supercanuk

oooohhhh reeggginnnaallllddd.... I DISAGREE!

Indeed, Chomsky's point certainly raises other issues of debate and the use of language. The Vietnam war saw similar circumstances, the use of language and the debate entirely changed within the 70's. I did hear about John McCain's walk into a market, i vaguely recall people saying he felt Iraq was on the mend, as it's obviously not. But i dont know any details so if you know anything interesting about this event please tell me, id like to hear it. I generally don't watch too much television, and so im not really up on that, and haven't had the time to read much of the mainstream press either - busy with exams and other projects! lol Summary of Chomsky? Well that's the point of reading Chomsky, you can take broad brush strokes but you'll loose alot. I guess as succinctly as I can put it: Chomsky purports that the issue with Iran could be dealt with if the U.S. actually did what popular support via polls suggests. He also states that generally speaking the debate about the Iran/Iraq issue has been framed in such narrow terms that the aggression of the U.S. is just assumed to be correct and that Iran by defintion is wrong because of the doctrine constantly being spewed out. He also feels that by popular opposition we can stop a war that could occur between the U.S. and Iran - which is currently being planned and certainly the "pretexts" developed for military intervention. I'd suggest reading it in it's entirety, you'll learn something about geo-politics that my summation cannot really give full credit to.

Reading is good for you James ;) You'll get more out of it!

Very true, but the facade of community then, is still more than now. Rockefellar is only one of the many people then who had money who used it to get bigger monopoly's. But lots of others didn't - again it's too easy to paint these broad brush strokes. I think companies do have a requirement to provide health insurance to their employee's - i don't think that has to do with any motherly government (I don't even believe in the state) - BUT if such a thing as a corporation which is essentially an economic tyranny is to exist it ought to have a responsibility to who it employ's beyond a paycheck. This includes any large corporation and small businesses, you have a duty, under law, to your neighbor, and this extends to a corporation in tort law. If you get health insurance you are in fact saving money because then people can't sue you directly, they'll get money from insurance they pay into to recover any losses from accidents. So its really in the best interest of the employer, unless of course your employee's cant afford legal representation.. they are just gambling that their employee's cant pursue legal action against them in case they want to sue in tort for an accident. And they'd be right, they hardly pay their workers a living salary so they certainly can't pay for legal aid. Again, i just don't believe human beings should be treated like peasants who have no recourse against their employers who could be exploiting them. Sure one could say, get a different job, but when all the employer's act the same or very similiar, or if you live in small town Texas, you don't have a lot of choices. I agree education is a great idea to help create a more progressive marketplace, and in fact that is occuring. I know that you can get whats called "ethical" stock options now and there is increasing pressure for companies to perform ethical business practices. Of course, this doesn't change what they do internationally that much since they are beyond the jurisdiction of our courts. To me, I feel as if corporations have much more power then a regular citizen, they are in fact, super humans with billions of dollars and thousands of votes. Am I the only one that feels democracy should still be rule by the people? Should a corporate entity have the same rights as human beings, which they have right now under law? This is to me, a stretch, far beyond what the founding father's of the Canadian or American constitution meant. Can we have democracy when the market place determines our social goals? Or in the very least influences to quite high proportions? Rainbow: Sorry for the misunderstanding. What i'm curious about is do you feel the same empathy for the families in China? Would you want them to have the same prices North American poor people have to survive in society? Certainly their prices help a lot of families... North American and European families sure.. but for the producers of the goods, i don't think they get the same pleasures. Are they're lives worth less?

That really speaks volumes of the society we live in, especially with respect to gender equality and social equality. Shopping at Wal-Mart because you have few, or no alternatives should not be moralized into a situation where those who shop at wal-mart are despised. It's really not about that, especially when you realize a national boycott of the company is just unrealistic in our society where the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Wal-Mart ought to be addressed in alternative ways, breaking the company up, actually administering the laws on the books which are against a lot of their behavior, maybe even forcing Wal-Mart to provide social insurance and health benefits to their employee's instead of forcing them to turn to state social health welfare. People who cannot afford alternatives should never be blamed for their decision making, their stuck. That said, those of us who can afford alternatives might do so because of their actions abroad and domestically which are unethical. Low prices actually have grave social consequences that are kept hidden and rarely brought to the fore. When you look at why they can keep prices so low, you may feel differently about their great customer service. And if that's all they can vouch for - they are a limited company indeed in terms of social welfare of their brothers and sisters, a concept lost on today's businesses which yesterday's businesses knew quite well. Community is a facade under the new globalized market - and increasingly dangerous facade at that.

WOrked my ass off, had some good times inbetween that... it was a little less fun then i wanted but still had fun and lots of education both academic and otherwise. EDIT: Adam, i am totally getting the same (because the other ones would look weird on my posts) website banner as you. It's kick ass and Richard Dawkins is my hero.

Just out of curiosity, would you find it depressing if all we had were Wal-Marts and big box stores? Do you or anyone else here find Mom and Pop stores valuable? Despite slightly higher prices would you rather help the little guy or just indifferent?

Unsurprisingly, George W. Bush's announcement of a "surge" in Iraq came despite the firm opposition to any such move of Americans and the even stronger opposition of the (thoroughly irrelevant) Iraqis. It was accompanied by ominous official leaks and statements -- from Washington and Baghdad -- about how Iranian intervention in Iraq was aimed at disrupting our mission to gain victory, an aim which is (by definition) noble. What then followed was a solemn debate about whether serial numbers on advanced roadside bombs (IEDs) were really traceable to Iran; and, if so, to that country's Revolutionary Guards or to some even higher authority. This "debate" is a typical illustration of a primary principle of sophisticated propaganda. In crude and brutal societies, the Party Line is publicly proclaimed and must be obeyed -- or else. What you actually believe is your own business and of far less concern. In societies where the state has lost the capacity to control by force, the Party Line is simply presupposed; then, vigorous debate is encouraged within the limits imposed by unstated doctrinal orthodoxy. The cruder of the two systems leads, naturally enough, to disbelief; the sophisticated variant gives an impression of openness and freedom, and so far more effectively serves to instill the Party Line. It becomes beyond question, beyond thought itself, like the air we breathe. The debate over Iranian interference in Iraq proceeds without ridicule on the assumption that the United States owns the world. We did not, for example, engage in a similar debate in the 1980s about whether the U.S. was interfering in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan, and I doubt that Pravda, probably recognizing the absurdity of the situation, sank to outrage about that fact (which American officials and our media, in any case, made no effort to conceal). Perhaps the official Nazi press also featured solemn debates about whether the Allies were interfering in sovereign Vichy France, though if so, sane people would then have collapsed in ridicule. In this case, however, even ridicule -- notably absent -- would not suffice, because the charges against Iran are part of a drumbeat of pronouncements meant to mobilize support for escalation in Iraq and for an attack on Iran, the "source of the problem." The world is aghast at the possibility. Even in neighboring Sunni states, no friends of Iran, majorities, when asked, favor a nuclear-armed Iran over any military action against that country. From what limited information we have, it appears that significant parts of the U.S. military and intelligence communities are opposed to such an attack, along with almost the entire world, even more so than when the Bush administration and Tony Blair's Britain invaded Iraq, defying enormous popular opposition worldwide. "The Iran effect" The results of an attack on Iran could be horrendous. After all, according to a recent study of "the Iraq effect" by terrorism specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, using government and Rand Corporation data, the Iraq invasion has already led to a seven-fold increase in terror. The "Iran effect" would probably be far more severe and long-lasting. British military historian Corelli Barnett speaks for many when he warns that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch World War III." What are the plans of the increasingly desperate clique that narrowly holds political power in the U.S.? We cannot know. Such state planning is, of course, kept secret in the interests of "security." Review of the declassified record reveals that there is considerable merit in that claim -- though only if we understand "security" to mean the security of the Bush administration against their domestic enemy, the population in whose name they act. Even if the White House clique is not planning war, naval deployments, support for secessionist movements and acts of terror within Iran, and other provocations could easily lead to an accidental war. Congressional resolutions would not provide much of a barrier. They invariably permit "national security" exemptions, opening holes wide enough for the several aircraft-carrier battle groups soon to be in the Persian Gulf to pass through -- as long as an unscrupulous leadership issues proclamations of doom (as Condoleezza Rice did with those "mushroom clouds" over American cities back in 2002). And the concocting of the sorts of incidents that "justify" such attacks is a familiar practice. Even the worst monsters feel the need for such justification and adopt the device: Hitler's defense of innocent Germany from the "wild terror" of the Poles in 1939, after they had rejected his wise and generous proposals for peace, is but one example. The most effective barrier to a White House decision to launch a war is the kind of organized popular opposition that frightened the political-military leadership enough in 1968 that they were reluctant to send more troops to Vietnam -- fearing, we learned from the Pentagon Papers, that they might need them for civil-disorder control. Doubtless Iran's government merits harsh condemnation, including for its recent actions that have inflamed the crisis. It is, however, useful to ask how we would act if Iran had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico and was arresting U.S. government representatives there on the grounds that they were resisting the Iranian occupation (called "liberation," of course). Imagine as well that Iran was deploying massive naval forces in the Caribbean and issuing credible threats to launch a wave of attacks against a vast range of sites -- nuclear and otherwise -- in the United States, if the U.S. government did not immediately terminate all its nuclear energy programs (and, naturally, dismantle all its nuclear weapons). Suppose that all of this happened after Iran had overthrown the government of the U.S. and installed a vicious tyrant (as the US did to Iran in 1953), then later supported a Russian invasion of the U.S. that killed millions of people (just as the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980, killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, a figure comparable to millions of Americans). Would we watch quietly? It is easy to understand an observation by one of Israel's leading military historians, Martin van Creveld. After the U.S. invaded Iraq, knowing it to be defenseless, he noted, "Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy." Surely no sane person wants Iran (or any nation) to develop nuclear weapons. A reasonable resolution of the present crisis would permit Iran to develop nuclear energy, in accord with its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but not nuclear weapons. Is that outcome feasible? It would be, given one condition: that the U.S. and Iran were functioning democratic societies in which public opinion had a significant impact on public policy. As it happens, this solution has overwhelming support among Iranians and Americans, who generally are in agreement on nuclear issues. The Iranian-American consensus includes the complete elimination of nuclear weapons everywhere (82% of Americans); if that cannot yet be achieved because of elite opposition, then at least a "nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East that would include both Islamic countries and Israel" (71% of Americans). Seventy-five percent of Americans prefer building better relations with Iran to threats of force. In brief, if public opinion were to have a significant influence on state policy in the U.S. and Iran, resolution of the crisis might be at hand, along with much more far-reaching solutions to the global nuclear conundrum. Promoting democracy -- at home These facts suggest a possible way to prevent the current crisis from exploding, perhaps even into some version of World War III. That awesome threat might be averted by pursuing a familiar proposal: democracy promotion -- this time at home, where it is badly needed. Democracy promotion at home is certainly feasible and, although we cannot carry out such a project directly in Iran, we could act to improve the prospects of the courageous reformers and oppositionists who are seeking to achieve just that. Among such figures who are, or should be, well-known, would be Saeed Hajjarian, Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, and Akbar Ganji, as well as those who, as usual, remain nameless, among them labor activists about whom we hear very little; those who publish the Iranian Workers Bulletin may be a case in point. We can best improve the prospects for democracy promotion in Iran by sharply reversing state policy here so that it reflects popular opinion. That would entail ceasing to make the regular threats that are a gift to Iranian hardliners. These are bitterly condemned by Iranians truly concerned with democracy promotion (unlike those "supporters" who flaunt democracy slogans in the West and are lauded as grand "idealists" despite their clear record of visceral hatred for democracy). Democracy promotion in the United States could have far broader consequences. In Iraq, for instance, a firm timetable for withdrawal would be initiated at once, or very soon, in accord with the will of the overwhelming majority of Iraqis and a significant majority of Americans. Federal budget priorities would be virtually reversed. Where spending is rising, as in military supplemental bills to conduct the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would sharply decline. Where spending is steady or declining (health, education, job training, the promotion of energy conservation and renewable energy sources, veterans benefits, funding for the UN and UN peacekeeping operations, and so on), it would sharply increase. Bush's tax cuts for people with incomes over $200,000 a year would be immediately rescinded. The U.S. would have adopted a national health-care system long ago, rejecting the privatized system that sports twice the per-capita costs found in similar societies and some of the worst outcomes in the industrial world. It would have rejected what is widely regarded by those who pay attention as a "fiscal train wreck" in-the-making. The U.S. would have ratified the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions and undertaken still stronger measures to protect the environment. It would allow the UN to take the lead in international crises, including in Iraq. After all, according to opinion polls, since shortly after the 2003 invasion, a large majority of Americans have wanted the UN to take charge of political transformation, economic reconstruction, and civil order in that land. If public opinion mattered, the U.S. would accept UN Charter restrictions on the use of force, contrary to a bipartisan consensus that this country, alone, has the right to resort to violence in response to potential threats, real or imagined, including threats to our access to markets and resources. The U.S. (along with others) would abandon the Security Council veto and accept majority opinion even when in opposition to it. The UN would be allowed to regulate arms sales; while the U.S. would cut back on such sales and urge other countries to do so, which would be a major contribution to reducing large-scale violence in the world. Terror would be dealt with through diplomatic and economic measures, not force, in accord with the judgment of most specialists on the topic but again in diametric opposition to present-day policy. Furthermore, if public opinion influenced policy, the U.S. would have diplomatic relations with Cuba, benefiting the people of both countries (and, incidentally, U.S. agribusiness, energy corporations, and others), instead of standing virtually alone in the world in imposing an embargo (joined only by Israel, the Republic of Palau, and the Marshall Islands). Washington would join the broad international consensus on a two-state settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which (with Israel) it has blocked for 30 years -- with scattered and temporary exceptions -- and which it still blocks in word, and more importantly in deed, despite fraudulent claims of its commitment to diplomacy. The U.S. would also equalize aid to Israel and Palestine, cutting off aid to either party that rejected the international consensus. Evidence on these matters is reviewed in my book Failed States as well as in The Foreign Policy Disconnect by Benjamin Page (with Marshall Bouton), which also provides extensive evidence that public opinion on foreign (and probably domestic) policy issues tends to be coherent and consistent over long periods. Studies of public opinion have to be regarded with caution, but they are certainly highly suggestive. Democracy promotion at home, while no panacea, would be a useful step towards helping our own country become a "responsible stakeholder" in the international order (to adopt the term used for adversaries), instead of being an object of fear and dislike throughout much of the world. Apart from being a value in itself, functioning democracy at home holds real promise for dealing constructively with many current problems, international and domestic, including those that literally threaten the survival of our species. By Noam Chomsky Discuss?

I'm not saying your racist at all, sensational, well that's not what i meant by my comment. I was asking more of WHY you think this, show me some evidence as to why underdeveloped nations are in this situation? Sure people are poor in lots of areas of the globe. Is it because there is a drought, is it because of a political climate in their country? Why is there "rife" prostitution? Are they morally inferior? Are they put in a circumstance which leads them to no other options? WHY are they in that circumstance? Things don't just occur in a vacuum, there are reasons for poverty, benign or malicious, there are reasons to starvation, again benign and malicious. What's being done here is really wide brush-strokes of at least 70% of the globe - the inequality that exists is overwhelmingly the majority of the population. So then, let's hear some specific examples of a third world nation that is desperatly poor, rife with prostitution, starvation, etc and reasons for this, and use it as a case study. Since you seem to believe that the third world is in this way, i'll assume you have a specific region in mind. It's really easy to dismiss people who are not like us, and just paint a broad brush stroke, its far harder to understand their circumstances politically, culturally, socio-economically. So i invite you to discuss this with me, and will allow you to pick a country or reason and give some examples as to WHY they are in the situation their in. I'll do the same, and we can learn why, together, the disparity between developed and underdeveloped countries are so large.

Okay, so it's clear from the post that you didn't listen to the Democracy Now! link because theres a ton of evidence to substantiate the claims being made. I never said this was an unbiased opinion, i never stated that as the intent at all. "But when they try to paint it as an evil corporation that thrives off of exploitation, that's a little too sensational for me. In most of the countries where Wal-Mart has sweat shops, those jobs are preferable to the alternatives (prostitution, farming with no equipment in terrible conditions, starvation, etc.)" I don't know if you know about the exploitation that wal-mart reaps massive profits from - so i'll leave some of this post alone. Who is saying that sweat shops are preferable to the indigenous communities way of life prior to the arrival of wal-mart? Or for that matter any other industrial company? They're literally endentured servants to the one plant that arrives. I'd really like to know why you seem to think that a sweat shop is preferable to a way of life that a community has been living for thousands of years? What makes you think "underdeveloped" nations are rife with prostitution, no equipment to farm (if there need be in the first place) and starvation? I'd love to know the sources you seem to be taking from - because prostitution, starvation, and bad conditions are almost ALWAYS because of industrialization of "underdeveloped" communities, not something that is rife in "underdeveloped" communities without industrialization. Big companies who pay off tyrannical rulers to open up sweat shops create conditions of starvation - through for starters using the land the original inhabitants once used for farming and turning into industrial wasteland ( look at where we throw away our old computer parts in underdeveloped nations it makes the ground poisonous with mercury). Also, there is a privatization of land, so all of a sudden what was once communal is now guarded by private security forces who are also paid by these companies (look at Coca-Cola in Columbia where they literally kill union leaders). There is a great amount of first world arrogance that we are the "civilizers" of the world who must go out and help poor people make money by putting our companies overseas. It's tantamount to "white mans burden" syndrome, and if you don't know what im referring to look it up. On another note, why do you think that wal-mart employee's have anything to gain? They're out of a job, they have to pay a lawyer which ain't cheap. So i still fail to see this "benefit", i don't really buy "making wal mart look bad" as a benefit because they pay millions to PR agencies to make sure that will never happen. So what im getting from your post is that because economic inequality exists we should just stop trying to make things a little bit better? Let's just all vote republican then, why does it matter? Rich people will only get richer. I guess i'll just keep working my de-skilled grocerie store job, i wont go to school, because whats the point? There will always be inequality. lol C'mawn, gimmie a break here, you can always make the world better then what it is, and dismissing the problems aren't going to make it go away, until these problems are at your doorstep - and believe me, they will be at all our door-steps one day - we will have to deal with them one way or another. EDIT: This whole thread went way off it's original posting. I'd like to know what people think of wal-marts actions to their domestic employees? WOuld you be pissed if you found out they were monitoring your emails, your home life etc?

That's just it garsk, they are breaking the law, domestic and international law. Sure maybe people won't care, but there is a massive amount of people who are pushing wal-mart out of their communities in the U.S. and internationally. I'd like to know if people do care or not whether a massive company searches through their things, monitors them outside of work and inside of work, and whether or not they care if their employer looks to see who their associating with, in case there are some "anti-wal-mart" elements influencing there employees. The lowest price has its consequences lol... i had to add in a cheesy line there lol

A former worker at Wal-Mart is claiming the retail giant is running a sophisticated surveillance operation that targets employees, journalists, stockholders and critics. The worker, Bruce Gabbard, says the retail giant spied on employees, journalists, stockholders and critics of the company. Democracy Now! has an interview this week with the journalist you can find here. This is nothing new, the movie "Wal-Mart the high cost of low prices" made similar statements. LINK! Seeing as how Wal-Mart is one of if not the biggest American company who trades in vast amounts with China and is railing through the economy greater scrutiny may be needed for such a large corporate power. Wal-Mart has now grown to the size the old oil companies were in the 60's 70's that were broken up simply because they dominated the market. Will this happen to wal-mart? If not, why isn't that happening? Anyone want to discuss? Edit: link to walmart watch, good link for some info.

Hey I just found this on Youtube, it's really worth a watch and it has to do with the so called liberal media bias,

Very well put!

It's interesting because both sides have kidnapped, i dont know if your aware but the U.S. and Britain who are obviously the big players in Iraq have been abducting people themselves. Specifically the U.S. where before the Britons were taken there werefive Iranian officials abducted in northern Iraq. It looks almost like a prisoners swap because one of the Iranian officials who has been missing for two months was released on tuesday and wensday the Britons were released. I dont know if Iran really was provoking anything, i'd say maybe it's an eye for an eye? Either way, there is a lot more going on here, and with the U.S. plans to strike Iran and their militant posture towards Iran both sides are swinging their labedo around like its a wang on a leash. lol Despite Iran's gesture of good faith the media has been hounding for a reason to deplore the regime, mentioning a possible prisoner swap is only one of the accusations being thrown around. Either way, it's good to hear that people are going home and I dont think anyone can really disagree with that! -EDIT: This is in no way a post supporting the regime, i just hate hypocracy and i see it on the world stage being played out constantly.

Listen here! Check out one man revolution, it's a cool song, it's the guitarist from Rage Against the Machine. It's cool beans!

same! good to hear there are others!

Iran just gave the British soldiers amnesty, its 9:22am here - it's sorta breaking news so as far as im hearing they have been granted amnesty and are going home.

Indeed, Mosedech learned that lesson. This ought to be added to discussion:

hehe yep.. that was the dumbest thing i have ever seen, theres a split second of some dark figure that certainly is not bipedal - and those kids seem to be idiots anyway, so what the hell do they know. Pretty sure if such a thing were to exist it'd be dead by now or there would be more sightings...

That person ... is an idiot. Tensions between the U.K. and Iran are certainly raising, im hearing that John Bolton (the ex-U.S. United Nations representative-dirtbag) said that the U.K. should be getting the U.S. to make Iran "suffer". I'm sure he meant economically lol - but you can tell things are getting out of hand.

my exam prep notes which are 40 some odd pages long need to fuck off and die ... they will be burned by the end of april... oh yes.. they will be burned..

Just curious how many out there like Ben Harper? His older stuff is pretty decent, just check out the song "oppression" if you don't believe me. I dig some of his songs.

the exploits of handbanana

LOl that sounds hott.