Not entirely true. If the G8 folks really wanted to avoid "collateral damage" they'd hold their meetings in Switzerland or maybe Finland.
"Collateral damage" occurs in any battle. If you hold the battle in Switzerland the "collateral damage" would simply include a higher "loss of human life" content. (forshadowing of the coming WTO summit in Qatar?) The real issue is the fact that the battle takes place. Protestors don't gather and put their personal well-being at risk for no reason. In the case of those protesting in Genoa, the reasons are varied but centered around a single point: globalization and big government has not helped the people. Money doesn't matter; government doesn't matter; people do matter. The people have not been helped by the forces of globalization. The people have not been helped by the World Bank, IMF, G8. That is, the people that populate the cities and farm the countryside. The elite few % of the people who control the world, via government and corporations, exploit the rest of the world for their benefit. G8 is just one of their tools. They are helped by the World Bank. They are the ones being opposed by the protestors. They will be made accountable for their actions--these battles will not end. Revolutions and Civil Wars have occurred regularly for hundreds of years over this very issue. This war has simply escalated to the scale that is has because the enemy has escalated to the scale that it has. It takes tens of thousands or protestors to get a message out against a global governmental organization. Contrary to the statements made by current "world leaders", this is democracy in action.
"Anonymous" wrote:
"Collateral damage" occurs in any battle. If you hold the battle in Switzerland the "collateral damage" would simply include a higher "loss of human life" content...
The real issue is the fact that the battle takes place.
*IF* the battle takes place. What if they gave a war and nobody came? I really doubt there would be any greater loss of human life were the meeting held in Switzerland for reasons I'll get into below.
Protestors don't gather and put their personal well-being at risk for no reason...
That's an interesting, but unsupported assumption.
...In the case of those protesting in Genoa, the reasons are varied but centered around a single point: globalization and big government has not helped the people.
Those may be their STATED reasons, but I submit that you have no idea what the "protestors" actual motivations are. If we all look back to our younger days, I think we can see a much more plausible explanation for their actions. Hell raising. For certain people at certain ages, it's FUN to riot, throw things at the cops, trash stores, overturn cars and burn stuff. It is exactly the real lack of coherent messages from the "protestors" that supports this obvious conclusion. At the University of Michigan, the riots were basically the same, only the justification was more banal--the outlawing of booze on campus. It should be obvious that these riots are not so much ideologically motivated (though that's the pseudo-rational), but testosterone motivated. Most of these monkeys couldn't spell anarchy let alone understand it philosophically. Let's not confuse the cover story with the real motive--fucking stuff up for the fun of it. Money doesn't matter; government doesn't matter; people
do matter. The people have not been helped by the forces of globalization. The people have not been helped by the World Bank, IMF, G8. That is, the people that populate the cities and farm the countryside. The elite few % of the people who control the world, via government and corporations, exploit the rest of the world for their benefit. G8 is just one of their tools. They are helped by the World Bank. They are the ones being opposed by the protestors. They will be made accountable for their actions--these battles will not end.
Revolutions and Civil Wars have occurred regularly for hundreds of years over this very issue. This war has simply escalated to the scale that is has because the enemy has escalated to the scale that it has. It takes tens of thousands or protestors to get a message out against a global governmental organization.
Contrary to the statements made by current "world leaders", this is democracy in action.
So, if the "protestors" were faced with a REAL opportunity to get hurt, other than the mostly fake danger of charging police lines, I doubt many would bother to show up. Hell, running with the bulls at Pamplona is a more dangerous rite of passage than torching a MacDonald's in Genoa. If you think these folks have deep ideological/philosophical support for their rioting, you have been duped. S a n d y
On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 01:11:27PM -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
It should be obvious that these riots are not so much ideologically motivated (though that's the pseudo-rational), but testosterone motivated. Most of these monkeys couldn't spell anarchy let alone understand it philosophically. Let's not confuse the cover story with the real motive--fucking stuff up for the fun of it.
Right. Moreover, from admittedly-incomplete news reports, this summit seems to have been plagued with a higher number and a higher percentage of "rioters" than previous gatherings. -Declan
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
It should be obvious that these riots are not so much ideologically motivated (though that's the pseudo-rational), but testosterone motivated. Most of these monkeys couldn't spell anarchy let alone understand it philosophically. Let's not confuse the cover story with the real motive--fucking stuff up for the fun of it.
Hmmm. I was digging after this for a while, trying to figure out why these people were rioting. As you note, there's no real coherent message from the protesters, not even a thread of unifying platform or goals. But then, the information content of what comes out of the mouth of someone who's just hit his/her thumb with a hammer is pretty low, too. It doesn't mean s/he doesn't have a real concern. This is just a guess, but what *I* think motivates these people is frustration and disenfranchisement. It's not that any substantial group of them want any particular thing, it's just that the whole bunch of them feel that they don't have a voice in what's happening any more. The "globalization" people are consulting *each other* instead of the people affected by the laws to figure out what laws they should pass, and the people are pissed off because they don't feel that they have any input into the process. Also, the personal pressure on them is a little higher every year as the forces of capitalism get more ruthless and efficient at exploiting them as a market and as cheap labor - and the barriers to actually starting a business of one's own seem to be going nowhere but up - so they're also frustrated by the fact that even though they may be making more money, they're still working for other people and at the end of the day they're still poorer. Capitalism from the worker's perspective means working longer hours, getting paid more, and winding up under family pressure (because your family is an intensely and effectively targeted market) to spend it all on stupid stuff. Furbys, TV's, and barbie dolls, for god's sake. So at the end of the day they have more stupid crap but they're poorer and more tired and have less time to spend with their family - and after a while they get frustrated. But none, or few, of them see it in exactly those terms. They're just angry and frustrated and they don't really know why. The few issues they believe in are getting ignored, so they go protest about those few issues and it turns into a chaotic mess because everybody has different issues and different degrees of how pissed- off they really are. More frustration. Bear
Ray Dillinger wrote:
This is just a guess, but what *I* think motivates these people is frustration and disenfranchisement. It's not that any substantial group of them want any particular thing, it's just that the whole bunch of them feel that they don't have a voice in what's happening any more. The "globalization" people are consulting *each other* instead of the people affected by the laws to figure out what laws they should pass, and the people are pissed off because they don't feel that they have any input into the process.
There are several possible answers to what you have written. First, at least theoretically, your "'globalization' people" were elected to represent the people. In a democratic system, the people's "input" into the process is the ballot box choice of their representatives. That's theory. Personally, I think the problem is the idea that we need laws (i.e., the threat of violence) to address the problems in question.
Also, the personal pressure on them is a little higher every year as the forces of capitalism get more ruthless and efficient at exploiting them as a market and as cheap labor...
I'm not sure what you are talking about. What are the "forces of capitalism" to which you refer? Personally, I try to avoid the word "capitalism" at all. First, it's a pejorative Marxist term. Second, everybody seems to have a different definition. If you mean "free market economics" I totally disagree with you. If you mean government welfare for favored businesses, well, we might have some common ground there. Clear definitions make all the difference in the world.
Capitalism from the worker's perspective means working longer hours, getting paid more, and winding up under family pressure (because your family is an intensely and effectively targeted market) to spend it all on stupid stuff. Furbys, TV's, and barbie dolls, for god's sake. So at the end of the day they have more stupid crap but they're poorer and more tired and have less time to spend with their family - and after a while they get frustrated.
I'm sorry, the Furby definition of capitalism isn't very cogent or helpful.
But none, or few, of them see it in exactly those terms. They're just angry and frustrated and they don't really know why.
Why don't they know why? Can't they read? I have so sympathy for militant ignorance when the world is awash in information about how things work.
The few issues they believe in are getting ignored...
Which issues are those? So far, I haven't heard of ANY issues raised by the rioters that are being ignored. Controversial/unproven issues such as "global warming" are being discussed ad nausea. The main reason the governments of the world aren't "doing something" is because no one knows what really needs to be done. Ignorant rioters THINK they know what needs to be done, but there is no reason to believe they know squat about the subject for which they claim to have such passion about. Opinions--and that's all we're talking about here--are like assholes; everyone has one. S a n d y
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
There are several possible answers to what you have written. First, at least theoretically, your "'globalization' people" were elected to represent the people. In a democratic system, the people's "input" into the process is the ballot box choice of their representatives.
Unless faced with a "choice" between tweedledum and tweedledee. Which is the status quo these days at least in the US. In nations with proportional representation, things may be different.
Also, the personal pressure on them is a little higher every year as the forces of capitalism get more ruthless and efficient at exploiting them as a market and as cheap labor...
I'm not sure what you are talking about. What are the "forces of capitalism" to which you refer? Personally, I try to avoid the word "capitalism" at all. First, it's a pejorative Marxist term. Second, everybody seems to have a different definition.
Hmm. What I was referring to is the science of marketing, and the fact that the data available to do it is ever more precise and personal. When marketing and advertisement get sufficiently sophisticated, the "average" person feels more pressure to buy stuff. In the aggregate, we see a lower savings rate, but on the personal level, I think it's a source of stress -- a feeling of being on a treadmill. This is one of the main reasons I no longer indulge in advertising-supported media myself; I wasn't able to handle it and keep my tendency toward depression in check.
If you mean "free market economics" I totally disagree with you. If you mean government welfare for favored businesses, well, we might have some common ground there. Clear definitions make all the difference in the world.
Nah. Free market economics is fine, and necessary, the way water is fine and necessary. But lately it's seemed a lot like the water is boiling hot and under about ten atmospheres of pressure. It gets a little stifling when people can't or don't control how much pressure (as advertising etc) they are exposed to.
I'm sorry, the Furby definition of capitalism isn't very cogent or helpful.
Let's put it this way; why would a rational person or even a sane person purchase a furby? It is useless; it is annoying; its expected lifespan is under five weeks; your kids will be unhappy when (not if) it breaks; and its price exceeds that of two good meals at a nice restaurant. I maintain that people buy furbys (and most other "fad" items) because of pressure and false expectations raised by carefully- designed advertising, and then fall into inevitable disappointment with the real item. In short, they are acting irrationally, and have given people a vested interest in maintaining their lack of mental health. I believe in capitalism where it meets real needs; where rational buyers meet rational sellers, where the customers know what they're buying and will in fact be well-served by it, I am delighted to be part of the transaction. But the science of marketing is increasingly about arresting the processes of rational thought, and even the processes of mental health, in order to induce people to buy crap which they don't need, won't or can't use, or can't get any real satisfaction from. Sometimes I wish I could grab people and shake them and yell, "no, the car will not come equipped with a bikini model. Make your decision about the car, not about the woman..." It's not *explicit* deception. But I believe that the marketer today, and particularly the marketer in posession of personal information, unfairly distorts people's perceptions to a point where the average consumer is no longer an equal rational agent in financial transactions. People are buying things that they later regret buying. On the one hand, you can call it "survival pressure" and hope that the next generation will be smarter. On the other hand, it's just one more example of the kind of things that make life suck if you're on the recieving end. And on the gripping hand, it's why some of us are concerned about the use of private information by marketers. This is why people feel exploited by "capitalism", giving rise to some of the "anti-capitalist" rhetoric that's come out of the protests. Bear
Ray Dillinger wrote:
What I was referring to [by the term, "capitalism"] is the science of marketing...
Well that's a new one. First, I think referring to the "science" of marketing is a bit of an overstatement. Sort of what marketeers might like you to think they do. (Hmm, maybe it's working.) Second, this soi-disant "science" doesn't seem to work of me or thee. Of course you could take the elitist position, that we are better than the "average"... Third, it doesn't explain why so many businesses fail (1 in 12 in the US). If they are so good at selling us crap we don't need, why can't they stay in business?
Let's put it this way; why would a rational person or even a sane person purchase a furby?
Because their kid wants it?
It is useless;...
Not if it entertains.
it is annoying;...
To some people. That's why there are horse races, differences of opinion.
its expected lifespan is under five weeks;...
So are porterhouse steaks and orgasms. I still like them both.
your kids will be unhappy when (not if) it breaks;...
Then I guess we shouldn't let them have ANY toys?
and its price exceeds that of two good meals at a nice restaurant...
See "horse race" comment above.
I maintain that people buy furbys (and most other "fad" items) because of pressure and false expectations raised by carefully- designed advertising...
So why don't you have a furby? I guess it didn't work, huh? Assuming, arguendo, that this pressure is all that great, think of it as evolution in action. We are breeding a more advertising-resistant human. Or as you put it:
On the one hand, you can call it "survival pressure" and hope that the next generation will be smarter.
...This is why people feel exploited by "capitalism", giving rise to some of the "anti-capitalist" rhetoric that's come out of the protests.
Are you sure you aren't just projecting? ;-D S a n d y
At 11:30 PM -0700 7/22/01, Ray Dillinger wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
I'm not sure what you are talking about. What are the "forces of capitalism" to which you refer? Personally, I try to avoid the word "capitalism" at all. First, it's a pejorative Marxist term. Second, everybody seems to have a different definition.
Hmm. What I was referring to is the science of marketing, and the fact that the data available to do it is ever more precise and personal. When marketing and advertisement get sufficiently sophisticated, the "average" person feels more pressure to buy stuff. In the aggregate, we see a lower savings rate, but on the personal level, I think it's a source of stress -- a feeling of being on a treadmill. This is one of the main reasons I no longer indulge in advertising-supported media myself; I wasn't able to handle it and keep my tendency toward depression in check.
I recently got into an argument with an (apparently) elderly lady on a Firearms rights mailing list who was incredibly annoyed that because of her arthritis she was going to have to "live with the pain" the rest of her life. She somehow thought that this was a new and unique thing. The only thing new about it was that *she didn't expect it*. My father grew up during the depression, he lived in what today would be called a ghetto, except most of the people there weren't black. He often went barefoot in the summer so that they wouldn't spend money on Shoes. His father died when he was 14, and his older brother supported him and their mother until my father dropped out of school (at 16) to work. There was a *lot* that the non-specialized, non-personalized media pushed in those days that many people couldn't afford, that they saw in the newspapers or heard about on the radio, or saw in the stores that they couldn't afford, and for the most part their parents *told them so*. They learned, as my parents taught me, that you can't always have what you want. The pressures of commercial advertising--in the sense of mass media--have been with us for as long as there has been mass media. You either deal with it as an adult, or you deal with it as a child. To complain that people are making you want something and they should stop is definitely in the realm of the latter. I say this as someone who has a bit more credit card debt than he really should, so I understand the consumeristic drive, but it's really all about self-disipline, now isn't it? Which is one of the things people who rail against capitalism are really complaining about.
If you mean "free market economics" I totally disagree with you. If you mean government welfare for favored businesses, well, we might have some common ground there. Clear definitions make all the difference in the world.
Nah. Free market economics is fine, and necessary, the way water is fine and necessary. But lately it's seemed a lot like the water is boiling hot and under about ten atmospheres of pressure. It gets a little stifling when people can't or don't control how much pressure (as advertising etc) they are exposed to.
You left out one word in there. Won't.
I'm sorry, the Furby definition of capitalism isn't very cogent or helpful.
Let's put it this way; why would a rational person or even a sane person purchase a furby? It is useless; it is annoying; its expected
Mostly to stop their children from wailing about wanting one. Children are, almost by definition, not sane people.
lifespan is under five weeks; your kids will be unhappy when (not if) it breaks; and its price exceeds that of two good meals at a nice restaurant. I maintain that people buy furbys (and most other "fad" items) because of pressure and false expectations raised by carefully- designed advertising, and then fall into inevitable disappointment with the real item. In short, they are acting irrationally, and have given people a vested interest in maintaining their lack of mental health.
As someone who has 12 computers laying around his "office" along with innumerable parts, piles of half-read books, 2 motorcycles, 3 bicycles etc. I couldn't agree with you more.
I believe in capitalism where it meets real needs; where rational buyers meet rational sellers, where the customers know what they're buying and will in fact be well-served by it, I am delighted to be part of the transaction.
But the science of marketing is increasingly about arresting the processes of rational thought, and even the processes of mental health, in order to induce people to buy crap which they don't need, won't or can't use, or can't get any real satisfaction from.
Nonsense. Advertising only works on adults (or rather rational people) when it shows them something they already want.
Sometimes I wish I could grab people and shake them and yell, "no, the car will not come equipped with a bikini model. Make your decision about the car, not about the woman..." It's not *explicit* deception. But I believe that the marketer today, and particularly the marketer in posession of personal information, unfairly distorts people's perceptions to a point where the average consumer is no longer an equal rational agent in financial transactions. People are buying things that they later regret buying.
Marketing has not gotten anywhere near that personal. I don't receive car commercials with a picture of a buxom oriental woman wearing red PVC undergarments, while my neighbor get his with a picture of one of maplethorpe's models. Now, granted part of this is because it's not commercial feasible, and I doubt it ever will be. No, the most that "modern advertising science" has been able to do is to direct clients NOT to advertise in places where they won't get a ROI, in favor of places that WILL. That, and these days you rarely get mail addressed to "Dear Customer" as laser printers can now make that "Dear Mr. CypherPunk". If you can't see through something like that, you *deserve* to be deep in debt.
On the one hand, you can call it "survival pressure" and hope that the next generation will be smarter. On the other hand, it's
It's not a question of being "smarter", it's a question of self disipline. My generation (well, most of them) didn't need it, so we never learned it (like I said, most of them). From what I've seen, the generation following us doesn't have it either.
just one more example of the kind of things that make life suck if you're on the recieving end. And on the gripping hand, it's why some of us are concerned about the use of private information by marketers. This is why people feel exploited by "capitalism", giving rise to some of the "anti-capitalist" rhetoric that's come out of the protests.
Funny thing, one of the guys I work with, a reasonably competent Systems Administrator (meaning that he has the ability to think logically when pressed) rants about corporate greed and all that, but he's working at (at least) his second start-up, stock options and all.
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Petro wrote:
At 11:30 PM -0700 7/22/01, Ray Dillinger wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
The pressures of commercial advertising--in the sense of mass media--have been with us for as long as there has been mass media.
You either deal with it as an adult, or you deal with it as a child. To complain that people are making you want something and they should stop is definitely in the realm of the latter.
I was never really socialized enough for it to work all that well. But I had to just stop listening, because it made me angry day after day.
I say this as someone who has a bit more credit card debt than he really should, so I understand the consumeristic drive, but it's really all about self-disipline, now isn't it?
Self-discipline in an arms race with techniques designed to suppress or defeat it, yes. And that's only on the personal level. On the personal level, I'm now pretty insulated from most marketing campaigns, so that's not all that relevant to me. However, the societal effects are nasty, because the *widespread* suppression of self-discipline leads to a lot of stupid, wasteful, or harmful effects that are very widespread, and which I can't get away from. Personally, I am debt-free, and frankly loving it. It is hard to understand how much debt sucks until you get the opportunity to live without it. I highly recommend it.
gets a little stifling when people can't or don't control how much pressure (as advertising etc) they are exposed to.
You left out one word in there.
Won't.
Bingo. Won't. And are intentionally maintained in a condition where they won't, at least until they break away from the herd and strike out in their own direction.
Let's put it this way; why would a rational person or even a sane person purchase a furby? It is useless; it is annoying; its expected
Mostly to stop their children from wailing about wanting one.
Children are, almost by definition, not sane people.
Bingo. Family pressure, brought about by marketing. That's part of the whole crazy-making cycle. 'Mommy's not home for dinner, sweety, because she's working overtime to buy you a furby.... she's on the fucking treadmill, and you helped put her there. Want some pie?'
But the science of marketing is increasingly about arresting the processes of rational thought, and even the processes of mental health, in order to induce people to buy crap which they don't need, won't or can't use, or can't get any real satisfaction from.
Advertising only works on adults (or rather rational people) when it shows them something they already want.
You are correct; and therefore, it is in the best interests of marketers to make sure that everything is as banal and bland as possible, and that all the ideas are prepackaged - specifically in order to prevent people from growing up emotionally, or becoming rational. They're doing an increasingly effective job of it and whether we're directly included/affected ourselves or not, whether we are consumerist zombies or critical-thinking adults, we have to live in the sick society that results from their handiwork.
Marketing has not gotten anywhere near that personal.
Yes, it has.
I don't receive car commercials with a picture of a buxom oriental woman wearing red PVC undergarments, while my neighbor get his with a picture of one of maplethorpe's models. Now, granted part of this is because it's not commercial feasible, and I doubt it ever will be.
Trust me on this; it will be. Men known to be gay are already getting car adverts featuring leather-clad men instead of the customary bikini babes, and offered accessories like rainbow stickers direct from the dealers. From here out, it's only a matter of refinement. Ultimately, if the car dealers find out enough, the question is only about whether the marginal sales to people who like busty oriental babes in red PVC underwear will pay for the photo shoot, ad composition, and printing costs. Digital imaging and "poser" software drives down the cost of the first, Expert Systems are driving down the cost of the second, and printing costs are already pretty damn minor.
No, the most that "modern advertising science" has been able to do is to direct clients NOT to advertise in places where they won't get a ROI, in favor of places that WILL.
With the result that practically *every* ad you see causes pressure, because all the ones that wouldn't get an ROI (which wouldn't cause pressure) are elsewhere. The total pressure on each and every consumer has dramatically increased. Bear
At 1:18 PM -0700 7/22/01, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Ray Dillinger wrote:
This is just a guess, but what *I* think motivates these people is frustration and disenfranchisement. It's not that any substantial group of them want any particular thing, it's just that the whole bunch of them feel that they don't have a voice in what's happening any more. The "globalization" people are consulting *each other* instead of the people affected by the laws to figure out what laws they should pass, and the people are pissed off because they don't feel that they have any input into the process.
There are several possible answers to what you have written. First, at least theoretically, your "'globalization' people" were elected to represent the people. In a democratic system, the people's "input" into the process is the ballot box choice of their representatives.
Theoretically my ass. I'd bet my wife's next paycheck that at least 90% of those bastards are appointed.
That's theory. Personally, I think the problem is the idea that we need laws (i.e., the threat of violence) to address the problems in question.
The problem is that we've got a bunch of pansy ass fascists running this country, and they are willing to hand large parts of our sovereignty over to a committee made up mostly of other fascists and socialists. While I disagree with (what little) philosophy is behind these protestors, I have to agree that what is going on behind those doors is *not* in the best interests of America, nor IMO in the best interest of the "poorer" nations in this world.
Capitalism from the worker's perspective means working longer hours, getting paid more, and winding up under family pressure (because your family is an intensely and effectively targeted market) to spend it all on stupid stuff. Furbys, TV's, and barbie dolls, for god's sake. So at the end of the day they have more stupid crap but they're poorer and more tired and have less time to spend with their family - and after a while they get frustrated.
I'm sorry, the Furby definition of capitalism isn't very cogent or helpful.
But none, or few, of them see it in exactly those terms. They're just angry and frustrated and they don't really know why.
Why don't they know why? Can't they read? I have so sympathy for militant ignorance when the world is awash in information about how things work.
The problem is that *most* of the information is wrong, and the stuff that is accurate says basically "Unless you are *really* lucky, *really* smart, or born rich, you are never going to be in the top 5%, and most likely you don't deserve to be there". This really annoys people who have been raised to think that they are brilliant, and really don't want to settle for working 40+ hours a week, forcing themselves to *not* buy stoopid trendy shit so as to save for their retirement, and then retire when they are too old to really enjoy it. They don't like that. They want to work a "fulfilling" job, make 100k a year, and have the government pay for their retirement when they don't feel like working any more. Life ain't like that. As much as I hate "bumper sticker" Philosophy, I saw one recently that these people need to take to heart: Life is not a beach, it's a mountain. And yes, I realize I'm painting with a broad brush. Many of these protestors simply don't like that their lifestyle/standard of living is changing becuase technology has made it possible for some uneducated (or undereducated) third worlder to do their job at 1/10th the price (or less). Some are genuinely concerned (I'm thinking back to the Seattle Protests) that NAFTA is allowing (supposedly, I don't know the truth) trucks and drivers into the country that have sub-standard safety inspections and sub-standard training (although I know that many of the American Trucks aren't exactly up to code). There are a plethora of reasons why people are protesting, and many more reasons that other people who aren't the kind to protest don't like what is going on.
The few issues they believe in are getting ignored...
Which issues are those? So far, I haven't heard of ANY issues raised by the rioters that are being ignored. Controversial/unproven issues such as "global warming" are being discussed ad nausea. The main reason the governments of the world aren't "doing something" is because no one knows what really needs to be done. Ignorant rioters THINK they know what needs to be done, but there is no reason to believe they know squat about the subject for which they claim to have such passion about. Opinions--and that's all we're talking about here--are like assholes; everyone has one.
Come on, "global warming" is a fact. We've gotten about .6 degrees warmer in the last 100 years. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING BEFORE NEW YORK IS UNDER WATER.
Petro wrote:
I'd bet my wife's next paycheck that at least 90% of those bastards are appointed.
I wouldn't take that bet because I'm sure you are right. However, that just begs the question. Ultimately those bastards were appointed by someone who was elected democratically. (Now don't hang any signs on me. I'm not saying this is a "good thing" only that it still falls within the democratic paradigm.)
The problem is that we've got a bunch of pansy ass fascists running this country, and they are willing to hand large parts of our sovereignty over to a committee made up mostly of other fascists and socialists.
No argument there, but I think the barbarians at the gate (the rioters) would be infinitely worse.
While I disagree with (what little) philosophy is behind these protestors, I have to agree that what is going on behind those doors is *not* in the best interests of America, nor IMO in the best interest of the "poorer" nations in this world.
You are right again, but, as above, the rioters' "cure" would be worse than the disease. A plague on both there houses.
I have so sympathy for militant ignorance when the world is awash in information about how things work.
The problem is that *most* of the information is wrong...
Theodore Sturgeon once began a speech at a science fiction convention by saying, "90% of science fiction is crap." After the stunned silence he added, "90% of EVERYTHING is crap." Sure most of the information is wrong; so what? That's where critical thinking has to come in. The rioters are clearly on an emotional trip not an intellectual one.
They want to work a "fulfilling" job, make 100k a year, and have the government pay for their retirement when they don't feel like working any more.
Yeah, and I want to fuck Claudia Schiffer. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. The world is as it is, not as how we would wish it to be. The Genoa rioters are throwing a childish tantrum. When (if) they grow up, maybe they will do what is really necessary to change the system.
Come on, "global warming" is a fact. We've gotten about .6 degrees warmer in the last 100 years. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING BEFORE NEW YORK IS UNDER WATER.
Yup, I'm buying my beachfront property in the Sierras, even as we speak. My next door neighbor is Kevin Costner. :-D S a n d y
At 11:29 PM -0700 7/22/01, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Petro wrote:
I'd bet my wife's next paycheck that at least 90% of those bastards are appointed.
I wouldn't take that bet because I'm sure you are right. However, that just begs the question. Ultimately those bastards were appointed by someone who was elected democratically. (Now don't hang any signs on me. I'm not saying this is a "good thing" only that it still falls within the democratic paradigm.)
Not really (and that's not "begging the question"). Even if one assumes that the G8 reps from this country are directly appointed by elected officials (and it's not a bet I'd be willing to take), I'd bet that most of the others are not. And the people who advise this Rep are even less accountable to the electorate.
The problem is that we've got a bunch of pansy ass fascists running this country, and they are willing to hand large parts of our sovereignty over to a committee made up mostly of other fascists and socialists.
No argument there, but I think the barbarians at the gate (the rioters) would be infinitely worse.
Nah, most of them don't have guns.
I have so sympathy for militant ignorance when the world is awash in information about how things work.
The problem is that *most* of the information is wrong...
Theodore Sturgeon once began a speech at a science fiction convention by saying, "90% of science fiction is crap." After the stunned silence he added, "90% of EVERYTHING is crap."
Oh, and optimist.
Sure most of the information is wrong; so what? That's where critical thinking has to come in. The rioters are clearly on an emotional trip not an intellectual one.
They want to work a "fulfilling" job, make 100k a year, and have the government pay for their retirement when they don't feel like working any more.
Yeah, and I want to fuck Claudia Schiffer. If wishes were horses, beggars
Who doesn't?
would ride. The world is as it is, not as how we would wish it to be. The Genoa rioters are throwing a childish tantrum. When (if) they grow up, maybe they will do what is really necessary to change the system.
The system, at least the part that really bothers them, cannot be changed. The laws of physics, as near a we can tell are, outside of a black hole, fairly impervious to change.
Come on, "global warming" is a fact. We've gotten about .6 degrees warmer in the last 100 years. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING BEFORE NEW YORK IS UNDER WATER.
Yup, I'm buying my beachfront property in the Sierras, even as we speak. My next door neighbor is Kevin Costner. :-D
Well, at least you have a moving target to shoot at.
Petro wrote:
Even if one assumes that the G8 reps from this country are directly appointed by elected officials (and it's not a bet I'd be willing to take), I'd bet that most of the others are not.
Maybe yes, maybe no, but the G8 are all nominally democratic. Anything to back up your assumption? Anyway, democracy is just the dictatorship of the proletariat. I'm against ALL dictatorships. As I've been saying, having either of those sets of monkeys at Genoa having any power over me is not my ideal.
No argument there, but I think the barbarians at the gate (the rioters) would be infinitely worse.
Nah, most of them don't have guns.
It was a hypothetical statement. If the rioters were in charge they WOULD have the guns, by definition. Were that the case, I think they would be infinitely worse.
..."90% of EVERYTHING is crap."
Oh, and optimist.
Yeah, I thought so too.
The system, at least the part that really bothers them, cannot be changed.
The laws of physics, as near a we can tell are, outside of a black hole, fairly impervious to change.
So your beef is against physics? Man, and I thought those rioters were wishful thinkers. What's at the top of your list, gravity? Rock on. S a n d y
Petro wrote:
Even if one assumes that the G8 reps from this country are directly appointed by elected officials (and it's not a bet I'd be willing to take), I'd bet that most of the others are not.
Maybe yes, maybe no, but the G8 are all nominally democratic.
Nominally being the key word.
Anything to back up your assumption?
Nothing I can point to, mostly vague rememberings of stuff I'd read. I may be wrong about the G8--I may have it a little confused with the WTO. It's all part of the same bullshit in my mind.
Anyway, democracy is just the dictatorship of the proletariat. I'm against ALL dictatorships. As I've been saying, having either of those sets of monkeys at Genoa having any power over me is not my ideal.
I'm not arguing that.
No argument there, but I think the barbarians at the gate (the rioters) would be infinitely worse.
Nah, most of them don't have guns.
It was a hypothetical statement. If the rioters were in charge they WOULD have the guns, by definition. Were that the case, I think they would be infinitely worse.
Well, given that the fascists we have in charge now are *relatively* rational and reading from pretty much the same playbook (meaning the are fairly well organized relatively speaking), you are probably right. With the protestors in charge we'd wind up in a war.
..."90% of EVERYTHING is crap." Oh, and optimist. Yeah, I thought so too.
I did time in Art School. It's more like 99%.
The system, at least the part that really bothers them, cannot be changed.
The laws of physics, as near a we can tell are, outside of a black hole, fairly impervious to change.
So your beef is against physics? Man, and I thought those rioters were wishful thinkers. What's at the top of your list, gravity? Rock on.
It's not my beef, personally I'm a big fan of gravity. And friction. It keeps my motorcycle (mostly) on the ground, and friction keeps me from sliding into cars as often. Besides, without gravity wheelies wouldn't be nearly as much fun.
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Petro wrote:
Even if one assumes that the G8 reps from this country are directly appointed by elected officials (and it's not a bet I'd be willing to take), I'd bet that most of the others are not.
Maybe yes, maybe no, but the G8 are all nominally democratic. Anything to back up your assumption?
Yes, the vast majority of government employees are not elected.
Anyway, democracy is just the dictatorship of the proletariat.
How can a group be a dictator, which is by definition a single individual?
No argument there, but I think the barbarians at the gate (the rioters) would be infinitely worse.
Nah, most of them don't have guns.
It was a hypothetical statement.
Spin doctor bullshit. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting Sandy Sandfort (sandfort@mindspring.com):
But none, or few, of them see it in exactly those terms. They're just angry and frustrated and they don't really know why.
Why don't they know why? Can't they read? I have so sympathy for militant ignorance when the world is awash in information about how things work.
I can sympathise with taht sentiment somewhat, but the problem for everyone is that there is so much information that choosing a priori what might be useful to know is difficult. This is of course why technologies such as artificial intelligence and consequently, intelligent agents, may eventually demonstrate their usefulness. Until we have intelligent agents which can sift through the morass that is the info-sphere to locate truly useful and timely information, you might consider giving the ignorant masses something of a break on this point. A person without supplemental information sources may be effectively blind if he relies only on print and broadcast media -- even Usenet -- and may only have vague suspicions that something critical is missing from his information sources. Regards, Steve -- ``If religion were nothing but an illusion and a sham, there could be no philosophy of it. The study of it would belong to abnormal psychology.... Religion cannot afford to claim exemption from philosophical enquiry. If it attempts to do so on the grounds of sanctity, it can only draw upon itself suspicion that it is afraid to face the music.'' -- H. J. Paton, "The Modern Predicament"
Exactly, and democracy is as unpopular as always for those who believe they should somehow 'lead' others 'less able'. "I am not one who fears the people." Thomas Jefferson On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Anonymous wrote:
The real issue is the fact that the battle takes place.
Contrary to the statements made by current "world leaders", this is democracy in action.
-- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (8)
-
Anonymous -
Declan McCullagh -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate -
Petro -
Ray Dillinger -
Sandy Sandfort -
Steve Thompson