22613, RE: you're not reading|
Posted by krewcial, Thu Aug-10-00 10:00 PM
>>Then what do you suggest ?
>>Only power to 'enlightened'
>>people (such as yourself ?),
>>who know what's best for
>>the ignorant masses ?
>How about making a document of
>laws, have the people agree
>to those laws and ideals,
>and then make sure that
>every law and act is
>in strict accordance to those
>laws. That way, the
>law is actually the power
>of the land, and not
>the people who make them.
> Oh yeah, we already
>have done that. It's
>called the Constitution.
Read my question again ... Please at least try to answer it.
>Because you cannot trust every individual
>mind to do the right
>thing. This is Earth,
>not Candy Land. Not
>everyone is nice, and sweet,
>and going to do everything
>for everyone else's interests.
>Therefore to put full trust
>in people is being naive.
>That's why this is
>a nation of laws, not
You don't trust a SINGLE person, what's worse ?
>As far as international exploitation of
>corporations, you need to actually
>refer to the country in
>which the exploiting is done.
>There is no doubt
>that sweatshops are wrong, and
>companies that engage in this
>practice is wrong.
>that's an issue you need
>to consult the host country's
>government about, not the federal
>government. That is not
>in their jurisdiction.
Last time I checked, Nike was an American company, not an Indonesian one.
You act like there's no such thing as globalisation, you completely ignore the ties between big corporations and local governments.
>Another point: if you think
>that foreign businesses are acting
>in this matter, what makes
>you think the domestic businesses
>in that country aren't either?
>Once again, that government
>must be held accountable.
Indeed, that government AND the companies involved. Which means that the governments of the countries where the companies are located are involved too.
You said it yourself : governments should control or check the (il)legality of companies' acts.
>But once again, who are the
>ones to judge if they
>represent the public accurately?
IF they represent the public accurately, that same public will be the one to judge.
>Are we to have referendums
>in order to decide what
>is on the air and
>what isn't? Isn't that
>the same as the censorship
>you complained about you fussed
No, that's called consensus/compromise.
Which is completely different from censorship, since it's been discussed, not imposed.
>>Meaning : a situation completely opposite
>>to the one we know
>>today, where the government represents
>>private/corporate interest and uses the
>>public to finance it.
>Please elaborate on this, because I
>don't understand what you mean.
The taxes you pay are being used to finance projects, executed by companies.
All Western industrialized governments have very close ties with their respective industries (understatement) : government officials go to new plants, have dinner with managers, ...
All of this has evolved to a situation where governments represent the business interests of a country, or better : where big business has managed to use the government for its own expansion and wellbeing.
I don't expect you to know/understand, since you seem to rely on the official version of history.
>I can get sick of breathing,
>but if I don't, I'll
Are you serious about that analogy ?
>It doesn't matter if they are
>sick of it or not,
>the point is that if
>they are not willing to
>stay active and keep up
>with politics then they have
>no right complaining to the
>rest of the world.
What's the use of being active, if that only results in harassment, intimidation or ridiculisation ?
>There are newspapers, magazines, television,
>radio, internet, and other forms
>of information just waiting for
>them to open up and
>access. If they can't
>take the time to open
>up a book and read,
>then it is noone's fault
>but their own.
Some people don't have the time or access to what you mentioned, cos they got their 3 jobs to take care of. And they need to work 3 jobs cos the minimum wage is so low.
Those internet connected PC's at the library are occupied 24/7, plus people who work 60 hours a week for a minimum wage probably have other things on their minds than checking out what sweatshops Nike uses in Indonesia. They just wanna chill, they've worked hard all week.
I'm no different : I'm not debating or reading all the time. Part of it is part of my job, but I don't expect anyone to be informing themselves whenever they have some time off.
>>In your view : yes.
>>Why should it be like
>>that ? You only
>>seem to consider one possibility,
>>accidently (?) your view always
>>seems the worst.
>Well then what other possibility is
>there? If there is
>another way to effectively represent
>the people through democratic means,
>then please inform me.
There's different ways of organising a referendum, different ways of registering people.
If it ever happens, it will take some time to work out, since the US have never known such a thing.
So, considering its amount of people and its diversity, you'll have to develop and search for a specific way to organize democracy. Don't expect me to come with an instant recipe.
All I'm saying is that you'll have to look for efficient AND democratic ways. But you already seem to exclude that, in other words : you don't even want to try.
>What companies are deciding how much
>you pay in taxes?
Since companies are part of the government OR (rephrased) the government defends big business' interests : the amount of taxes depends on how much money is needed for their projects.
Plus : it's more than just 'taxes'. Cutting down on welfare and directing those 'savings' to the military benefits certain companies.
If a US company builds a new military plane, supported by the government, the money needed for the development of that plane will be taken from the public.
Has anyone ever asked you if you agree with that ?
Has any presidential candidate ever mentioned such a thing when they were campaigning ?
Is your input asked when that plane turns out to be a plane that kills people with 'smart bombs' (another Orwellian term) ?
>is the one that decides
>how much is taken out
>of your paycheck for taxes,
>not the company. Nor
>are the companies deciding how
>those taxes are used.
>That's your democratically elected representatives
>that are doing that.
Those representatives are NOT democratically elected (how many people go out and vote ?) Unless all citizens went out to vote (and even then) it's not democracy.
And since there's no effective democratic control on what those representatives do, companies can get away with paying/rewarding those representatives for supporting their plans, meaning making sure the public's money flows in.
>I do mind big business, but
>to think this is the
>1890's all over again is
>unrealistic. Sure there are
>lobbying interests done by corporations
>but they have every right
>to do so, just as
>representatives have a right not
>to accept the lobbying interests.
If only things were that simple.
Things may not seem like 1890 in most parts of the US, but as I said on numerous occasions : the world is not just the US. You can say that you don't care about the rest of the world, but you can't say they don't exist.
Even though you might get the impression, since their voice is rarely heard. G8, Nafta, Rio, WTO, ... always the same story.
>people are discouraged to take
>part in one the most
>important parts of their lives,
>the decision to elect the
>country's leaders, then that's their
>fault, not anyone else's,
I prefer to look at WHY they feel discouraged. There's a reason/logic to this madness. People in power have all interest in alienating and marginalizing the people that aren't, since that means they won't even believe in the potential for change.
Those who do persist, are labelled illegal or persecuted/intimidated/killed.
Black Panthers breakfast program, Ken Saro-Wiwa/Ogoni people, MOVE, Malcolm X, Salvador Allende, MLK, ...
No wonder people give up.
>The content of the program is
>true, but it's also important
>to go pro and con
>on why your idea will
>work and your opponent's wont.
>That's a very important
>step in decision making.
>There is nothing wrong with
>negative campaigning, as long as
>it is not libelous.
>No citizen is denied access to
>learn how to read, therefore
>that is a lie.
>Anyone that wants to learn
>can learn. It's noone's
>fault but their own if
Do you live on planet Earth, and if so : between people, or in some protected cocon ?
Even if YOU had a decent education in a private school, what makes you think it's like that for everyone ?
Man, please read something else than propaganda.
There's plenty of studies illustrating the reasons why people don't have access to education.
>The answer to enlightening people is
>not to lower everything down
>to their level, but to
>have them raise themselves to
>the appropriate level. Sure
>it might make them feel
>good, but that isn't helping
I agree, AT LEAST in a perfect world where everyone has access to education and information.
>The public might finance things, and
>are entitled to know a
>certain portion behind the scenes
>of government, but when you
>talk about public, you don't
>mean only this nation's public,
>but the WROLD's public.
>That's a whole new ballgame.
Not if you understand that the world contributes to the US' wealth BIG TIME. Let's have some fair trade before I'll take that back.
>>Some of these people may have
>>worked for that company for
>>30 years, given the best
>>they got, and are suddenly
>>confronted with no money, no
>>job and no perspective (cos
>>they're too old for today's
>>companies) while at the same
>>time they may have a
>>daughter going to college (so
>>that she wouldn't have to
>>struggle like her parents did).
>Such is life. It's not
>supposed to be easy, man.
> Some win, some lose.
> You gotta roll with
You obviously don't know what the world is like.
>After 30 years, if you haven't
>saved enough money to retire
>with, then tell me, who's
>fault is that?
Too low minimum wages ?
> It's called personal responsibility,
>something alot of people have
>forgotten about. Yeah it's
>a sad thing to see
>people with no money, but
>it's also not something someone
>else should be punished for
>by giving up a part
>of their life and luxury
What about sweatshop and plantation workers in Guatemala ? They're forced to give up (a part of) their life (not even luxury) to enable your wellbeing.
But that's not a problem, since they're not Americans, right ?
>Sometimes it's not
>what you want to do,
>it's what you HAVE to
>do. There are too
>many people expecting government to
>solve all your problems.
>Grow up and solve your
Problem is that government/business doesn't want people to solve their problems themselves. So people are not expecting government to solve it, they're expecting equal opportunities.
>>Oh, they should probably have left
>>the sinking ship in time
>That's right. Sure should have.
No comment. Save this post and reread it in a few years, I hope you'll notice the ignorance of this by then.
>>Uhm ... you actually descibed today's
>>educational process, but you're probably
>>not aware of it.
>>So you think we're all educated
>>freely in schools today, not
>>directed to one or another
>Of course, but we are also
>given the opportunity to have
>individual minds and ideas.
>The very fact that we
>have opposing opinions shows that.
>>There's plenty of studies that show
>>schools cater to and focus
>>on middle class values, a
>>specific work ethic and so
>>on. That means that
>>people who don't have these
>>assets either adapt, or drop
>I agree. You're probably right,
>and these I'm sure are
>referring to public schools.
>However, there are always plenty
>of private schools in order
>to choose from also if
>you don't want your child
>in that atmosphere.
And if you have the money to pay for it (minor detail). Then of course, if you don't have any money, that's probably your own fault, right ?
>Well duh, the things taught in
>school are designed to reflect
>the society we are in.
>It's a school, not
>a brain washing scheme.
Then why should a school in a democratic society not reflect democratic idea(l)s ?
Which means you just took back your criticism of Nader on this point ?
>>Ready to work 70 hours a
>>week in a bank that
>>invests its money in nuclear
>>weapons or for Shell in
>>Nigeria ? You'll get
>>paid, don't worry, but I
>>get the impression that that's
>>the real bribery : you
>>get so much money to
>>make you swallow any possible
>That is their choice to take
>the money just as it
>yours not to take it.
> Whether you believe in
>it or not, you don't
>have a right to tell
>them what and what not
>to invest/work in.
Yes I have if I'm concerned with human rights. Them making that money is DIRECTLY related to the exploitation/oppression of people.
I guess you don't oppose kidnapping and prostituting children either ?
>As for you and Mke, I
>could care less. The
>real fascists are the ones
>that try to front and
>pretend that government can and
>will take care of all
>your hopes and dreams.
Wrong again. You keep talking about this 'government', referring to its current state. In my view, 'government' represents the public, which has democratic control over it.
>Meanwhile, when the going gets
>rough, and for some unlikely
>reason government turns it's ugly
>head against you, who's going
>to protect you then?
Who's protecting me from big business today ?
Who protects workers in the Third World today ?
>And once again,
>you and other African Americans
>that support these measures will
>be victims of government oppression,
>the same things that you
>tried to get away from.
Not if that government is elected and controlled democratically
>Awwww poor thing....did I offend you?
> That's a shame.
>If you think I'm offensive,
>wait until reality hits you.
It already has. Wait until you're fired one day, and loose all your privileges that come with your role as an accomplice in capitalism.
>Hence, you can take your toys
>and go home. Just
>remember that the truth is
>still out there...and whether it's
>offensive or not, that's something
>that you'll never be able
>to change. Bottom line.
I AM changing it right now. But I don't expect you to see it.
>And a PROUD black conservative.
should be PROUD fascist actually ...
OKAYPLAYER COMPILATION 2000 !!!
OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 2 :
OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 1 (the original baybee !!):
HOME : http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators
I'm part of this too ... :
the instrumentals for my next album (in MP3-format) :
'We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth'