| By Bjacques on Friday, March 02, 2001 - 05:12 am: Edit |
Aw, shucks, Martin, 'tain't nothing.
Erm...I didn't say slavery was more or less gone--only that it's no longer reputable. I know about sweatshops in the U.S. The difference in the U.S. is that they are illegal and can be shut down. The WTO, by forgoing tariffs against countries that favor peonage or slavery, subordinates basic human rights to capitalism. An earlier trade treaty, the MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Iemg'aasdasdfss), which was killed thanks to protests, would have made the rest of us comlicit. It overrode local or state government refusal to trade with bad actors (but great trading partners) such as Burma or China.
Luckily, in nominal democracies and relatively free markets, public image matters. This makes officials and companies vulnerable to sustained media campaigns regardless of actual lost sales or votes. The downside is that high-profile companies and officials are attacked while their anonymous fellows slide through unnoticed. (source: No Logo)
| By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, March 02, 2001 - 02:58 am: Edit |
Mr Rabbit,
"the very first thing we would have to do is make a policing body with the power of
enforcement"
Instead of the United Nations being an emasculated talking shop we should give them some muscle. Link the World bank (and the IMF) to the United Nations (as was the intention when it was founded). Tax international currency movements, it doesn't take much of a tax on the £2 trillion a day that floats about the world to make a big difference.
Sanctions on big corporations are a very different thing to sanctions on a nation. OK in the short term some jobs may go, but if it's not in the financial interest for a big corporation to behave in a certain manner, then they'll sure as hell act in a way that is in their financial interest. Afterall all these people care about is what is in their financial interest, that is the only value they hold, their only interest in politics, the environment, or anything else is how it can influence their bottom line.
If we are to give financial incentives and subsidies to business then give it with tight strings attached. (Nothing wrong with subsidies but the way we dish them out now is a bloody joke. For example why the hell do we aim our subsidies at the type of agriculture that causes most damage?)
We need to use both stick and carrot with these Trans National Corporations. Before we can do so we need to ensure that our governments represent the interests of its voters and not the people who buy influence. Let's have a bit more democracy and less corporate feudalism.
The future of our planet and our continued survival is the most important issue we face, it is bigger than the politics of 'left' or 'right'. This issue needs a long term view, we can't leave it with the likes of the WTO who's members rarely look further than next year's balance sheet.
Hobgoblin
| By Mr_Rabbit on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 07:50 pm: Edit |
'The problem with trade sanctions, as witnessed by Iraq or CUba, is that they hurt the poorest and most vulnerable far more than they do the rich and powerful. '
I think this sanction system, because it affects companies and not nations, might have less such impact. Unless the nation had one primary employer, or a totally crappy economy, the workers could get new jobs. Like, if Wendy's fast food restaraunts all got sanctioned, most of those people would end up working at McDonalds, or whatever company filled the void created in the market.
The only time this might really suck is in cases where there is no competition. Like, in heavy industry, often there is only one plant in the world that makes a particular thing, owned by one company, or maybe two or three of em. Some kinds of screws, for instance.
| By Anatomist1 on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 07:27 pm: Edit |
TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS
If people have kids and they care about their kids, and they want them to be able to have kids in good conscience, then their absolute number one priority issue should be population control. Of course, plenty of people have some kind of fuzzy faith that technology will somehow make things OK, but things just plain aren't going to be OK if people keep multiplying logarythymically. If they do, every other effort to save anything is nothing but a bandaid.
We need to shift the paradigm of political thinking (and much scientific thinking) and introduce basic systems analysis and hierarchy theory into the equation. Social and economic equality issues are only important when framing the problem on a small scale. Think of a fractal. The pattern looks really intricate and complete, but if you zoom out to a broader vantage point, you see that the previous pattern was just a little squiggle in a bigger pattern.
The problem with our governmental and economic systems is that many fundamentally important elements of everyone's life have no monetary or political value, or only obliquely assigned value. The basic elements that come to mind are clean air, clean water, and biodiverse wilderness areas. These are vitally important to everyone, yet they can be exploited by anyone who can figure out how to get away with it (i.e., without it effecting anyone immediately). This brings up the metaphor of 'THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS'.
Here's how the tragedy played out: in english history there was a situation where all the grazing lands were set up as a 'commons'. Everyone could use it, but no individual had responsibility for it or any portion of it. This created a scenario where every individual had an incentive to overgraze the land, even if they knew it meant that the land would be grazed bare, because even in the impending lean times, they would still be better off having gotten what they could, when they could. The people owned the land collectively, but there was no mechanism in place to ensure collective responsibility. Individually, they owned only their animals, which they sought to exploit maximally, the collective land be damned. Given the scenario, it was thoroughly logical for eveyone to dash headlong into barren oblivion.
Capitalism is a tragedy of the commons. Clean air, potable, non-disease causing water, and sustainable biodiverse wilderness areas belong to everyone, yet they are assigned no hard value in our current economic and political schemes. They are free to be exploited and destroyed for fun and profit, and these transgressions are perfectly logical expressions of individual self-interest. Unless we start thinking about how to incorporate the value of our 'commons' into the economy, everything we love and recognize about civilization and humanity is dooomed.
K.
| By _Blackjack on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 07:17 pm: Edit |
Quote:Thats a great idea man. It doesn't even need strong international law. It just needs a government to not trade with the offender, or allow them any financial holdings within their country. If enough first world governments do that, it will work. There is no point decimating a rainforest if nobody will buy your damn lumber.
| By Mr_Rabbit on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 05:27 pm: Edit |
"What our governments need to do is to make it to their financial disadvantage to behave in this way. "
Thats a great idea man. It doesn't even need strong international law. It just needs a government to not trade with the offender, or allow them any financial holdings within their country. If enough first world governments do that, it will work. There is no point decimating a rainforest if nobody will buy your damn lumber.
But how draconian shoud we make the enforcement policies? Let's say we tell Nike 'close that fucking sweatshop.' And Nike says 'no.' We sieze their US held assets and stop letting their sneakers over our borders.
Or in a situation where push comes to shove... we reaaally need some oil, Exxon is being a big bunch of bastards and we can't trade with them by our own laws. Nationalize them, do you think? Send troops to take thier oil fields and destroyers to take their tankers?
Of course, the very first thing we would have to do is make a policing body with the power of enforcement, and somehow make damn sure they aren't corrupt. It couldn't be done with existing government, because those guys often sit on the boards of corporations (or up thier assses.)
| By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 10:35 am: Edit |
"Well hell, who wants to live in a world with sweatshops, no matter where they are? Who wants to put up with oppression? Or live in a world of damaged ecologies, or one where some starve while others complain of being simply unable to fit in their new outfit because they have too much to eat? "
Board directors of the WTO members that's who do, so long as it suits there bottom line. Long term vision is not something these people understand.
What our governments need to do is to make it to their financial disadvantage to behave in this way. Nothing wrong with having a corporate welfare state but let's use it to incentivise these companies to operate responsibly, make the pay-outs conditional on responsible behaviour. Why subsidise the destruction of our planet?
Let's give the UN some muscle link it to the World bank, tax international currency movements. Use this money to protect the long term interests of our planet,(only a very minute tax would be needed). Why should our money be used to bail out international speculators.
Who's interests are our governments, (and their various agencies) meant to protect? The interests of their citizens or the interests of the TNCs? Who is really in control, our elected governments or the CEOs of these corporations? Do we want democratic control or are we happy to leave control of our planet in the hands of these CEO's?
Only a blind moron, (or a board director of a TNC) can believe that it's in our interests to continue to screw up our planet in such a way. Its not an issue about 'right' or 'left' politics, it's about common sense and our continued survival.
Hobgoblin
(PS I didn't spend today sitting on my arse, shooting heroin. I put in a hard day's work, as I do every weekday (with the exception of vacations).)
| By Mr_Rabbit on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 08:44 am: Edit |
Well hell, who wants to live in a world with sweatshops, no matter where they are? Who wants to put up with oppression? Or live in a world of damaged ecologies, or one where some starve while others complain of being simply unable to fit in their new outfit because they have too much to eat?
Probably nobody here, but if you do want to live in such a world, well, fuck you. I don't.
Don is right- that's how it works. But again, so is Bjaques about slavery being more or less gone.
Things can change, things do change. And that's good, because they need changing now. And they probably always will, but that is no reason to lie down and say 'well, that's life!'
Chrissakes, saying 'that's just the way it is' will get you nowhere for sure. At least if you tilt the windmill, there's a chance, and if you fail, well, you tried.
It's true, people are bastards. But it's also true that it would be better if they weren't, right? So, start the only place you can. Don't be a bastard. Be nice, help your fellow man. Don't say 'well, people are bastards. Yep. Sigh.'
We now return you to your regularly scheduled apathy...
| By Don_Walsh on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 07:30 am: Edit |
Oh, realpolitik is a lot older than Henry the K, it is at least as old as Bismark or Metternich.
Phillipine and Indonesian sweatshops, well, sirrah, I could show you the same thing this very day in NYC and in California and elsewhere in the Land of the Free. And it's Asian on Asian, and it's older than this century and the last. You think this is a Third World thing, you are kidding yourself. The Labor Department makes an occasional half hearted arrest. Business goes on. People bash Nike and Adidas for Indonesian factories which are merely proceeding by national standards, and make no mention of the abuses being conducted inside USA, why? Because that's not their agenda.
You don't want to know what happens in the Third World, you just want to play self righteous and posture about how it's better in USA than here. The problem is, you don't know.
I can show you exemplary factories in both places and sweatshops in both places. In both places the abusive employers pay off to the authorities.
| By Heiko on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 07:16 am: Edit |
"Turkey's current killings of Kurds (the PKK have been murderous, but since the capture of Ocalan, many fighters have turned in their guns), because the U.S. and U.K. want to be Turkey's friend."
Not only U.S. and U.K. - Germany sold tanks and weapons to Turkey with which they attacked Kurdish villages. Now Turkey is about to become a EU member - nobody cares so much if they still torture people in jail...but on the other hand the EU was considering an embargo against Austria, only because the right-wing populist Haider was elected (I mean he talks a lot of shit, but he has not done anything yet).
Hypocrisy at its best - but that's the way it is, it's only human to lie...
| By Martin on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 05:10 am: Edit |
Bjacques,
Excellent! I don't think I should post anything polically-minded ever again. You do such and excellent job yourself, far better than I. You say everything I want to say, but have the greater span of knowledge an experience to say it more effectively. You have perfectly worded all the reasons why we should fight the powers that be. Thank you very much and keep up the good work!
-Martin
| By Bjacques on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 04:55 am: Edit |
I'm catching up, so skip if you like. This is a long one.
The problem with the WTO, IMF, and the upcoming super-NAFTA (and ICANN!) is
non-accountability, or corporate accountability only to (voting) shareholders.
But with global power comes global responsibility (to paraphrase Stan Lee). No
doubt I'm a shareholder in some bad companies--my retirement depends on a
mutual fund--but if in 2028 my nest egg goes for canned air and water, SPF100
sunblock and Soylent Green, I guess I'll be looking pretty stupid. A limited-liability coporation is a technology like any other. When it
becomes destructive, it's time to do something (did you know their charters
can be yanked?). The system needs checks and balances. It doesn't need more
power players; it just needs people with the power to stand up for themselves.
I forgot to say that the anti-WTO protesters profiled on Dutch TV are actually
*for* something: universal human rights, dignity on the job and a living wage,
and the right to decent treatment. The protesters aren't perfect, but they know
they must offer a better alternative. If you must find warts, at least use
perspective. Too many smashed windows don't invalidate protests against
whole countries being into corporate whorehouses. Today's protesters are *much*
more social and smart than the 1970s-era German radical left or the Italian radical left
and right (and don't forget the Turkish Grey Wolves!). With fewer assholes on
the streets, there's more room to talk. If there has to be a revolution
at all (which I doubt), the rpotesters want a Velvet Revolution, not a Jacobin coup.
For a good collection of hard facts on one aspect of globalization, try "No
Logo" by Naomi Klein. She did solid research and visited Philippine sweatshops
herself. As the book points out, corporate globalization is not always good for
local economies. Indonesian sweatshops are a dead end for the workers. The only
reward for hard work and abuse is more of it (unless the worker gets pregnant or
injured). The only winners are the local politicians and business leaders
pimping their fellow citizens. Why bother to improve pay or conditions? The
multinationals will only take their factories somewhere cheaper, and a pimp's
gotta eat.
Jeepers Cripes!! On CNN right now, I see China wants to join the WTO. More
slaves dumped onto the labor market...
There may not be anti-WTO protests in Qatar, much less China or Thailand, but
so what? That Chinese cops, unlike Seattle or Prague cops, use live bullets
means we should praise the latter for "only" beating and gassing protesters (and
the odd bystander or resident)? Or that we should show gratitude for our
freedoms by not actually using them? I'd rather turn that argument around. When
WTO principals and their lackeys in the media finesse all questions, what's left
but to protest? And when we can protest without being shot at, we'd be criminal
not to. Freedom not exercised is useless. The WTO didn't bother itself with the human
costs of globalization until the protests started. If the WTO meets in dictatorial fiefdoms,
we'll know them by the company they keep. Lately, though, they seem to be wising up. Let's keep the pressure on them and show we've a long attention span.
Nobody talks about the Armenian massacre (1915?) or Turkey's current
killings of Kurds (the PKK have been murderous, but since the capture
of Ocalan, many fighters have turned in their guns), because the U.S. and
U.K. want to be Turkey's friend. That's realpolitik for you.
Realpolitik (aka the Kissinger Doctrine) is the politics of convenience--the
convenience of the powerful who see the rest of us as either pets or meat. It's
a self-fulfilling prophecy of bad faith; "sure, they're sons of bitches, but
they're OUR sons of bitches." But evil puppets are ultimately unreliable and,
when the worm turns, the former peasants remember who pulled the strings.
Hence the Arab oil embargo of the '70s and bad relations between the
U.S. and Iran. (It's still illegal for the U.S. to trade with them, though. VP
Cheney, until last year the head of Halliburton, which built refineries in Iran,
has questions to answer). Realpolitikians were lucky in the past, when the rebel
groups were Soviet clients and were as murderous (e.g., FARC & Shining Path) as
the puppet regimes. A truly sympathetic rebel group, and one with media savvy,
like the Zapatistas, spells real trouble for the old cozy arrangements. If
Presidente Fox is lucky, Chiapas will only want semi-autonomy and a rousting of
the thieves milking it.
You can't get away with realpolitik these days. You can't fool the voters or
the local peasants, not when one can talk to the other. In a media-saturated first world, where most global policy
is formed, a great media campaign, a bit of research and a good lawyer can work wonders. Brands can be tarnished and official hypocrisy exposed. Don't confuse present political philosophies with future ones. There's plenty of room for improvement without requiring some magical transformation of "human nature." After all, slavery is now generally considered A Bad Thing, though people individually aren't much better or worse than before. A little smarter maybe.
No web pages were hurriedly scanned in the writing of this rant.
| By Martin on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 03:09 am: Edit |
Heiko,
How did you know I was into Nietzche? I don't remember mentioning it. I guess I did.
Yes, I can definately see my own efforts being a result of a "will to power". I can't help it, as you mentioned, it is an engrained part of human nature. But, I would really like to think that my personal "will to power" may benefit the world in some way. Really, the only thing my will really has any interest in is success in the music industry. I've set goals, and I believe I'm well on my way to accomplishing them. This, "just do it, and get the job done" attitude has of course influenced other aspects of my life and other goals.
Yeah, I really enjoy Nietzche, especially "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and "The Antichrist". "The Antichrist" is probably my favorite so far, it does such a good job of pointing out the sickening effects of religion. What's really amusing about it is that many of his examples which seemed so stretched-out and rather unbelievable during his time have become solid truth in the state of today's religion. It's almost as if he prophesised what religion would be today. It's frightening to think about.
Grim,
I have personally felt the effects of out-of-control organized labor. It really is a problem. I really believe organized labor is a good thing and that unions are essential to keep the common workers from being screwed, but this shit that's going on today, especially in America, is totally out of hand. There's no way in hell a moderately skilled worker with a high school education should be making more money than a highly-trained engineer with a master's degree, but that's how it is many times. There really needs to be serious reform.
-Martin
| By Don_Walsh on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 12:45 am: Edit |
Hey luvlite68
I don't think anyone would ever mistake me for being in the PR business.
Which is just how I like it. I'm as far from an ass-kissing Madison Ave. feather merchant as one can get.
| By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 08:14 pm: Edit |
Don:
I'm disappointed. I was hoping when you got around to attacking me, it wouldn't be such an incoherent and shrill morass. You sound like Limbaugh strung out on white crosses with the "on air" sign dormant. You've certainly been in more entertaining lathers, and definitely in more substantive ones. I'm even more disappointed that all those months Bob spent with his nose up your ass actually paid off. I guess a good, persistent rimjob can really swell up those pleasure centers, and override the cortex. Personally, I've never been fond of Chihuahuas. Realpolitik indeed.
K.
| By Grimbergen on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 04:49 pm: Edit |
Don said: "EU would like to impose 'social' criteria in Third World not because it is better for workers but because it would
make the Third World less competitive to the ridiculously overpriced, overtaxed, overregulated European Union."
A good observation and a common phenomenon. The most irritating instance of this in my mind are labor unions. They espouse policies to help workers, yet the policies serve to help only union workers at the expense of non-union workers. Legislate higher wages to price non-union workers out of the market--make them less/uncompetitive. Next time you hardcore liberals want to cry about something, cry about the REAL people losing REAL jobs due to the self-serving ploys of organized labor. (for the record I am much more sympathetic to the labor movement in undeveloped countries).
It is fairly easy to tell when people are suggesting "liberal policies" for their own benefit. Instead of listening to what they say, see if the effects of their policies are in accord with the hype. To stick with my organized labor example, unions supposedly support increases in the minimum wage so that all workers earn a living wage. As noted above, this just screws non-union workers out of jobs. If they were actually concerned for labor as a whole, they should support other policies, such as a negative income tax (the earned income tax credit in the US). Negative income taxes ensure that workers make a living wage without providing disincentives for companies to employ people.
| By Heiko on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 04:30 pm: Edit |
-- In a need to negotiate I list some of the thoughts that made me move from the left side to the middle in politics:
Consider all governments we ever had on this planet - what were their goals? Power. What are the goals of everyone in this world? Power. You might argue that someone like Ghandi was not trying to obtain power - but he was. Read Nietzsche (Martin, I thought you did?), his arguments for the will to power in every one of us are really convincing.
Some of the environmentalists today are so full of the will to power, I would not want them to govern my country btw (because they are dogmatic egoists)
Philosophical dreams about how nice this world could be if we only changed everything have always existed, but mostly they led to something worse (take Stalinism as an example...).
Only through accepting that everyone, the companies, the governments, Europeans, Americans, people from third world countries, want power of some kind and that this is not bad but only human, we can make a nice place to live out of this world.
If you don't have power, don't try to demonize those who have - do something for yourself to obtain power, maybe you will be better than others - then you can change things as you want, but don't expect others to like it...
In my opinion, this world has never been so fair and 'politically correct' as it is today - the things we love to complain about now (that a rich person has more influence a.s.o.) have always been normal amongst humans. Most historic personalities we admire today have been unfair egoistic assholes (otherwise they would never have made it to become historic personalities...)
Maybe genetics can some day change humans to become altruistic, so sth. like communism could be achieved ;-)
As long as we are the brutal beasts nature has made us, no one will be totally fair to others.
How could we expect company executives to be saints, they are the same as the rest of us - but at least they need wealthy consumers to live, so I don't fear them too much.
-- Without considering all this, my feelings usually made me think different, more kind of "fight the assholes at the top..." I guess this is just juvenile need for revolution (or 'will to power'...). Think about it...
| By Martin on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 04:24 pm: Edit |
I would post something long and pointless, but I don't have time.. I have to go to work.
-Martin
| By Mr_Rabbit on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 03:13 pm: Edit |
The problem I see is that corporations are in business to make money, as are the people who work for them. Corps that don't concentrate on profit and survival die, because the competition will kill them. Individual employees that don't meet the bottom line are fired, and so you will naturally end up with a large group of people who care only for that bottom line.
So whether or not that multinational rapes the land or sea depends entirely on their business model. Not on whether or not it's a good idea for the people who live there, or even for the world in general. Joe CEO lives in New York, and he doesn't give a shit if you love the pine forests in Oregon. He doesn't even give a shit if his lumber company will go out of business when there are no more trees, because he already has a plan to convert or sell his assets. He cares about playing the game well, about his paycheck. If he doesn't, then the board will find someone who does.
So I say the social convention of corporations tends to produce negative results for anything but the bottom line. Not always, far from it, but that is the central thing, not doing good for humanity or the environment, and they cannot serve two masters.
Groups of corporations with power are bad. I think we need a different way of doing things, as the corporate model no longer serves our needs as a species.
They might be to the good if they had other goals than making money.
| By Luvlite68 on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 02:27 pm: Edit |
The mighty Don has spoken!!! You people are all assholes and lazy sons of bitches.
Nice public relations there, Don. Are you expecting to insult people into buying your absinthe, too?
| By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 02:15 pm: Edit |
"Most of you assholes who go on and on about the 'workers' have never done an honest day's WORK in your lives, you are typical fucking wannabe intelligentsia, nomenklatura, bourgeouisie sukem-sim"
Speak for yourself Don, you don't know enough about the rest of us to make such a judgement.
And what is so bad about the idea of creating a democraticaly accountable link. Trans-National Corporations control 60% of the world's resources and our governments act as their lackies. Who should governments represent the people who vote for them or it's shareholders? These shareholders will up sticks and bugger off when it suits, leaving the countries taxpayers to pick up the tab. We spend enough on the Corporate Welfare State as it is, if TNC's are to benefit from this then this benefit should be conditional on them acting in our long term interests.
Sustainable development for the Third World is in our own long term interests, otherwise we will continue to see population movements which are to our detriment. The environment also needs a long term responsible approach, this is also in our interests. As TNC's control so much of everything on the planet at least lets use some of our democratic power to compel them to act responsibly.
Give the UN teeth, link it to he World Bank (as was the intention when it was founded). Our governments should quit contributing to the World Bank and let instead fund it by a tax on international currency movements. Every day over £2 trillion worth of currency moves around the financial markets, we only need a minute shaving of that to address the needs of the planet. This would benefit all of us (except of course the board directors of TNC's).
Hobgoblin
| By Heiko on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 11:02 am: Edit |
We, the "first world", obviously have not enough problems, so we make up problems we can deal with. I sometimes wish we had more difficulty in making our living - look at people in third world countries: as long as they have enough to eat, they are usually more happy and positive thinking than all the depressed people in Europe and the States.
I saw a short interview recently with the Greenpeace negotiator at the Davos WTO meeting. He said that most of the executives were really open to what he told them. In his opinion, most executives of big companies are not really informed about environmental or social problems because they have been working 80 hours a week ever since and never had time to do anything else but business. They mostly weren't aware of how big their role in global politics is, either..
So, his message was more or less that we should try to convince the CEO's in a friendly way of the significance of changing some things. It would be the wrong way trying to fight the companies - because if they start to see their worst enemy in protestors, there's no way of talking to them anymore.
Good luck if you want to fight the WTO - but you're not going to win.
Globalized business will be a major factor in the future, but this does not have to be a bad future. Companies rely on people who buy their products, so they should be interested in a world where everyone has enough money to consume.
The non-profit-organizations can help to make environmentally friendly decisions a marketing factor - right now, the consumer seems not to be interested.
Most consumers are much more ignorant and egoistic than the companies. As a good example I see people in Germany feeling tortured by high oil prices: they are whining about a few bucks they have to spend more on gas, they claim that this is "unbearable" and it "ruins" them - Do they care about environment? - Only if they can blame someone else for destroying it!
What would a hard working third-world laboror who dreams of maybe owning a car some day say if he heard this?
| By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 09:43 am: Edit |
As someone who has spent the better part of a lifetime dealing in realpolitik, it is amazing to me the extent to which otherwise intelligent individuals have their heads up their asses about how the world works.
Do the multinationals have power? Bet your ass they do. Do the national governments have power? Bet your ass they do. Some more some less.
These days the armchair liberals (and worse) who bleat about the WTO are in a quandry. The Third World is not interested in Sustainable Development although they occasionally give it lip service. They are interested in wiping out the timber reserves and rain forests and so on, witness Indonesia, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Brazil etc. Those are SUBnational entities raping the environment. TRANSnational organizations are often doing their best to stop this.
EU would like to impose 'social' criteria in Third World not because it is better for workers but because it would make the Third World less competitive to the ridiculously overpriced, overtaxed, overregulated European Union.
Meanwhile millions of ordinary business people would like to just get on with their daily struggle to turn a profit and make a living for themselves and their employees.
Most of you assholes who go on and on about the 'workers' have never done an honest day's WORK in your lives, you are typical fucking wannabe intelligentsia, nomenklatura, bourgeouisie sukem-sim. That last is Russian slang for Sons of Bitches. Take that in the spirit in which it is intended, and that means you, martin, and you, kevin, among others. VERY typical couch commandoes. You make me sick. You know NOTHING of the world and you pontificate ad nauseam. Fuck you! Bleat your hearts out, the world goes on. Bob has more heart in his little finger than you will ever have, jointly or severally. Some people create wealth, and some just sit around and pule.
| By Mr_Rabbit on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 09:00 am: Edit |
The WTO represents corporations that own as many resources as possible, tangible, intangible, and natural. And control of those resources is where the true power is. A chancellor or president, for instance, cannot make war without weapons, and he cannot make weapons without the money from the WTO. He cannot make the factories that the WTO members own run without their say.
By the legal conventions of most every nation (which are defended by the governments in their nations)corporations (and private citizens) are given protection to help them keep the things they own. And it is important for governments to encourage the economy, so they make way and help corporate interests.
So the WTO, and organizations like it, have used the existing power structures to defend and aid in their usurpation of that power.
And now the king must bow to the bean-counter. This is a bad situation, in fact untenable. In a mediocre-to-good political leader, sustainable economic models, prosperity, the happiness and defence of The People are primary concerns.
In a mediocre-to-good corporation, profit is the only concern, knowing no boundaries of nation, creed, or god.
So the guy who would sell his mother if the price were right is now in charge, as opposed to the dude that says things like 'give me liberty...'
| By Bob_Chong on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 08:48 am: Edit |
Meow meow meow.
| By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 07:19 am: Edit |
Bob,
Sorry if you find a simple hypothetical illustration baffling, I'll try not to move so fast in the future. Believe me, I would like to stop being annoyed by you, but you just can't seem to stop being an annoyance. Always the same pattern: you throw out something with obviously insulting or absurd implications, and then, when called to account for it, you duck down, put on your rubber vulcan ears and give us an impeccably logicalistic dissection of your exact statement syntax and a complete disavowal of what you obviously meant in the first place. I don't know why I feel compelled to serve as the Forum bullshit detector, I guess I'm afraid other onlookers can't see through you as easily as I can.
K.
| By Martin on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 04:50 am: Edit |
Bob,
You pride yourself on being a jackass... and a slave.
You love being a slave, don't you?
-Martin
| By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 03:46 am: Edit |
Heiko, I am not one of those crocodile-tear jerkers about the 'holocaust'. I'm quite sick and tired of having to hear about events that happened long before I was born, and I am especially tired of having the plight of the European Jews singled out, while the 4 millions that Hitler killed who weren't Jewish are ignored, and the 20 millions that Stalin killed are totally out of the discussion -- including a whole lot of Jews as the Russians are far worse antisemites than the Germans ever were or will be. And the Russians can't hold a candle to the Ukrainians or Georgians (Stalin was a Georgian) in that regard. No offense to my Jewish friends on this forum or anywhere else is intended, and I am not 'denying' anything, or defending the 'endlosung', I am just saying that it wasn't the only such incident in the 20th century and it has been milked out of all proportion for sympathy and special treatment. I suspect that if the Armenians controlled the media and the movie industry the Turks and the Kurds would be demonized for the Armenian genocide, however as it is, unless your family name ends in -ian you probably don't know what I am talking about. I happen to have an Armenian uncle, by marriage, and his father watched the Turks slaughter his wife and children. He was the only survivor and he restarted his family in the USA. Who speaks for the Armenians? There is no Armenian Holocaust Museum, there is no Armenian version of 'Exodus' or 'Schindler's List'. All I mean is that the Jews don't have a patent on suffering, they just see to it that we are taught to believe they do.
Tell it to the Cambodians.
Or the Chinese.
Or the Hmong.
Tell it to the (pick a side in the Balkans).
Don't tell it to the Irish, we'll get mad.
| By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 01:08 am: Edit |
Trusting the WTO to be responsible for sustainable economic development in the 3rd world or for responsibly managing the environment of the planet is like trusting a sex offender to baby sit your children.
The WTO and the Trans-National Corporations that they represent have no interest whatsoever in striking any balance, there only concern is the profits (by whatever means necessary) they can generate for their shareholders.
The very nature of the WTO means that they have no interest in sustainable development in the 3rd world. Their only interests in the third world are to use its workers to produce goods they can't afford to buy themselves, to be sold to workers in the West who are judged to be too expensive to produce the goods for themselves. And then while they're at that they dump surpluses on the third world, screwing up it's agriculture.
As for the environment, this is viewed as a resource to generate short term profit margins. They have no interest in the long term effects of increasing fossil fuel use or the environmental impact of GM crops.
And the WTO meeting at Seattle was not an open affair. Delegates from third world countries were left outside on the pavement, after all why should the WTO listen to them, they're not shareholders of the WTO. Its a sad state of affairs when the Seattle police are used by politicians to stop people voicing legitimate protest, these politicians had the police acting as a private thug security firm for the WTO. The demonstrators at Seattle were not mainly a bunch of un-washed anarchists wielding molotov cocktail and bent on destruction of all they see. Unless you classify the Churches, the Women's Institute and Environmentalists as dangerous radicals who threaten the breakdown of civilization.
TNC's currently control over 60% of world trade, with about half of it being between themselves. With such power we need a trade agreement to link democratic accountability and environmental sustainability. The WTO is not the organisation that can do this. Perhaps with a radical change and the introduction of a tax on international currency movements rather than contributions from the industrial economies the World Bank could be used to do it.
After all we spend so much money on the corporate welfare state maybe we should make this welfare conditional on those who reieve it acting in our long-term interests.
| By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 10:50 pm: Edit |
You are always the Drama Queen.
M said, "The only people who have any control are the CEOs and shareholders."
I said that shareholders are everyday folks.
That's it. Just debunking the myth that you have to be Warren Buffet to be a "shareholder." That being said, you pretty much do have to be a Warren Buffet type of shareholder to have any real say, however.
John Q. Shareholder and Average Joe are often the same guy. Does that mean they have "power"? Not necessarily.
Where you come in with non-sequiturs about copper mines and the rest of your mental defecation is beyond me.
But you do a fine job at attacking me at every avenue. Kudos to you for your inability to let bygones be bygones: your "tenacity" is commendable.
BTW--I don't "pride myself" on anything.
BC
| By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 09:41 pm: Edit |
Oh, so I see how this works now: Exxon wants to build a giant copper mine upriver from my farm which will poison the water and destroy my livelihood. Instead of political activism, I just go out and buy a couple thousand dollars worth of Exxon stock. Now, I'm a full 1/100,000,000th owner of the company. No way are they going to build that mine now... Jesus, Bob. For someone who prides himself on being "rational" you say some of the most cockamamy bullshit I've ever heard.
K.
| By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 09:12 pm: Edit |
Martin:
Who do you think these magical shareholders are? The include me and--if you ever get a real job-- you.
BC
| By Martin on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 05:36 pm: Edit |
"I heard on the radio that they scheduled the next meeting in Qatar, where political protests are completely outlawed..."
That's what I'm talking about. Those filthy bastards.
Chong,
The only interests the WTO represent are the interests of the big corporations. Is that who you want making all the decisions? Don't you realize that as long as we allow these huge corporations to run the planet, the average schmo like you has no real say in any of it? You can vote and vote for whoever you want, and it won't get you shit. The only people who have any control are the CEOs and shareholders. If you like all that, then fine, but it really bothers me.
-Martin
| By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 04:39 pm: Edit |
The primary issue brought to bear by the protestors at the WTO wasn't any particular position of the WTO, it was and is the nature of the organization itself: the meetings are held in secrecy and no ordinary citizen of any country has any access or input to what goes on therein. Preventing the meeting was all they could do -- letting the meeting go on wouldn't have helped. There is no way to 'use the organization to try to create a balance' if one has no access and no input. I heard on the radio that they scheduled the next meeting in Qatar, where political protests are completely outlawed...
K.
| By Artemis on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 04:29 pm: Edit |
"I knew what you meant. I am simply suspicious of the unwashed masses (used literally rather than metaphorically in this instance)."
Yes, I suspect that any number of rebels without a clue showed up for the spectacle, but after reading that article in The Sun, I was impressed with the planning and organization of the protesters. Of course, the author of the article was probably far above the average protester in his knowledge of the WTO and the issues relating to it, and of course The Sun has an extreme liberal bias, so I no doubt got a skewed perspective by reading that piece. But the behavior of the cops was shameful all the same. To say they would have acted more brutally in Thailand, China, etc., well DUH! I do remember Tian An Men square. But Seattle is not in China!
| By _Blackjack on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 03:47 pm: Edit |
As for the WTO, international trade and economics are arcane and abstruse subjects. I'm bloody clever and I don't claim to understand them. It's certainly not black-and-white. I don't think the developing world should be sold off wholesale to corporations, but neither should they be left in the dark ages. I think treating the WTO (or especially the World Bank) like bugbears is counter-productive. These organizations should be used to try to create a balance. Preventing them from being able to meet (which was the expressed intent of the World Bank/IMF protesters in DC last year) will only make things worse. Corporations are going to use the resources of the third world. There is nothing to do about that. I would much rather have them doing it above-board, where the various concerns can be addressed.
Shit, I'm being the token moderate again...
| By _Blackjack on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 03:35 pm: Edit |
Don,
Comparing the republicans and democrats 100 years ago to the parties today is silly. There has been a fundemental shift in both parties, beginning with Strom Thurmond's post-war defection and continuing through the sixties, as the pro-labor policies of the democrats began to embrace other marginalized groups, and to a great extent, alienating the white southern working class. The transition was complete when Reagan('s puppet-masters) fully embraced the religious right. Modern republicans are not the party of Teddy Roosevelt, and modern democrats are certainly not the party of James Buchanan.
At this point, both parties are such a complete mish-mash of conflicting ideas it's a wonder they get anything done. Oh, wait, they don't...
There's a neat site at http://uselectionatlas.org/ that allows you to search through the resuls and maps of various elections. It's interesting to see how party allegiences have shifted. For recent elections, they also have county-by-county maps, which give an even better picture of urban v. rural trands.
| By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 01:18 pm: Edit |
I knew what you meant. I am simply suspicious of the unwashed masses (used literally rather than metaphorically in this instance).
| By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 11:58 am: Edit |
The WTO and TNC's are in the driving seat, the future of the planet is in safe hands.
| By Artemis on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 11:37 am: Edit |
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood ...
Who sang that? Was it Eric Burden? Anyway, when I said I thought Chong was wrong, I only meant he was wrong about:
"90% of those gutterpunks have no idea what they were protesting"
I was left with the impression that the vast majority of protestors knew exactly what they were protesting.
And they were not all of the left. And even if they were, there was no excuse for the behavior of the police. I don't give a shit what happens in the Magoola republics and thinly disguised dictatorships (China, etc.), and that's utterly beside the point. What happened in Seattle, in the United States of America, should have seen the mayor of Seattle and those in charge of the police forces in prison.
| By Heiko on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 10:29 am: Edit |
Don,
I guess you addressed me with "As for our Euro brethren who cry less than salty tears for native-american causes celebre just because they are native americans: it must be nice to have a hobby."
It's not my hobby...but my hobby is to spot any hypocrisy and to piss people off about it. I wouldn't give a damn about any minority's rights, if not all this political correctness-crap was told. No one acts according to what he says, that's what I like to criticize.
What about our American brethren crying less than salty tears for former concentration camp inmates?
I guess many will now angrily response that "this is something completely different" - Why?
It's all the same, we're all human, and we're all doing the same shit - the ones who are the victims today might be at power tomorrow and just do the same to other victims...
Of course the GSG9 doesn't behave different from the FBI.
Before we had the GSG9, terrorists were able to easily threat our government (and did so, as at the Munich Olympic games). Every leftist should accept that he would not want our state to be without any protection.
Everyone behaving totally fair and politically correct will not be able to protect himself from others who are -and this is the way it is- not fair and PC.
I don't know anymore what my opinion about politics is, it all leads to "nothing is true, everything's allowed" - this is my 'dogma', at least it's not possible to be a hypocrit with that one ;-)
| By Mr_Rabbit on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 09:57 am: Edit |
Bob, I think the WTO brings economic prosperity. It also brings more power to the corporations, which by their very nature are going to use that power for, and only for, their own profit, at the exclusion of environmental and human factors. The bad things about corporations are more or less a direct result of their structure.
I think they offer you a full food bowl, and a shiny new collar. If you are good they will let you out in the yard once in awhile, and if you are bad they will put you to sleep.
Am I wrong?
| By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 09:34 am: Edit |
That's what I thought--you have no idea what the WTO does or doesn't do.
| By Martin on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 08:34 am: Edit |
I don't hang out with greasy, drunken, pot-smoking adolescents.
Whatever demagoguery I engage in is my own business, and something you haven't got a clue about.
-Martin
| By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 08:22 am: Edit |
Martin:
I believe the cranial-rectal inversion was yours, not mine.
Name three things bad about the WTO that (a) you gleaned from original sources, not just drunken hearsay from fellow greasy adolescents who think doing a few bonghits is akin to radical activism, and (b) you haven't had to go look up right now on the Web.
Stick to facts, not demagoguery.
BC
| By Martin on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 07:12 am: Edit |
Damn straight about the Democrats, Walsh. I've known that the whole time. My parent's weren't fools, they raised me right.. they let me know what's really goin' on. That's why it always sickens me to see left-thinking "liberal" folk supporting Democrats.... the Democrats are bigger Nazis than the Republicans ever were! My parents are about as liberal and leftist as you can imagine, and they've ALWAYS voted Republican!
All these lies and treachery...
We'd probably get along pretty well if we met in person, Walsh. Too bad you're so much a part of "them"... you'd probably do well on my side. We need some folks like you who are good at getting "the job done". C'mon, you know as much as the rest of us, that Capitalism is the cause of 90% of the world's problems. Democracy would be so much better without Big Capital pulling all the strings. You know I'm right, but you're too entrenched in the "system" to want to do anything about it.
Oh well, I guess I'll continue to hate you, except on those shocking occasions when, by some sick twist of fate, we agree on something.
-Martin
| By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 06:48 am: Edit |
And if you tried that shit in Afghanistan you'd wish that the Chinese police and military had charge of your personal liberty every day of your life.
But this fact still doesn't mean the police in Seattle acted correctly and in the interests of justice.
Hobgoblin
| By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 06:45 am: Edit |
By the way, historically, the principle opponents of an open immigration policy, the party that has consistently shat on the Irish, Italians, etc., at the behest of organized Labor, are the DEMOCRATS.
It's only after their policies failed, and the Irish and Italians became entrenched in America and were unfortunately wooed into the very same party that crapped on them, that the Dems looked for other targets.
Next were the Asians. Japanese. Chinese.
The Asians were smarter. That's why they overwhelmingly vote Republican.
Now the blacks, they are mostly still seduced by Democrat nonsense. They have forgotten that Lincoln was a REPUBLICAN and that the Dems historically supported slavery, states rights, segregation, etc. The Democrats didn't favor integration and voting rights for blacks till they had figured out how to corral those votes for themselves. Upwardly mobile blacks know better. They vote republican. They remember which party Lincoln was from. The power of the Dems on a national level used to rest on one thing only, the Solid South, and that was a Solid White Segregationist South. The backbone of the DEMOCRATIC Party. The party of the Klan and the Citizens Councils and the night riders and church burners and synagogue desecrators and enemies of the Catholics. Live loing enough and you might not have to be spoonfed history by liars -- you can remember it for yourself.
| By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 06:30 am: Edit |
Hey martin:
I agree with you on this one.
Clinton WAS And IS a worthless fuck.
However, I reserve the right to call everything else you say worthless puelling drivel from a snotnosed wannabe-anything asshole.
Nothing personal!
| By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 06:25 am: Edit |
I'll stand with Bob on this one.
Try that shit in Thailand and you'll wish the cops in Seattle had charge of your personal liberty every day of your life.
Try that shit in CHINA and you'll wish the Thai police and military had charge of your personal liberty every day of your life.
The Left: marginalized assholes, whose organizations would have no budget if only the FBI informants and agents inside them would stop paying their dues. You can always spot the Bureau plants: they are the only ones who pay dues on time.
(Also true for a whole lot of the Right. For sure the Klan. Probably the militias, the Aryan this and that etc.)
As for our Euro brethren who cry less than salty tears for native-american causes celebre just because they are native americans: it must be nice to have a hobby. In Germany people who shoot statspolizei or BGS (Bundesgrunzshutz -- Border Patrol Police) officers rarely make it to trial alive. General Ulrich Wegener of GSG9 fame is/was an old friend.
(signed)
An Unrepentent Fascist Running Dog Lackey of the Imperialists
| By Martin on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 06:05 am: Edit |
Clinton was a worthless fuck. The worst kind. The kind that seemed so much to appeal the more liberal-minded ex-hippy baby boomers. But in reality, he was every bit the evil shit that the new guy is. Just a different flavor of shit.. one that looked better on the outside.
Don't vote for ANYONE.
Damn straight Artemis, those fucking dogs that dare to call themselves "defenders of the peace" have don't more violence to this poor country than all the protesters, serial killers, and gangsters combined.
-Martin
| By Martin on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 05:58 am: Edit |
Bjacques,
Glad to see another anarchistic-minded person on the board.
I seriously doubt Bush or his henchmen would be capable of outlawing abortion or anything else. They don't have enough support from the masses to even consider doing something so drastic. He won by such a slim margin, he knows he can't do anything big. What we're looking forward to is four incredibly boring years and far as executive action is concerned.
It's good that stuff like "Smoke Signals.." is getting shown where you're at. Anti-governament and anti-Capitalist groups get very little good press here (as far as I can tell anyway). It's usually portrayed as a bunch of hippies getting pissy and busting up a Starbucks. Of course, we know there's alot more going on than that.
I really hope the anti-WTO actions get more... effective. It'll be really nice to see some huge horrible corporations brought to their knees. Sure, that's no easy task, but by God, it won't happen if no one tries.
Big demonstrations like Seattle are great, but I don't think it start to be really effective until things like that start happening on a weekly basis. Fuck, daily would be even better. Riot until they can't take no more! That's a good motto. The fucks in charge need to be shown that we're sick of their shit and there's no excuse to put up with it anymore.
I look forward to being as vocal and outspoken as I can to try to make the world a better place... something like that. If I can influence one person towards my side, it'll all be worth it.
-Martin
P.S.
Shit, I just spilled half my French Martini in my lap. Don't drink and type.
P.P.S.
Chong, get your head out of your ass.
| By Artemis on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 05:35 am: Edit |
"But who actually started the violence at Seattle?"
The police. They not only started it, but except for a handful of anarchists who had planned all along to do some property damage, the police carried out nearly 100% of it. Many passers-by who had nothing to do with the protest were gassed, shot with rubber bullets, beaten, etc.
I think Bob is wrong on this one. The protestors in Seattle represented a very wide range of political beliefs, and were for the most part extremely well informed and organized. I just read a fascinating piece on this in "The Sun" (formerly Dharmadhatu Sun) magazine. The piece implies that the cops became very much more brutal after our hero of the people, Bill Clinton, privately expressed his disgust and anger at the way the protestors were sullying the event. Coincidence?
| By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 04:33 am: Edit |
Bob,
But who actually started the violence at Seattle? Are the interests of the WTO delegates so important that citizens are not permitted to demonstrate their opposition to the WTO? Should the Constitutional right to demonstrate, be cast aside by the City of Seattle authorities so that they can act in accordance with their own view on what is in the public interest?
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding." Justice Louis Brandeis.
Hobgoblin
| By Bob_Chong on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 09:57 pm: Edit |
Seattle was a joke. 90% of those gutterpunks have no idea what they were protesting unless Susan Sarandon told them first.
"What do we want? An end to the projects bringing potable water to third world countries! When do we want it? Now!"
BC
| By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 11:01 am: Edit |
Bjaqcues,
The SWP aren't such a bad lot, just a bit dull.
Hobgoblin
| By Bjacques on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 09:52 am: Edit |
Those of you kicking the dead Clinton horses, aren't your feet getting sore? Shrub may have cleaned up his act after it became impolitic, he doesn't seem willing to extend the indulgence he once enjoyed to today's druggies (neither did Clinton, nor would Gore have). I voted for Ralph, natch. He wasn't perfect, but he was the best of a bad lot.
If I were back in the States, I'd try to do more to make Bush Jr.'s political life a holy hell. As it is, I can only cheer from the sidelines. A wonderful TV program here, "Smoke Signals from the New World," profiled the coalitions against global capital, and I was hugely encouraged. The different groups were actually learning things from each other and getting their stories aired, mostly thanks to the Internet and www.indymedia.org. Contrast that with some of the sectarian antics of just 10 years ago, when anarchists wouldn't even talk to Trotskyites and few groups could organize so much as a bake sale. Now, even the Socialist Workers Party get to play, even though nobody likes them.
Shrub and his Witchfinder General are welcome to try to outlaw abortion and/or contraception, but they're gonna face millions of active women (and men) who will make the Furies look like Kathy Lee Gifford.
It's gonna be fun. Back in the day, I defended women's clinics, went to see Bill hicks live, mocked Klansmen, and waved a papier-mache Chaos goat, bearing Hexagram 59 of the I Ching, in a (successful!) attempt to unseat Bush during the GOP convention. God, that was fun! If the Seattle and London anti-WTO parties are any indication, it'll only get better. Or as Molly Ivins (Texas columnist, author of "Shrub") once said, nothing but good times ahead!
| By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 06:59 am: Edit |
Heiko,
Don't you know that the lives of policemen are more valuable than the lives of the rest of us. Also being wealthy or having friends in high places naturally gives you more entitlement to leniancy. The rest of us are mere fodder.
Hobgoblin
| By Heiko on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 06:28 am: Edit |
Ok, I see: if a policeman or FBI agent is shot, somebody gotta go to jail for it: if this poor somebody then can't actually prove he didn't do it (which is hard to do if you're against the testimony of 10 cops) - bad luck...
About the hypocrisy of politicians: Our conservatives (the CDU) are right now very busy 'playing K. Starr' - every week they bring up new photos and evidence from '68 where one of our secretaries of state (from the Greens party) was fighting a cop in a demonstration or shaking Arafat's hand at a PLO-conference. This is really getting silly and a german comedian brought it to the point when she said that there was only once in German history a politician who was really PC: he did not smoke, did not drink alcohol, loved animals, never had affairs and was a hard working man - pretty cool you think? Yeah, only...his name was Hitler - I guess we rather have better politicians and don't care so much if they have affairs, or drink too much alcohol, or smoke, or whatever.
| By Bob_Chong on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 11:45 pm: Edit |
Cheese:
Click on the formatting tab over there on the left to see the tags.
BC
| By Cheese on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 10:28 pm: Edit |
Kevin,
but I don't think it can be proven that Peltier was innocent
Man, that's a problem with out justice/court system today (however, from what I know of the Peltier case, he doesn't sound too innocent, but don't forget "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit"). Unless you've got some cash, you have to prove yourself innocent. Somewhere along the way everyone seems to have forgotten the burden of proof is on the state, not the defendant (look at our forfeiture laws for some good examples). You know, innocent before proven guilty?! I've dealt with the courts a few times and I've never had a public defender that gave a shit or helped me in any way.
Bob
Kinda hard to forget about the guy who's leaving when he pulls some pretty big stunts before he goes.
Blackjack
Your mention of Lisl made me think of HST. Not sure if many know it, but the good Dr. is writing for ESPN on-line (this is where I first heard of the Lisl story). Just do a search and you'll find his articles.....they keep him on page 2.
Josh
[edit] what tags work on here? I've tried both html and ubb? Can anyone give me a quick run down of the basic ones?
| By Bob_Chong on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 09:13 pm: Edit |
Did anybody even notice that Clinton is no longer president?
Well, did Clinton notice? He is "not going anywhere," remember? Now I know what he meant by that utterance, made as he was actively profaning another man's inauguration day.
BC
| By _Blackjack on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 08:47 pm: Edit |
Quote:He also pardoned a dude who had 800 lbs. of cocaine.
| By Bob_Chong on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 08:45 pm: Edit |
I spent the last 8 years defending Clinton.
Your knees must be tired.
BC
| By Bob_Chong on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 08:41 pm: Edit |
Quote: Clinton pardoned...people who were given draconian prison sentences for possessing or selling pot and LSD.
He also pardoned a dude who had 800 lbs. of cocaine.
BC
| By Anatomist1 on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 08:13 pm: Edit |
Unfortunately, even Clinton couldn't pardon Peltier. If you're convicted of shooting FBI agents, not even Jesus Christ is going to get you off the hook. I don't remember the details, but I don't think it can be proven that Peltier was innocent. I think it has been conclusively shown that his trial was unfair and he was therefore wrongfully convicted. This isn't the same as proving he didn't do it.
As far as anti-Clinton mania goes, what gets me about it is the hypocrisy of people who foam at the mouth about Clinton's failings, yet turn a blind eye to all of the well-documented evil deeds of Republicans. How can people be so gullible as to fall for this tired scapegoating agitprop? Clinton is a slimy weasel, and so are nearly all the others - Demicans and Republicrats alike. The disproportionate outcry and attention given to the Clintons' every fart and burp are obviously fueled by pundits, spin-sters, and demogogues because it diverts attention away from matters of importance. Did anybody even notice that Clinton is no longer president?
K.
| By _Blackjack on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 07:54 pm: Edit |
Well, at least Peltier was convicted of a crime he could have possibly commited (meaning he was present at the shootout, and armed.) Poor Lisl Auman is going to spend the rest of her life in jail for a murder commited while she was handcuffed in a police car.
http://www.lisl.com/
| By Perruche_Verte on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 05:56 pm: Edit |
Hear, hear.
A local poet/alcoholic of my acquaintance tells of the days when he used to hang out at a pub -- long since too trendy -- which featured free (nasty American tap) beer from 3-4 PM.
They eventually started charging a dollar because they were getting swamped with homeless people who wanted a drink to ward off the cold, in addition to starving poets.
This, and a lot of other things, inspired your man to write a poem entitled "Beer Is Free And So Is Leonard Peltier".
So now Peltier waits for the next parole board, who will no doubt pay every bit as much attention to those esteemed persons as the last one did.
Damn you, Clinton.
| By Heiko on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 03:12 pm: Edit |
Clinton could at least have pardoned Leonard Peltier, who is proven not to be guilty and nevertheless spent the last 25 years in prison...
this would've been the best way to say "screw you guys, I'm out of heah!" - but I guess he was too afraid of the FBI.
I don't want to criticize too much here as I'm not an American, but this case has gone around the world and even H. H. the Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu and many others have stood up for Peltier's release.
A poor way to tell the world how much even liberal American politicians care for the sake of rich criminals while they don't give a shit for Native Americans...
| By _Blackjack on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 01:57 pm: Edit |
Well, I spent the last 8 years defending Clinton, but this pardon thing has me pretty diappointed. I don't think it was, necissarily, any more corrupt than most of the stuff most presidents do, but it felt very petty to me, like Clinton was going "screw you guys, I'm out of heah!"
I don't mind dishonest hypocritical politicians. As far as I know, that's the only kind there are. But I prefer the kind who are dishonest and hypocritical in ways that benefit the things I believe in. I would have much rather seen Clinton pardon more drug offenders and less billionaires...
But I agree with Dubya that we should just leave this alone. It's over, Bill's gone, let it lie. If we're going to did this up, we'd better be prepared to re-start the Iran-Contra thing too...
| By Don_Walsh on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 09:42 am: Edit |
Marc, it's their hypocrisy which gets me.
You recognize I'm sure that under the right circumstances, not so disparate from present reality, Hill & Bill would have happily presies over your legal cruxifiction in the name of the War on Drugs, or any one or more of a number of other Wars, and never blinked an eye?
The 'Bill, just another rampant prick like me, mindless heat seeker looking for any old cave' defense is kind of thin. Does it extend to Hill's brother and are we expected to swallow that she knew nothing of it in an administration run by her with her arm up Bill's ass to move his mouth and allow her to throw her voice?
| By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 04:03 am: Edit |
Marc,
We're all sluts, it's just that most of us like to live in a world of self-righteous self-dellusion. I'm trust you're enjoying yourself in that karmic cesspool in the desert.
Hobgoblin
| By Marc on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 03:18 am: Edit |
Don and Lord,
I guess I'm getting old. None of this shit really means that much to me anymore. I'm in Las Vegas,
a karmic cesspool, and I ain't entitled to get self-righteous about anything. I went from being
a hippie freak to a a money grubbing opportunist.
I'm a fucking whore. That's probably why I like Bill Clinton. We're both sluts.
| By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 03:11 am: Edit |
Clintons list of pardons included, armed robbery, money laundering, fraud, embezzlement, conspiracy to defraud the government, and that's before including Marc Rich. Only a small percentage of the pardons were for drugs offences.
If the President exercises the right to pardon all these convicted criminals he should at least give a good explanation of his reasons in each case.
The true reasons for some of these people would make interesting reading.
| By Don_Walsh on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 02:39 am: Edit |
You guys don't no much about the federal pardon process. It is handled by the General Counsel's office and the President isn't notmally involved at all. Some recent presidents pardoned NOBODY. It is not supposed to be for sale.
So $800,000 to Hillary brother, shows Hillary to be as corrupt as Bill and Bill to be as corrupt as we always thought.
I've known federal employees who were succesfully prosecuted and convicted of a federal felony or three for 'accepting a gratuity' not cash, just some desk ornament or a plaque to hang on their wall, if it was deemed to be worth more than the statuatory maximum.
The Clinton's a crooks and hypocrits.
But we already knew that, from other matters.
Mr Rapist Governor and Mr Screwer of Interns President, presided over an administration which crucified military personnel for 'sexual harassment' offenses.
Clinton cut a smarmy deal with the Arkansas Supreme Court to keep from being disbarred, that's how he spent the day before the last day of his term, which is when he peddled his pardon power. Brokered by his brother in law.
These people suck, Marc. Don't narrow your field of view to a pardon or two you might find sympathy with. That's just tunnel vision.
| By Marc on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 02:05 am: Edit |
Clinton pardoned a number of people who were given draconian prison sentences for possessing or selling pot and LSD. Is that a bad thing?
For a forum devoted to a beverage associated with the arts and creative thinking, there sure are alot of bloodthirsty, narrowminded, rightwing, gun-toting, macho white boys posting here. In some respects, this is the among the squarest websites I visit.
| By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 01:37 am: Edit |
Pikkle,
"LH... you chaps need to bring back the Iron Maiden... we haven't had any Brits to villify for a long time now."
Neither have we, we love to have one of our own to villify.
Hobgoblin
| By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 01:33 am: Edit |
Anatomist,
"Clinton hasn't pardoned any more convicts than other presidents".
You're right he probably hasn't and many of his predecessors have no doubt pardoned more heinous criminals.
Pardoning 140 or so convicted criminals, (including his brother) on his last day in office, is that in the interests of justice or an abuse of power?
The Constitutional right of a President to pardon anyboby he/she wishes was as you say originally meant to serve the interests of justice. I'm sure it wasn't set up as a means to buy political favours, get oneself off the hook and generally make a mockery of the justice system.
As far as I'm concerned a President can ball who he likes and get blow jobs from whom he pleases, but don't abuse the powers given to him by the people he's supposed to serve.
But then what more should we expect? Most politicians are a bunch of self-serving sleazebags whose only interest is personal wealth and power. No doubt they see nothing wrong with using all the tools at their disposal to satisfy their own greed. Survival of the fittest and all that, but then it's us poor saps that willingly give them the power to shaft us.
Clinton was no worse than any other President in recent history.
Hobgoblin
| By Bob_Chong on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 10:21 pm: Edit |
Quote: ...he voided a bunch of national forest protecting exec. orders
This could also be stated: he corrected a series of abuses of executive power which had ignored due process.
Of course, Clinton was never long on due process.
BC
| By Pikkle on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 09:18 pm: Edit |
LH... you chaps need to bring back the Iron Maiden... we haven't had any Brits to villify for a long time now.
| By Marc on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 01:41 pm: Edit |
S. Clay rocks! A man ahead ( a head) of his time.
| By Artemis on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 01:13 pm: Edit |
"artemis,
for an S. Clay Wilson fan, you sure are sounding pretty straight."
Yeah, I know it. I'd rather talk about the Checkered Demon than politics, if that's worth anything.
| By Anatomist1 on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 01:06 pm: Edit |
LH:
Don't believe the hype. Clinton hasn't pardoned any more convicts than other presidents. Pardoning a current fugitive is a little weird, but other presidents have done weird ones too -- the power is the last vestige of monarchy left in our system. In its original intent, it was supposed to be reserved for cases where undoing what the justice sytem had done would be good for the country regardless of fairness. Ford pardoning Nixon is widely considered to be such a case.
If you want to see a seedy pardon, check out Bush Sr.: he pardoned Weinberger and several others in the middle of an ongoing Iran-Contra investigation, thereby ending it. If allowed to continue, the investigation may well have seen Bush himself behind bars. So he basically pardoned his way out of taking responsibility for his own role in drug dealing, illegal arms trading, lying to congress, and conducting a private war... and possibly rigging an election.
http://do-oh.iuma.com/fishrap/classic/pardon/cast.html
K.
| By Anatomist1 on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 12:51 pm: Edit |
W is already kicking ass. He bombed Iraq the other day so no one would notice when he voided a bunch of national forest protecting exec. orders and appointed a politically motivated census cheif to rig the numbers in favor of the Republicans.
K.
| By Marc on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 12:31 pm: Edit |
artemis,
for an S. Clay Wilson fan, you sure are sounding pretty straight.
| By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 12:07 pm: Edit |
Give the man a chance he's only just got into office, plenty of time yet to ball a few whores and dish out pardons to a load of convicted criminals.
| By Artemis on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 11:45 am: Edit |
"Nice to know the leader of the most influential and powerfull country on the planet is on the ball."
Agreed. It's nice to know that for the first time in eight years, he is on the ball, as opposed to balling some whore.
| By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 11:36 am: Edit |
Well before old Dubya starts going around kicking ass, perhaps one of his advisers should take the time to explain to him exactly what NATO is and tell him that the USA has always been it's most active participant.
Nice to know the leader of the most influential and powerfull country on the planet is on the ball.
| By Artemis on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 10:47 am: Edit |
"What planet is he on?"
The planet whereon if there's any serious ass to be kicked, the U.S. military will have to do the kicking because nobody else is up to it. The U.S. wasn't up to it either for much of the last eight years, but that will hopefully change now, thanks to W.
| By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 10:29 am: Edit |
UK dentists are glad of people like Tony, he keeps them in business.
Too bad very few of the rest of can now find a National Health Service dentist anymore thanks to New Labour, perhaps this was deliberate on Tony's part so that he could keep them all to himself.
| By Pikkle on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 09:49 am: Edit |
Sometimes you have to say things twice for those who dwell in the land of the dentally challenged.
| By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 04:46 am: Edit |
"I assured him that the United States will be actively engaged in NATO"
Dubya reassures us all of this at a press conference with Tony Blair broadcast on UK TV yesterday. Startling news indeed!
What planet is he on?
| By Malhomme on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 01:20 pm: Edit |
Nothing to add really, but wanted to keep this one going as a kind of reminder to some as to who's really president.
mal
| By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, January 28, 2001 - 03:12 am: Edit |
Not 4-5 parties a week, parties lasting for 4-5 weeks. You can rest while your empty glass is being refilled.
| By Don_Walsh on Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 11:42 am: Edit |
Down with the two party system!
I want 4-5 parties a week, with some rest in between. (hic)
| By _Blackjack on Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 12:21 am: Edit |
Quote:Down with the two party system. Give me Nader over a corporate lackey any day.
| By Corsetgirl on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 04:12 pm: Edit |
Down with the two party system. Give me Nader over a corporate lackey any day.
| By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 10:32 am: Edit |
Too moderate and too dull.
| By Bob_Chong on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 02:40 pm: Edit |
Hob:
Gotcha. I figured you didn't like either--way too moderate for your tastes.
BC
| By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 12:21 pm: Edit |
Bob, Bob, Bob...
You misunderstood me I wasn't junping to the support of Gore.
Just commenting that Gore wasn't at the front of the queue when personality was being given out, and Bush wasn't at the front of the queue when brain cells were given out.
Neither however are overly endowed with either personality or brain cells.
The Democrat and Republican candidates that impressed me were the Vice-Presidential, not the Presdential candidates.
However if I'd have been a citizen of the USA you wouldn't have caught me voting for Democrats or Republicans.
Hobgoblin
| By Bob_Chong on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 11:41 am: Edit |
Hob, Hob, Hob...
RE: Gore--I was mocking his credentials as a "journalist." Thirty years ago, he spent a few months working for a podunk Tennessee newspaper. That qualifies him to be a "professor" of journalism at Columbia? Forget politics--as a fellow educator, I thought you'd be with me on this one.
I could see Gore being a political science teacher, though. He has been a career politician and has much knowledge to share in that area. But his knowledge of journalism is old and was probably never very good anyway.
It would be like the Berklee School of Music hiring Clinton to give saxophone lessons. (FWIW, I think Clinton should/could easily work at a law school. A perfect match.)
I think if folks are going to teach, they should at least have some real knowledge and experience in their content area. This is not too much to ask.
BC
| By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 11:17 am: Edit |
Well Bob,
At least the dull wooden man with the personality deficit can string a few words together, maybe he should lend Dubya a dictionary, and while he's at it he should lend him an atlas of the world as well.
Hobgoblin
| By Bob_chong on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 09:02 pm: Edit |
Al Gore is now a professor of journalism? LOL. Creative writing would have been a better fit.
Or maybe an A&M school could have hired him to be a professor of agriculture, since he has such an extensive knowledge of farming.
BC
| By Melinelly on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 05:22 pm: Edit |
Pikkle, i meant, as you said, not to add to the debate, but to simply point out that the only way either of us is going to agree other than to disagree would be to change the core essence of the other... which as you said ain't gonna happen =)
.
cheers!
-em
| By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 01:06 pm: Edit |
I'm off to get some sandpaper.
| By Pikkle on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 12:12 pm: Edit |
Ooh, Goblin... yer gettin me so hot!
| By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 12:06 pm: Edit |
Melinelly
"How would you like someone to shove explosive devices in your orrifices?...squeeze your trigger?... bristle brushes shoved in and out of your holes...oiled inside and out on a regular basis?...sheathed in rough leather..."
Some people pay good hard-earned money for such services.
Hobgoblin
| By Pikkle on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 07:40 am: Edit |
Well Melinelly, I am a capitalist and patriotic
and all that but I'm done with this thread, it's a
debate that's undebate-able in my book.
Good day sir!
| By _blackjack_ on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 07:17 pm: Edit |
I am in the Washington, DC suburbs, which is a very different world from the rest of Virginia. It's a little haven of Yankee liberalism a half-hour drive from the Old South. It really gives me the best of both worlds: Arlington County hands out social services on a near-European level, but I can still get a permit to carry a concealed handgun by just asking.
| By Rupert1029 on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 05:59 pm: Edit |
Blackjack, the land of your birth is Alabama, and so is mine. But according to your profile, you reside in Virginia, the land of Pat Robertson and the born agains. Is that much better than Alabama ? Of course, as I scold you, I realize that I live in Texas....the land of the Village Idiot...who is now President.
| By Melinelly on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 05:51 pm: Edit |
Pikkle wrote:
"I
also think it should be regulated so as not to
overburden our resources. That is my thought
on the matter, please let it die now!!! "
immigration aside, i might agree with your views if i were at all capitalistic... however, what strikes me upon hearing statements such as these is: Why not simply work at redistributing said resources so that human beings are not seen as burdens?
on another note...
as for gun-rights... i too believe in the right for guns to exist. i'm outraged at the historical and present-day infringement upon freedom of choice when it comes to guns!!!
when a gun is bought, sold, fired, loaded, cleaned, USED... WHERE... I SAY WHERE... IS THE DECISION OF THE GUN in this matter?
Nowhere!
And to those who deny guns their basic right to exist unmolested by humankind, to those who say "I don't hear the guns complaining." : Maybe you're just not listening. Maybe we simply don't speak the same language. How would you like it if you were bought and sold like a piece of meat? How would you like someone to shove explosive devices in your orrifices? Hold you by the handle and squeeze your trigger? Force you to detonate small explosives, often killing innocent beings. How would you like to have bristle brushes shoved in and out of your holes and be oiled inside and out on a regular basis? How would you like to spend most of your life locked in a box, sheathed in rough leather, or displayed upon someone's mantle?
How long will we, as intelligent sentient beings, stand for the mistreatment of our fellow earthly existors? I say NO MORE! FREEDOM FOR GUNS! SUPPORT THE HUMANE TREATMENT OF ARTILLERY! GUN RIGHTS NOW!
Vive La Resistance!
For more info on how you can help, write to:
People for the Ethical Treatment of Artillery (aka the other PETA)
69 Desolation Blvd. #2
Shit Creek, AK 47666
USoffrickinAbaby
.........
cheers!
emiliano lee
disclaimer: it's a joke duh.
| By _blackjack_ on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 01:18 pm: Edit |
Quote:As to Bushes view on abortion, I'm afraid I agree with him.
| By _blackjack_ on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 01:09 pm: Edit |
Ah, Alabama, land of my birth. Had my father not broken his leg and decided to give up farming and get his degree in physics, I might have grown up there. That would not have been pretty.
| By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 01:08 pm: Edit |
I totally agree with Melinelly about the ultimate elimination of borders and nationality. I view borders as unnatural artificial barriers set up to control us all.
As to Bushes view on abortion, I'm afraid I agree with him. I'm an atheist and a Marxist who is also opposed to abortion. You don't get many of them. Fellow Comrades are shocked and assume that being left-wing means being pro-abortion. I also once belonged to a pro-life group and had to leave because their position was all based around religion (either Catholicism, Judaism, Evangelical Protestantism, or Islam). There seems to be no place for a secular pro-life position. There's no need for the debate to be all about various Religions or the Conservative Right versus the Liberals or the Left.
Hobgoblin
| By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 12:33 pm: Edit |
Pikkle,
No problem, I just felt that not living in the USA my implied comments on immigration into the USA was something that I had no real right to comment on. Also the Irish thing is proably best discussed over a dozen pints of Guinness, (each). Although my days of being able to drink a dozen pints are long since gone, (lucky to manage half that these days).
Hobgoblin
| By Pataphysician on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 07:32 am: Edit |
"...miscegination laws were..."
"Were" meaning up until three months ago, when the last miscegination law was stricken in Alabama. A whopping 41% voted to keep the law in place. Gives one pause, doesn't it?