This is less than an hour out of your life that will hopefully change your views, if you haven't already heard this. It was a seminal speech given by Noam Chomsky and one of the most piercing bits of economic philosophy done in the past fifty years. I stress philosophy, because this is not economics. He mentions many economic studies to back up his philosophical thesis, but it is definitely logical and qualitative in nature.
Showing posts with label international affairs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label international affairs. Show all posts
Monday, March 11, 2013
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Wikileaks is Great
I'm puzzled by the furor over the Wikileaks leak. For one, it actually paints the US in a surprisingly good light. It shows the US working hard to do legitimately good things. Bravo! Moreover, it has politicians saying things that we want them to say in public (like Putin is a weak leader). Second, what was released is borderline unimportant.
Wikileaks itself is also a good thing. Many seem to think that they released this information to specifically embarrass the US. If they did, they didn't release terribly embarrassing information. Even Assange has said that the goal if Wikileaks is not to embarrass, but to prove that nothing is secret. If nothing is secret, there can be no "conspiracies." That's Assange's term, and I don't like it, but you get the picture. If people think that there will be sudden, global oversight to anything that they do, people won't do some of the shit that government has been prone to do. No more secrets.
Movie Videos & Movie Scenes at MOVIECLIPS.com
Wikileaks itself is also a good thing. Many seem to think that they released this information to specifically embarrass the US. If they did, they didn't release terribly embarrassing information. Even Assange has said that the goal if Wikileaks is not to embarrass, but to prove that nothing is secret. If nothing is secret, there can be no "conspiracies." That's Assange's term, and I don't like it, but you get the picture. If people think that there will be sudden, global oversight to anything that they do, people won't do some of the shit that government has been prone to do. No more secrets.
Movie Videos & Movie Scenes at MOVIECLIPS.com
Monday, October 25, 2010
Africa Needs More Help Than We Can Give
George Ongere has an article over at Skeptical Inquirer about superstition in Africa, specifically sub-Saharan Africa. Basically, he's arguing that all of the economic advancement in the world won't help them since that will cause a greater rift between the haves and the have-nots, and a strong, deeply engrained superstitious culture will hamper if not outright ruin any attempt at education and development.
I've ranted about Africa before, basically saying that the West can do two things. They can continue what they're doing and keep Africa in the dark ages, or they can invest in business and take a strongly moral stance. Namely, we will only do business if you knock off this garbage. No superstition, no killing albinos, no corruption, and if we catch so much as a whiff of this, we're out. We'll come back in another decade and see if you're ready.
We're not doing this anywhere else. In China, human rights violations are rampant, but we don't care. Same as India. We can't do that with Africa. We have to put our money where our moral mouths are and pay more than lip service to our quest to actually help them. Because, let's face it, Bono ain't doing shit.
Will Africa Still Be Immersed in Deep Superstition by the Year 2030? (Skeptical Inquirer)
I've ranted about Africa before, basically saying that the West can do two things. They can continue what they're doing and keep Africa in the dark ages, or they can invest in business and take a strongly moral stance. Namely, we will only do business if you knock off this garbage. No superstition, no killing albinos, no corruption, and if we catch so much as a whiff of this, we're out. We'll come back in another decade and see if you're ready.
We're not doing this anywhere else. In China, human rights violations are rampant, but we don't care. Same as India. We can't do that with Africa. We have to put our money where our moral mouths are and pay more than lip service to our quest to actually help them. Because, let's face it, Bono ain't doing shit.
Will Africa Still Be Immersed in Deep Superstition by the Year 2030? (Skeptical Inquirer)
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Get.... Out.
The New York Times has been shown a report that outlines what pretty much anyone with knowledge of Africa already knew: aid to Africa is fucked.
The report shows that as much as 50% of food aid to Somalia is diverted to various nefarious groups and not to those poor, needy savages.
Here's a novel idea, GET THE FUCK OUT. I understand that us hyper-advanced, white westerners always know what's best for the rest of the world, but it's painfully obvious that our actions are just doing more damage. We're helping no one.
Yes, we're feeding some people for a time, but the old saying of fish and fishing has been around for a lot longer than Africa and its endless crises. We need to get out now. If we want to help anyone, we have to let them find their own way. We did it, everyone remember the Middle Ages? Yeah. It was a shit-show. But we managed!
People are going to die. Governments will fall. Stuff is going to appear to get worse before it gets better. But that shit must be excised from the system before it has any hope of moving forward. Once they've achieves some degree of stability on their own, we can begin doing business with them. We can let them into the big clubhouse that is the global economy.
Some numbers, Africa is the second largest continent after Asia, and the second most populous after Asia. Near-as-makes-no-difference one billion people live in Africa with the vast majority of them living in poverty. Africa has a massive amount of natural resources.
Western nations give about $100 billion per year to Africa. One percent more, ONE PERCENT, of the global economy going to Africa would result in six times that number. Once the systems are in place, our single most important mission, if we actually care about Africa, is to get their businesses up-and-running. There is nothing more important.
Up until this point, I've ignored the moral question. In my plan, letting lots of people die is fine. But morality certainly comes into the equations, but not in simply giving them food and money.
We must stand by our ideals as a nation and not accept human rights violations in the countries with which we are doing business. Countries rich in resources such as oil are going to develop highly corrupt nascent governments. The west must stand by and reject business with these nations until certain goals of human rights development are met. Basically, we must do what we are not doing with the Arab nations and their oil.
Half of Food Aid to Somalia Is Diverted, Report Says (NYTimes.com)
The report shows that as much as 50% of food aid to Somalia is diverted to various nefarious groups and not to those poor, needy savages.
Here's a novel idea, GET THE FUCK OUT. I understand that us hyper-advanced, white westerners always know what's best for the rest of the world, but it's painfully obvious that our actions are just doing more damage. We're helping no one.
Yes, we're feeding some people for a time, but the old saying of fish and fishing has been around for a lot longer than Africa and its endless crises. We need to get out now. If we want to help anyone, we have to let them find their own way. We did it, everyone remember the Middle Ages? Yeah. It was a shit-show. But we managed!
People are going to die. Governments will fall. Stuff is going to appear to get worse before it gets better. But that shit must be excised from the system before it has any hope of moving forward. Once they've achieves some degree of stability on their own, we can begin doing business with them. We can let them into the big clubhouse that is the global economy.
Some numbers, Africa is the second largest continent after Asia, and the second most populous after Asia. Near-as-makes-no-difference one billion people live in Africa with the vast majority of them living in poverty. Africa has a massive amount of natural resources.
Western nations give about $100 billion per year to Africa. One percent more, ONE PERCENT, of the global economy going to Africa would result in six times that number. Once the systems are in place, our single most important mission, if we actually care about Africa, is to get their businesses up-and-running. There is nothing more important.
Up until this point, I've ignored the moral question. In my plan, letting lots of people die is fine. But morality certainly comes into the equations, but not in simply giving them food and money.
We must stand by our ideals as a nation and not accept human rights violations in the countries with which we are doing business. Countries rich in resources such as oil are going to develop highly corrupt nascent governments. The west must stand by and reject business with these nations until certain goals of human rights development are met. Basically, we must do what we are not doing with the Arab nations and their oil.
Half of Food Aid to Somalia Is Diverted, Report Says (NYTimes.com)
Friday, July 31, 2009
The Palindrome of Bolton Would Be Notlob.
John Bolton recently got on the Daily show to support his argument that Israel should attack Iran. He now works for the American Enterprise Institute, aka Crazy Right-Wing Fucknuts, and wrote this article in support of his view.
I can't even believe he got up and said this. Regime change??? Aren't we over that crap? Iran hates us today because of or previous attempts at regime change. And I'm sure ass-faces like him were arguing the same things he's arguing now back then. He's wrong. Totally wrong.
Every time the US starts fucking around with politics of another country, it leads to bad things. EVERY TIME. The last time it worked was friggin' Teddy Roosevelt and Panama. And that's because Teddy didn't couch his arguments in obfuscation and euphemism. He said American has a right to take what it wants, and he fucking did it.
Something tells me that politics like that wouldn't work today. What's that called, unilateral action, or something like that. Yes, something tells me that that would not work. I don't know what.
All you need to do to realize how wrong he is, is read this article from Smithsonian magazine.
Bolton is from the right, which means he likes to use the argument that liberals are pie-in-the-sky dreamers, who live in their academic towers far from reality. Any man who's running around arguing about the US invading other countries, instigating fights among other countries, and otherwise being a war-monger doesn't have a fucking clue. Not one clue.
He says that once Iran has nuclear weapons, everything changes. Why?! Why does everything change? Why does he assume everyone is an enemy? Iran can never use the weapons. So how does it change how we treat Iran in even the slightest?
He's not fighting. He doesn't understand these people. He doesn't know what Iran is. Hell, he barely has a grasp of basic psychology that any first-year college student would know. He doesn't know life outside of supermarkets and air conditioned cars. I'm not saying I do. I've lived a posh life just like most other Americans.
Getting self-righteous and talking like you know better than other people, and then sitting safe, fat, and happy as other people do your dirty work makes you worse than scum.
Bolton, go fuck yourself.
I can't even believe he got up and said this. Regime change??? Aren't we over that crap? Iran hates us today because of or previous attempts at regime change. And I'm sure ass-faces like him were arguing the same things he's arguing now back then. He's wrong. Totally wrong.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| John Bolton | ||||
| ||||
Every time the US starts fucking around with politics of another country, it leads to bad things. EVERY TIME. The last time it worked was friggin' Teddy Roosevelt and Panama. And that's because Teddy didn't couch his arguments in obfuscation and euphemism. He said American has a right to take what it wants, and he fucking did it.
Something tells me that politics like that wouldn't work today. What's that called, unilateral action, or something like that. Yes, something tells me that that would not work. I don't know what.
All you need to do to realize how wrong he is, is read this article from Smithsonian magazine.
Bolton is from the right, which means he likes to use the argument that liberals are pie-in-the-sky dreamers, who live in their academic towers far from reality. Any man who's running around arguing about the US invading other countries, instigating fights among other countries, and otherwise being a war-monger doesn't have a fucking clue. Not one clue.
He says that once Iran has nuclear weapons, everything changes. Why?! Why does everything change? Why does he assume everyone is an enemy? Iran can never use the weapons. So how does it change how we treat Iran in even the slightest?
He's not fighting. He doesn't understand these people. He doesn't know what Iran is. Hell, he barely has a grasp of basic psychology that any first-year college student would know. He doesn't know life outside of supermarkets and air conditioned cars. I'm not saying I do. I've lived a posh life just like most other Americans.
Getting self-righteous and talking like you know better than other people, and then sitting safe, fat, and happy as other people do your dirty work makes you worse than scum.
Bolton, go fuck yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)