Freedom of the Press?

[Morpheus]

http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=924

US will muzzle al-Jazeera giving control to rich Saudi oil men

"The Insider" mailing list article, 15 February 2005.

US accused of plan to muzzle al-Jazeera through privatisation

America and its key ally Saudi Arabia are being accused of quietly seeking to muzzle al-Jazeera, the Arab satellite news station that has often incurred Washington's ire for its coverage of Iraq and President George Bush's "war on terror".

According to reports in the US and the Gulf, the Qatari government, owner of al-Jazeera since its foundation in 1996, has ordered privatisation plans for the station to be speeded up. Many al-Jazeera employees fear this could lead to a loss of editorial freedom. A set of proposals is already said to have been presented to al-Jazeera's board of directors.

US officials reject all charges of meddling. Nonetheless, such suspicions are inevitable. Senior US officials, among them the Vice-President Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, have fiercely criticised al-Jazeera for what they say is biased and inflammatory reporting.

Washington has been particularly irritated by the station's coverage of civilian casualties and destruction caused by US troops in Iraq, and by its airing of messages from Osama bin Laden, the al-Qa'ida leader. In Iraq and some other Arab countries, al-Jazeera offices have been shut down.

At the same time the Qatari government's ownership of the station has strained diplomatic ties between Washington and one of its traditional allies in the Gulf. In what was seen as a sign of US displeasure, the emirate was conspicuously not invited to a summit on Middle East democracy last summer. Though Qatar has pledged to defend the station's independence (not least as proof of its sincerity in promising greater democracy at home), its diplomats in Washington have reportedly been asked to tone down the station's coverage.

With a regular audience of between 35 and 50 million, al-Jazeera is the most popular source of news in the Arab world. It is a rare beacon of uninhibited reporting and free expression in a region where strict state control of the media is the norm.

But it has rarely been profitable and relies on an estimated $100m (£53m) annual funding from its government sponsor. Assuming privatisation goes ahead, the station is likely to be listed on Qatar's stock market, where most of its shares would be available only to citizens of member countries of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC). This could allow Saudi Arabia, the richest GCC member and a prime source of media funding across the region, to gain a major stake in al-Jazeera. The Saudi regime has also been a vigorous critic of al-Jazeera's coverage of opponents of the regime. It has already suspended advertising on the station - adding to its financial problems.

But the quandary is deepest for Washington. Officials maintain that slanted reporting by the station has contributed to the surge of anti-Americanism across the Arab world. But an attempt to silence this inconvenient voice would run contrary to the proclaimed US intention of fostering free speech and democracy in the region.

SOURCE

The Independent, "US muzzles al-Jazeera as rich Saudi oil men take control", 15 February 2005.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=611218
Note the original source of the above article was The Independent http://www.counterpunch.org/brauchli03052005.html

Weekend Edition
March 5 / 6, 2005

From Stingers to Stringers in Qatar
Target: Al Jazeera
By CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI

Making the world safe for hypocrisy.
Thomas Wolfe, Look Homeward Angel

It's easy to get crosswise with the United States. Just ask Qatar. In 1988 it was Stinger missiles-today it's Al Jazeera.

Back in 1988 the United States was on the same side as the Afghan rebels, as those opposing the Russians were known. One of the ways that we helped the rebels (in addition to training to Osama bin Laden and his band of followers) was by selling them Stinger missiles. The rebels were delighted to own Stinger missiles but, after the war, became somewhat sloppy as to their whereabouts. As a result, some of the missiles that hadn't been used ended up in Iran, a country with which then, as now, the United States did not enjoy particularly cordial relations. That would have been a pretty bad outcome but for two things. We were not at war with Iran and had not yet even identified it as part of the axis of evil. Furthermore, according to reports then circulating, the Iranians could not figure out how to make the missiles work.

Disappointed but not without resourcefulness, the Iranians sold them to Qatar.

A good question at this point would be why would Qatar have wanted to buy Stinger missiles that Iran couldn't make work from the Iranians. The answer is the United States had sold 70 Stinger missiles to Bahrain a short while earlier. Although the United States professed a dislike of selling weapons in that part of the world, it made an exception in the case of Bahrain (among other places) because it wanted Bahrain to be able to defend itself from Iran on the off chance Iran would use the weapons it had acquired from Oliver North of the Reagan administration or from the Republic of China, against Bahrain. Qatar wanted the Stingers for self-defense in case Bahrain forgot that it was to use the Stingers against Iran and were to use them against Qatar instead.

One day someone in the administration happened to be watching television and what to that person's wondering eyes should appear but a Stinger missile in a military parade in Qatar. Since the U.S. hadn't sold the Stinger to Qatar its curiosity was piqued and it sent Richard Murphy of the State Department to Qatar to learn more about it. Because Mr. Murphy represented a very important country, he demanded of Crown Prince Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, Qatar's defense minister, that the missiles be returned to the U.S. Because the Crown Prince is a very important person in Qatar he refused Murphy's request saying Qatar needed the missiles to defend itself from Bahrain. (That dispute was ultimately resolved when Qatar destroyed the missiles in 1990.) That was then, this is now. Once again Qatar has something the U.S. wants it to get rid of. This time it's Al Jazeera.

Al Jazeera is an Arab language television station headquartered in Qatar that broadcasts throughout the Arab world and is heavily subsidized by the government.

The U.S. administration does not like Al Jazeera because it shows pictures of things that the U.S. would prefer not be shown on television. In addition, leading administration figures such as the secretaries of state, defense have said that the broadcasts are not only inflammatory but occasionally false. When they say they are false they may be thinking that they are like the television shows in this country that purport to be news shows but are actually broadcasts paid for by the Bush administration in order to mislead the American public on such things as its education and healthy marriage initiatives.

Among the Al Jazeera reports that the administration disliked were those that showed civilian casualties while Falluja was under assault. Although there were lots of civilian casualties the administration believes reports of the casualties will make Arabs angry just like the falsified TV reports in the United States make U.S. citizens angry. It fears that if the Arabs get mad enough they'll do worse things to demonstrate their anger than the compliant American public will.

The administration does not want to give Arabs the impression that it opposes freedom of speech even though it sometimes does. Nonetheless Al Jazeera's staff is aware of the administration's displeasure. As its news editor, Ahmed Sheikh, Al Jazeera's news editor explained:

"We understand that Americans are not happy with our editorial policies. But if anyone wants us to become their mouthpiece, we will not do that. We are independent and impartial, and we have never gotten any pressure from the Qatari government to change our editorial approach."

It's impossible to know if he's telling the truth about not being pressured by the government.

It's not impossible to tell whether the U.S. government has used broadcasters as mouth pieces. It has.

Christopher Brauchli is a lawyer in Boulder, Colorado. He can be reached at: Brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu or through his website: http://hraos.com/ In a nation that screams freedom and demands it of other nations at the edge of the sword, why would the present administration be working toward the control of foreign news media? Isn't this counter to the concepts inherent in our own first amendment protections? Does this further destroy our credibility in the Middle East and elsewhere? How does this tie into recent incidents of administration tampering with our own news media through fake news programs paid for by our tax dollars and an installed fake journalist in the White House press corps?

[On Fire]

Only a :Commie: would support a propaganda machine that knowingly distributes terrorist messages used to plan and initiate attacks against the free world.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by On Fire

Only a :Commie: would support a propaganda machine that knowingly distributes terrorist messages used to plan and initiate attacks against the free world. And you heard this information where?

[On Fire]

Originally posted by Morpheus

And you heard this information where?

And your head is in which hole?

[On Fire]

.

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

[BillyBob]

US will muzzle al-Jazeera

Good! :up:

[Gerald]

The easiest way to muzzle al-Jazeera is to simply destroy the satellites they use.

It isn't like we don't have the technological chops for it.

BTW, Morph, the press is only free to he who owns one...

[Gerald]

Originally posted by On Fire
Silly PhotoShopped image
. It would be funnier if you used the iconic goatse image on the cover...

Talk about a hiding in a hole... :noway:

[drRansom]

Morpheus, haven't you learned by now that here at TOL it's "all ad hominem attacks, all the time!" Nancy boys like BillyBob and OnFire don't care about facts or information. It would be nice to see them actually respond with a rebuttal or at least make an attempt for once rather than sound-byte ad hom attacks.

[BillyBob]

I did respond, I said that it was a good thing that the US is squelching Al Jazeera. Can't you read???????

As for the Nancy boy remark, I'd kick your asss any day, Alice.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
As for the Nancy boy remark, I'd kick your asss any day, Alice. It takes a really big man to talk smack like that, when he's hiding behind a gang of plumbers... :chuckle:

[BillyBob]

I'll remind you that drFaggot started it.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
I did respond, I said that it was a good thing that the US is squelching Al Jazeera. Can't you read???????
I wonder what's stopping them from squelching the nay-sayers here at home... :think:

[BillyBob]

Besides, you're the guy who claims to need a 'crew'.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by Gerald

It would be funnier if you used the iconic goatse image on the cover...

Talk about a hiding in a hole... :noway:

:vomit:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Besides, you're the guy who claims to need a 'crew'. That's stricly for the purpose of plausible deniability.

Never dirty your own hands...

[Gerald]

Originally posted by On Fire
:vomit: Made ya look!

:chuckle:

[On Fire]

Originally posted by drRansom
:flamer:

Alice and Morph would rather copy and paste communist articles rather than think for themselves.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by Gerald

Made ya look!

:chuckle:

Made me remember, anyway. I owe you one.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by On Fire

Alice and Morph would rather copy and paste communist articles rather than think for themselves.



Al JaRansom and Michael Moorepheus! :chuckle:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by On Fire
Made me remember, anyway. I owe you one. Now you gotta admit that would've been funnier than something as mundane as Saddam peering out of a burrow.

Remember, OF, you're talking to a guy whose idea of subtlety is a kick in the crotch... :chuckle:

[drRansom]

Originally posted by BillyBob

I did respond, I said that it was a good thing that the US is squelching Al Jazeera. Can't you read???????

As for the Nancy boy remark, I'd kick your asss any day, Alice.

Ooooo...getting a little hot under the collar there, BB, aren't we? OK, you actually respond to peoples points who don't agree with you about 20% of the time, I'll give you that. But the veracity of my point still stands: You usually add nothing but ad hom attacks.

And as to your threat: I hope the powers that be who frequent this board take notice of your threat of physical violence against me. Actually, this is the 2nd time you have done so if memory serves me correctly. Not that I expect anything will be done about it...

[drRansom]

Originally posted by Gerald

It takes a really big man to talk smack like that, when he's hiding behind a gang of plumbers... :chuckle:

I find it amusing for anyone in "virtual land" to talk smack like BB does. He wouldn't be doing it in person - I guarantee you that.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by drWhiner

Ooooo...getting a little hot under the collar there, BB, aren't we?

Not at all.

OK, you actually respond to peoples points who don't agree with you about 20% of the time, I'll give you that.

How did you come up with that number? I actually get a lot of pleasure arguing with you commies, I'm sure my percentage rate is much higher than a mere 20%.


But the veracity of my point still stands: You usually add nothing but ad hom attacks.

That is not at all true. But as long as you want to talk about personal attacks, I seem to remember a recent post by you calling OF and myself 'Nancy Boys'. You are a typical liberal, you want to be able to do what ever you like as long as you can control what others do. :Commie:



And as to your threat: I hope the powers that be who frequent this board take notice of your threat of physical violence against me. Actually, this is the 2nd time you have done so if memory serves me correctly. Not that I expect anything will be done about it...

What threat?

I simply said that I could kick your asss any day [in response to your insinuation that I am a 'Nancy Boy]. That isn't a threat, it's just a matter of fact.

If you can't handle it, don't throw the first stone.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by drCommie

I find it amusing for anyone in "virtual land" to talk smack like BB does. He wouldn't be doing it in person - I guarantee you that.

I guarantee you wouldn't be calling me a Nancy Boy in person, Junior.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by Gerald

Now you gotta admit that would've been funnier than something as mundane as Saddam peering out of a burrow.

Remember, OF, you're talking to a guy whose idea of subtlety is a kick in the crotch... :chuckle:

OK, OK.....let us NEVER speak of this again. :vomit:

[On Fire]

Originally posted by BillyBob

I guarantee you wouldn't be calling me a Nancy Boy in person, Junior.

Her name is Alice.

[Morpheus]

So, overall the neocon nazi crowd seems to agree with their president that freedom of the press was a mistake. Typical for pseudocontrol freaks who believe that the end justifies the means. That is why they also believe that any other right, whether constitutional or human, that gets in the way should be sacrificed in the name of so-called security, anti-terrorism (formerly anti-communism), spreading freedom or whatever else is used for an excuse to justify imperialism at any given time. What happens when "Homeland Security" busts into your home in the middle of the night without a warrant, drags you out of bed and confiscates your property while they lock you away without a lawyer or a trial. And they do it because they picked up something in what you wrote on your computer or picked up from a cellphone conversation that sounded questionable to them. Wait a minute, they already do that. It's oddly called the Patriot Act. I guess it's ok as long as it is to someone else. In Germany they were known as the Gestapo.

You dufuses actually believe that squelching freedom of the press is a good thing. And you call yourselves patriots. How phoney is that? How do you bring freedom to the world when you start by crushing freedom?

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by On Fire

Only a :Commie: would support a propaganda machine that knowingly distributes terrorist messages used to plan and initiate attacks against the free world. I'll ask you again. Where did you get your information? You never answered. You just reverted to your moronic diatribe.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Gerald
BTW, Morph, the press is only free to he who owns one... I know that. The U.S. news is almost scripted by the owners. That is part of the point here. The nazi crowd actually believe what they get from U.S. press as long as it agrees with their banter. They deny that it could possibly be propaganda no matter how obvious it is because we have freedom of the press. Then they flip-flop and say that controlling the press is a good thing. They don't even realize that under former FCC chairman Michael Powell, Collin's son, the rules controlling ownership of media were relaxed immensely to where one person can legally own all of the news media in an area, thereby controlling the information available to the public.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Morpheus
You dufuses actually believe that squelching freedom of the press is a good thing. And you call yourselves patriots. How phoney is that? How do you bring freedom to the world when you start by crushing freedom? This sums it up nicely, I think:

"Unless we all conform, unless we follow our leaders blindly, there is no possible way we can remain free."

-- Maj. Frank Burns, 4077th M*A*S*H*

:chuckle:

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Morpheus

So, overall the neocon nazi crowd seems to agree with their president that freedom of the press was a mistake.

Al JaTerror isn't an American company and is therefor not subject to the Constitutional protection that Americans enjoy.

The fact that you support Al JaTerror is just another sign of your hatred for America. :Commie:

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by On Fire

Her name is Alice.

Yeah, Alice JaZeera! :chuckle:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Al JaTerror isn't an American company and is therefor not subject to the Constitutional protection that monied Americans enjoy. You forgot a word... :chuckle:

[BillyBob]

Nothing wrong with money! :up:

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by BillyBob:kookoo:

Al JaTerror isn't an American company and is therefor not subject to the Constitutional protection that Americans enjoy.

The fact that you support Al JaTerror is just another sign of your hatred for America. :Commie: I'll ask it again Billy Boob; how can you spread freedom when you start out by crushing freedom?

[Four O'Clock]

Originally posted by On Fire

Only a :Commie: would support a propaganda machine that knowingly distributes terrorist messages used to plan and initiate attacks against the free world.

Little Jai Alai playing cinnamon men are supporting attacks against the free world?

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Nothing wrong with money! :up: Never said there was.

But it is hopelessly naive to claim that those who ain't got it have the same protections as those who do.

Just keeping you honest, BB. :thumb:

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Michael Moorepheus

I'll ask it again Billy Boob; how can you spread freedom when you start out by crushing freedom?

You spread freedom by crushing the enemies of freedom, like Al Jazeera.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Gerald

Never said there was.

But it is hopelessly naive to claim that those who ain't got it have the same protections as those who do.

Just keeping you honest, BB. :thumb:

Honesty is my nature. :angel:

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by BillyBob

You spread freedom by crushing the enemies of freedom, like Al Jazeera. So you ARE saying that crushing freedom of the press spreads freedom.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Michael Moorepheus

So you ARE saying that crushing freedom of the press spreads freedom.

If that press is a sponsor of terrorism? Absolutely.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Honesty is my nature. :angel: So you honestly believe that anybody, filthy rich or dirt poor, gets equal protection?

For a savvy businessman, you're pretty naive about How Things Really Work™...

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by BillyBob

If that press is a sponsor of terrorism? Absolutely. So then it is no longer freedom of the press, it is freedom to say what the US wants you to say. Right?

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Michael Moorepheus

So then it is no longer freedom of the press, it is freedom to say what the US wants you to say. Right?

Al JaZeera isn't an American company.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by BillyBoob

Al JaZeera isn't an American company. So how is crushing freedom of the press anywhere spreading freedom?

[BillyBob]

By shutting down terrorist propaganda! :bang:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob

By shutting down terrorist propaganda! :bang:
terrorist propaganda: n.; any public statement, spoken or written, opposing Bush Administration actions or policies.

(Can you tell I've been reading Ambrose Bierce...? :chuckle: )

[On Fire]

Originally posted by Morpheus

I'll ask it again Billy Boob; how can you spread freedom when you start out by crushing freedom?

There is no reason to defend the freedom to lie and support terrorists. None. Pig.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by On Fire

There is no reason to defend the freedom to lie and support terrorists. None. Pig. You defend Bush. Inbreeder.

[drRansom]

Originally posted by BillyBob

How did you come up with that number? I actually get a lot of pleasure arguing with you commies, I'm sure my percentage rate is much higher than a mere 20%.

Gee, I don't know where I get that. :rolleyes: All I ever see is you castigating people who don't agree with your worldview by calling them commies or other rude insults.



That is not at all true. But as long as you want to talk about personal attacks, I seem to remember a recent post by you calling OF and myself 'Nancy Boys'. You are a typical liberal, you want to be able to do what ever you like as long as you can control what others do.

Guess what: you reap what you sow, BB. I usually don't get into the name calling anymore unless someone attacks me in such a fashion. I just want to debate and discuss ideas. But always out of left field comes jerkoffs like you and OnFire and FrankErnest throwing out insults and ad hom attacks because you have no substance to your arguments. But most people see through your shallowness so go ahead and continue what you do best. If you want to debate ideas we'll debate ideas, but if you want to insult each other we can do that too. Just remember: when you insult others don't ***** and moan when they do it to you.


If you can't handle it, don't throw the first stone.

Again, you're obviously the one who can't handle being insulted but is always more than anxious to dish out the insults. You're the hypocrite.

[Delmar]

What is insulting about being called a commie if you like taking some peoples mony and giving it to others.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Alice JaZeera

Gee, I don't know where I get that. :rolleyes: All I ever see is you castigating people who don't agree with your worldview by calling them commies or other rude insults.

Commie.





If you want to debate ideas we'll debate ideas, but if you want to insult each other we can do that too. Just remember: when you insult others don't ***** and moan when they do it to you.

Uhhhh....YOU were the person moaning and complaining, if you don't remember, reread your posts! I never once complained about the namecalling, commie, I simply said that I could kick your asss when you called me a Nancy Boy. It was then that you whined about it and pretended I was threatening you and complained that the mods weren't goin to do anything about it. :baby:



Again, you're obviously the one who can't handle being insulted but is always more than anxious to dish out the insults. You're the hypocrite.

I rather enjoy the insult game, I just happen to be better at it than you.

:mock: :Commie:

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by deardelmar

What is insulting about being called a commie if you like taking some peoples mony and giving it to others.

Commies hate when they are exposed, they prefer to be called liberals or democrats or progressives.

[drRansom]

Originally posted by SillyBoob

I rather enjoy the insult game, I just happen to be better at it than you.


No kidding. Seeing as how nancyboys like you have no substance to their arguments I'd say stick with what your momma (i.e. cousin) gave you.

[drRansom]

See, I can play too.

Goodnight, nancey.

:deb:

[Delmar]

:noid:

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :BillyBob:

Commies hate when they are exposed, they prefer to be called liberals or democrats or progressives.
Liberal (aka lie-beral) has become a dirty word because it means socialist which is already a dirty word.
Progressive = :Commie:, plain and simple.
democrat = :loser:
Democrat = Big :loser:

The world of the modern-day :Commie: is as Genesis 1:2 describes - void, formless and dark.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by BillyBoob

Commies hate when they are exposed, they prefer to be called liberals or democrats or progressives. Capitalists hate it when they are exposed.

You all like to play games. OK. Intellectually defend capitalism. I'll start.

1) The engine that drives growth in capitalism is greed. Take away greed and capitalism fails. Since this is supposed to be a Christian forum then. Defend greed while you defend capitalism.

2) Capitalist nations have been the source of most international violence. They have done so in their attempts to force the rest of the world into their system so that the large corporations in these first world nations can further take advantage of them, or to defend those corporations vested interests in those foreign lands, even when the local government pays them fair market value for their property in order to nationalize it. As examples there are the Dutch, French, British, US and now as a group the WTO, World Bank and IMF.

Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile or Grenada never attacked the US did they? Greece never interferred with our elections that I know of. I don't recall reading about an Iraqi invasion.

3) You say that communism and socialism failed. But would it have failed if it weren't for the trillions of dollars spent on blockades, military interventions, political destabilizations, election tampering and various other means used by us to make sure it failed to get a foothold? Most of these nations were democracies before we intervened, but most are now tyrannies. It still exists in some nations, much to our dismay. Most of those that remain are democracies.
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/KillingHope_page.html

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by drRansom

No kidding. Seeing as how nancyboys like you have no substance to their arguments I'd say stick with what your momma (i.e. cousin) gave you.

Talk about no substance! You morons are angry at Haliburton for engaging in legal commerce! :darwinsm:

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Michael Moorepheus

Capitalists hate it when they are exposed.

You all like to play games. OK. Intellectually defend capitalism. I'll start.

1) The engine that drives growth in capitalism is greed. Take away greed and capitalism fails. Since this is supposed to be a Christian forum then. Defend greed while you defend capitalism.

:darwinsm:

Typical freedom hating, prosperity guilty commie.



2) Capitalist nations have been the source of most international violence.

You are insane. Do you remember the Cuban Missle Crisis? The participants were Russia and Cuba, both communist countries.

They have done so in their attempts to force the rest of the world into their system so that the large corporations in these first world nations can further take advantage of them,

I have no problem with that, it's called progress.

or to defend those corporations vested interests in those foreign lands,

Nope, no problem here, either. If it weren't for corporations investing largs amounts of capital, inventing new technologies and taking huge risks, we would all be living in straw huts right now, chopping wood and getting ready to hunt down some breakfast.

even when the local government pays them fair market value for their property in order to nationalize it. As examples there are the Dutch, French, British, US and now as a group the WTO, World Bank and IMF.

Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile or Grenada never attacked the US did they?

They know what would happen if they did, thanks to our capitalist nature which provides huge resourses that get diverted to the military! You should be thankful for that.

Greece never interferred with our elections that I know of.

The Greeks invaded and captured Egypt 2000 years ago, go read a history book, commie.

I don't recall reading about an Iraqi invasion.

Like shooting fish in a barrel. Remember a little country called Kuwait? :darwinsm:



3) You say that communism and socialism failed. But would it have failed if it weren't for the trillions of dollars spent on blockades, military interventions, political destabilizations, election tampering and various other means used by us to make sure it failed to get a foothold? Most of these nations were democracies before we intervened, but most are now tyrannies. It still exists in some nations, much to our dismay. Most of those that remain are democracies.
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/KillingHope_page.html

Communism fails because it removes any incentive to work harder and make a better life for yourself.

But hey, if think communism is the answer, Cuba is just a short swim away. :wave2:

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by BillyBob

:darwinsm:

Typical freedom hating, prosperity guilty commie.

You are insane. Do you remember the Cuban Missle Crisis? The participants were Russia and Cuba, both communist countries.First off, I said most. Second, we had missiles in Turkey, Germany and flying around the USSR border; they were just returning the favor. Third, WE INVADED CUBA.



I have no problem with that, it's called progress.



Nope, no problem here, either. If it weren't for corporations investing largs amounts of capital, inventing new technologies and taking huge risks, we would all be living in straw huts right now, chopping wood and getting ready to hunt down some breakfast.



They know what would happen if they did, thanks to our capitalist nature which provides huge resourses that get diverted to the military! You should be thankful for that.Load of garbage.



The Greeks invaded and captured Egypt 2000 years ago, go read a history book, commie.What does that have to do with us tampering with their elections several times?



Like shooting fish in a barrel. Remember a little country called Kuwait? :darwinsm:Our friends theKuwaitis, who were slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields across the border. After several calls for help by Saddam, to no avail, he invaded them. Then we blew them away. Including shooting them down like rabbits after they surrendered and were retreating.




Communism fails because it removes any incentive to work harder and make a better life for yourself.

But hey, if think communism is the answer, Cuba is just a short swim away. :wave2: That is the weakness of communism. But the proposal was not that you attack communism, it was that you defend capitalism. If these answers are the best you can do that explains your viewpoint.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Michael Moorepheus
Load of garbage.



Ha! No retort, eh? I must have hit a nerve [it's called 'truth']! :banana:

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Ha! No retort, eh? I must have hit a nerve [it's called 'truth']! :banana: For someone who likes spending hundreds of billions of dollars on defense, you're not very good at it, are you?

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Morpheus

For someone who likes spending hundreds of billions of dollars on defense, you're not very good at it, are you?

Huh?

Here, you dropped this........

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Morpheus
Including shooting them down like rabbits after they surrendered and were retreating.

How does someone surrender and retreat?

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by philosophizer

How does someone surrender and retreat? Poor choice of words. Iraq had called for talks to discuss surrender and their troops were retreating on a 100-mile stretch of road between Kuwait City and Basra. Colin Powell postponed the talks for two days and Gen. McCaffrey ordered the withdrawing troops shot down. It later became known as the Highway of Death.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=75

[taoist]

Okay, Murph, it's your thread, go ahead and hijack away. But I hope you won't take it too amiss if I return, ever so gently, to the OP.

The alarming idea about the back door muzzling of Al Jazeera is the likelihood of editorial control passing to the Saudis. Y'all remember the Saudis, don't ya. You know, those guys who gave us 15 of 19 hijackers one bright, sunny September day back in 2001. The guys who financed al Q, provided their ideology, and turned a deliberate blind eye to their actions abroad. The guys who are presently being lambasted so severely by al J that they've pulled all their advertising.

As an independent press outlet to the muslim world, they're worth far more to us than as another Saudi propaganda mouthpiece. Given the choice of a free press without democracy or democracy without a free press, I know which one Ben Franklin would choose. And frankly (pardon the pun), I don't think you can have a functioning democracy without it.

Food for thought, BB?

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by taoist
As an independent press outlet to the muslim world, they're worth far more to us than as another Saudi propaganda mouthpiece. Given the choice of a free press without democracy or democracy without a free press, I know which one Ben Franklin would choose. And frankly (pardon the pun), I don't think you can have a functioning democracy without it.

Food for thought, BB?

Free Press is guaranteed by our Constitution, but it only applies to America. Al Jazeera has been the mouthpiece for Al Queda and a propaganda machine for Muslim terrorists. There is no reason to allow them to continue promoting terrorism.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by taoist

Okay, Murph, it's your thread, go ahead and hijack away. But I hope you won't take it too amiss if I return, ever so gently, to the OP.

The alarming idea about the back door muzzling of Al Jazeera is the likelihood of editorial control passing to the Saudis. Y'all remember the Saudis, don't ya. You know, those guys who gave us 15 of 19 hijackers one bright, sunny September day back in 2001. The guys who financed al Q, provided their ideology, and turned a deliberate blind eye to their actions abroad. The guys who are presently being lambasted so severely by al J that they've pulled all their advertising.

As an independent press outlet to the muslim world, they're worth far more to us than as another Saudi propaganda mouthpiece. Given the choice of a free press without democracy or democracy without a free press, I know which one Ben Franklin would choose. And frankly (pardon the pun), I don't think you can have a functioning democracy without it.

Food for thought, BB? Thanks for showing up. It is refreshing to see an intelligent post occasionally.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Morpheus

Thanks for showing up. It is refreshing to see an intelligent post occasionally.

Yes, perhaps you will learn something from tao.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Free Press is guaranteed by our Constitution, but it only applies to America. Al Jazeera has been the mouthpiece for Al Queda and a propaganda machine for Muslim terrorists. There is no reason to allow them to continue promoting terrorism. Free press is a fundamental tenet of freedom in general. It is intended to be a check against tyranny. Eliminate it and then what other basic freedoms will be deemed unnecessary or inconvenient? Incidentally, if you don't know, Al Jazeera's home office is in Doha, Qatar; one of our allies. The Bush administration has been pressuring the government there to restrict Al Jazeera's content and cut their government funding. So far they have refused. They have laws there too.

I'm sure they don't much care for the extreme slant that our media puts on the news we see. Did you ever consider perusing Australian, New Zealand, UK or other foreign news sites to compare with our coverage?

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Yes, perhaps you will learn something from tao. I was hoping you would.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Michael Moorepheus

Free press is a fundamental tenet of freedom in general.

That is fine, but the Constitution is US law and it only guarantees the freedom of Americans, not terrorist allies.

It is intended to be a check against tyranny. Eliminate it and then what other basic freedoms will be deemed unnecessary or inconvenient?

Al Jazeera isn't an American company.

Incidentally, if you don't know, Al Jazeera's home office is in Doha, Qatar; one of our allies.

Oh good, we can bomb them next!

The Bush administration has been pressuring the government there to restrict Al Jazeera's content and cut their government funding. So far they have refused. They have laws there too.

They are accomidating terrorists, they need to be eliminated.



I'm sure they don't much care for the extreme slant that our media puts on the news we see. Did you ever consider perusing Australian, New Zealand, UK or other foreign news sites to compare with our coverage?

Lord no, I get enough anti-American, pro commie journalism from the New York Times and CNN as it is, why would I want to subject myself to more?

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Morpheus

I was hoping you would.

I like tao. If you notice, he and I can disagree without ever twisting the others words and without ever being derisive. You might wanna give it a try some time.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by BillyBob

I like tao. If you notice, he and I can disagree without ever twisting the others words and without ever being derisive. You might wanna give it a try some time. I started out that way, but I followed your prompts.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Morpheus

I started out that way, but I followed your prompts.

Perhaps, I have no problem identifying commies. You should simply accept that you are a commie and stop being offended by it. I'm not offended when some calls me a Conservative.

[BillyBob]

That still doesn't account for your sloppy posting style and deliberate twisting of words. I am very careful not to do that.

[There is a difference between twisting words and making an obvious joke]

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Perhaps, I have no problem identifying commies. You should simply accept that you are a commie and stop being offended by it. I'm not offended when some calls me a Conservative. I don't get offended. But I'm not a communist, I'm an anti-capitalist.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Morpheus

I don't get offended. But I'm not a communist, I'm an anti-capitalist.

Potayto

Potahto

[taoist]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Yes, perhaps you will learn something from tao.

Though it's not always possible to be sure of identities on the internet, I suspect Morpheus has known the taoist longer than anyone on IH, BB. If so, I'll do Morpheus the favor of preserving the anonymity many of us, including myself, prefer.

My point was that, before we change the old guard for the new, it's perhaps a good idea to make sure we're not making a change for the worse. While I think Iran was far more complicit in 9/11 than Iraq, the number one source of radical islam is, was, and continues to be ... Saudi Arabia. Change the political situation in Saudi Arabia and there will be a true foothold for democratic institutions at the very heart of the muslim world.

The muslim minority shias of Iran and Iraq are a meaningless distraction if we don't address the ninety percent sunni majority. The terrorism of the shia fundamentalists in Iran was strictly regional. If only Bush would learn to count.

We need to rein in the radical Wahhabists who control the Saudi religious institutions, prop up the ruling family, and fund the radical madrassas in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It was the Wahhabi-offshoot Salafists who actually attacked us. UBL is a Salafi ... a Sunni who received his manpower, funding, and ideology from Saudi Arabia ... think about that before you hand over al J to the Saudis.

Such an outcome would be a serious misstep in our policy of advancing individual freedom around the world.

The last time the shia religious shrines in Iraq were sacked was in the late 19th century ... I'll give you one guess where the aggressors came from, and one guess about which sect was responsible. If you're gonna shoot at terrorists, you have to be pointed in the right direction.

***

Salafi, btw, unlike most muslim sect names, is not named after a principle teacher like Wahab, but rather a reference to the Caliphate, think Salafate, spellings get rendered oddly when switching from arabic ... these are people looking to create a new Caliph. UBL thinks of himself as a likely candidate.

[taoist]

Originally posted by Morpheus

I don't get offended. But I'm not a communist, I'm an anti-capitalist.

Communism and capitalism are primarily economic systems. If you're neither, could I ask what other system you prefer? And since we're obviously hijacking this thread with your permission, could you tell me how you define capitalism, too.

Oh, and just by the by ... everyone get offended, even the taoist at times. No need to pretend to be impervious.

I learned a long time ago how to train a kitten not to dig in its claws when it decided to climb up me or sit on my chest. Flinch when it hurts. You'd be amazed how often that works in training humans, too. Given the chance, most people are good, or at least willing to try to be. But you have to let them know it's worth the effort.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by taoist

Though it's not always possible to be sure of identities on the internet, I suspect Morpheus has known the taoist longer than anyone on IH, BB. If so, I'll do Morpheus the favor of preserving the anonymity many of us, including myself, prefer.

:up:

It's nice to have friends.



My point was that, before we change the old guard for the new, it's perhaps a good idea to make sure we're not making a change for the worse. While I think Iran was far more complicit in 9/11 than Iraq,

I agree, and we are not finished with Iran. We also have the advantage that Iranian students are protesting the Iranian government. That will be an advantage for us.

the number one source of radical islam is, was, and continues to be ... Saudi Arabia. Change the political situation in Saudi Arabia and there will be a true foothold for democratic institutions at the very heart of the muslim world.

That change is currently under way!


The muslim minority shias of Iran and Iraq are a meaningless distraction if we don't address the ninety percent sunni majority. The terrorism of the shia fundamentalists in Iran was strictly regional. If only Bush would learn to count.

We need to rein in the radical Wahhabists who control the Saudi religious institutions, prop up the ruling family, and fund the radical madrassas in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It was the Wahhabi-offshoot Salafists who actually attacked us. UBL is a Salafi ... a Sunni who received his manpower, funding, and ideology from Saudi Arabia ... think about that before you hand over al J to the Saudis.

Having the Saudi's operate Al Jazeera can't be any worse than it's current management. At least we have some leverage with the Saudis.



Such an outcome would be a serious misstep in our policy of advancing individual freedom around the world.

Allowing Al Jazeera to operate as terrorist accomplices is unacceptable.



The last time the shia religious shrines in Iraq were sacked was in the late 19th century ... I'll give you one guess where the aggressors came from, and one guess about which sect was responsible. If you're gonna shoot at terrorists, you have to be pointed in the right direction.

Yes, we need guns pointed in many directions.



Salafi, btw, unlike most muslim sect names, is not named after a principle teacher like Wahab, but rather a reference to the Caliphate, think Salafate, spellings get rendered oddly when switching from arabic ... these are people looking to create a new Caliph. UBL thinks of himself as a likely candidate.

Do you think UBL is still alive?

[taoist]

Originally posted by BillyBob

:up:

It's nice to have friends.

And I like you, too, redneck.

I agree, and we are not finished with Iran. We also have the advantage that Iranian students are protesting the Iranian government. That will be an advantage for us.

I hope it will be an advantage to us. It's an advantage to the Iranians, certainly. Unless, of course, we screw it up by forcing them into a patriotic furor. History's replete with citizens submitting to tyranny because of the hoopla of a foreign threat, real of imagined. Daniel Ortega was a master at playing the US government to keep on funding the contras.

Iran had a functioning democracy back in the 50s until we overthrew it and put in the Shah using a British infrastructure that was about to be dismantled. That's why they hate us, by the way. Up until then, we were the heroes because of the favorable terms, relative to the Brits, we gave the Saudis when we came in to handle their oil resources. The absurd thing was that we did it to support a British oil company. It's a fascinating history. If you want to read about it, I'll look up the title of the book I read about it a few months ago just before I left Chicago.

That change is currently under way!

Yep. Fueled in no small part by the reporting coming out of al Jazeera. That's my point.

Having the Saudi's operate Al Jazeera can't be any worse than it's current management. At least we have some leverage with the Saudis.

We've got plenty of leverage with its current management too. And I disagree. Having the Saudis operate it will stifle the only active voice pointing out the absurdities of a royal family running things by religious mandate. The Saudis, like the kingdom of Morocco, are one of the last remaining functional monarchies in the world. It's time for them to hit the historical oubliette. Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, et al. showed how a free press can catalyze the change.

Allowing Al Jazeera to operate as terrorist accomplices is unacceptable.

Agreed. So let's not hand them over to the Saudis, who are one hell of a lot richer, and one hell of a lot more radical.

Yes, we need guns pointed in many directions.

Agreed. But when you've got two guns and three doors to cover, it's a good idea to know which doors lead to the outside and which leads to the clothes closet. Not much point in defending yourself from radical coathooks if the muggers come in behind ya.

Do you think UBL is still alive?

I think we'd know it if he had died. It would have made enough of a splash in the intelligence community that we couldn't miss it. And his recent statements are pretty convincing proof he's still alive and kicking. No asking the big guy where his virgins are at yet. Though I'd love to see him get his chance to pick up his afterlife paycheck.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by taoist

Communism and capitalism are primarily economic systems. If you're neither, could I ask what other system you prefer? And since we're obviously hijacking this thread with your permission, could you tell me how you define capitalism, too. I used the anti-capitalist term in jest, but there is some truth to it. I prefer a more pure socialist government. It is based on a more civil concept with a view to the good of the whole, leaving none behind. It is totally consistent with a republic or democracy as a government system, unlike the way it has been portrayed in this country as evil and Godless. The system needs some tweeking but overall is more humane.

True capitalism is every man for himself making what profits he can while spending as little as possible. The purists believe in no controls. In a small community of really, really nice people it would work, but when implemented on a large scale it lends itself to social darwinism. The powerful get fat off of the weak. Unchecked the weakest die. The more ruthless an individual, having no conscience, the better he will do because he feels no remorse for the damage he does to others to get ahead. It pits man against man. It breeds conflict by teaching the society that an individual will achieve more by being uncaring and cruel. Greed is the engine that drives it both on the supply and demand side. Remove greed and the system fails.

Oh, and just by the by ... everyone get offended, even the taoist at times. No need to pretend to be impervious.

I learned a long time ago how to train a kitten not to dig in its claws when it decided to climb up me or sit on my chest. Flinch when it hurts. You'd be amazed how often that works in training humans, too. Given the chance, most people are good, or at least willing to try to be. But you have to let them know it's worth the effort. I am not pretending to be impervious. I have been really angry a couple of times here, but being called a commie doesn't bother me. It's not totally inaccurate.

A couple of passages that helped galvanize my viewpoint years ago:Excerpts From Thomas More’s Utopia

Book 2, Wealthy and Government


Now here I'd like to see anyone try to compare the justice of the Utopians with the so-called justice that prevails among other peoples -- among whom let me perish if I can discover the slightest scrap of justice or fairness. What kind of justice is it when a nobleman or a goldsmith or a moneylender, or someone else who makes his living by doing either nothing at all or something completely useless to the public, gets to live a life of luxury and grandeur? In the meantime, a laborer, a carter, a carpenter, or a farmer works so hard and so constantly that even a beast of burden would perish under the load; and this work of theirs is so necessary that no commonwealth could survive a year without it. Yet they earn so meager a living and lead such miserable lives that a beast of burden would really be better off. Beasts do not have to work every minute, and their food is not much worse; in fact they like it better. And, besides, they do not have to worry about their future. But working-men not only have to sweat and suffer without present reward, but agonize over the prospect of a penniless old age. Their daily wage is inadequate even for their present needs, so there is no possible chance of their saving toward the future.

Now isn't this an unjust and ungrateful commonwealth? It lavishes rich rewards on so-called gentry, bankers and goldsmiths and the rest of that crew, who don't work at all, are mere parasites, or purveyors of empty pleasures. And yet it makes no provision whatever for the welfare of farmers and colliers, laborers, carters, and carpenters, without whom the commonwealth would simply cease to exist. After the state has taken the labor of their best years, when they are worn out by age and sickness and utter destitution, then the thankless state, forgetting all their pains and services, throws them out to die a miserable death. What is worse, the rich constantly try to grind out of the poor part of their meager wages, not only by private swindling, but by public tax-laws. It is basically unjust that people who deserve most from the commonwealth should receive least. But now they have distorted and debased the right even further by giving their extortion the color of law; and thus they have palmed injustice off as "legal." When I run over in my mind the various commonwealths flourishing today, so help me God, I can see nothing in them but a conspiracy of the rich, who are fattening up their own interests under the name and title of the commonwealth. They invent ways and means to hang onto whatever they have acquired by sharp practice, and then they scheme to oppress the poor by buying up their toil and labor as cheaply as possible. These devices become law as soon as the rich, speaking through the commonwealth--which, of course, includes the poor as well-- say they must be observed.


Book 1, Wrong Course/Christianity

“People who have made up their minds to rush headlong down the opposite road are never pleased with the man who calls them back and tells them they are on the wrong course. But, apart from that, what did I say that could not and should not be said anywhere and everywhere? If we dismiss as out of the question and absurd everything which the perverse customs of men have made to seem unusual, we shall have to set aside most of the commandments of Christ even in a community of Christians. Yet he forbade us to dissemble them, and even ordered that what he had whispered to his disciples should be preached openly from the housetops. Most of his teachings differ more radically from the common customs of mankind than my discourse did. But preachers, like the crafty fellows they are, have found that men would rather not change their lives to conform to Christ’s rule, and so, just as you suggest, they have accommodated his teaching to the way men live, as if it were a leaden yardstick. At least in that way they can get the two things to correspond on one level or another. The only real thing they accomplish that I can see is to make men feel a little more secure in their consciences about doing evil.
That help?

[taoist]

Thanks, Morpheus,

Yes, that helped. I tend to place More's economic analyses in their proper context of the early 16th century under the monarchy of Henry VIII. His disparagement of feudal economic customs doesn't really strike me as relevant today. After all, if we don't like corporate practices, we have at least some ability to moderate them. The Sherman anti-trust act and Roosevelt's social security programs come to mind immediately. Half of the social security funds are paid by employers, you know.

While I'm not sure where BillyBob stands on social security, I know he supports the Sherman act. In case you don't know, he's a small businessman specializing in upscale remodeling. That perspective will help you understand his comments better. I'm unaware of any attempts by him to corner the remodeling market in Nashville, but if he does, I'll take him to task. And see if I can't wheedle a discount on some work I'd like done, too. He's probably anti-union, but I don't know for sure as we've never discussed it.

Myself, I want to see businesses run by the people who are best at delivering the goods and services. Large corporations take on many aspects of independent states, and need powerful government controls to keep them from running amok. Way too many of our foreign interventions were in defense of corporate interests that were far from being in our common interest. Bolivia, ha! Cuba, double ha! Criminy, how tough is it to say, "It's not nice to steal a whole country." As multinationals become more prevalent, they'll eventually need to be controlled by an international body. A world state sounds scary, but world anarchy is scarier.

Capitalism has a standard definition.

cap·i·tal·ism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=capitalism)
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

In More's time, industries were under the control of those who were given monopolistic commissions by the monarch.

A purely socialist system would place control of all resources and major industries with government officials. I personally like the compromise of having government set up boundaries for corporations after they've grown to an economically influential size. The nature of capitalism is to use capital to squeeze out competition when the competitor can deliver a better product. A free market gets in the way of corporate interests. Government regulation of free markets is a necessity if they're to remain truly free.

My perspective is that of a state ward starving to get through grad school. Literally. I started grad school at 6' 2" and 180 pounds and finished at 150 after my student loans got transferred to a third party without my knowledge and then declared delinquent. They garnished half my stipend, which meant I could eat or sleep out of the cold, but not both. I chose not to freeze. I refused to quit. Toward the end I was seriously considering robbing banks.

Being able to pay for education shouldn't be dependent on how much your parents are worth. Ditto healthcare. Ditto ditto retraining for those being displaced from obsolete industries. I want a system where citizens are encouraged to work toward their full potential. But I'm not so naive to believe you can't leave some behind and still motivate others to take advantage of opportunities. There has to be negative feedback in any stable system. It's an engineering necessity. I don't like it, but then again, I don't have to like it. Facts are facts. I want everyone to succeed. But they won't, so I want as many to succeed as possible.

***

I haven't finished working on BillyBob's understanding of a free press or its benefits. Most of his comments about it being guaranteed only for Americans strike me as non sequiturs. If it's good for reality-checking our democracy, it'll be good for the muslim world too. It was a free press that woke up 18th century Americans to the need to dump old George III.

Al Jazeera reports some things that are true, some that are false, and a lot of things that are simply uncomplimentary. Their reporting has improved as they've gotten bigger though and I expect that trend will continue. Reporting by its very nature opens the eyes of reporters. The more you do of it, the more you see things in their right perspective.

Billy looks at news coverage like it's a pro-wrestling contest. So long as the action's good and his team is winning, it's great sport. The few times I've gotten him to actually look at objective stories, he's come right out and said that's what they were. I'm not all that sure there are many other liberals he'd compliment in that way. He listens to me to a great extent because I listen to him I think.

But objective reporting lacks the excitement of the more politicized stuff he likes from the National Review and other right-wing outlets. Hey, I like editorials too. But sometimes I just want to relax with well-sourced information.

In peace, Jesse

[BillyBob]

There's so much to comment about, tao, I think I'll take the day and let it soak in.

I gotta tell ya, you sure know how to disarm a heated debate. :chuckle:

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by taoist

Thanks, Morpheus,

Yes, that helped. I tend to place More's economic analyses in their proper context of the early 16th century under the monarchy of Henry VIII. His disparagement of feudal economic customs doesn't really strike me as relevant today. After all, if we don't like corporate practices, we have at least some ability to moderate them. The Sherman anti-trust act and Roosevelt's social security programs come to mind immediately. Half of the social security funds are paid by employers, you know.

While I'm not sure where BillyBob stands on social security, I know he supports the Sherman act. In case you don't know, he's a small businessman specializing in upscale remodeling. That perspective will help you understand his comments better. I'm unaware of any attempts by him to corner the remodeling market in Nashville, but if he does, I'll take him to task. And see if I can't wheedle a discount on some work I'd like done, too. He's probably anti-union, but I don't know for sure as we've never discussed it.

Myself, I want to see businesses run by the people who are best at delivering the goods and services. Large corporations take on many aspects of independent states, and need powerful government controls to keep them from running amok. Way too many of our foreign interventions were in defense of corporate interests that were far from being in our common interest. Bolivia, ha! Cuba, double ha! Criminy, how tough is it to say, "It's not nice to steal a whole country." As multinationals become more prevalent, they'll eventually need to be controlled by an international body. A world state sounds scary, but world anarchy is scarier.

Capitalism has a standard definition.

cap·i·tal·ism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=capitalism)
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

In More's time, industries were under the control of those who were given monopolistic commissions by the monarch.

A purely socialist system would place control of all resources and major industries with government officials. I personally like the compromise of having government set up boundaries for corporations after they've grown to an economically influential size. The nature of capitalism is to use capital to squeeze out competition when the competitor can deliver a better product. A free market gets in the way of corporate interests. Government regulation of free markets is a necessity if they're to remain truly free.

My perspective is that of a state ward starving to get through grad school. Literally. I started grad school at 6' 2" and 180 pounds and finished at 150 after my student loans got transferred to a third party without my knowledge and then declared delinquent. They garnished half my stipend, which meant I could eat or sleep out of the cold, but not both. I chose not to freeze. I refused to quit. Toward the end I was seriously considering robbing banks.

Being able to pay for education shouldn't be dependent on how much your parents are worth. Ditto healthcare. Ditto ditto retraining for those being displaced from obsolete industries. I want a system where citizens are encouraged to work toward their full potential. But I'm not so naive to believe you can't leave some behind and still motivate others to take advantage of opportunities. There has to be negative feedback in any stable system. It's an engineering necessity. I don't like it, but then again, I don't have to like it. Facts are facts. I want everyone to succeed. But they won't, so I want as many to succeed as possible.

***

I haven't finished working on BillyBob's understanding of a free press or its benefits. Most of his comments about it being guaranteed only for Americans strike me as non sequiturs. If it's good for reality-checking our democracy, it'll be good for the muslim world too. It was a free press that woke up 18th century Americans to the need to dump old George III.

Al Jazeera reports some things that are true, some that are false, and a lot of things that are simply uncomplimentary. Their reporting has improved as they've gotten bigger though and I expect that trend will continue. Reporting by its very nature opens the eyes of reporters. The more you do of it, the more you see things in their right perspective.

Billy looks at news coverage like it's a pro-wrestling contest. So long as the action's good and his team is winning, it's great sport. The few times I've gotten him to actually look at objective stories, he's come right out and said that's what they were. I'm not all that sure there are many other liberals he'd compliment in that way. He listens to me to a great extent because I listen to him I think.

But objective reporting lacks the excitement of the more politicized stuff he likes from the National Review and other right-wing outlets. Hey, I like editorials too. But sometimes I just want to relax with well-sourced information.

In peace, Jesse Thanks for the intervention. I sometimes get caught up in the heat of argument and lose perspective of the goal.

[taoist]

Originally posted by BillyBob

There's so much to comment about, tao, I think I'll take the day and let it soak in.

I gotta tell ya, you sure know how to disarm a heated debate. :chuckle:

Originally posted by Morpheus

Thanks for the intervention. I sometimes get caught up in the heat of argument and lose perspective of the goal.

Aww shucks,

Peacemaker, threadkiller. It's all in the perspective I guess. Debates get heated when people talk past each other. It's natural to raise your voice when you're not being heard. The one time I tried a relationship counselor, all the girl did was acknowledge the different things we were saying. Of course, it didn't help. Yup, when we finished we didn't just know we couldn't live together, we knew why we couldn't live together.

Such is life.

In peace, Jesse

[servent101]

Morpheus True capitalism is every man for himself making what profits he can while spending as little as possible. The purists believe in no controls. In a small community of really, really nice people it would work, but when implemented on a large scale it lends itself to social darwinism. The powerful get fat off of the weak. Unchecked the weakest die. The more ruthless an individual, having no conscience, the better he will do because he feels no remorse for the damage he does to others to get ahead. It pits man against man. It breeds conflict by teaching the society that an individual will achieve more by being uncaring and cruel. Greed is the engine that drives it both on the supply and demand side. Remove greed and the system fails.

What you say here – The powerful get fat off of the weak. Unchecked the weakest die. The more ruthless an individual, having no conscience, the better he will do because he feels no remorse for the damage he does to others to get ahead. It pits man against man. It breeds conflict by teaching the society that an individual will achieve more by being uncaring and cruel. is wrong to say, because people will believe this, and try to do this, and it does not work, some will try, and create chaos, and where did they receive their instruction from – people like you who believe this is actually the case – not so, most major corporations are good companies, and there are very ethical standards everywhere – people who do as you say, destroy themselves, and their understanding of how to become successful comes from people like you.

Check what you believe, for you are actually giving very bad career advice to people. What is taught in University and College on how a Capitalistic System works is not at all what you think is True Capitalism… it is the propaganda of communism that you present against Capitalism.

The word True, is wrong, possibly this is where you need to adapt your concept – possibly if anything what you are describing is ultra conservatism – and it is quite the problem – these people horde wealth, expecting a disaster – almost self fulfilling their prophecy, and insist that poor people need to be left to die, then after the masses have decreased sufficiently in number, there will be enough hard working decent people left to rebuild their society.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

[Morpheus]

Morpheus

What you say here – is wrong to say, because people will believe this, and try to do this, and it does not work, some will try, and create chaos, and where did they receive their instruction from – people like you who believe this is actually the case – not so, most major corporations are good companies, and there are very ethical standards everywhere – people who do as you say, destroy themselves, and their understanding of how to become successful comes from people like you.

Check what you believe, for you are actually giving very bad career advice to people. What is taught in University and College on how a Capitalistic System works is not at all what you think is True Capitalism… it is the propaganda of communism that you present against Capitalism.

The word True, is wrong, possibly this is where you need to adapt your concept – possibly if anything what you are describing is ultra conservatism – and it is quite the problem – these people horde wealth, expecting a disaster – almost self fulfilling their prophecy, and insist that poor people need to be left to die, then after the masses have decreased sufficiently in number, there will be enough hard working decent people left to rebuild their society.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101 Capitalism has a history of labor disputes, including massacres where private thugs, local and state police and even National Guard troops were used to slaughter strikers and their families. Blatant disregard for safety has killed millions to save a buck. Children actually went on strike for a maximum 11 hr day/6 day week. Price gouging after disasters is only now beginning to be regulated. (Remember after 9/11? In Indiana gas prices exceeded $5.00/gal at some stations.)

http://www.umwa.org/history/ludlow.shtml
http://www.lutins.org/labor.html
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/02/1721171.php
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/trianglefire/ (Start with introduction link)
http://www-cse.stanford.edu/classes/cs201/current/Projects/corporate-monopolies/government_history.html
and one of my favorites: http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

Just a short collection because of time constraints. What's so honorable about all this? Granted, this isn't what capitalism is all about, but it is inherent in the system. The system is based on greed. Consumerism is developed on the demand side. Billions are spent on advertising to create demand (read create a desire).

To take it a step further, capitalism wastes productivity and resources while ignoring important needs. It wastes productivity by diverting labor from necessary work to frivolous wants. (Who really needs a Chia Pet). People die from orphan diseases because seeking a cure for them is not profitable. There is enough food produced to feed everyone on the planet, but the majority is consumed and wasted by a small percentage of the population who's intense demand drives the prices up. I could go on, but I am getting old and tired. Going to spend some time with my granddaughter.

p.s. I'm not giving career advice; I'm just pointing out what economists already know.

[BillyBob]

Of course, we all know how peaceful union strikers are. :rolleyes:

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Of course, we all know how peaceful union strikers are. :rolleyes: True. In some cases they were rioting, but in others they were sleeping. I was alleged to be involved in some labor disputes in my youth. We never became violent at any of those, but we were threatened by authorities.

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by Morpheus

True. In some cases they were rioting, but in others they were sleeping. I was alleged to be involved in some labor disputes in my youth. We never became violent at any of those, but we were threatened by authorities.
Sleeping? SLEEPING? Did they think they were on the job?

[servent101]

Morpheus Children actually went on strike for a maximum 11 hr day/6 day week. Price gouging after disasters is only now beginning to be regulated.

Yes, the system is far from perfect – but things do change, depending on how we ourselves contribute to the process of government under a capitalistic system – and yes the horrors mentioned do occur, but to say that the political or fanatical system under which people live is to blame, How So? – For every institution, even the church, has just as bad of horror stories of how people behave – it is not so much a problem with the one particular system in question – it is a problem with human nature in general.

Your I could go on, but I am getting old and tired. well we all are, but again, what you say here I'm just pointing out what economists already know. well it is not the economists that can procure what needs to be changed, who is able to change human nature that needs to be changed. I am working on myself, and once we all start to see that it is ourselves that need to start to change, that it is not the system - the sooner we will start to make progress,

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

[billwald]

In human affairs, Marx rightly explained the cycles as thesis-antithesis-synthesis.

[Frank Ernest]

About human affairs, Marx was wrong. His cycle breaks down when there is no antithesis to his beloved communism.
About human nature, Marx was absolutely wrong. No matter how one chooses to "educate" human beings, their nature remains a given.

[servent101]

Frank E No matter how one chooses to "educate" human beings, their nature remains a given.

Not so, there are those who have been changed by the Cross, and by Christ, and by other Prophets, - Mohammad, Baha u llah, Buddha, the Tao and a number of Other Prophets and Wise Men. Also there are those who are changed by association with a few who are sincere followers of those Spiritual Guides.

There are those in the human species that are unable to do what is right, there are psychopaths and demoniacs and deranged people, who cannot be changed, but all in all, most human beings are capable of much more than we give them credit for.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[Morpheus]

The real basis of the problem has been touched on here. The sins of the past can be dismissed with the excuse that we have striven to change those evils. But the truth is that no matter how hard some of us strive to improve the system, the harder others strive to corrupt it. No matter how many laws are passed it will not change human nature. We can work to change individuals, and that is probably the highest calling, but far fewer do not change.

If I could I would like to give some recent examples from personal experience. Daimler Chrysler in Indianapolis was the leading contributor of carbon monoxide on the planet a few years ago. While there working on federally mandated improvements I witnessed a few modern day atrocities.

First they flushed and refilled two glycol systems. One held 12,000 gal. and the other 25,000 gal. Each was drained overnight into the municipal sewer system instead of being processed legally. The Indianapolis sanitation plant allows 50 gal./hr. drained into the sewer if they have advance notice. More than that destroys the bacteria necessary to process human waste. Just two years prior Chrysler in Kokomo, IN was fined thousands of dollars and two jr. executives faced criminal charges for the same violation. They continue to violate because it is cheaper to pay the fines than pay for the processing.

There was another incident in the same plant. Backflow preventers are a series of valves and test ports installed between potable drinking water and industrial water to keep the contaminants from flowing back into the cities water supply. Chrysler had three 6" diameter backflow preventers installed in a mechanical room. When they weren't getting adequate flow in their process water system they paid a contractor to build spools, or flanged pieces of 6"pipe, to replace the backflow preventers. Then when they still didn't get adequate flow, they installed an 8" diameter bypass line also. Three of us were ejected from the plant for trying to make the violation known to authorities. The authorities never investigated, but they did contact the plant.

Riley Tar & Chemical plant, also in Indianapolis, is on the EPAs watch list. They have been massive polluters for decades. Hundreds have been injured in the plant and many of the chemicals can be found in the ground water in the neighborhood surrounding the plant. The EPA, after a 1.5 year investigation outside the plant perimeter, offered Superfund money to clean part of the plant up. Riley rejected the Superfund money and paid for the cleanup themselves. This may sound good, but a supervisor admitted to me (I was working in the plant at the time) that they turned down the money because if they took it the EPA could set up a trailer on site to supervise. Since they paid for the cleanup themselves the EPA could only do periodic inspections. This plant had several railroad tank cars full of toxins buried in an open field and several abandoned pipelines that were not shown on the plans.

The GE plastics plant in Mt. Vernon, IN sits on the Ohio River just upstream of where the Wabash ties in. This plant has a phenol pond. Phenol was described to us as extremely deadly. If 1 square inch of skin comes into contact with it there is no antidote and you will die. We could occasionally see a duck land on it. The duck would land and almost immediately roll over dead. The level of this pond would rise all day long, being nearly full by 6:00 p.m. when we left. When we returned the next morning it would be back down. This happened daily. On the south side of the pond was a dam with a road accross it. On the other side of the dam was the Ohio River. Now you tell me where the phenol went overnight.

Eli Lilly in Clinton, IN is a large industrial complex. They have a "thermal oxidizer" used to incinerate dangerous chemical byproducts. I once made the mistake of calling it an incinerator and was promptly corrected. This thermal oxidizer had an environmental crew observing it from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. I worked there nights. Each night at 7:30 the white smoke rolling out of the stack turned suddenly black. It was so sudden that there was no grey in between, but black bordered white. The next morning at 6:30 the reverse would occur. Those of us working nights suffered spontaneous nosebleeds and severe cough. After 6 months there we left and our symptoms disappeared.

These are just a few examples. A person may be honest and compassionate. People are corrupt. Capitalism, in the small scale, is a fine system, but on a large scale it breeds all sorts of evil. "The love of money is the source of all sorts of evil."

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :Servent:101

Frank E

Not so, there are those who have been changed by the Cross, and by Christ, and by other Prophets, - Mohammad, Baha u llah, Buddha, the Tao and a number of Other Prophets and Wise Men. Also there are those who are changed by association with a few who are sincere followers of those Spiritual Guides.
Basic human nature remains the same. If it didn't, there would be no need to preach repentance. Read Paul to the Romans.

There are those in the human species that are unable to do what is right, there are psychopaths and demoniacs and deranged people, who cannot be changed, but all in all, most human beings are capable of much more than we give them credit for.

With Christ's Love

Servent101
None of that addresses the basic question. It's a nice wandering into individual psychology, but has nothing to do with basic human nature.

[servent101]

Morpheus The real basis of the problem has been touched on here. The sins of the past can be dismissed with the excuse that we have striven to change those evils. But the truth is that no matter how hard some of us strive to improve the system, the harder others strive to corrupt it. No matter how many laws are passed it will not change human nature. We can work to change individuals, and that is probably the highest calling, but far fewer do not change.

If I could I would like to give some recent examples from personal experience.

Yes, there seems to be the pattern that you show in the world - another is where people in India are tearing down toxic ships for scrap metal -

It seems that the people who profit by this are very crafty and that bribes and threats are the means by which they practice their craft, but from reading your post... the likelihood is that you have known about the problems, yet you still live near the toxins, breathing in the "death" and drinking it in your water.

Possibly I am wrong, but it seems to go hand in hand, the defeatist attitude and the inability to personally escape the crap they do to the environment.

Just a guess, but do you live in a very polluted place?

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[Gerald]

Originally posted by billwald

In human affairs, Marx rightly explained the cycles as thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Marx forgot the last two steps in the cycle: paralysis and paresis.

(Thanks to Robert Anton Wilson!)

[servent101]

Gerald Marx forgot the last two steps in the cycle: paralysis and paresis.

Marx also forgot to find a way to keep his plans out of the hands of someone like Stalin, and as well Democracy forgot how to keep their ideal out of the hands of Halliburton...

Anyways, most people would rather have their remote control for the TV, than good government, there are so few of us who are honest, that we do not pose any threat to the main stream agenda.

We get what we deserve, sure some people do more good than others, but in the end, the masses of people who are glued to their T.V. - taking in all the swill that consumerism can fill them with, well what can one do? - but then again, what we have is a great improvement and this boob tube, may just be what the populous at large needs to keep them peaceful and sedated. We as a race are not really all that swift... what we do and why is still a mystery, possibly it is best to let the masses sit in front of the T.V. , who knows what harm they might do if they actually were to care about anything.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by servent101

Morpheus

Yes, there seems to be the pattern that you show in the world - another is where people in India are tearing down toxic ships for scrap metal -

It seems that the people who profit by this are very crafty and that bribes and threats are the means by which they practice their craft, but from reading your post... the likelihood is that you have known about the problems, yet you still live near the toxins, breathing in the "death" and drinking it in your water.

Possibly I am wrong, but it seems to go hand in hand, the defeatist attitude and the inability to personally escape the crap they do to the environment.

Just a guess, but do you live in a very polluted place?

With Christ's Love

Servent101 Actually I live 30 miles from the nearest city, but that doesn't stop it from being polluted. A few years ago there was a landfill 8 miles down the road from me that took industrial waste from everywhere, including the east coast. Most of those states the waste came from did not allow it buried, so they sent it here. It was shut down after 2 years. We have had whole herds of milk cows and cattle die from dioxin that was spread on gravel roads in oil to settle the dust. Some within 2 miles of me. No one can explain the very high incidence of neurological disorders, MS and the like, and cancers in this area. Rural Indiana, wow.

As far as my knowledge of such things, I have seen more than I have time to tell. Not only environmental, but employee abuses and blatant safety violations that have been covered up before the investigators arrive. And in some cases the bribes that buy falsification and fraud. Most people would not want to hear about falsification of documentation in nuclear powerhouse construction for example. I personally have lost several jobs and been threatened with physical harm several times in confronting similar issues, and that is just the ones where they knew or suspected it was me and refused to change. To their credit, some have changed or adjusted policy after negotiation.

[servent101]

Morpheus No one can explain the very high incidence of neurological disorders, MS and the like,

In Canada we have the latest news on M.S. – it is a vitamin D deficiency – I do not know how it ties in with pollution, but a lack of vitamin D is a factor – in Canada during the winter there is a lack of sunshine, and this is the cause of the lack of vitamin D.

For cancer etc toxins – there is selenium – very important in removing toxins, but it needs to be combined with vitamin E, and C, and B(s) – Niacin is also very good to take for removing toxins. – We know in Canada that some American vitamins – a lot in fact, are laced with things that our scientists don’t even know what is there – but they are not good – be careful with vitamins. Amway, might be your best bet.

Anyways – so you did live near a toxic dump,. And that changed – good, hope you do not eat red meat – do you know what makes it red – a chemical that is eight syllables long, and whatever or however one pronounces it, it is not good for you.

Good to hear you are doing so much. If your knees start to hurt – remember that with God’s help you can drive the enemies out of the land – have you heard of the Hay Institute? Metaphysical healing? – one can heal any physical problem if one is willing to do the mental work.

Anyways, I commend you on your effort – I hope you respect that the suffering people go through, is a part of the learning process and a part of divine design. Your welcome in Canada – the West Coast is the best – British Columbia, why not move up here and help save the trees?

With Christ’s Love

Servent101