Bush made a speech about Chavez.. Bush's comments are absurds

 

chavez should sue...

 

 

JD - not certain how to answer this except to say that insofar as we can assess the impact of a coporate agreement with any nationality upon either the environment or social conditions in that country, the corporation should be held responsible for offsetting those costs. Thus, external costs should become part of the cost of doing business. I think many corporate managers are more than willing to abide by such laws if they are passed (in fact many have stated just that!), because today they CANNOT support such measures on a voluntary basis, as the corporation is first and foremost responsible for satisfying the return on investment needs of its shareholders (PROFITS). If corporate management today attempts to be socially responsible, they can be hauled into court for not supporting their shareholders. This would never happen, however, if laws were passed to forbid corporations from externalising costs. In these cases, corporate management could simply say they were following the law. No one would argue with that. The result of recapturing external costs are obvious. Cost of Goods would increase. Prices would increase. Wealth would be re-distributed to those areas most affected and most worthy of the profits incurred by production - the people of the country involved. Sales would likely decrease in the consuming country due to rising prices. This would, of course have very serious negative economic impact upon the northern countries (with the exception of Autralia and New Zealand), and in particular you and I.... On the other hand, it would have immense positive impact upon the peoples of the southern countries (again, with the exception of Australia and New Zealand) and upon their environments. In the northern countries it would also have serious impact due to the requirement to capture the environmental costs (CO2 production as an example) of doing business. And why not? Really. Should we, the consumers not pay for any damage we do to the environment (human or otherwise), or to repair such damage? If one's Nike shoes cost 30% more, at least he would be wearing them knowing that he had not indirectly contributed to the destruction of the environment.

Thanks Victor—you've given me some good references to check out; my questions will probably be addressed there. I guess my question concerning indirect externalities is a little odd—I understand externalities to be a case of passing the buck on who pays for indirect and hidden social and ecological costs (like the military and pollution) so maybe externalities are always “indirect.” I'm not sure if prohibiting externalization means that businesses would have to pay for these costs directly, or not allow them to arise in the first place. My “indirect” comment was about the sort of complex inter-determination of ecological and social systems: there can be a “chain-reaction” of causes and events where it can might be hard to trace absolute causes (e.g. did this pollutant cause this acid rain which caused this poisoned soil, which made this poison fruit which made Sally sick, and caused her mother to miss work… and on and on… leading to questions about which specific business is liable for the costs and to what degree). It seems to me that it would be difficult to asses ALL the effects down the road of almost any sizable action. At any rate, major immediate impacts should be the significant ones to address. Personally, I flirted with socialistic communism when I was in high-school, thinking it would be necessary with advances in artificial intelligence. My libertarian sympathies arose with a parallel of thinking about freedom and economics, but I strongly believe such a one-note (less government) politics must be held accountable to global social and ecological sustainability issues. I get my “radical moderate” stance by trying to balance the tensions between the possibly wide diverging poles of libertarianism and sustainability and by feeling beholden to global democracy, which I think defines what is truly moderate. The “group-think” of the democratically “global-brain” with its ideologically hubbed networks, is more a “free-thinker” to the extent that it allows and encourages “other” dissenting and minority voices to enter the (media, gossip, academic, etc.) focal arena: hence my admiration of political activists and educators as public consciousness raisers.

Hi JD. I've been a little busy, so forgive me for my tardiness in answering your very good questions. For now, there are two economists you should consult - Henry George (Progress and Poverty) and Fred Harrison (The Power in the Land - essentially a Henry George book of apologetics where he attempts to provide some empirical support for George's assertions). Also a more modern book, The Corporation by Joel Bakan, in which the author explores the nature of the Corporation and the laws and court decisions which have so dramaticaly influenced its current state. I think you will find after consulting these books that we as a society, indeed as a civilisation, could immensely benefit from their wise advice. The changes they propose could alter drastically the way we do business, dramatically reducing poverty and hunger in the world, stabilsing the historic concept of a "business cycle" (famine and feast), and reducing much of the acceptable reasons behind empirialism (my own assertion, not necessarilly theirs). I believe that taking away the ability of the corporation to externalise costs will result immediately in a reduction of military spending (as corporations will no longer be able to use the military to protect their interests around the world) and decrease the political influence of these corporations in developing countries as they are no longer able to lawfully pass on the costs of their social and envirnomental impact. As for "indirect" external costs as you have asked about, you will need to tell me what you have in mind...;-) Fred Harrison answers your question about the level of tax income we could expect from a proper land tax. You must understand that "ownership" under these conditions includes any value added to natural resources, so personal computers and intellectual property are rightly considered areas of "ownership". Things derived from the creativity and work of man are considered "capital". Read their suppositions. It is hard to argue with them, which is why few economists have attempted to do so with Henry George. His book Progress and Poverty is an absolute classic in the field and defines very precisely the terms such as land and capital in true economic terms. As for Corporate Law, Joel Bakan changed my life. I can say no more. I will try to answer some of your questions when I can break free. But for now, please consider readings at least some of the works of these men. (You will note that none of them can be considered "anti-capitalist", in fact the reverse). I must admit for my own part I am a dyed-in-the-wool socialist, but I honour their economic assessment highly, and hope that you will also.

Victor— I really like your three proposals; as understand them, they are 1) no corporate externalities 2) tax land use, and 3) license land and resource use. These ideas could fit in with my own economic/ecological structure thinking—I've thought that human & natural “resource”-to-property conversions should be taxed with an aim towards global health (human and environmental)—in an essay I wrote (when I was thinking of the shift of much labor to machines, robots and AI in the future): Capital Regulation I'm very much into new thinking about addressing global problems (like parecon's concern for empowerment, or taxing pollution for the environment), although I think radically new ideas need to be tested, if possible, before widely implemented (although experimentation should not be forever forestalled by an indefinite number of “what-ifs.”) A couple of question that come to mind quickly would concern 1) the difficulty of tracking indirect externalities (& corporations do pay some taxes towards addressing these); 2) would land taxes generate enough revenues for all perceived needs?; and 3) where would land/resource licenses border on general property ownership (things like personal computers or even intellectual property (sometimes the result of massive investment of resources) rather than just acres of land or natural resources); and also would land need be rationed? I think a practical consideration concerns what intermediary steps there might be between what we have, and what we think might work better. E.g., I think encouraging employee owned businesses is a step towards parecon, that is a good in itself. Some current taxes and regulations touch on your first two proposals; more like these might do good; but #3 might receive heavy resistance from anyone who already owns land (even The Nature Conservancy)—especially considering the controversy recently about “eminent domain.” A recent concern of mine, while reviewing an an essay of mine on the Frankfurt School is the “symbiosis” between corporations and militaries. Defense of the “homeland” is one thing, “imperial ambitions” quite another. I think Chomsky, et. al., might, like Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School, may see some necessary complicity between capitalism and military expansionism: Max Horkheimer claims in his “The Authoritarian State:” “If the lack of modern technology and the war-like environment had not played into the hands of bureaucracy, statism would have already outlived its usefulness. In integral statism, even apart from the militaristic encroachment, the absolutism of bureaucracy, whose authority the police enforce to the utmost in all phases of life, stands opposed to the free structuring of society. No economic or juridical measures, only the will of the ruled can lead to the democratization of the system of control. They will be trapped in the vicious circle of poverty, domination, war and poverty until they break through themselves…. If a region, for example the United States or Europe, is great and powerful enough, the machinery of oppression used against the internal enemy must find a pretext in the threats of the external enemy. While hunger and the danger of war are necessary, uncontrollable and inevitable results of a market economy, they can be constructively utilized by the authoritarian state.” So I'm very interested in how limiting corporate externalities would avert the historical habit of imperialism.

JD, Your apology is accepted. The world at this stage is an enormously emotional issue. We are now faced with problems it was difficult to see even 3 decades ago. There seems to be no viable way out that the whole of humanity can all coalesce around. There is a lot of blame pushed around. There are polarising views. People are now beginning to realise that all these troubles are real, and that they themselves are not free from being part of the problem. This makes people nervous. It makes them seek the comfort of those who believe most like them. But that often results in further polarisation, more emotives, and greater frustration when one encounters those who do not believe the same and feel just as strongly that their position is right. I don't think there is anything in what I have just said that you would disagree with, nor would people representing a very wide spectrum of political and economic thought. Where we cannot seem to come together is WHY all this is happening, and therefore, learn from those mistakes and formulate a solution for the future of mankind. You said it well in one of your recent postings in a jab at me, but nonetheless, pointing out a fundamental truth - we seem long on statistics but short on solutions. I believe there does exist a set of solutions, if we but had the courage to implement them. For to implement them globally would entail a massive shift of productive power and redistribution of wealth and significant changes to the way we live and work. In the end, however, it would result in a real ability to implement the 7 Chomsky points you mentioned. Under today's economy and laws one could not realistically hope that any of Chomsky's points could be realised, as implementation of any would result in undue pressures being applied to one area, resulting in a need to release that pressure in other areas - much the same effect as price controls have on the economy. Knowing that placing a solution on the table is risky as it provides a perfect target, nonetheless,you have inspired me to attempt it anyway. So here goes in the order I consider most important: 1. Radically change National and International Corporate law to prevent corporations from externalising costs in any form. If you are familiar with the concept of externalisation of costs, you will immediately recognise that this alone would have tremendous impact upon the global environment, upon the ability of governments to govern once more in the interests of their people, the reduction of military costs employed to protect those corporate interests, in cleaning up the environment, in reducing poverty and hopelessness, and in turn reducing the attractiveness of militant radicalism of all forms (born and encouraged in the midst of desperation). 2. Replace all forms of taxation with a single tax on the productive earning power of the land in use, an economic concept devised and thoroughly explained by a man I consider one of the greatest economists ever - Henry George. 3. Take away all private ownership of land and natural resources, and replace that with a structure that licenses the use of such land and natural resources in a responsible manner. Land and natural resources are much too valuable and limited to be put to the exclusive use of individuals and corporations just because they have the money or credit to purchase. That use should be licensed much the same as products like software are licensed, allowing free use as long as the resource is properly cared for and utilised. These three points could be considered a start. Note that I have said nothing at all about capitalism, socialism, or any of the varying flavours of either. What I have said is neither leftist, nor rightest. It is not even center... After implementation of the above 3 solutions we could then start talking about the Chomsky 7, and socialism v capitalism, and left v right, center-left v center right, radical left v radical right, neoliberalism and neoconservatism, and all that sort of fun. But until we make such radical changes, I do not believe we can hope to survive as a species, nor most of the known world. For I truly believe there is nothing in sight within any current government or economy or religious persuasion or political system in existence today that offers even the slimmest hope of a solution. We will soon learn that we as a species are not the dominant force over the world that we think we are. Mother Nature is, and you'd be wise not to mess with her - she is only slightly forgiving of trespasses. She bends, but surely will not break. And in the end she is without doubt unmerciful in restoring balance and order.

… Just Kidding… My apologies too Victor—I just wanted to make sure the personally insulting tone you took (at least that's how I read it) was made completely explicit; my feelings were not hurt, but my dignity felt wounded. I guess your cards were not as on the table as I thought they were (I'm a “card carrying” Libertarian for Sustainability). BTW, by the figures you sited, I think each human being now on earth would have about $5000 due to them; which comes to quite a bit less than $2 a day over a life-time. Now I have mixed feelings about my $20 a day. I have a little poem that touches on counter-cultural peace, and basic necessities solidarity at: Humbled Beyond a Word Again, my hopefully less than arrogant apologies for escalating the violence.

Apologies, JD, but I have read and re-read my reply and can find no where in which I started name-calling, certainly not to the extent of referring to someone as an "ass". By the emotive strength of your reply, however, I sense your feelings were hurt somehow. Perhaps I did misinterpret your statement on being poor, but rather than being a simple attack upon your ego, I was merely using that statement to provide a context for looking at the poor from a broader and higher level; i.e., global poverty - no personal attack intended. And I don't believe that I ever said that only the "radical left" has the answers to these problems, nor did I ever mention SOCIALISM. In fact, I don't really recall saying anything about the Left at all. Nor do I recall saying that I was anti-capitalist, which you seem to have inferred from my statement about "unrestrained" capitalism. I feel better now. For a minute, I actually thought I was the only one who made improper inferences.

To Victor: I know where to start: You're an ass who wants an oversimplified target of opportunity: you want to convince some sort of enemy that your self-righteousness is justified by statistics. (You started the name-calling!) Victor—You obviously did not read me very closely. I'll Quote myself here, with 100% accuracy: “IF you have food, shelter, and health care, what is so bad about being poor?” My “IF” speaks volumes. You then go on trying to shame me for my supposed ignorance of what it means to be poor… in an undeveloped country. I suppose your solution is to encourage that these countries not be “developed?” Guess what… I do have medical care… provided by the US government, since I am disabled on Social Security which provides me of an income of $632 per month; I help take care of my 11 year old nephew who's mother, my sister, died at age 26, with my Mother, who's suffering from terminal liver disease (who was on welfare in my youth, and then became a worker for AFS). I am well aware of the dire situation for many, and the statistics that you quote—I've been studying this sort of stuff intensively for the past 12 years. You make it sound like you've been to the worst hell holes on earth… have you really? YOUR PROBLEM Victor, is that you seem to think that the radical leftists are the only ones that care about these issues. Do you even know what others of different political persuasions have been DOING about these problems, other than through the lens of caricatures you see such as in Paul Street's blog. Note from the full Bush quote I included above (and BTW I did not vote for Bush) that he claims “we're providing more money than ever before in the world's history for HIV/AIDS on the continent of Africa.” Bono praises Bush for this move, but Paul Street conveniently leaves it out of his quote. Why? The fact is that even with more people being born into the world, less are starving today than 50 years ago. That didn't happen by the miracle of parecon or socialism (although some socialistic policies like Bush's may have helped). I repeat a question, would a luxury tax on the US wealthy provide all the money needed for full health and welfare benefits for all the undeveloped countries? With your quote “54% of global income goes to the richest 10% of the population” quote, you imply that that 10% are spending it all on caviar. Yes there is ever more concentration of wealth—that is being constantly re-spent in investments, not on caviar for the few. My “radical” contention is that power is never really centralized, other than by names on bank accounts. I despise conspicuous consumption—but that's not as big a problem for the dire poor, as it is ugly. You bemoan that the US middle class is losing ground, and then assume that it is losing ground to the rich and not to outsourcing to developing nations that are now able to feed more people. Yes, in a global economy there will be some leveling: and that is good for the most dire poor, while possibly a strain on the middle class of the richest nations. The US rich are getting their money from investing in a global economy (the average profit margin of a fortune 500 company in 2002 was 3.1%-- money is being skimmed off the top, but the cream is not that thick). Your case is pretty long on citing problems with statistics but short on solutions—and statistics can be deceiving… 45% may not have health insurance, but only ~12% can't afford it and don't qualify for a government program (your child may qualify for SCHIP). Possibly the best solution for US health care has come from Massachusetts Republican Governor Mitch Romney working with the conservative group The Heritage Foundation, which requires everyone be covered, and subsidies those who can't afford it. Like many sane people, I see that there is a balance to be struck between a CAPIPITALIST economic engine that grows through in-built incentives (if many people were simply given food and shelter, they would not work to provide it for others out of a sense of obligation) and SOCIALIST government programs to provide social and environmental safety-nets through regulation and redistributions. Since FDR (my favorite US president) the US has been heavily socialistic. Again, I think encouraging employee owned businesses is a great ideal, short of parecon. Victor, who the hell was talking about “unrestrained capitalism?” I sure wasn't. Your critiques against pure capitalism have nothing to do with my radical moderate position, and it's more nuanced accommodation of diverse political perspectives which is against political bigotry such as yours. Anyone who thinks that only the radical left has a valid perspective, and that answers are easy, is an ass, IMO. Why don't you concentrate, alongside your anti-capitalism, on one of the world's most pressing problems, that the poor may be pitted against the environment? (And any type of social organization, socialist-capitalist mixes, parecon, etc., is going to have challenges like this to face.)

To JD Casten - I really don't even know where to start. We come from two entirely different paradymes. It is especially difficult to speak from opposing paradymes because EVERYTHING one says must be questioned and examined in the context of the opposing paradyme. In short I disagree with virtually everything you have said - especially your position that "poverty is cool". Now I am hopeful that you did not mean to imply that being poor in today's world is cool, but instead meant that having more is not the key to happiness. Because being poor in today's world means little or no medical care, little food, scarcity of potable water, rampant disease, little or no education for your children, wretched humiliation and no hope for a future. That's what being really poor is. You fight, IF you have the strength, for yours and your family's daily allotment of food and water (which might be drawn from a nearly dry well and full of bacteria not friendly to human consumption. You walk miles carrying your child in your arms to an inadequate medical facility several days away only to watch your child die in your arms because there is little they can do for extreme malnutrition. Poverty is having to endure the arrogance of a potential employer who knows he can get what he wants on the job market wages that one cannot possibly live on and working hours that even animals are not asked to work. Poverty is not knowing where you will sleep tomorrow. Poverty is not being able to re-train to acquire new skills to compete effectively in today's job market. Poverty is not being able to provide even the most basic necessities for your family. Poverty is not being able to look your wife and children in the face because you cannot provide for them. You think poverty is cool? Spoken like a true elitist who has no earthly idea what the term entails for the billions living today globally under its crushing weight. And much of that weight was placed there by the economic and financial policies of the "civilised" world represented most effectively by the infamous G-8, and headed by the darkest, most brutal empire in human history, the United States of America. In the World Wealth Report published by CapGemini and Merril Lynch this year, High Net Worth Individuals (HNWI) in the world had accummulated wealth of over US$33.3 TRILLION, representing 8.4% growth since 2004, and is expected to grow at an annual rate of 6.0% through 2010 to a total of around US$44.6 TRILLION. I don't know about you, JD, but I can't even conceive of 1 billion, much less, a TRILLION dollars. The report goes on to say that the ranks of the ULTRA-HNWI (having wealth exceeding US$30 million) increased 10.2% in 2005 compared to only 8.7% increase in 2004. But let's put this in a little perspective. A recent study reported by MSNBC a few weeks ago found that in the USA middle class neighbourhoods had decreased in the major cities by something like 24% over the last few years. High income neighbourhoods represented something like 10 percent of that, and the remaining 14% plunged into the lower class neighbourhoods. This is a very telling statistic. The middle class is undergoing rather dramatic shrinkage. And whilst the ecomomy is booming, it is only booming for some, not for most of us. 45% of Americans have no basic medical insurance coverage! Are you one of those, JD? My ex-wife and my son are two of those. What happens if one oif them is taken seriously ill. Chances are in America they will die - simple as that. More perspective - The United Nations annual Human Development Report published in 2005 contained some very interesting global stats pointing to a significantly widening gap between global rich and poor. The report shows that the richest 50 individuals in the world have a combined wealth greater than the combined wealth of the poorest 416 million people. Stand back and let that soak in, JD - 50:416,000,000. But that's not all. The 2.5 billion people of the world living off less than $2 a day ($2 a DAy!) representing 40% of the world's population live off only 5% of global income, while 54% of global income goes to the richest 10% of the world's population. And that gap is widening trmendously. Unrestrained capitalism, like Darwinism, is a construct based upon the Law of the Jungle - only the "fittest" survive. The big guys who have all the access to resources beat up unmercifully on the small guys with little. Where is the "free" market in all this? Where is the "hidden hand"? If I walk up to your door and say that I want my dog to have free access to your property and in return I will give your dog free access to mine, and they can compete freely for territory, that all sounds like a joke when your dog is a miniature poodle and mine is a pit bull. Is that the world you advocate? Because that's the world that unrestrained capitalism has spawned. And governments which were intended to be our ("our" meaning the People, in case you have somehow lost sight of that) protectors have become instead the protectors of corporate and monied interests. What does it say about a government that no longer cares about its own? I know what the Declaration of Independence says about it. It should be replaced. I agree. I know what Lenin said about the rich - that their wealth would have to be ripped from the grip of their cold dead hands before they would share it. I agree with that as well. What's the answer? The one place you and I agree to any degree is Noam Chomsky's set of points. Corporations, like people must play fair, must be held socially responsible as we REAL people are held responsible - under law. People will always find a way to make money and prosper, even under the most impossible conditions. I believe that. I do NOT believe they should be allowed to destroy our environment and subjugate the peoples of the world in the process of making that profit.

I live in a capitalistic system which does not work equally for people.[this would make me a cultural capitalist?] Without being a genius or a medium, I can see that there is extreme manifestations of greed and hate calling wars that are continuous~ this seem to enrich a few and directly making other poor. I also see that there is good element of society that are being condemned merely because their desire to feed the poor.. people should not be condemned for ideas[specially if the ideas are aimed at common good]. My opinion is that when people brainstorm many ideas to explore, it reflect a desire to resolve humanity's problems; this instead of dreaming of flying to on other planets ( behind all that spatial technology, spatial travel reflect a collective dream of flying like if the world was trying avoid our problems) brainstorming as such from people of good will becomes part of a heritage left by a world of thinkers who refused to surrender to inequalities and destruction. as such, although born capitalist, I consider leftists as part of my heritage, thus i remain open to ideas.

Reply to “Specific” I'm sorry that my questioning was a little belligerent. I don't' see capitalists as “necessary,”—I just think that some arguments against capitalism do not apply as absolutely and simply in some semi-capitalist countries as their proponents seem to claim. My opinions and arguments have been refined by engaging those here at ZNet, and my highest hope would be that rather than getting some anti-capitalist to “change their minds,” I would help them refine their own positions and arguments against someone who may differ in opinion, and has thought about many of the same issues as well. I'm not so much a pro-capitalist, as skeptical of those claiming the public is somehow socio-psychologically programmed by the “system,” to any great extent. I do see much through an economic lens, but I'm trying to see things more and more through an ecological lens (I understand Charles Darwin's thinking on evolution was influenced by Adam Smith's thinking on markets).

Reply to Kelvin Yearwood (2), I knew the word “symbiotic” was a little troublesome. You're right, I do see the public as being important in passive determination of media content via consumerism. But another point is that the reporters, editors, etc. can't, IMO, easily break out of the public/society/culture which produced them. I don't see the rich government-corporate “elite” as breaking outside of the system, and controlling it from this “outside” with some unified agenda. This theoretical “Gödel” thing, I know, may have counterexamples in reality; I'll have to check out Tim Wise's work. Although the press and public may not have unified agendas, there are “statistical hubs” of opinion; that the press and public's aggregate opinions diverge (due to slightly different demographics of people) was part of my point that the media does not construct public knowledge (the “filters” are determined by people who are educated by that very society, not only by the press, but by schools, families, etc.). The media “elite's” slight variation from general public opinion (due to education differences, and possibly government and corporate pressures) may slightly budge public opinion—the circular flow of information may roll a little bit; as “we” slowly indoctrinate ourselves with ever evolving ideologies. My main point is that simply changing the government, corporations, and the media would not much change the very slowly dragging anchor of human values: the masses. The schism between “representation” and “reality,” I think it is deeply a cultural and not mostly a media thing (again, I see the media as mostly an extension of culture, and not a strong determiner of it).

Quote Casten:

"(To exercise some authority?) You took the “poor cool” out of the context of “shame on the rich”—do you think the latter is a good idea?"

Can`t shame the rich!That reaches a long way into your argumentation about capitalists as neccesary, and media as a medium for popular opinion. There is no doubt that medias line common with that of popular opinion is one of salesmanship. Can still be usefull though. They have ideals Yknow !

Your positivism is neccesary Casten ! How scewered it might be.

The need for a language of class-diplomacy sound great.

Posted by Kelvin Yearwood

I don't see how the general public have any input into the media except as broad categories of market-sector consumers. 'Symbiosis' sounds very right-on, but does not describe the difference between what is reported and reality; what is reported, the agenda behind that reporting and public opinion and desire.

You should look at Tim Wise's latest contribution on perceptions of African-American's in the US, the media's contribution to that, and the proven disjunction between reality and media-perpetuated image.

I seriously think that you're having a laugh with that symbiosis theory of the corporate media.

To “Poor Cool etc.,” Anonymous… What exactly do you mean by “Deconstruction?” Are you certain of that? Is that something a person does? Or are you appropriating the word's more popular cultural use, for some specific purpose in this context? (To exercise some authority?) You took the “poor cool” out of the context of “shame on the rich”—do you think the latter is a good idea? As to re-acquainting myself with Chomsky and Herman's propaganda model, that is definitely something that I take issue with. I don't see the media as bought off by corporate interests; rather many of “their” opinions, media, corporate and otherwise, overlap with the “culture” that make up those very organizations—I see the relationship between media, corporations, government and public as somewhat symbiotic—but definitely mutually determined with the heavy weight of determination falling on the masses who have product purchasing and voting power greater than the corporate rich's investment and financial backing power. Chomsky and Herman do have a good study of bias… but how do they prove that that media bias molds the public bias rather than the other way around? I pointed out above that the news' selectivity can be circularly re-enforcing— reporters are human beings shaped by culture more than they have an influence on culture: again the status-quo is a circular process. Chomsky & Herman seem dismayed that the public does not share their idiosyncratically informed perception. Yes, the issue of East Timor may be more important to us than Paris Hilton's loosing her cell phone, but not everyone, and I would hazard ANYONE, can possibly have their finger on the pulse of every human catastrophe in the world. For a fashion artist, what Paris Hilton happens to be wearing may be important to them—more important than for Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman. Chomsky and Herman seem to have a problem common to activists: because they see their interests as important, they extrapolate them to being ALL-important: what everyone should be concerned with. They are caught between properly ringing the alarm bell for their issues (which is good—so that many in the public will heighten their awareness and respond to the emergency)—and recognizing that they have their place in the division of labor in the community: If 100% of the public focused on East Timor, other problems, and other “important” non-problems (like scrubbing a toilet, so that you can eat, or maybe relaxing with a little TV) would not be addressed. Now, you have a point when you say “No-one who would challenge the fundamental status quo in the US would be selected for the vote.” This is quite natural, as public opinion is the status quo, and they vote. My “93% of voting districts belong to one party” figure came from Ralph Nader, who laments the two party system. The “Filtering” is due to culture's influence on the media, not the other way around. It's not the media's job in general to assault the status quo: that would be assaulting the sensibility of the public itself. It's the educator's and activists (some of whom are in the media) roll to break in occasionally and sound the emergency alarm and raise public awareness. Too many alarms, and the public may become inured. I subscribe to the Soto a little more than the Rinzai school of enlightenment: a slow laboring towards enlightenment rather than immediate illumination: slow cautious growth rather than over-night revolution shock (although the latter is admittedly more “sexy” to some). The use of media study groups by the government, IMO, has impact only on the import fringe of public opinion: the undecided people, where public opinion has some play. Consent is not Manufactured; Public Opinion is not Molded; The body is not reconstructed, but rather re-clothed by trend-setters—and the government and industry try to Sell themselves to the public by dressing their own agenda in the latest fads (by reframing agendas in terms that can appease the decided base, and pull the undecided at play towards approving of these cloaked agendas). As to democrats (not me) being better for the poor, that is definitely what they promise. A question that the republicans (not me too) would like you to answer is how corporate interests have nothing to do with the poor. Who employs the poor? What is the “meat and potatoes” of the economy that supplies the money for democratic governments to redistribute to the poor in the first place?

Cultural pride is a backbone for my beliefes. With poor cool, one could get communities with pride instead of middleclass and pop, or business stars escaping their homes.

 Maybe it is easier outside of the USA. Coca cola is not part of my culture. Seing fridge monopolized with products from Coke. Coke light for the inquisitive, and sprite for the daring, etc. It is not a common ground rich-poor for me. It is about those gone blind and those still vaguely awake.

 Maybe stealing from mainstream-culture, yes. But dont forget that mainstream is ninety % stolen material from the poor. The difference is usually that the real originals didnt get percentages on new plastic toys to the kids out there.

 

Guess you are right though. It should be another heading than "poor cool". However, as long as bigger is better it will remain the only option. A lot of Maya-tribes refuse integration in spite of the material cost.

Anonymous - I think you have deconstructed the idea of 'poor cool' yourself : it is heavily determined - its space, the nature of its rebellion, its movement in response to 'poor cool' co-option by the dominant - by dominant culture (BTW 'culture' is the sum total of all human activity). It seems an impossible task to me to pick out what is 'genuine', unless you are comparing cultural exression with some kind of material realities. Poor cool can be theoretically, at least, more real due to a gritty material experience, but, equally it can be perpetrating in that its expressions can unthinkingly borrow from the mainstream.

All I'm saying is that I think 'poor cool' might not be a very useful idea, at the end of the day.

To JDC and his election process - I would say that you should acquaint yourself with Chomsky and Herman's propaganda model. No-one who would challenge the fundamental status quo in the US would be selected for the vote, any such person would be filtered out through a structural, ideological pressure. Consequently, no voter has much of a choice, though the Democrats would possibly be better for poor America and Americans in general within the context of serving elite corporate interests.

Poor cool survives in alternative settings were rich"fads" cant be cool anyway. However, if poor culture is denied means of expression, while commercial fashion-fads are advertized all over, then it is hard.

the gay people might be avantegarde, but the rich ?? Hm !

 The reality is, that most genuine culture is created by rebels, and then this new living thing is harnessed by corporate powers.

Punk-Goth-Jazz-Rap with all their fashionstatements and lingual tools. Poor man made it. Rebel gave it. Once again saving the burgoise from boredom.

Of course, the gift is lost when it is plasticized and gift-wrapped in major music-factories.

Reply to Kelvin Yearwood, You note that “Capitalism and democracy are not compatible because private enterprise always seeks to use its power to take its interests as far as possible away from the democratic process.” Now, I would agree that money has influence in politics; but not enough to merit claims as strong as yours (which uses that heavy word “always”). To mitigate your claims I would first point out, again, that 93% of all voting districts are one-party districts (like red and blue states) and that studies have shown that narrow sources of funding turn off voters. This, coupled with campaign finance laws that limit the amount a person or corporation can contribute to campaigns means that most of the elections are not up for sale to the rich (individuals or corporations): they are determined by voter predisposition demographics. In the 2004 election, ACT (the democratic 527 Americans Coming Together) raised and spent $200 million, yet only claimed to have influenced one gubernatorial race, which was a dead heat. At worst, a large group of donors, donating hard money within campaign finance limitations, might sway a very close election (yet no academic studies have shown conclusively that elections can be swayed by money at all). A study of California ballot measures showed that, with disclosure laws, economic interests have a much more difficult time persuading voters than other groups: their ballot initiatives tend to fail simply on the grounds that they are supported by corporate interests. This is a part of that “transparent” democracy that President Bush notes in the quote above. There is, however, lobbying. The Jack Abramoff scandal shows quite well that there can be crony corruption in government. No argument on that point from me. Congress has recently tried to legislate limitations on lobbying, but maybe has not done enough, yet. However, consider this point: other than promoting capitalism itself, PRIVATE ENTERPRISE DOES NOT HAVE A SINGLE UNIFIED AGENDA: various interest groups are at odds and compete in the political marketplace of ideas. Take a real world issue example, and consider which moneyed interests are at odds; for example: malpractice lawsuit limitations. This real world issue has implications in that it could raise medical costs or increase medical malpractice. On this issue there are two well funded moneyed interests: lawyers, and doctor insurers—and they are at odds over the issue and hence congress is lobbied by both sides of the issue. Against this one might claim that there may be some issues (and I believe they would be rare) where this is no moneyed support for a legitimate cause. The environment might be one such cause (trees don't have bank accounts); yet even here there are special interest groups, like the Sierra Club, that raise much money for their causes (and there is also the tourism industry which is concerned for these natural “resources”). Also, why do you have so little trust in the elected congress? Only about 4% of the population is psychopathic. This means possibly about 4 senators, and 22 representatives are corrupt (ouch!)—but the rest of the 96% are probably trying their best to help out their constituents and are not bought by lobbyists. Just because many of their constituents may not have the same political persuasion as you, doesn't mean they are bought off, dumb, indoctrinated, brainwashed, or whatever. Most real world political stances have sophisticated, nuanced, well crafted arguments that are heavily integrated with the worlds conflicting belief systems. There's more going on than simply a power struggle amongst the moneyed: there's a power struggle amongst political ideologies. As far as mass media indoctrination is concerned, I think the media is much more passively responsive, than actively determining. Yes, the news media is highly selective in what it reports; and this is due to what the prevailing zeitgeist determines is important and legitimate: and such is circularly reinforcing. But consider the issue of Gay Marriage in the US. The mainstream media (especially with entertainment, which is written by artists, who tend to like the avant-garde or progressive or left) is much more politically correct on this issue than the public is. How could this be, if public opinion is simply a mirror of the media? Poverty is already considered semi-cool in the media (take Mr. Burns from The Simpsons, J.R. Ewing from Dallas, etc. as examples of the “evil corporate elite” that pervade popular media). I think you hit Warhol's Coke point right on the head. He seems to think that many wanting the same mass produced goods, be they rich or poor, levels the playing field. This does not address whether or not the promotion of consumption is good or bad: capitalism is all about promoting consumption, and letting the “few” skim profits off the process. Point well taken on how such commercial images elide the real difference in monetary “power.” I personally don't have the biggest problem in the world with wealth accumulation, as long as profit margins are low, and most of that money is simply re-invested in the market itself. Yes, the wealthy can decide to invest in certain sectors of the economy—but if they don't FOLLOW the tastes of the masses, they will lose that money. Most of the wealthy hire professionals to invest their money for success. As to excess personal spending, I think there should be a very high luxury tax: but the fact that a high US luxury tax would most likely not pay for much health care for the poor (most luxury taxes have a hard time even paying for their own implementation) is very telling. In sum, I think that SEMI-capitalism, bad as it is, is not as bad as its detractors point out. It has some merits: if you replace the word “greed” with “desire,” it seems that it accelerates social evolution through its efficiency. If you're against technical and aesthetic evolution, maybe you're a new kind of conservative (a conservationist, perhaps). Maybe your intermediate goals, within capitalism, short of a revolution, might be to identify those causes that do not have moneyed advocates and champion them (anti-capitalism would definitely be one of these); and short of Parecon, help promote employee owned businesses.

posted by Kelvin Yearwood

Capitalism and democracy are not compatible because private enterprise always seeks to use its power to take its interests as far as possible away from the democratic process. The unequal power and wealth that capitalism entails, ensures that corporations and other large private enterprises have the ability to buy, override and undermine democratic processes.

Consumerism is not an expression of democracy simply because it is a fait accompli, a necessary mediation cultural mediation between power private interrests and the citizen.

To make poverty cool is possible, and my be minimally successful, but do the cool poor do when capitalist cool moves onto the next thing.

The idea of US presidents drinking a can of coke with the boys is a fabricated image of consumer capitalism - the idea is to mediate between the political class - who serve powerful private interests - and the ordinary citizen, that is, to suture through image and consumption the impression that there is not a huge class divide between the president and most US citizens. 

I think I see some of your main points, Anonymous—praising poverty might be seen as encouraging less productivity—and hence less consumerism… which, as I noted above, can (but not always) have good consequences. “The powers that be”—and I question the concentration of ideological power: ideology power seems to spread, meme-like, across cultures—have encouraged hard earnest work, since the olden times when the garden of Eden had to be tilled at four o'clock in the morning, just after milking the snake. After the fall, did the machines make it so we don't have to work so hard now?... or did they just change the nature of our work, through more divisions of labor… and what sorts of labor divisions are in store for us in an AI robotic future, where, Timothy Leary once noted in a presentation I saw, “no-one wants their hair cut by a robot?” Have we humans been habituated to work through millennia of necessary indoctrination by nature? Think of all those wild animals tirelessly looking for food, and defending their spaces. At least the robots might have a day off, and not have their lives completely dominated by their occupation… like some professionals and “bosses” seem to: there's only so much brain space and time to commit to so many activities: Experts are bound to be a little narrow in their world view. Me too. Speaking of divisions of labor—is being an activist a labor division?; are they recruiting people for their field? Do they tend to feel they need to defend the legitimacy of their occupation by condemning other's for not doing the same “work” they do? I'm glad we have good radical activists to seduce people into self, social and environmental consciousness… but sometimes I wonder what life would be like if everyone was a plumber—especially a plumber who seems disgusted with those who don't know crap about plumbing (“hey, this is relevant to most of your lives… the dirty understructure that washes away your filth, and keeps you alive through hydration… what is more essential to your lives than plumbing? Than agriculture? Than construction? Than transportation? Than communication? Than education? Than… … in all the interdependent components of an “economy” that is just as robustly stable, and precariously fragile as a local ecology; where does art: where a friend's quote, “language is the meaning of life: fluency is happiness” illuminates the importance of experimenting and communicating with each other about what it means to be human—where does art fit in, when compared to the militant global security concerns of politics? Advertising is art. I agree that advertising can be a serious problem. Psychology Today reported that children don't become critical of advertising until about age 5. Shame on those Ronald McDonald adds, roping kids into flatulent producing hamburgers, and heart-stopping freedom fries at the age of 4. As to the 6 year olds, shame on them for having such bad tastes to exploit. Advertising adds an aesthetic element to the product… sometimes it IS the product. I sort of like Warhols and don't really like Soviet Realism… but maybe I too buy products for aesthetic as well as practical value (an aesthetic which might include reputation: quality never goes out of style… I actually often wear Levi jeans (maybe because of Moses, not for the anagram of “evil”), and Converse oxford All-Star Sneakers, since they are not too expensive, avoid leather, and last me a good while (there's also a drummer's thing about the sneakers… they let you feel the petals or earth a bit more)—it's my sort of generic-brand-name attire. Ads are everywhere, although they do compete. One Volkswagen advertisement I liked said the Passat had the lowest ego emissions. It parodied how often ads try to play on insecurities… and hence both exacerbate and sooth the perceived needs of consumers. The values of advertising are not always reflective of the “lowest cultural common denominator.” But who am I to judge that someone's addiction to macho sports images is demeaning… I confess that I don't get into that deranged spectator hooping it up at the bizarre spectacle thing as much as other's do… but maybe it's often harmlessly cathartic? Why not say, anything goes, as long as no-one's getting hurt (immediately at least… implications can subdivide indefinitely until a PDA can blow up the sun if you think about it too hard). Some toes are easy to step on though… and many media conservatives (on the left and right) are a bit like the princess and the pea, when it comes to being sensitive to their own feelings. I think a big problem is that some people just don't like other people… some are loud about who they are and really create a wide reaching stink, and offend people trying to mind their own business; other's seem intent on seeking out people not to like, and making sure the people they do like, know about them. Tolerance, which I see as a virtue, can go hand in hand with apathy… which I am ambivalent about. Open mindedness is great, until someone is so “open-minded” that they'll sexually assault you, and feel OK about it. I see so many problems relevant to controlling psychopaths. I think it is important not to pin all our psychopathic cultural trends on “high-profile” people. They're often just inheriting an attitude shared by the “slaves” they whip into line. I don't think a radical change in the rolls people have learned to assume can be made over night. Nietzsche wanted to see a Caesar with the soul of Christ. Someone with real power, and an inclination to act, acting out from a heart full of love and compassion. WWJD if he were an advertising executive? I was the PR Officer for my college ATO fraternity: my high point was advising the brothers to only play neighborhood blasting LOUD music IF and only IF it was cool. Who the hell am I anyway? I was an ass. Bing Crosby loving Grandma down the street secretly hated me, and we never even met. To ramble off less egotistically, my point is that there may be no accounting for taste… so what's an open-mined culture critic to do? If it's ideas (taken in a broad sense of the term), and not people, that have power (since people often say, as President Bush was quoted above, “I just do what I think is right,”) how can a culture critic “encourage” respect and harmony, in a sexy dissenting way, that courts people into being truly decent human beings? This is where I think people like Paul Street come in. He may not be Jesus Caesar, I'm not sure if he globe-trots like a Noam Chomsky on some sort of “I've got to get the truth out” mission, but I hope he hasn't taken offence at my admiration for his efforts, despite the fact that I think we may be light years apart on our politics (I'm a radical moderate who thinks that Fox News, by reputation alone, is more honest than CBS: their secret complicity is actually more out in the open!—as to TV news, I prefer PBS— to me, it seems that Frontline does as much to expose the government, as 60 minutes does to expose corporations: biting the hand that feeds you can be a badge of legitimacy.) I hope I have offended someone… but only in the slightest way, so that maybe a perspective (mine) will change—but only a little bit, like pruning a bush, rather than lighting it on fire and transplanting it, to encourage a little more healthy growth into (my) edutainment enlightenment. My apologies to those who have read this far and have come away with the impression that I am simply masturbating my own ego. But for those who want to see a little more ego-porn, I do have a website: J.D. Casten's Home Page

" why not try to make poverty the new cool?" you say.

Some people try, but it seems that the powers that be needs a hold on any countercultural trend. 

That any researcher influences her field of study is old-school knowledge.

Apply that and you get one reason. Another is that a lot of poor-people history is considered damaging to rich-people history.

( That one makes me want to loose the war-rethorics ).

Liberation theology and the Vatican 2 might stand a chance. They cant go blackop on our christian asses when that pin in the haystack communist aint around anymore.

You write
"what is so bad about being poor? I think a big problem is the stigma of poverty"

And answer with job-status. More important ( I think ) is the adds everywhere. They tell you about the nessesity of constant purchases.

Still thats all to negative and you have a good point. It is better to light a light than to curse in chinese eh ?

Democracy and capitalism are comparable, except that in capitalism people vote with their money, and some have more than others (either by “legitimate” effort or not), and can “vote” that money in massive quantities. Fortunately, the masses may have more purchasing power than the rich: “What's great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coke, Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it.”—Andy Warhol Possibly Warhol was being ironic, yet there's only so much that people can do with their excess money—only so many gold gilt homes, super-duper yachts, and basketball teams that can be owned (and much of these are not “consumables”). Note what Bill Gates and Warren Buffett ended up doing with the bulk of their wealth (although I think I personally would have Delegated more indefinitely compounding money investments to major organizations like the WHO, International Red Cross and Red Crescent, and Conservation International through a support organization—this is not a problem for me as my income falls around the poverty line). “Buying off politics” is not as simple as it sounds, when in the U.S. 93% of all voting districts belong to one party (red and blue states); and studies have shown that narrowed sources of campaign funding turn off voters. So what can the rich really do other than spend a fraction of their income on consumables (one person can only consume so much), and invest the rest according to market demands (invest in what the masses are buying)? Although all that capitalist consumption can be harmful to the ecology, especially without the use of renewable energy sources and recyclable materials, it can be good for those who need a job, to even eat and maybe have a bit more for health care (which can be refined indefinitely with consequent rising costs). Some people (like Victor) seem to have the assumption that without capitalism there would be much less consumption. They conveniently draw the line at how much should be consumed with how much they consume. As if it were OK to have a bike, but not a Buick. Some, like John Zerzan, seem to draw the line at pencils (no word-processors)—and others go on to claim that the planet could support so much more population if only people consumed less (why not discourage both population growth, and non renewable/recyclable consumption?) A point could be made that the economics of consumption is much more complicated than simply giving everyone forty acres and a mule (even Thoreau “cheated” a bit on Walden Pond)—and more socialistic or parecon societies do not come with guarantees of less consumption—just more “equitable” distribution. Sadly, it is pretty much an economic fact that redistribution of wealth has an inverse relation to wealth building for the whole system (where someone, like a disabled person, gets something for doing nothing): redistribution might be good in that it would create less eco-damaging non renewable/recyclable consumption; but is bad when you don't have the full employment that helps people buy food and health care. Although resources can be moved from poorer to wealthier nations, for the most part economic integration tends to increase the wealth of all parties involved (some buy HDTVs so that others may simply eat). Getting everyone fed (through fuller employment) is a higher priority than economic parity: hence China, with its (unsustainable?) growth, now has people more concerned with their health care than starvation. And, IF you have food, shelter, and health care, what is so bad about being poor? I think a big problem is the stigma of poverty; as if somehow scrubbing toilets or having a couch with ripped upholstery was not dignified and a sin. Why should you care if you're poor, as long as you're not being exploited, and have your health? If you want absolute control over social organization so that it is a well oiled machine where everyone is fed, healthy, and on economic par— this may sound well intentioned; but it is definitely not the healthy, vibrant, and dynamically evolving organism that is the hope of democratic decentralization. I think a key area to explore is “what exactly constitutes exploitation?” Encouraging semi-employee owned businesses (and maybe even semi-privatization of US social security!) is a step in a direction that would help with this issue. A common issue is “what limits should there be on property accumulation?” Taxation to fund security and regulate capital flows is many societies' current approach to this issue. I am not denying the problems with the world's current social organizations. I just think too many give short shrift to the sophistication with which people have tried to respond to these problems, even in the most capitalistic of countries. “Eat the rich and feed the poor,” may sound sexy to some, but it seems too often to be the slogan of those who are neither rich nor poor, but rather the adequately fed who secretly desire HDTVs and the such: why not try to make poverty the new cool? (Rather than the envy of the rich that seems to be implied in calls for more equitable economic distribution.) I personally think Noam Chomsky's seven point proposal is a little more on the mark for America than those who are more concerned with shaming American “capitalism's” rich: “1) accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the World Court; 2) sign and carry forward the Kyoto protocols; 3) let the UN take the lead in international crises; 4) rely on diplomatic and economic measures rather than military ones in confronting terror; 5) keep to the traditional interpretation of the UN Charter; 6) give up the Security Council veto and have "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind," as the Declaration of Independence advises, even if power centres disagree; 7) cut back sharply on military spending and sharply increase social spending” http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060405.htm Much would follow from these suggestions in a world with no final solution.

Not that rich Victor. No car. No house. But food and clothes and a four year old laptop that I got last month.

As for promoting it. Dont know were you get that. I just stated in clear language that our freedoms are being taken away. Where the heck did I promote consumerism ? We get to chose between freedoms. Those are political choices.

A choice a pacified Iraq ( with basic elections ) will get, is wether to side with the right or left wing in our western block politics. Is tha french with you ?
 
I know all these facts you have there. I allso know a few they dont put in the news. I wish the american left luck in its attempts at democracy.

The people being blown up by iraqi insurgents are iraqis. ( no matter how many were really blown up by hum-de-dum ).

The same system of operations goes again and again. I am sorry if you misunderstood my intentions. Or if you think my rethoric valueless in this struggle.

I failed to see how it secured peace, mostly the wall slow down german economy and separated families.. On top you secluded brilliant people and even socialists from partaking to the world community.. I dont see why how humanity benefited from the cold war, it lead to a arm race for wich over 25 000 nukes were produced.. and countless of coventional weapons.. you imagines the farms you get for that ? the last time i saw a COMMIE, "it" did not look so much different at all, " it even had legs..actually there some "female it" that appeared to have nice legs.. I dont see th threat of people who comes with ideas.. (I dont see the point in an "exclusive ideology for profit" that lead to be so destructive and to global warming.. i give it 15 years before you and i can breath..I have no doubts that your ideology wont send armies killing people for the last drop of drinkable water..

Yes. Being rich (or semi-rich by world standards) is great. New car every few years. Perhaps even a larger house. Take advantage of the latest electyronic toys. Travel. Best education for the kids that you can afford. Eat out 3 or 4 times a week. Get the latest in High Definition TV. The latest mobile phone. Very satisfying indeed. The problem is that the system devised to supply these wonderful conveniences is a system with a dark side as well. That dark side is represented by the whoosh of riches being sucked from untold millions of people over the world to supply Western Europe, the USA, Australia and Japan. The millions whose governments sell out to monied interests from the G8 are left to spend hopeless lives in filthy ghettos, wondering where the next meal is coming from, knowing that a serious illness could damn their families to wretched starvation. The millions who must work at slave wages for the rich who supply us in the "free" world (via "free" markets) with all our toys. The "rich" G8 who ravage the world's environment and who alone are responsible for global warming and the massive destruction to come. The "consumer society" you so easily promote who suck the life and health and freedoms from so many so you can sleep comfortably at night in your soft bed in a quiet neighbourhood within the safe confines of your walled estate. You are the boring one, Anonymous. You and all like you who promote a dog-eat-dog world of brutal capitalism and selfish, greedy norms with which the USA has become so closely associated with over the years. Your "free world" which benefits so few in the world comes at such great cost to so many who only want to survive to the next day. Shame on you. Shame on America. Shame on capitalism. Shame on all of you.

A good and thorough response. I would just point out that the US has a history of chosing invester-friendly over democratic in all parts of the world. Examples are ripe in the muslem and latin cultural spheres.

Why put those two questions together as an absolute. Thats boring and reduces the options of thought to the ludicrous. There is so much more I could say, but it aint worth the damage. Yes its nice being rich. Even poor rich. I`d slave for america over sovjet anyday ! Would like to be free, but I see that it`s not possible anymore. Some freedoms must fall so that other freedoms can live. I wake up everyday. Some days with a will to start afresh. Some days with the sting of US worldwide domination and no will at all. FREE! Death ? Life ? Life ! I have to learn to love it. I HAVE to. Of course you know what JFK said 9 days before he was assasinated ! Ok ! Lets drop that, but please just comsume. Dont try thinking at the same time. If not i will tell you how asymetrical warfare really goes.

who's stupid idea was it to build the wall ? Heil your TVs..

If the premise of the Schussel's main point, that US assistance helped to build and protect the peace and prosperity of a post war western Europe sounds ridiculous to you, ask yourself this: would you have rather grown up in East Germany or West Germany?

Or are you blinded by the slave driver of Marxism that you cannot comprehend this question?

Rep. King accusing the New York Times of Treason must be eyeing the minister of propoganda spot.

The Temple of Love - The World Peace Religion, Environmental Organization, Save the World Organization

http://www.thetempleoflove.com/

Hello jd casten,, see this paul, victor, aanonymous and david.. jdcasten is still here with cool intelligent posting..

I think znet blogs are getting more fun regardless of the seriousness of the issues discussed..

Also recently on Yahoo Answers someone posted the question " do you support Zionism" AND my bot best answer was referenced by information gathered from the znet blogs. its 10 point for znet and so there is people who are interested in other messages than of hate.

Jd, I aint not sure Paul is really acrimino-bitter, I think Paul like sometimes to get a right-winger pissed- everyones know that right wingers look funny when pissed..

 

see an example of a pissed right-winger blowing below:

 

who knows may be he'll come back and be positive about he blogs a little bit..

Here is President Bush's full reply to the question posed: “PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, yes, I thought it was absurd for people to think that we're more dangerous than Iran. It's a -- we're a transparent democracy. People know exactly what's on our mind. We debate things in the open. We've got a legislative process that's active. Look, people didn't agree with my decision on Iraq, and I understand that. For Europe, September the 11th was a moment; for us, it was a change of thinking. I vowed to the American people I would do everything to defend our people, and will. I fully understood that the longer we got away from September the 11th, more people would forget the lessons of September the 11th. But I'm not going to forget them. And, therefore, I will be steadfast and diligent and strong in defending our country. I don't govern by polls, you know. I just do what I think is right. And I understand some of the decisions I made are controversial. But I made them in the best interest of our country, and I think in the best interest of the world. I believe when you look back at this moment, people will say, it was right to encourage democracy in the Middle East. I understand some people think that it can't work. I believe in the universality of freedom; some don't. I'm going to act on my beliefs so long as I'm the President of the United States. Some people say, it's okay to condemn people for -- to tyranny. I don't believe it's okay to condemn people to tyranny, particularly those of us who live in the free societies. And so I understand, and I'll try to do my best to explain to the Europeans that, on the one hand, we're tough when it comes to the war on terror; on the other hand, we're providing more money than every before in the world's history for HIV/AIDS on the continent of Africa. I'll say, on the one hand, we're going to be tough when it comes to terrorist regimes who harbor weapons. On the other hand, we'll help feed the hungry. I declared Darfur to be a genocide because I care deeply about those who have been afflicted by these renegade bands of people who are raping and murdering. And so I will do my best to explain our foreign policy. On the one hand, it's tough when it needs to be; on the other hand, it's compassionate. And we'll let the polls figure out -- people can say what they want to say. But leadership requires making hard choices based upon principle and standing -- (President's mike goes out) -- and that's how I'm going to continue to lead my country. Thank you for your question.” I think Paul's caricature of President Bush, like President Bush's “plain spoken” simplified view of political issues, can be both helpful and dangerous. Genius often comes in the form of cutting through the bull, and clarifying complicated matters; but cut a full living body down to the heart, and you simply have a lifeless organ. US policy strays far from simply trying to “spread” peace and democracy. Bush later uses the better, more polite word, “encourage,” rather than “spread.” I think this shift of wording shows that Bush (and his administration) has been in the process of learning a lesson in foreign policy and diplomacy, but have not completely learned it. There is a world of difference between “spreading” and “encouraging” democracy. Previously, Bush had expressed regrets in his choice of words, “Bring ‘Em On,” perhaps his later use of the word “encourage” shows a more subtle regret of his earlier use of the word “spread.” 9-11 was moment of change for President Bush (and sadly something of a moment of “opportunity” for Rumsfeld's and Cheney's Iraq, executive branch empowerment, and military utility ambitions, and Rove's hopes for “patriotic nationalism”)—where his claims for a “humble” foreign policy shifted to the “Bring ‘Em On” pre-emptive arrogance. I think that arrogance has abated a wee bit (think of how the recent photo-op with the legless veteran jogging with Bush cuts two ways). Paul's caricature of Bush does little to probe the psychology of a real human being responding to immense pressures, due, understandably to Paul' considerable amount of political acrimony. Is it possible to have a caricature-ized conception of political reality? Paul is obviously engaged in heavy polemics—“fun” polemics—but polemics none the less. But I do wonder how much people buy into their own rhetoric. In our “transparent democracy,” Vice President Cheney made it quite clear in his televised debate with Senator Edwards (who must have lost countless “undecided” votes with his off-cue delayed “phony” smile when introduced on camera)—that he saw a much more active role for the military, in what he must see as utilitarian grounds: sacrifice a few for the many (and maybe a few more of “them” for more of “us”). And he, with the rest of the Bush administration has been pushing for more (often secret) executive power (more power for their “team”). Now, when Paul uses the term “Fascist,” I immediately chuckle at the thought that “The Decider” has been able to seize power as a dictator. OK, so “fascism” might be revised to include, possibly in Paul's view, a figurehead dictator. As another commentator here noted in different terms, we see Rendition, Secret Surveillance, Crony-Corruption, establishment of “Homeland” security (I always thought “Homeland” sounded too much like the “Fatherland”), and racial profiling; a point being that “Anonymous” used a terminology that was not entirely “neutral,”— and indeed “neutral” political terminology may be impossible. “Fascism” has been identified with “the right” gone way too far right, right into evil; so maybe it is an effective “epithet” for the left to label the right; as if politics were all about communists vs. fascists; or more subtly, socialists vs. capitalists, or maybe ecological humanists vs. economic humanists… or moderates vs. moderates: Using the extreme term “Fascist” implies that moderation is better (yet, I don't believe Paul Street would consider himself “moderate”). So maybe Cyrano has it right: “say it like it is… avoiding the issue entirely would cut the fun;” if only we could have a “Frankfurt School” depth of socio-psychological analysis that was as fun to read as Paul Street (and Cyrano)! As for President Bush, I think 9-11 really did legitimately freak him out: and a natural response to fear or terror, is to want to control what is scaring you. Targeting the media nerve center of America (all the major Television News organizations are based in NYC), tied many into supporting doing something major at the time: but why has this “control freak” mentality maintained as much momentum as it has in the Bush administration? Sadly, it seems to me that legitimate fear has turned to desire to consolidate power. If only more people were bent on decentralizing power, not only in the political spectrum, but also with the power of ideas possibly at odds in their own heads: people who would be the “deciders,” and not the “decided.” As to letting “history decide,” that in itself suggests that rather than having shrewdly planed for the future, the dice were rolled, and one hoped for the best. Maybe the “American” characteristic, of taking “big risks” for the “big payoff,” e.g. risking deregulation, for the big payoff dealt by Adam Smith's invisible hand, can go “hand in hand” with the calculated risk of taking a “long sleepy (“look Ma, no hands!”) drive” in the garage. (Or the “big risk” of “immediate revolution” for a socio-politico-economic scheme that could cost countless lives or at least cause the demise of four slice toasters). The Bible says “He who trusts in himself is a fool” (not “God helps those who help themselves”)— this may sound a bit retarded to those of a reasonable bent; but for many, reason is also a community project: “No man is an island.” Bush may not govern by polls, but the next president will be elected by them. IMO, polls define the moderate; Democracy itself is radically moderate.

try the worldwatch institute. I've seen a map with US military bases (including personel numbers) in one of their 'state of the world' publications.

I can't find a map (I gather that a lot of information about US military has been removed from the web) but there seems to be a list of countries here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/index.html

Does anybody have a map of the world that shows all the U.S. military bases in foreign country. I just recently learned that the U.S. has four in Germany with a couple thousand personnel stationed there. Is that accurate? Or are those 'NATO' (although there is little difference)?

It would be a great visual learning and radicalizing prop to use. (Other maps or a composite one showing U.K., French, Chinese bases in foreign lands would also be welcome). It would also be interesing to know how many soldiers are statiotioned at those bases, the effect of the local culture and many were redeployed to Iraq and how come (for those to whom this may come as a surprise) the media rarely reports on these bases or asks why the "shortage of soldiers in Iraq" is not solved by moving people from such "allies" as Germany and Japan.

If anybody could also point me to a study of the development of those military bases and also a comparison with those currently being built in Iraq, I would be very grateful.

Posted by Kelvin Yearwood:

Just to add a further perspective on this excellent blog from the US pillion passenger on the road to terrorist state rogueism, the new conservative leader charming the UK press at the moment, Cameron, has stated that he would cut the UK's obligation to the Human Rights Act when he comes to power, and replace it with a B ill of Rights, a Human Rights Act with 'common sense'. In other words, there would be loopholes whenever US/uk foreign policiy demanded it.

Consequently, we will be faced at the next election by the possible choice (where choice actually counts) between a rogue terrorist government (possibly led by Gordon Brown); the scurge of human rights, Cameron; or a Lib-Dem party which, to their great credit, did, under Kennedy, oppose the Iraq war, but have gone curiously silent on the issue since their leadership changed. Non of these parties oppose global corporate power, of course; they just disagree, minimally, on how that power is expressed.

What Westminster, Whitehall and British intelligence continue to know is the lesson that has long been passed onto the US elite agencies, that pro-business interests fascism is a good thing, forcibly curbing domestic human rights and demands, all for the benefit of capital. Ideally, of course, as much of this culture of fascism as is possible is expressed at home as well. An intelligent and universal perception of the Human Rights Act in the UK isn't the point; let's get rid of it and debunk it in the press as not British and quite 'common sense'.

Perhaps cancerous is a better term. The Corporate State is a cancer upon government, human civilisation and the world environment. It cannot stop itself from spreading and it cannot be stopped by others short of excisement. Which is precisely what should be done about it.

It does not describe the US system. Facism does not correspond to the petro-industrial-informational-military system of commerce. Facism, ( in one state ), is a much smaller phenomenon. A developing child, so to speak, when compared with this mother. A few of the crudely efficient methods of facism are discarded as well.

People are no longer obliged to login, however they can easily if they choose by entering their information in the left column tarek : )

Anonymous, I disagree for this one Sir, Analogies to a not so distant past does accentuated the absurdity of the current US policies; it the policies look like completely fascist say it like it is.. On top avoiding the issue entirely would cut the fun..paul Street merely follow orders; that would be is own- I guess.. ( is this a form of censorship ? cut the fun out of it, why don't you!) see this animation call : Bush is no Nazy so stop calling him that!

Although I find the term apt in discribing recent US policies, I wonder about its usefulness. Most get completely turned off when one calls up the ghost of Hitler. The interview with Bush is a good example, he is able to shed the claims of negative views of the US in europe because the interviewer compares the US to Iran, which even we can agree is rediculous. She should have just opened by reading him the numbers and letting him respond instead of attempting to make a point.

The same can apply to the use of Fascism to discribe the US, it may be wiser to simply state the facts -torture, reducing civil liberties, corporate-state collusion, increased security state, racial scapegoating- rather than making a comparison, a realistically hyperbolic comparison, to past Fascisms.

Paul, kelvin.. I am currently experimenting yahoo blogs, and I use intensively the blogs and z net in general as reference library.. I am actually thinking to include rss feeds into yahoo and google answers accounts ( like bots) to brings news and alternatives opinions to people whom otherwise would not know where to look for these alternatives news.. cyranoyebo here is rss ready what do you think about this?

Sorry,Paul Kelvin I take credit for the OUCH post, I wasn't logged in.. ( I could has swear I took credit for vaccuous post!). Messieurs,the ouch wasn't intended to be a disagreement on Mr. Street meritorious statements on fascism so to speak, but was rather implied as an expression that the truth could hurt... ( the post wasnt similar, I agree only Bush lies on Europeans seem to be similar in nature..)

...except for ZNet commentators/bloggers. Is that right? How did that happen? A technological issue, apparently... First Anonymous your post doesn't seem all that similar. To Kevin Y the last Anonymous, I say yes the fascist threat is real and strongly linked to business class rule. "Western minimal democracies" is a useful phrase. Right-wing authoritarianism, neo- or proto-fascist and otherwise, thrives on the marginalzation and discrediting of democracy, both of which are core projects of concentrated economic power in the U.S. across the centuries. Taking the risk out of democracy has been an especially urgent concern of "the business community" since the terrible crisis of "excess democracy" (Harvard's noxious Samuel P. Huntington) that broke out in the 1960s and 70s.

Posted by Kelvin Yearwood:

I don't think the comparisons with fascism are hyperbolic. The interconnectedness of the political class especially in the US, but also in the UK and Europe with corporate interests, and therefore unified and structured elite purpose to undermine, subvert and circumscribe democracy - the expression of broad, material interests - supported by the propoganda of a corporate media, does throw up fascistic elements in Western minimal democracies.

How else do you explain the agendas of so many of our governments, flying in the face, as they do, with any popular views or will.

Few here in the UK want choice in the National Health Service, for example. What choice? - a surgeon or a plumber! We want an excellent national health service available to all, and if we can guarantee that out pounds are not spent on nuclear weapons upgrades we would pay more tax to get it if necessary. But most of Westminster talk about 'choice'.

Facisms weakness is the need for state to controll industry. The USmodel were industry controlls the state is much stronger. It has the added bonus of having strong agents that can work indirectly for the state, ( or mecantile conglomerate ).

Hitler gets good company on the list of "brought to power by USA". Vietminh and Taliban. Hussein and Noriega. The point is valid as pertaining the scewered views prominent in Washington. This weakness must have its roots in political perceptions and the rethoric. ( The talk and the walk-symbiosis ).

But why are you bad-mouthing the President of the UnitedStatesofAmerica ? Wash your mouth and say your prayers. You pinko-Commie-liberal scum you. ( It should be noted that scum floats on water, while gold sink down, to be burried in the mud ).

ouch!

Ive made a similar post..on Bush spreading his rumors..

 

But ouch to the comparisons to fascism