What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 16 July 2004 - 05:23 PM
Who's at the service of who, the economy at the service of the human being, or the human being at the service of the economy?
Is this not charming: Mark Wilson, an economist at the [neo-fascist] Heritage Foundation says that enhancing workers' rights would reduce the nation's competitive advantage with European trading partners and developing countries such as China and Mexico.
So, in other words, we can't give workers more rights (in particular ones which conform with U.N. standards?which most other industrial countries have long since adopted) because it would be "bad for the economy". What exactly does that mean? The economy isn't a person, after all. More rights would be good for the workers overall, and if it costs everyone a little more, well, that's the price of freedom and fairness. I'll tell you what was "bad for the economy": the abolishment of slavery in the U.S. in the nineteenth century. Imagine! Suddenly all these workers who would have to be paid for their labors! Surely that cut seriously into the U.S. competitive advantage.
(I'll be going back to this article)
Posted 16 July 2004 - 06:19 PM
Psychiatry and Capitalism
Psychiatry presents itself as a discipline whose advances in classification and treatment represent a series of discoveries analogous to discoveries in the natural sciences. Thus aligned with the putatively value-free traditions and naturalistic methods of science and medicine, it is not easy to see the extent to which it is influenced by an economic system whose ideology and values forcefully shape it. The impact of capitalism on psychiatry becomes apparent when the dominant tenets of capitalism are compared with the assumptions of psychiatry.
The Dynamics and Ethics of Capitalism
Capitalism is a highly rationalised system that has great power to command resources, compel behaviour, and generate profit. It is best understood as a process, a continual transformation of money into commodities and back into more money. This is usually expressed as a formula, M-C-M-, in which M represents the initial investment of money in the machinery, raw material, energy input, and labour power that goes to make C, the commodity (a material object or service) to be sold. M- represents profit, in the form of money, from the sale of C. "The single most important element in capitalism," observes Robert Heilbroner, "is the driving need to extract wealth from the productive activities of society in the form of capital" (1985, p. 33). It is "the life blood of the capitalist system" and the means for the further expansion of capital (Harvey, 1989, p. 17; Heilbroner, 1985, p. 76). In contrast to earlier economic systems, capitalism's use of wealth is not an end in itself but a means for generating yet more wealth in a never-ending cycle of private accumulation (Berger, 1987, p. 17; Heilbroner, 1985, pp. 34-35). The exceptionally dynamic and expansionary nature of this unique economic system is driven in part by vulnerability. Capital in its money form is in a perpetual state of vulnerability as it passes through the M-C-M- cycle. All commodities are continually exchanged for money, which is then available to all capitalist rivals and their products. Each capitalist must try to win back, through the sale of commodities, the money that has been invested in the commodification process. Administrative and management costs or the purchase of labour power or raw materials are examples. The continual transformation of money into commodities and back into money generates competition among capitalists to gain as much of the public's purchasing power as possible. The most effective means to gain a competitive advantage over other capitalists is to develop new ways of organising the M-C-M- circuit in its middle link, since new or more efficiently produced commodities increase the likelihood of recapturing M-. In its search for consumers, capitalism constantly scans daily life for activities or spheres of activity that can be transformed into C and pulled into its field of gravity. Thus washing, walking, and writing are commodified as washing machines, automobiles, and word processors. These are concrete objects, of course, but human services can also be commodified. Dry cleaners, chauffeurs, and secretaries embody the commodification of these services. In its early stages, capitalism's single-minded pursuit of wealth and profit was looked upon as morally problematic. How was the unlimited accumulation of wealth to be justified? After all, there was a well-established moral tradition in Christianity that discouraged avarice, greed, and usury. The New Testament had long inveighed against needless acquisition: "Lay up not for yourselves treasures on earth," "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Holy Bible, 1611/1952, pp. 1237, 1297).
John Locke, articulating the soon-to-be prevalent view, argued that an individual who encloses land and cultivates it increases its yield so that the acquisition of land generates more wealth, which is presumably available to others in the forms of expenditures, jobs, charity, etc. With this argument Locke simultaneously helped to attenuate a serious moral problem intrinsic to capitalism and created an ideological view of accumulators as benefactors (Locke, 1690/1952, pp. 16-30).
Affinities Between the Ideologies of Capitalism and Psychiatry
Capitalist and psychiatric beliefs show correspondence. Capitalism maintains that both success and failure are dependent on individual effort. Psychiatry places mental illness squarely within the individual and looks for the solution there.
Both capitalism and psychiatry obscure substantive moral dimensions of their practices. Capitalism tends to mute ethical challenges, for example, by pointing to the vast amount of wealth it generates and to the increased standard of living it creates for many. Similarly, in concentrating only on the form and configuration of symptoms rather than on their meaning, psychiatry tends to mute the social, economic, or moral significance of symptoms.
Both capitalism and psychiatry place high value on work and productivity. Capitalism ascribes good character to the individual who works conscientiously and promotes hard work as the route to individual success. Psychiatry reinforces this by maintaining that the ability and desire to work is a sign of mental health.
From a critical perspective, psychiatry has a dual function within capitalism. Capitalist society has brought into existence a class of experts trained to deal with the negative consequences of the very conditions that, historically, capitalism itself has helped bring about: disruption of local community life and emotional bonds, deracination, depersonalisation of work, the anomie of urban life. Psychiatry and psychotherapy represent modes of treatment that have evolved not only to provide relief of symptoms, but also to bring comfort, encouragement, and personal attention to lonely and demoralised individuals in a society where close personal relationships and community are often absent. However, the form of care is not the same for all social classes. Like all goods and services, care is distributed unevenly in a capitalist society depending upon ability to pay. The upper strata, at least until recently, have received therapy that is oriented toward insight and understanding, while those in the lower socio-economic strata get treatment that more closely resembles administrative management: hospitalisation, briefer more directive psychotherapy, and tranquillising medications (Garfield, 1994; Hollingshead and Redlich, 1958).
In identifying the single person as the locus of pathology psychiatry also serves to reinforce the ideology of capitalism, that success or failure - in work, in emotional life - is largely an individual matter. Psychiatrists are trained to give individual labels to problems which, if not social or economic in nature, at least have large social and economic dimensions, problems such as the effect of unsatisfying work or unemployment on individuals or families; the consequences of poverty; the effects of an aggressive, highly rationalised, and competitive business economy on men and women who do not or cannot fit in; and the dislocations and disruptions to identity and security that follow from rapid technological advances, altered expectations, and ever-new demands in the workplace.
Posted 16 July 2004 - 07:15 PM
@Berlin Says No Hints U.S. against UN Seat
- Germany renewed its call for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council on Friday and dismissed a newspaper report that the United States was blocking its bid.
"There are no such indications from the American administration," .
"There is, I think, a large consensus in the world community that it (the Security Council) can only fulfil its role in the future if it is designed more representatively than is the case today," .
The Financial Times Deutschland reported on Friday Washington did not endorse the German demand, quoting an unnamed diplomat. "Now is not the time that Germany should apply for a permanent seat,"
"My assessment is that the United States is not going to let a permanent seat for Germany fall through if it is supported by France, Britain, Russia and China,"
In addition to the blessing of the full Security Council members -- United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- Berlin needs a two-thirds majority in the U.N. General Assembly. intercept http://story.news.ya...ermany_usa_dc_7
Posted 16 July 2004 - 07:43 PM
The flyers advised such people to "declare their sincere repentance, perform the legal vow according to the Shari'a, and make [a] written pledge that they will not return to such acts in the Grand Mosque in the center of the city or in the Al-Razzaq Mosque in [the] east of Samarra city." The flyer marked 8 July as the last day for a pardon. The flyers also contended that the mujahedin in Samarra had obtained "files, documents, and confessions" that identify the names and positions of those working with multinational forces in the city. "Al-Manar" reported that the Islamic militants in the city accuse some 300 Iraqis of working with U.S. forces there. Mosque officials told the daily that "no one has seized the opportunity" to repent. It is difficult to imagine any Iraqis would, since they and their families would be labeled "collaborators" and likely be targeted by insurgents.
It is unclear how long it might take multinational forces to gain control over the city. http://www.rferl.org...sline/5-not.asp
The last of Thailand's troops will be out of Iraq by September 20 marking the end of a controversial year-long mission, the pull-out started on July 1. Elections are due to take place in Thailand around January and the year-long deployment has proved unpopular among Thais,http://www.yahoo.com/
Posted 16 July 2004 - 09:24 PM
<Punching your face donquijote>
This is a war of ideas not fists or threats. Though punches are easy to throw and not very effective over the net.
You should rather try wrestling. You remind me of that wrestler who when Geraldo Rivera asked if the fights were faked, he punched him in the face. Sorry, you lose, gladiator...
Posted 17 July 2004 - 04:12 AM
"John D. Rockefeller agreed with Karl Marx not only about the anarchy of production but also about its inevitable cure."
The striking parallels between two of America's most powerful -- and controversial -- capitalists
by Jack Beatty
Surveying the raw Darwinian capitalism of the middle years of the nineteenth century, Karl Marx diagnosed its main problem as "the anarchy of production" -- the senseless, self-defeating price wars waged by businesses that would not curtail production when the market was glutted but that instead engaged in suicidal competition. John D. Rockefeller agreed with Karl Marx not only about the anarchy of production but also about its inevitable cure. By the early 1870s the cutthroat competition in the fledgling oil business, unleashed by the discovery of oil in Pennsylvania in the previous decade, manifested the ruinous effects of the anarchy of production. The twenty-nine-year-old Rockefeller, who had just launched the Standard Oil Company in these perilously competitive waters, sought to replace competition with what he called "cooperation" -- a genteelism for monopoly. Toward that end, in November, 1871, Rockefeller met with officials of the three major eastern railroads -- the Pennsylvania, the New York Central, and the Erie -- to create among themselves a shell organization called the South Improvement Company (SIC), which a Congressional committee would subsequently label a "gigantic and daring conspiracy." Rockefeller's latest biographer, Ron Chernow, takes up the story in his magnificent new book, Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr., to be published later this month by Random House. Chernow writes:
<<<Under the terms of the proposed pact, the railroads would sharply raise freight rates for all refiners, but refiners in the SIC would receive such substantial rebates -- up to 50 percent off crude- and refined-oil shipments -- that their competitive edge over rivals would widen dramatically. In the most deadly innovation, the SIC members would also receive "drawbacks" on shipments made by rival refiners -- that is, the railroads would give SIC members rebates for every barrel shipped by other refiners. On shipments from western Pennsylvania to Cleveland, for instance, Standard Oil would receive a forty-cent rebate on every barrel it shipped, plus another forty cents for every barrel shipped to Cleveland by competitors! One Rockefeller biographer has called the drawback "an instrument of competitive cruelty unparalleled in industry."
The threat of the SIC, critics alleged, was the invisible club that Rockefeller waved over Cleveland refiners, forcing them to submit to his domination. Between February 17 and March 28, 1872, Rockefeller swallowed up twenty-two of his twenty-six Cleveland competitors. During one forty-eight hour period alone in early March, he bought six refineries. As one refiner, John H. Alexander, recalled:
"There was pressure brought to bear upon my mind, and upon almost all citizens of Cleveland engaged in the oil business, to the effect that unless we went into the South Improvement Company we were virtually killed as refiners; that if we did not sell out we should be crushed out.">>>
Rockefeller defended Standard Oil by arguing that, measured against the world market, it was not a monopoly -- and that even if, for the sake of argument, it was a monopoly, it was one in the public interest, something akin to a public utility, since it did not exploit its market position to charge extortionate prices for oil. There was something to be said for the second argument. The economies of scale and scope achieved by Standard Oil allowed it to keep prices low, though they would have been lower still if Standard had not swallowed its competition. The difference between those two prices was the premium that Standard charged -- and, Rockefeller felt, deserved -- for taming the anarchy of production: the resource-wasting, job-destroying maelstrom of competitive capitalism.
Bill Gates, whose $43 billion fortune makes him about $20 billion richer than Rockefeller at the height of his wealth, argues similarly that Microsoft's scale and scope benefits the consumer. His competition vehemently denies this. In a dramatic hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year, one of Gates's competitors, Scott McNealy, the CEO of Sun Microsystems, did not attack Gates's low-prices claim but rather the methods Microsoft used to achieve the scale and scope that let it keep prices low -- "illegal, predatory, and exclusionary business practices." In language resonant of the jeremiads against Standard Oil that created the climate of opinion that in turn led to the court-ordered break-up of the oil trust, McNealy charged that Gates, sitting two seats away from him on the panel of witnesses, was trying to control "the written and spoken language of the digital age." In a metaphor that would have delighted Ida Tarbell, Rockefeller's literary nemesis, he added, "[The] only thing I'd rather own than Windows is English, because then I could charge you two-hundred and forty-nine dollars for the right to speak it, and I could charge you an upgrade fee when I added new letters."
An article on Microsoft-bashing by David Shenk in the January 26 New Republic illustrates how closely Microsoft's anti-competitive tactics resemble those pioneered by Rockefeller. "The simplest -- and perhaps the soundest -- critique of Microsoft," Shenk writes, "is the one that preoccupies the Justice Department": that Microsoft has created a monopoly in the software industry. "Microsoft," he continues -- and here the parallel with Standard Oil amounts to historical plagiarism -- "was able to establish MS-DOS and subsequently Windows as the standard PC operating system by exacting a royalty for every PC sold regardless of whether its operating system was installed." In words echoing John H. Alexander's lament about Standard Oil, Andrew Shapiro, a fellow at Harvard Law School's Center for Internet & Society, told Shenk, "The basic model in the industry today is to be bought by Microsoft or to go out of business."
The century is ending as it began, with the representative corporation of the age seeking to escape the tameless risks of competitive capitalism.
Posted 17 July 2004 - 07:21 AM
The theft of oil/ the assured supply being a reason among many for the Rape of Iraq:
First priority would be Israel, then the US, which would consistent with the rest of the facts.
Joe Vials said they were trucking it into Iraq because the
militants were making sure the oil pipelines werent working to
prevent the theft of their oil.
Trucking in wasnt just for the "state" use but also for public to honour the promised supply in order to not incite more widespread opposition to the occupation forces.
A few Generals can claim false information- whats new, its the standard excuse to have the gullibility of the public on. Highly suspect given the likelihood of standard disciplines suddenly not
being used in preparation for invasion, more so when they would have known the credidibilty of the informants and last but more
significant some of these are now holding (selected) top positions (eg the Prime Minister) after the fact that the lies given by then have proved to be so proves they are in fact being rewarded not disqualified for doing so.
Same as saying the US intelligence got it wrong inspite of the fact that many countries warned them of Sept 11 about to happen.
The expectation of gullibility twice over is incredible.
Where are the Generals that have spoken out against the liers
and the discrediting of their profession. They must be out there
but we know what they have to say will not get a hearing.
"those who choose to do nothing":
in a socially just society (economic democracy) pier pressure will be very compelling I would expect.
Its like saying freedom will only go to those who avail thenselves of it. People will naturally avail themselves of it. How many would turn up at prisons and ask for room and board?
People will choose the level of materialism/lifestyle that suits them. If they dont have to work just to pay taxes off or interest/
debts why work anymore than they have too unless they love it
or the social need to such they are prepared to do extra time/production to meet peoles needs in which case the price/profit will be higher and should attract more producers/services in that area.
People do certainly need more time for leisure and emocracy.
That is very significant DonQ.
One of the key dynamics of religious cults is to keep people busy and tired which exactly what capitaism does to the majority.
THus opposition is least likely as people are too tired to think through the wood to see the trees.
Little lions wouldnt last a minute if they started to pull big lion strings.
The Chinese industry will not need to raise its standard of living
other than minutely because sales are assured in the developed countries so globalism prevents social justice in China.
The industry of developed countries cannot but lower the standards of living in their own country to "?ompete" with China
(as an example) so globalism destroys social justice in the developed world.
In both cases its the corporate entity on behalf of the shareholders that is manipulating economic forces to cheat both
types (standards)m of economies.
This isnt the natural laws having their way its the corporates and thus it isnt freemarket forces but intervention at a level that is easy to fool the gullible public and easier for the journalists and politicians to pretent it is natural forces.
REducing consumer pressure by low wages on the one hand and lower wages on the other is not good for business/economics
but it is good for corporate dominants who then make futures and options more stable in terms of milking off the hard work of those in the real economy who have less returns and have to pay taxes.
Posted 17 July 2004 - 07:47 AM
I'd argue that a natural balance between competition and cooperation would result from freedom of choice.
FIGHT to Be Free!
"a man be willing, when others are so too, as far-forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think necessary, to lay down this right to all things, and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself."--Hobbes
The American (I include U.S. neighbors to the north and south in this one) assumption comes from a particularly pernicious misuse of Darwin, from Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is a laughable philosophy in its own right, but it has gotten a great deal of success due to high level pushing from those it benefits. With assumptions as with policies, it is always wise to ask cui bono? Who benefits from this? Another good question is, "What other systems are in place that resemble this one?"
The answer is pretty obvious. When you are able to say that it is good for all to compete, you are able to say that it is wrong to provide artificial assistance to any. When you are able to say that the winner of a competition is best simply by virtue of having won, you are able to say also that those with power and wealth deserve what they have. When you are able to say that there are no incentives without competition and that competition is the source of all motivation, you are also able to say that those who do not compete do not wish to succeed. When you are able to say that the fight is always fair, you are able to say that anyone who does not win the competition is somehow inferior.
This is the trickery of imperial capitalism. (It is imperial capitalism because it is a feature only of a capitalist economy that has already developed a subordination of the nation state to the desires of the triumphant capital interests; this is not a very characteristic philosophy for the emergent capitalist system.) This is a conservative gesture that allows those who have power to retain it, and it is a defense against the natural outrage of those who are without power and wealth. It is with a philosophy like this that those who enjoy power are able to persuade the hopefuls of the society (the bourgeoisie who are attempting to climb) not to side with the disenfranchised.
I'm sure that you're not interested in how well I can sing "The Internationale" for you, so I won't bore you with any more anti-capitalist ranting just now.
Instead, let me do something that is very rare for the project of assumption breaking: let me suggest what is unthinkable. Competition is our god, our morality, in public life. In our private lives, we insist on morality not driven by naked aggression, and our laws try to limit the wickedness of our commandment to compete. What isn't spoken, though, is the alternative to competition.
We don't talk about cooperation. We don't talk about a desire to do a thing well for its own sake. We don't talk about the incentives of achievement. For example, would a manufacturer work to make a better product if there were public awards for such craftsmanship? Would there be an incentive if the competition were non-destructive. . . if the goal were to make the best and be recognized rather than to make the better and kill the competitor's business? We don't talk about how well the public can be served by unified objectives, where all work toward a common goal and divide labor in a sane manner. Within companies, teams are brought together with planning to get to a single goal, and this works very well. Why can't this happen between businesses? It worked well for the Apollo project. We also don't talk about citizen oversight. We don't talk about how a unified industry can do a better job than several competing companies do when there is public control and oversight of the prices set by that industry. The telephone monopoly in the United States was a great success because of the presence of public service commissions all over the country that oversaw the pricing of telephone service.
I hate monopolies with a profound animus, but that is because they are the sorts of monopolies that capitalism inevitably produces. They have no oversight, no regulation, and no desire to make a thing well. Their owners are profit takers, and they need competition to gain any incentive.
I know that it sounds like I'm humming "The Internationale" again, but I'm not. If no one goes to the ballot box or the barricades for the worker's revolution, that doesn't mean that we can't begin to question how we have allowed this capitalist apology to infiltrate every element of our lives. Competition is not a universal good, and it's time that we begin to realize that it has its place and that every place is not it.
Posted 17 July 2004 - 08:24 AM
being used in preparation for invasion, more so when they would have known the credidibilty of the informants and last but more
significant some of these are now holding (selected) top positions (eg the Prime Minister) after the fact that the lies given by then have proved to be so proves they are in fact being rewarded not disqualified for doing so.>
As with Intelligence, the Big Lion believed what it wanted to believe from the Little Lions. If they hadn't say so, they would have being fired on the spot.
It sounds to me like the following scenario: Someone approches you and tells you, "Hey, that guy is out to get you and he's got a knife." Then you go and kill the guy, who didn't have any weapon but who got a lot of money--a fact you were certain about.
Of course, you then have a lot of money and bribe and/or intimidate others. Who's to blame? The guy of course...
Posted 17 July 2004 - 12:45 PM
Of course, you then have a lot of money and bribe and/or intimidate others. Who's to blame? The guy of course... @
But this is not necessary the end of the story. Some other guys with weapon will follow the path;
China's naval buildup has produced a new type of attack submarine that U.S. intelligence did not know was under construction, "China has decided submarines are its first-line warships now, their best shot at beating carriers.
"One has to marvel at the enormity of the investment by the People's Liberation Army in submarines
China also is building two nuclear-powered submarines
Posted 17 July 2004 - 12:51 PM
What is the issue Woj re Americans and Poland?
The problem is that Polish President Kwasniewski is servitude nature and sent Polish troop to Iraq on American request and against wishes of majority of Polish citizens (on Polish cost as well). Kwasniewski accepts situation when Polish had to pay very high cost for application for visas to US. . Polish demand due action and implementation of paid visas for Americans to Poland. Unfortunately is long time before new election time.
The Bush administration has ordered Japan to detain and extradite former world chess champion Bobby Fischer for playing in a 1992 chess match in Yugoslavia. By playing a chess match, the U.S. government claims that Mr. Fischer violated UN sanctions against Yugoslavia, a country charged with provoking warfare because it tried to prevent secession........
Mr. Fischer should considers himself lucky , because for example Stalin killed Trocky abroad.
Posted 17 July 2004 - 12:59 PM
Of course, you then have a lot of money and bribe and/or intimidate others. Who's to blame? The guy of course... @
Your story is not so sad as you say;
Iraq's justice minister escaped a bomb attack in Baghdad that killed at least four people and wounded three .
A car bomb also exploded near an Iraqi National Guard post south of the capital, causing an unknown number of casualties.
The U.S. on July 1 raised its reward for Abu Mussab al- Zarqawi, the terrorist operating in Iraq, from $10 million to $25 million, the State Department said.
In addition, three policemen were hurt in a blast near where the justice minister had been targeted,.
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?
Posted 17 July 2004 - 06:33 PM
I'd give you an example: You are working for a company, but you want to become independent. You got everything figured out: Your clients, your local... Then you think of the health insurance that you get with you current job. "What if I become sick? What if I lose my house and my family?" Naturally many people would choose to play it safe, right?
What we got now is not healthy competition, but deadly competition, where some make it, some fall, and many don't take high risks... The Law of the Jungle, so to speak...
Posted 17 July 2004 - 07:23 PM
Go Ask Dad: It's a circus, not a horror show
by Rick Shefchik | May 30 '04
Next time the circus comes to town, the aerialists might be wearing helmets.
After an acrobat fell to her death last week at the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey circus in St. Paul, an issue was raised --at least in my mind-- about the true purpose of a circus in the 21st century.
If the big attraction is supposed to be the death-defying stunts, it has become somewhat redundant. You can get that on "Fear Factor" every week --or at your local NASCAR track or the coverage of the latest convoy attack in Iraq.
In fact, you can get that by just taking a walk downtown on your lunch break. A few days ago, I was out plugging my parking meter when I noticed police and fire units congregating on a bridge. They were trying to talk a man out of jumping off the railing above the river. Though I kept hoping the man would come to his senses, I couldn't turn away until one of the cops got close enough to grab the man by the arm and pull him to safety.
So what need would I have to go to an arena and watch an acrobat dangle from chiffon scarves 30 feet above a concrete floor?
In fact, what need does anyone have for entertainment like that?
Back in my own circus-going days, I don't recall that the presence (or lack) of a net made the trapeze artists' acts any less interesting to me. And as a parent who has taken my own kids to the circus more times than I can count, I'm pretty sure they didn't base their opinion of the experience on the possibility the performers might incur serious injury or death.
A good circus act depends on superb eye-hand coordination, fast reactions, exceptional balance, tremendous flexibility and a flair for the dramatic. Can a typical circus crowd of parents and kids not appreciate those qualities unless the risk of failure is a fractured skull?
The city of St. Paul addressed this situation more than 100 years ago, passing a law that carried a $250 fine for acrobatic acts that worked without a net. The law has been routinely ignored --as it was on the recent day when Dessi Espana slipped loose of her scarves and hit the floor in front of thousands of horrified spectators.
The law has not been enforced, I suppose, at least in part because the amount of the fine has become irrelevant. A circus now takes in $250 selling 50 boxes of popcorn.
But I'm sure the law also has been ignored because circus performers are so good at what they do that they almost never fall, anyway --and because the competition to provide the audience some suspense has been greatly ratcheted up. [deadly competition, ah?]
The circus was once the only thrill show in town, but in an era of motocross, monster trucks, snowboard aerials and the like, those who like to see humans put themselves at risk have plenty of options.
I'm not sure the circus needs to be one of them anymore.
I really don't want to see the tightrope walker wearing a helmet and a harness, but if I take a kid to the circus, neither of us wants to see the tightrope walker pay for a slip of the foot with his life, either.
A net seems like a reasonable compromise.
Posted 17 July 2004 - 09:55 PM
"Cooperatives epitomize the democratic and moral principles upon which this country was founded"
What is a cooperative?
Cooperatives are member-owned and democratically controlled enterprises, created and used by their member-owners to provide goods and services. A co-op operates for the benefit of its member-owners. Across America, 120 million people are finding solutions to community needs by forming cooperative businesses. This means cost savings, less risk and more choices for America-s consumers and producers.
Some Compelling Statistics-
-About thirty percent of farmer-s products in the United States are marketed through cooperatives.
- More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including such well known names as Land O- Lakes, Inc., Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
- Credit unions have over 76 million members and assets in excess of $100 billion.
- Electric cooperatives operate nearly half of the electric distribution lines in the United States and provide electricity for 34 million people- that-s more than one in ten Americans.
- There are approximately one million cooperative housing units serving households with a range of income levels and housing needs.
- Insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives serve more than 50 million Americans.
- Food cooperatives have been innovators in the marketplace in the areas of unit pricing, consumer protection and nutritional labeling.
- Retailer-owned food and hardware cooperatives make it possible for hundreds of independent store- owners to successfully compete with large chains.
- Overall, more than 100 million people are members of 47,000 U.S. cooperatives.
Cooperatives yield tremendous economic impacts.
Cooperatives yield tremendous economic impact. Today, there are more than 48,000 cooperatives in the United States generating in excess of $500,000 billion in economic activity.
- From childcare to healthcare, agriculture to housing, electricity to telephone service, hardware store to grocery stores, credit unions to media outlets, cooperatives provide Americans with the basic services they use everyday.
- Revenue generated by cooperatives tends to stay in the community as it is distributed to local members rather than removed shareholders.
- Cooperatives exist not to generate a profit for themselves or outside investors, as do other businesses, but rather to provide goods and services at the lowest possible price.
- Cooperatives epitomize the democratic and moral principles upon which this country was founded.
- The American election is the highest form of democratic expression and is an example of the ideals shared by the founding fathers of this nation and the pioneers who launched the cooperative movement.
- Cooperatives are owned and controlled by the people who use them. Member control is generally on a one member, one vote basis.
- Cooperatives enable members to reap the benefits of a joint endeavor while maintaining their
- The cooperative option provides consumers and producers with more options. And more choice means a more innovative marketplace and more accessible products and services.
Posted 17 July 2004 - 10:14 PM
(history, money, politics,religion and science to specifiy a few important ones)
even when people become rather free and outspoken about what is happening, such that wouldnt be printed in the western mainstream press it still is usually tangled up with the myths and distortions of the Monopoly Mongrol.
"slavery in the US in the 19th century.."
Why is slavery only bad in a small relatively recent time frame,
although common throughout history and why only when its associated with Europeans although longer in the coloured races.
And why even bother to refer to it while the corporates are getting away with it right now and no doubt the writers are benefiting from it?
Capitalism and psychiatry:
while a good article, is another case of the above. The same MM
or lion, or elite etc promoted both to control thinking=lie-ons-ville.
"Both capitalism and psychiatry place high value on work and productivity"
Both the instruments of money-power, as was marxism.
The individual is the weak one. They cant be allowed to think
socially unless its in regards symptoms, they are left to feel that they are failures and the Jones around are just more gifted/smarter/more industrious.
Isnt this the mentality of the slave. Isnt it time the word slave was re-interpreted?
Who says slavery is just physical???????????????????????????
We have to recapture the control of our own means of thinking
first and we dont have to borrow money to do that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why does everyone know about Locke (same as the Generals who made pro-Bush excuses) who represents the trickle-down theory a key line in the free market propoganda of today
that has proved to be a lie, an inslaving lie.
What do slaves exist on- a trickle.
Which people believe that all the other people are mere cattle?
"consentrating on the form and configeration of the symtoms rather than on the meaning..." one could include- on the implications and the causes more particularly in the first place.
"Both capitalism and psychiatry obscure substantial moral dimensions of their practices." This has been one the most significant means by which the jewish elite have made the US,
for example, a post-christian society and this is the vehicle that
they will make the middle east a post-muslim society and in debt to their banking system.
"Psychiatry and psychotherapy represent modes of treatment.."
all part of the new materialistic-work-profit-debt-slavery culture
which will be part of the new democracy of the middle east market.
The muslim religion still holds out against usury, which the christian used to do as well. It was also banned amongst jews.
Thus society has to be made amoral to reduce the means of people to defend themselves (fundamentalists are hot-beds of terrorism!). Whoes values/propoganda has been replacing the retreat of religious/moral values- that of money
power who control the three mediums of information- politics, media and academia. Monopolies hate competition, they like control. What they cant buy they destroy. Hence the inposition of military bases across islam and the occupation of two countries
with the threat of more to come- as examples of their methods in its crudist form.
The Rochefeller-Gates article, excellent shows the same at a lower level.
"..unless we went into the South Improvement Company we were vitually killed as refiners; that if we did not sell out we should be crushed out" is the same policy that the war on terrorism hides as it deals to the Non-Functioning Gap countires
and forces them into the Functioning Core to achieve the NWO.
Its easier to smell the lion than see him.
Posted 17 July 2004 - 10:40 PM
Exactly, that's the way it is in nature too. Those with the finest sense of smell survive. Or at least they help their species survive. We have picked up the scent and passed the alarm... Are they listening?
Now, if you want to take your bearings--as left and right doesn't help much--in the jungle, the following test could help--and I sweated answering some questions. (I stand down there with Nelson Mandela and Dalai Lama--left-libertarian--though they haven't accomplished much and have befriended some lions. Anyone thinks they are real?):confused:
Posted 18 July 2004 - 02:53 AM
@What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?@
is posted by Mahatma Ghandi but not any Christian leader.
Capitalism and psychiatry. Psychiatry as sport medicine depends from situation. When in capitalism the biggest problem is addiction , capitalist investors fell together as casino players in first row of victims of hazard. Psychiatry as a medicine is concerned with mental disorders and not interested in morals or ethic. .
Not only Muslims condemn usury but Slavs as well . The usury was brought recently together with democracy. The question is; Is democracy responsible for usury, and can they go the separate lives?
Posted 18 July 2004 - 03:20 AM
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL JUSTICE seems to me the only way out of it.
1. Catastrophic Famines: Eighty million died of starvation in Mao's China. Despite the surplus of food that exists today, catastrophic famines remain common and are increasing in magnitude with population. Humanitarian efforts may alleviate the small famines of North Africa, but we're not equipped to handle Asian famines resulting from catastrophic crop failures with victims in nine figures, and that's what we can expect in this century.
2. Epidemic Human Diseases: We haven't found a cure for AIDS in a quarter-century of intensive effort, and AIDS is a relatively slow-spreading disease. Plague left half of medieval Europe dead, and smallpox has killed a billion humans. Epidemic diseases are nature's population balancer. Diseases like SARS mutate rapidly, faster than we can isolate and inoculate for them. And BSE (Mad Cow) has now ushered in a whole new family of even harder-to-contain diseases that result from prions. As population density increases, new parasitic diseases always emerge with increasing speed and ferocity. In the incessant battle against disease, nature always bats last.
3. Crop Failures: Five animals and six grains now make up the large majority of human food intake, with fewer varietals of each being produced each year. This creates a hugely vulnerable human food system -- vulnerable to plant and animal diseases (like potato blight) and insect infestations, as well as flooding and drought. We are now drawing down the water table below the soil, and replacing depleted soil with artificial oil-based nutrients, so frighteningly quickly that shortages of groundwater and oil are now even more likely to produce catastrophic crop failures than diseases and infestations.
4. Cannibalism: Watch for the re-emergence of cannibalism in the 21st century. It has been endemic, and even legal, in China for much of its history due to that country's dependence on fragile monoculture, and also occurred in the former USSR in the last century. It will of course get great press, but its real importance is as a harbinger of cultural collapse.
5. Nuclear & Biological War: With North Korea and Iran joining Israel, India, China and Pakistan in the club of nuclear-capable belligerants, it is sheer folly to believe that, as conditions in these areas continue to deteriorate, nuclear weapons won't be used. Even Dubya wants to re-start the arms race with mini-nukes. In the unlikely case that nuclear bombs are not dropped in this century, we can expect factions in at least 60 (and growing) totalitarian states with rudimentary bioweapons capability to start to deploy them. The number of possible users, agents and means of deployment are limitless. The only question will be how many times they will be deployed and whether they will get completely out of control.
6. Water Rationing & Desertification: The massive freshwater needs of 6, 7, 10, 14 billion people are rapidly lowering water tables and depleting all available freshwater resources. At the same time, the Arctic ice, which contains a large proportion of what's left, is melting at an unprecedented rate into saline seas. Deserts are advancing at an increasing rate, especially in tropical areas where exploding population and poor soils quickly turn lush forests into new deserts. Desalination is an expensive and energy-consuming process. Look for massive water rationing, and at least one 'water war' in this century.
7. Economic Depression: Almost all the anti-depression safeguards enacted in the mid-20th century have been done away with in the interest of 'deregulation' and in the belief that 'it could never happen again'. Currency, land, stock and commodity speculators are again buying on huge margin (no money down) at unsustainably low interest rates, manipulating and whipsawing prices and rates and massively inflating the value of securities and real estate. At the same time, market deregulation and 'globalization' have greatly increased interdependence of economies -- one big domino can now topple them all. And trade imbalances, debts and deficits (government, corporate and individual) are at ruinously, irresponsibly high levels, making the entire economic system extremely vulnerable to the twin threats of interest rate spikes and deflation. Not only can it happen again, recent economic policies have made another worldwide economic depression a probability.
8. Catastrophic Terrorism: Technology, combined with the staggering concentration of power and resources, economic interdependence and our dependence on uninterrupted energy flows and grids, work to the terrorist's advantage. A well-planned attack by a small group could easily produce millions in casualties and trillions of dollars in economic losses. The intelligence failure on 9/11 and the incompetent responses since then have ably demonstrated the effectiveness and high likelihood of success of terrorist actions. There is simply no way in our complex society to suppress information about our vulnerabilities to attack or about the technologies that could exploit these vulnerabilities. As desperation and nihilism (expressed very effectively by the number of 'suicide' attacks) grow, so will the probability of catastrophic terrorism. In fact the restraint that the millions, perhaps billions of potential terrorists have demonstrated to date speaks to our basic humanity, our aversion to inflicting suffering on each other. It is in no way a reflection of how 'anti-terrorist' acts have made the world safer -- in fact these acts have made the world immeasurably more dangerous.
9. Cascading Weather Disasters: Scientists warn that global warming brings with it extremes in climate change: heavier and longer floods, devastating hail, severe and recurring drought (and related fires), crippling blizzards and ice storms. So far these increasingly extreme weather patterns have been merely newsworthy. Soon they will start causing major casualties and huge economic losses.
10. The Decline of Democracy, Constitutional Liberalism and the Rule of Law: Israel and Palestine are models of what happens when advocates of escalating war, reprisal and terrorism gain the upper hand. Many of Latin America's ever-fragile democracies are already imperilled, as are some of Eastern Europe's. Totalitarian states tend to spend more on military adventures, and provoke more terrorist acts. And economic and physical hardship tends to destabilize nations politically. Look for the percentage of the world's nations that can fairly be called 'democracies' and 'free' to start declining soon, as well as increasingly common suspension of civil liberties and the 'rule of law' in favour of 'security needs outweigh the need for freedoms' and 'might makes right' politics.
Worst, the careers of the politicians hang at the whim of the Corporation--which looks for the quick buck...:confused:
As Joel Bakan argues compellingly in both the book and the film entitled The Corporation, the single-minded pursuit of profit by corporations, endowed with ever-increasing rights and powers and protected more and more from citizen and consumer action by stifling law, has made such corporations pathological, and this threatens our democracy to its core. As I argued in an earlier article:
<<<As in the Corporate Robber-Baron era at the end of the 19th century, the only things separating us from global corporatism today are the democratic ballot box and the vigilance of public interest groups and non-mainstream media. The mainstream media, owned and controlled by big corporations, already self-censor news that is anti-corporatist. The collapse and privatization of public education is leading to the corruption of what our children learn -- to a corporatist-friendly message. Public health and well-being are deteriorating because dominant private providers can generate superior ROI by serving only the rich. The continuing dumbing-down of the electorate, and its disillusionment due to gerrymandering and other anti-democratic political abuses, plays right into the hands of corporatists. And the sale of public land, forests, resources and institutions to private interests is a sale of our future, and the birthright of our children, to anti-democratic forces that have no interest in the welfare or well-being of people.>>>
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users