to the billions of people they are affecting. WTO, World Back, IMF, these folks can't be voted out, impeached, etc, and they are not worried about the next election. There's not even a real court or system of laws that has any real power over them.
No Power Without Accountability!
In light of that, who cares who did what 50 years ago or which religion wants to slaughter whom or who has pork in what project? None of that matters as long as those setting global policy and moving mountains of money can operate with total impunity.
P.S. - And unless you're a majority stock holder in a major international corporation, it's guaranteed those folks don't represent your interests or mine.
Re:Its about -concentration- of wealth (Score:4, Insightful)
The issues pushing theocracy are much less economic in SA. These issues include:
-The despotic, repressive monarchy which itself is hedonistic while requiring its citizens to adhere to strict wahhabism.
-The extremist nature of Wahhibism, and its vicious ideas.
-a general Arab resentment of the West because the West has replaced Arabia as the center of progress and culture. This is made worse by the obvious popularity of western culture - even as that culture insults all religions and religious ideas.
If the men involved in terrorism had been from poor families, one could pay more attention to the economic motive. But they were not. Many were quite well off, in fact.
Bananas and Steel - Never Trust A Yank (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't believe me? Bananas & Steel
Bananas: The europeans preferentially imported bananas from small ex-colonies in the caribean. Many of the islands have economies that are 50% or more dependent upon bananas. Their costs are higher than the big central american banana plantations (unavoidably due to geography), but within bounds that the EC could handle by giving a small degree of help. America used GATT to force the europeans to cut their subsidies so that their would be a 'level playing field' - which in practise means that the caribean producers loose their markets to the benefit of the big american fruit growing corporations.
Steel: American steel is expensive because of high wages and other production costs. American jobs were threatened because foreign producers could deliver steel 50% or more cheaper than USA steel. So in direct contravention of GATT america pushes through 40% levies on foreign steel imports.
Never trust a yank. They lie and cheat. A nation of hypocrites who when the going get tough are more than prepared to swing their bloated weight around.
(and guess what grop all those small banana growers who the americans forced out of business are turning to? Yep, drugs)
Re:a little nonsense, but hey - it's near April Fo (Score:2, Insightful)
Statistics show that areas with increased gun ownership (especially when those guns are carried on one's person) have significantly decreased crime rates (Florida for example).
Other areas (England) that chose to ban guns almost completely have seen a horrific increase in the rate of violent crime and murder. I actually know some older Brittish couples who feel they have pretty much been robbed of their retirement by the gun control. They have people breaking into their houses and making them feel VERY unsafe. The police are only reactionary (can't prevent crime, only punish it) and they are not allowed to protect themselves.
I don't look at the gun issue through clouded lenses of feelings, fears, and misconceptions. Guns are not evil, bad, etc...but some people, irrationaly, feel that way...and they are often portrayed that way.
Look at the facts and you will see the light.
Guns are just as good, if not better, than "free" software.
Semantics: Globalism vs. Corporate Imperialism (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations and the U.S. Government confuse globalism with corporate imperialism. Or perhaps they don't. It just sounds better. Corporate imperialism is what people hate, not globalism, except as the term is used by the powers that be.
To make globalism work, we need to give people control, including the power to move around the world as easily as corporations and capital. We need to respect the degree to which communities want their lifestyle altered by participating in the global community. And we need to give the people a real say in government, not Mickey Mouse elections based on sound bites and FUD, with a choice between grits and boiled pork.
Further, we need to see the exploitation of third world labor in the same light as the exploitation of mineral resources. When we ship labor overseas, to reduce cost, it must be accompanied by benefits such as education, not just the billowing bank accounts of a few dictators and corporate moguls.
Western countries and the U.S. in particular, must also start to walk the talk. All western political and corporate leaders are good at parroting free trade sound bites. But they are much less adept at letting the market work its magic. The current U.S. vs. Europe steel debacle is just one of the many examples. Take a look at all the regulations and restrictions limiting clothing imports into the U.S. You might say, that is to protect U.S. clothing manufacturers--so much for free trade. But then why not limit the export of programming jobs to India, or help television manufacturers in the U.S.? The reason, among others, is to keep third world countries in their place, and to protect the artificially inflated market of designer brands in western countries. As long as U.S. corporations are in control, everything is OK. But if it looks like control might shift to another country, then trade restrictions are imposed.
And finally, intellectual property law reform is badly needed. As it is, the IP laws are bad for the people in developed countries. But much worse, for people in developing countries they are just a further tool for indefinite enslavement, and in many cases, such as availability of drugs, they are a matter of survival.
The overwhelming hate Americans experience in many parts of the world is certainly related to these issues. As is a completely out of touch and unjust U.S. centric foreign policy, but that is the subject of another essay. Many of these people who hate the U.S. don't hate Americans, they hate what a select few Americans do to their countries and people. Remember when Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire?" Well, those same Russians are still there, but obviously not so evil anymore. The current administration believes that propaganda can help sell American values to the third world. But how do you sell enslavement and exploitation to the looser? Military force, of course, mixed with plenty of FUD and a little well place cash. The promise of a future more bleak than it already is. That is the theory anyway. September 11 should have been a wake-up call to yes, defend ourselves, but also to reevaluate our view of the world.
Obviously, all of this cannot happen overnight. The world's problems are not solved by moving three or four billion poor people to the U.S. or Western Europe. But there is no reason why the government should restrict the movement of the workforce between countries with a similar economic status. There is no reason why we can't develop a "free trade" system that benefits all parties. There is no reason why social responsibility cannot be part of globalism.
In the end, the U.S. Government and U.S. corporations (if there is a difference), must learn to ask and give, not to tell and take. Then perhaps, American values will be admired. And interestingly enough, this is also the recipe for unlimited wealth, because it is giving of service and value, that creates wealth. I should think the collapse of the Roman, Spanish, British, etc.. empire has taught us that much. Perhaps it has, but it is not relevant until after the next election cycle, or the golden parachute kicks in.
Talking about the world is interesting, but the first step must be cleaning up the mess at home. Would you hire an interior decorator who lives in a dump? It may be a surprise to Americans, but even Western Europeans ridicule the U.S. legal and political system. The U.S. may spend tons of money on medical care, but its infant mortality rate is among the world's worst. Social Security? Or do you mean social insecurity? Even with all the news coverage, it is always an eye opener to see the reaction of people from Europe when they catch a glimpse of U.S. poverty. Clean up at home, and lead the world by example. Just remember how well it worked when your parents said: "Do as I tell you, not as I do."
The bottom line is: Globalism is Good. Corporate (or State) Imperialism is Bad.
Re:Running Away? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perfect case in point: "Why isn't America, the richest nation on Earth, doing something about the famine in Somalia?" So the U.S. starts shipping food over as fast as it can. The warlords steal the food from the people. So the U.S. sends troops in to protect the food/people. "Why is America interfering with poor little Somalia? Why is America hunting the muslim warlords? It must be because they're muslims. The infidels are attacking."
Re:running away from the world (Score:5, Insightful)
People are "surprised" that anyone would have the utter lack of decency and humanity required to carry off such a horrific attack against innocent people.
I didn't express myself clearly or you didn't understand what I meant.
I don't blame the United States for the events of 9/11. I think that quite clearly the perpetrators of that event need to shoulder full responsibility for it, as well as those who trained them and provided financial support.
But you fall into the same cultural pit of isolation as the rest of us peasants. What you can call utter lack of decency (and, I, too, FWIW), believe it or not, others can refer to as a strike against Satanic and infidel immorality, justified by God. Those hijackers went to their deaths believing they were doing a good thing not an evil deed. I don't believe it was a good deed, but the fact is, they did and, more to the point, there are many people out there in the world who still do believe that sort of thing.
It's probably as incomprehensible to you as to most Americans that believe that innocent civilians should not be the targets of political violence. But there it is. It's real. They believe something different, even if you think it's a crock.
I find it ironic and interesting that the same people in one breath accuse America on the one hand of being isolated and ignorant of the rest of the world, and on the other hand of being too involved and too present in the world.
It's like this: most Americans don't know a foreign language, don't read foreign media or watch foreign television. Most everything they understand about the outside world comes through network television news. I submit that they are therefore isolated and ignorant of the rest of the world.
Meanwhile, many of the world's largest corporations are based in the USA. Their trade ventures into the rest of the world are very important, both to us and to the rest of the world, because of the economic benefits that derive from such trade.
What those countries see are not you and me. They see vice presidents of American corporations, negotiating business arrangements in their countries. Those Americans have a different culture, act in different ways, and are yet quite important. You may think that Americans are represented by the State Department. That's only a small part of it. America is represented by corporate officers overseas and by the media which it broadcasts, such as Baywatch, Dallas, etc.
You and I may know that America is not what is portrayed on television, but most of the rest world sees only that. They think we're all materialistic airheads, concerned more about our looks than the well-being of our fellow man, ready to go on a gun-crazed killing spree out of vengeance for some trifle.
I think America is more than that, but I harbor no illusions that just because we are good, that the rest of the world will automatically know it just as we know it.
Re:"hegemony" = We have an inferiotity complex (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget legislation. When the above doesn't work to your advantage, you always resort to legislation. 20 years ago, the major forest product companies in Canada recognized a major lack of productivity in their sawmills as compared to the U.S. They embarked on a multi-billion dollar upgrade which now makes their processing capability second to none in the world. Through modernizing their industry, they were able to produce more wood more efficiently than any other country in the world. Compare this to the U.S. companies. They were content to keep pouring diminishing amounts of raw lumber (already cut it all and never bothered to replant) through very antiquated, labour-intensive mills. The result: a lack of raw lumber and poor productivity and high cost products. The solution: 29% tariffs on finished lumber from Canada and welcoming shipments of raw logs from Russia and Europe.
You might want to rethink the "fairness, work ethic, innovation and competition" part of your thinking. Don't forget that Canada is your number one trading partner and friend. Just imagine what your "Department Of Commerce (Protectionism when we can't play fairly) has done to your ENEMIES!!
I choose to disregard the rest of your post as intolerance. But then, given your innovative education system, what more could I expect.
Engagement is messy - the Spiderman paradox (Score:2, Insightful)
I find it remarkable how contradictory the two streams of advice about how the US should change its behavior are. One one hand, there are those who say we need to be less involved in the rest of the world - no global policing, no liberation of Kuwait, leave Iraq alone, leave Bosnia alone, no more support for Israel etc. Others say we need to be more involved - impose a Palestinian/Israeli settlement, neutralize Iraq, increase and improve foreign aid, make freeer trade, etc.
Neither side is essentially wrong - what they all want is for us to do the "right" things, and not do the "wrong" things. Of course, which is which is far from obvious.
As in all things, Stan Lee said it best: "With great power comes great responsibility." Spiderman's greatest failure wasn't what he did, but what he didn't do, allowing a criminal to go free and kill his Uncle Ben. As semi-facetious as the argument may sound, the US has been bit by that radioactive spider, and we need to accept the fact of our power, and figure out how best to use it.
Due to a combination of excellent geography, a successful culture built by waves of immigration, and dumb luck, the US has the ability to Make Things Different in the world. We can make changes. But while we're powerful, we aren't prescient, and can't predict the long-term ramifications of what we do with any accuracy.
But choosing not to act is still an action - was not intervening in Rawanda any better than invading Iraq would be? Our power means we have to make these decisions, and sweat them, and argue about them endlessly on talk shows, and then, gut clinched, try to do the right thing and hope it all works out.
Many of the examples of past US evil are from the cold war. I think we can agree that a good number of the things we did were not only not effective for our goals, but hurt them in the long term. But do you think that, with what they knew at the time, the people who made those decisions knew which were which? Does this mean we should have let the Soviet Union have a free hand all over the world? No.
The US needs to be engaged with the world, and we have to know it's going to be a messy business that will make us enemies. So we need to do it in as smart a way as possible, with a long view, with clear-eyed compassion, and with as little attention to our trivial domestic politics as possible.
For a recent example of us NOT doing this right, we failed to drop textile tarrifs for Pakistan. Pakistan's leadership, whatever their faults, have been a surprisingly good partner in our current conflict. And they're dirt poor, which helps terrorists, and hurts the development of a healthy society. Pakistan makes a lot of textiles, and could important a lot more to the US, helping develop a better, non-aid-based economy. But, in order to not risk the Carolinas in the mid-term elections later this year, and his reelection in 2004, Bush refused to lower tarrifs or increase Pakistan's quota for textiles. I know it sounds like a small deal, but getting this kind of stuff right could help enormously.
Anyway, there is nothing we can do that will keep people from hating us. We have the power to pick winners and losers, and so we'll be resented for what we don't do just as much as for what we do. So we just have to do the right thing as best we can, and give the world as few VALID reasons to hate us as possible.
You need a clue. (Score:3, Insightful)
As someone who is twice his age I agree with most of what he said. AND, more importantly, I think his arguments hold large amounts of truth. To respond to you directly:
Blaming everything that has happened between 1943 and 1989 on the Cold War is a bit silly. The Cold War is a symptom of something else. It's the result of power struggles. Power struggles and the control for dominance is just that. And, IMHO, it's hardly ever justified. It's basically a form of mental masturbation and usually performed by insecure little boys who haven't figured out how to deal with their own personal problems. The reasons, however, are usually couched in some kind of rah-rah about protecting the world or some other such trite crap.
Surprisingly, I agree with you about the Jewish constituency; however, you ignored some things. I'm not Jewish and I am, frankly, quite sick of American Jew's support (those that do) of Israeli behavior. Israel is the South Africa of this decade. There is no excuse for the ongoing institutionalized indentured servitude (really slavery if you don't want to mince words) and mistreatment of the Palestinian peoples. It's very much akin to the justification of South African slavery. Did you know that Nelson Mandella and the ANC were classified as "terrorists" by both the South African and American governments in the early 80s?
Your last argument is the most ridiculous and clearly shows that while the rest of your article is appears logical that you are operating on the basis of emotions for your deductive reasoning. In a huge number of cases the "dictator" in question that you refer to was backed by the U.S. Liberty, human rights, etc. are for American people, not people in other countries. Aren't you paying attention to the what the U.S. government does as foreign policy as opposed to what they say?
I doubt you have even been overseas. Having spent a fair bit of my time overseas I can say that A) your claim of how the propaganda machines function is exaggerated and B) people in other countries are frequently understanding of the difference between American people and the American governmen, and C) you have totally ignored that where there is a propaganda machine in place it's probably a small flame next to the might mechanisms of the American mass media which affect the globe.
Anyway, mod this down as a troll, but you clearly needed a clue. Here it is. Take it or leave it.
Re:a little nonsense, but hey - it's near April Fo (Score:2, Insightful)
The older Britons that you claim to know are certainly the Hestonite minority. How the fuck can gun control ruin your retirement? It should not come as a surprise that the US has the highest violent crime rate in the developed world and they have the most relaxed gun laws . Please don't take made-up views and smear them around. I've never met someone from the US travelling outside America that wasn't amazed by the lack fear on the streets of foreign countries. If you like staying inside at night or worrying about your girlfriend's safety, I leave you to it with all your uber-capitalist views.
Go back under your bridge you bastard troll.
Re:a little nonsense, but hey - it's near April Fo (Score:2, Insightful)
They do not fight for their god or their religion. What their actual reasons are are immaterial in this scope. Their god and their religion is what they use to dupe tools into blowing themselves up to further their own ends. The low ranking members might fight for god or religion, but the leaders of religious groups don't really believe, they just use belief to dupe the ignorant as has always been done.
Re:a little nonsense, but hey - it's near April Fo (Score:3, Insightful)
Other areas (England) that chose to ban guns almost completely have seen a horrific increase in the rate of violent crime and murder.
And then you claim: "Look at the facts and you will see the light".
Since you didn't actually cite any actual statistics, were you hoping we'd just take your word for it? I'll show you mine, what have you got to show?
Well, it took about two minutes to find data via Google, and here are the facts: according to the US Department of Justice/FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the U.S. in 1997 there were an estimated 18,210 homicides. Or, a rate of 6.8 per 100,000 population.
In the U.K. in 1997, there were 640 homicides. Or, a rate of 1.24 per 100,000 population.
Next time, heed your own advice and look at the facts before spouting your useless drivel.
References:
this is what happens from watching cnn (Score:2, Insightful)
Your own bullshit detector needs some attention.
I could list sites for you to visit, or suggest you actually try going to the middle east and taking a look for yourself, but I don't think it would do any good. The trouble is, people judge the credibility of information against what they think they know already. You obviously believe you have a more accurate understanding of what's going on there than 98% of the people who live there. You "know" too much to learn anything.
They disagree with what you learnt from CNN - they must be stupid and ignorant.
Re:running away from the world (Score:4, Insightful)
However, there are some problems with your response.
You write: "It's probably as incomprehensible to you as to most Americans that believe that innocent civilians should not be the targets of political violence. But there it is. It's real. They believe something different, even if you think it's a crock."
Go back and read my post -- I think you didn't read my understanding correctly. I am not deying that ignorant and violent people exist or that they have different points of view (this seems to be your impression of my post): JUST the opposite.
I'm not saying it's incomprehensible; in fact I'm saying you misjudge people when you accuse them of being "suprised" in a manner that lacks apprehension. The shock people experienced on 9/11 was overwhelmingly shock at the horror of the event, and the nature of the target. It's one thing to see a military target attacked, but when a civilian target is hit, yes indeed, that represents surprise: not an act of violence has occurred, but that it has been carried out against civilians.
I may grant you that this punctured some sense of safety many Americans have felt, but that does not change the simple fact that *most Americans do understand that some people hate America.* One would have to have been blind in the last half century to not understand that.
Your theory that Americans don't know or care what's going on in the world is simply untrue. Americans may not be interested in getting involved in every conflict that you want them to get involved in, but I can assure you that when they do, some of the same people who protest lack of involvement (not necessarily you in this case) will be right there to criticize that interest and involvement. The arguments about involvement or non-involvement are generally hollow and have no serious consequence. In the international, arena, America is criticized for being involved; and then, for not being involved. A difference of principle or opinion is considered ignorance, rather than a difference of opinion. I tell you many times, this perception by outsiders is itself a shallow kind of ignorance. This is not my prognosis for how the whole world operates, but I highlight it here because it is an arrogance that is often overlooked.
Some people can never be made happy, no matter what choices America makes. The fact of my personal experience in this lifetime is that most Americans are good hearted people and do care about others, and are interested. Is everyone an intellectual pyramid about what's going on in the world? No more than in other places in the world -- why measure people according to nations in this regard? Is there a nation in the world that you can single out as being particulary informed about America? Do you see why I might find failure in this point?
Whether most Americans speak more than one language or not may deprive them of some cultural breadth, but that is more than made up for in the rich tapestry of immigrant culture that has helped build America over the generations. Language is a feature of culture but it's not the only feature. Furthermore, 10% of the U.S. population is foreign born, and these influences do contribute to what people understand about the world. How many nations can say that? Yes, there are people who don't appreciate that instruction and influence, but the tact of blaming people en masse for what they don't understand and with the flimsiest of explanations is a completely ineffective method of instruction. The aggregate effect of that in media and public discourse conditions people to listen less to criticism, not more.
I'm not denying flaws -- certainly they exist (who can say that's not true of any nation?). But there are some people in America and elsewhere who will deny the virtues of America or deny the flaws of other nations out of hand -- as a reflexive movement. That's the only thing I have a problem with -- not you or your post (and please remember the liberty I've taken to express some general comments here that are not tied to what you said -- this is not aimed at you per se).
As for what happened on 9/11, it's not a matter of being incomprehensible to me. I comprehend it exactly: it's *reprehensible* to me. Somehow, although it may not suit your definition, I manage myself to be aghast at what I find reprehensible. However it does not indicate a lack of understanding or previous expectation on my part. There's a difference.
In short, I fully expect more horrible terrorist attacks against innocents to occur in the world, and quite possibly in America again in the future. If you pursue the mathematical odds, history would suggest this is inevitable on one scale or another. I would say other Americans equally share that understanding. However people will still be shocked and aghast when such things happen. It is not a sound basis for criticizing the level of understanding of what differences in opinion exist in the world.
On another point: Yes, some people think they did a good thing, but it's morally and ethically unjustifiable. I understand some people have a different point of view but that doesn't compel me to pander to it as being a view worthy of equal treatment. The celebration of and actual death of innocent people purely on the basis of nationality, race, gender, or any other accepted social classification you can think of is wrong. Period. If you wish you can write it off as an existential equality, but I'm not an existentialist and perhaps you are not either, but if you are we shall forever differ on this point!
I fully understand there are many and varied viewpoints in the world. If you begin from the vantage point that I don't understand this, you fail to see the nuance I am trying to illustrate here. The point is not that I can't see that nuance. I can, and I fully appreciate the presence of that ignorance in many parts of the world -- an ignorance that suggests to people that they can use violence against innocent people as a means to protest or solve a problem. There are people in every part of the world who have that misguided view -- I take no position on which nation has or has not ignorance. They all have a share.
In your recent post you write, "I think America is more than that, but I harbor no illusions that just because we are good, that the rest of the world will automatically know it just as we know it."
If you have this patience for the world, perhaps you should take a step back and exercise the same patience -- or at least positive effort -- for America. You may recall in your earler post, you write:
"That's why most Americans were aghast and surprised by the 9/11 attack, because most of them didn't have any clue about the ideas that circulating in the rest of the world."
If you "harbor no illusions" about the rest of the world "automatically" understanding America, then why do you 'blame' Americans for not automatically understanding the rest of the world?
I see this as a double standard.
-silly
Re:The WTO is eroding democracy. (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, this has been said to a large extent. Powerless to enforce labelling, consumers have successfully campaigned against the large supermarkets, e.g. Tesco, Iceland, etc. to get them to stop selling GM foods. The result is that these supermarkets now only buy supplies from farms that can guarantee that the food is GM-free - and that generally means not the US (Brazil is doing rather well out of this BTW).
Globalising laws that call for labels like that on food would be a good thing. And it will eventually happen.
I tend to agree with you here, but out of optimism rather than any rational expectation based on past experience. However, the implications of this are significant - especially to Americans. Global laws imply global government. Whether that is a directly elected government or some unelected trans-national judical system, the effect will be the same. When more people have a say in the same issue, each individual's say tends to be smaller. We are facing the gradual disenfranchisement of the entire world!
If you don't believe me, just consider environmental legislation. The elected leader of the US pulled out of the Kyoto protocol (on the reduction of carbon emissions). While I think he was wrong to so, we must assume that he was representing the American people when he did this (else why was he in a position to do so). But with global legislation, America would be absolutely powerless to pull out of something like this. The rest of the world is going ahead and ratifying the protocol without the US. With any form of global legislation on this issue, it is quite clear that the US would not be in the driving seat. The erosion of local democracy will probably be felt more keenly in the US than elsewhere.
The issue is not Americanisation, it really is globalisation. Wherever you stand on individual issues, you can be sure that you will feel some pain as the proces s continues and you find that you no longer have the ability to influence something you care about.
To every problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
Eventually I'll get to Soros, but for now let's look at the choice of words in the post:
Our invasive American culture is THEIR choice - last time I checked, the McDonald's franchise punch list did not include armed invasion. Soneone in every place where there's a McD's, Coca Cola, Polo, or US motion picure - the locals had to make it so. You don't get too many US franchises without someone on the receiving end, real estate, vendors, zoning, import & export officials letting if not inviting you to do it.
Also - let's not cross the line and infer by omission that 9/11 was or is any indication of the opinion of anyone but the perpetrators of the terrorism. "Others" is far too unbounded a term to us to describe the marginal combatants who sent two flying bombs into the financial center of the US.
The world has been "globalized" in the modern sense since WWI. This all is nothing new. What is new is the speed at which it can happen, and the facility with which anyone can get their nose in front of a camera. Giant puppets don't mean anything except that they are easier to see and therefore take advantage of the technology of video cameras and the individual predelictions of the TV news producers.
We say "globalization" as if there were any other choice for the only known planet filled with one race of planet-shaping beings.
The real action point comes down to individuals and entities that make the decisions. Nike is responsible for what they do, not America. And before you say it's our laws that let Nike (as an example) do (whatever), it takes two to tango. Is a Nike factory a forced invasion? Is Nike removing Asian teens from their six-figure suites and putting them in a factory? Fill in your favorite offender. The country they're in wanted them there - if they didn't, they wouldn't be there. They decided that this was the best offer they could get. Just like we all decide that minimum wage is right where we want it. If it weren't, we'd vote out anyone who disagreed with it right? Again. Individual choice. The politician's to vote a certain way and ours to sack them. But we have yet to learn the ppower of our (voting) choices, even after the 2000 elections.
And it works both ways. The upper south is now an annex of Asian auto manufacturers. Fuji Heavy makes tanks, but they didn't need them to raise their Subaru plants. Alabama just gave away the store to Hyundai to get them in the state. It was a company and a state government who did this.
Point is, hammering away at an abstract called 'globalization' will do little to change whatever someone wants changed. Put down the puppets, become someone who can make a decision in the direction you wish to, and do something real.
I teach. Every day I make sure that at least in part, my aid to my students includes the messsage that doing is better than wishing, that action is more effective than mentalism, that if you don't work for what you want you will get what someone else wants you to have.
None of this involves carnage against living beings for living as they do. 9/11 is not the untinkable thought in the minds of the rest of the world. While I think Dubya is a little too fond of hearing himself say 'evildoers', it does boil down to individuals who decide to make war, or who design or agree to a sweatshop. Someone has to decide to do these things. We need to make individuals more congizant, enlightened of their actions and consequences.
Globalization's not inherently evil, it's not inherently good. It's inevitable. Consider it as a technology and realize that it only is considerable in specific instances. We learned this lesson at Trinity, but alas, teachers know that that wonderful mental agent called transference never works the way its supposed to.
"Invasive American culture" -- no way. (Score:3, Insightful)
Throughout the world there is a voracious appetite for American culture. We are not "invading" anything. If a French businessman opens up a McDonald's franchise on the corner of his street, his business is free to succeed or fail based on the demand for the product. Somebody must like McDonald's Hamburgers over there, because the restaurants somehow stay in business. Should the French businessman be denied the right to open and operate his own McDonald's? Doesn't he have the right to make money how he wants? Just because something is distributed in a chain or franchise arrangement (whether it's a restaurant, supermarket or store), it doesn't make it automatically crappy and evil.
Here in Texas, I am constantly seeing reminders that we are not the vicious cultural stormtrooper that we are made out to be. Wildly successful businesses started by Mexican or Vietnamese business owners are everywhere. I see Spanish-language advertisements all over the place on billboards. Many of my friends listen to Indian pop music, drink Australian beer and eat Japanese food. And they do this without a second thought -- not "wow I'm being so cool and hip for consuming this stuff," but because these things have really woven themselves into the culture. Americans seek out and embrace other cultures.
I have traveled through more than 20 states, and I have seen it with my own eyes: Americans, for the most part, are genuinely interested in foreign cultures, willing to embrace new ideas and learn about the world. If anything, this made 9/11 all the more tragic and disturbing, because the perpetrators were so terribly misguided in their beliefs about the American people.
It's unfair and ignorant to say that all muslims are kill-crazy bombsmiths. It's unfair and ignorant to say that all Frenchmen are rude, snotty, disheveled little toads. And it's equally unfair to say that American culture is ruthlessly invading the rest of the world, or that the American people are spoiled SUV-driving yuppies, because its a grossly unfair and ignorant characterization.
Re:European perspective (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:running away from the world (Score:2, Insightful)
My point of this is that U.S. DOES look another way far to often and you americans doesn't even seem to notice this.
Disclaimer. I am no way excusing the crazy religous fanatics that killed a lot of people the 11 of september. I just think that americans should realize that the world isn't so black and white that they want to make it out to be.
No you don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
Now you sit here and whine about how your culture is being destroyed by the evil Americans. Well, if I were offended by your walking nude into my neighborhood, but did nothing but complain, then I would be as guilty as you are for whining here about this.
Re:Check... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't mix the two stories (Score:3, Insightful)
Now for the globalization movement. I think that there are many different people with many different reasons to be against this "invention" out there. I am myself firmly against the globalization movement so I'll explain my reasons.
Ecological reasons:
It is stupid to ellaborate a biscuit in Spain (actually my home country) and sell it in Australia while ellaborating some other biscuits there in Australia to sell them in Spain, well understood that good conditions are given for the two countries to ellaborate their own biscuits using either cooking recipe. Full stop. Now a bit further. If doing this is convenient for many companies, as it is the case, then big warning: Something is wrong. And so we arrive to the next chapter, social reasons.
Social reasons:
(Or how these companies, the multinationals, do business.) So it is in fact convenient for many companies to manufacture their products far away, even spending much money in trasportation. It is simple to imagine (or perhaps not so simple) to what extent the worker is being exploited. The concept is so obvious that I won't explain it, I will just say that, at least in Europe, chances are that if you pick any article of clothing in a store and have a look, it has been manufactured in China or Korea. For a cup of rice. You may say: If we rejected to buy those, that people would die. No. If we did so, their corrupt governments could not take place and convenient social laws would be adopted, just in our privilleged countries.
Choice reasons:
We consumers lose our freedom of choice. You may say: If you prefer to pay more and avoid exploitation, well, you are free to do so and let people decide by their own instead of trying to ban globalization or anything. Wrong. If we haven't got the information, then it's impossible for us to know what is going on. It would be neccessary for every piece of product to have a hundred of stickers telling how, when and where it was manufactured, impossible, paranoid. The result would be pretty much the same as with the EULAs. To use the same example: WE THINK THAT "Write Your Own Damn Code" IS GOOD, BUT WE DON'T CARE ABOUT "Grow Your Own Vegetables". Or buy them to a near neighbour or at least NEAR, say in your home country. Not patriotism or anything, it is just that we know better what is going on AT HOME than far away.
Economical reasons:
Read this: World Bank Secret Documents Consumes Argentina [gregpalast.com]
My opinions are just opinions, and I am even often changing my views. But my point is that these reasons, wrong or right, make sense, I am not a hippy or anarchist but a design engineer, I LIKE to think. Therefore I don't like this link between the 9/11 attack and globalization.
If you find this interesting, this link may be of interest to you: Znet (Zmag) [znet.org], specially here [zmag.org].
Re:Two sides (Score:3, Insightful)
You obviously do not like the US. You have stated a reason why you do not like the US. Your comment is currently modded as flamebait. This seems to indicate that at least one person here doesn't agree with you and probably doesn't understand why you think the way you do.
The moderator, instead of making a comment in reply trying to find out why you think the way you do, decided to instead give a negative moderation of flamebait. This really appears to be the case of someone not only not understanding your point of view and not wanting to understand it, but also of trying to supress it as well.
Gee, no wonder this article has generated so many comments, it must have hit a raw nerve.
If Katz is getting paid to generate comments and pagehits, then he's certainly doing his job.