| Author | Message | ||
     Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 87.102.92.194 |
http://arthurpendragon.ukonline.co.uk/ | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.215 |
>>>It's not every day that you get to sit in a pub garden with the King of England, supping pints of cider and smoking endless cigarettes The thing about those endless cigarettes is that you need bloody long arms to light them. A task for a King, indeed! | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 87.102.92.194 |
I still hate him. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 147.252.230.154 |
I knew that when Arthur returned he'd have a website. I just knew it. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.145.131.124 |
Funny if it was true. How would we tell? Anyone tune in to the big bang thing? Anyone else disappointed that nothing happened? | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.145.131.124 |
We should all treat him as Arthur and see if he becomes him, see if he does a good job and earns the title. Maybe that's how arthurs happen. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.238.23 |
A little more hair, he'd look like Bigfoot. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.145.131.124 |
But people would laugh at King Bigfoot. Maybe not me, perhaps, but certainly most. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 87.102.92.194 |
They haven't collided the particles yet. They have shot a couple off in each direction but not at the same time. I read 30 days time to go. Teases. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.14.188 |
I wouldn't laugh at King Bigfoot. If they found him, I'd kneel down in reverence. I think whatever Bigfoots were, are, etc., they must have survived (preserved as mythical creatures: giants, trolls, etc.) into at least the fringes of recorded history... and maybe beyond.... | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 160.6.1.47 |
Over the history of the universe high-energy cosmic rays would almost certainly have performed this experiment in a chance collision. The universe is still here, so it should be okay. What if there was a mini black hole continuously yo-yo-ing through the earth's core and out the other side? We'd get used to it. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 87.102.92.194 |
Maybe we are all inside a black hole right now and don't know it. Zed seems taller, somehow. Well, stretchier. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 160.6.1.47 |
I think this is only a test, anyway. They're not opening the portal to hell for another month. | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 212.74.96.200 |
We cold live onthe moon for a while. Earth's mass would be eaten up, so the moon would stiill be in orbit; and the black hole would only be feeding on the usual radiation of the solar system for a good long while before it roubled us. In fact, you know, I kind of think it might've been good for us if one had stabalised. Interesting to think new universes may be being created as a result of CERN. God is the former keyboard player of D:Ream for them . . . Things could only get better from then on in! | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.145.131.124 |
Anyone subtley welsome the idea of man starting again, or the universe? I think we've cocked it up to some extent. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 212.50.191.46 |
Has anyone developed a model that allows for the necessary brutality of evolution/natural selection and the care and share attitude some idealists aspire to?  | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
>>>Anyone subtley welsome the idea of man starting again, or the universe? I think we've cocked it up to some extent. What we need is a flood... Hmm. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
>>>Has anyone developed a model that allows for the necessary brutality of evolution/natural selection and the care and share attitude some idealists aspire to? Evoluntionary psychology wants to have its cake and eat it. The selfish gene coupled with biological mechanisms for altruism. The id at war with the superego. The uneasy alliance of the limbic system and the cerebral cortex. Freud, for all his faults, was on to something... | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
A guy called David Kidner reckons that Enlightenment thought is fundamentally flawed because it prioritises triumph over nature, rather than an acknowledgement of 'wildness' in humanity. Our societies are cobbled together to promote rational control, whereas a society that accommodated such natural imperatives would be arguably more in line with our biological heritage. Gods knows what this would look like in practice, however. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 212.50.191.46 |
I'm all for cyborgs with buttons that switch off emotional pain. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 212.50.191.46 |
I wonder how many people would choose that to the agony of desire. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.244.67 |
I could destroy the world if I could just get buttons on them! | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
>>>I'm all for cyborgs with buttons that switch off emotional pain. Isn't the button called Prozac? | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Have you read BRAVE NEW WORLD, Albie? | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.110.231.83 |
Gary, it's incredible how many fuckers make a living from reinventing the wheel. As you know, what David Kidner argues was common currency in the nineteenth century, and led to all the early twentieth century's attempts to reconcile instinct with reason – everything from Freud and surrealism to eugenics and fascism. The call of the wild has been heard loud and clear for over a century. Trouble is, civilisation falsifies nature and replaces it with its own violent pastiche. Sociobiology is banal reactionary drivel for genetics nerds who know nothing about people. The 'gut instinct' has been the currency of exploiters and con-artists for so long, we know from experience that any sentence containg the word 'instinct' (or even the word 'nature') is a manipulative lie. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Kidner is arguing that all these attempts at reconciliation are grounded in an industrial mindset - what he calls technocentricism. He seeks recourse to many cultures where this division between the natural world and the human project have not been split, where the environment is shot through with symbolic meaning, rather than perceived simply as "resource". For instance, a tree has metaphorical resonance (cultural roots, etc), and is not simply future firewood or Ikea furniture. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Useful quote: "...the Freudian id is created by the inability of society to articulate our relational needs, leaving behind a reservoir of those needs so that they appear to be in principle merely 'instinctual' drives which are necessarily in conflict with social structures. Such a concept would be entirely superfluous within a culture that effectively articulated the biological potentates of its members." | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.236.131 |
Wouldn't Prozac make you high? I would just take away the pain of not being high. Then you wouldn't need to get high. Imagine the peace. Brave New World. no. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Prozac makes you neither high nor low, doesn't it? Just flat-lined. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.236.131 |
Seems so. My plan is taking on speed and yet I still don't feel happy? Can we introduce a drug that stops people knowing they exist? take away the self awareness factor? become completely subconsciously controlled? Or is that the aim of the New Agers? I wouldn't want to step on their turf. Have you ever been attacked by a mob of Yogic flyers? It was lucky I managed to got off that thick springy carpet. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Speed just gave me a headache. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Actually, I hate all drugs. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 160.6.1.47 |
"Can we introduce a drug that stops people knowing they exist? take away the self awareness factor? become completely subconsciously controlled?" Transcendental meditation does something similar by doing the exact opposite. There are versions on the web which are the same as TM (which is actually a trademarked name TM^TM) but at a reasonable price and without the quasi-religious nonsense. It works. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.194.113 |
Gary, one of the muscle relaxants I've been prescribed is called - believe it or not! - Soma. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Is your doctor called Our Ford?  | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 212.74.96.200 |
I try stay clear of prescriptions docs give me. Only use them if I'm in a lot of a lot of pain. And then sparingly. The drugs I last took to dull some pain also narrowed my awareness to such an extent it was like I was looking out of my head through a tunnel. And I slept 33 hours out of 36. And was a grumpy sod too. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.110.177.202 |
Gary, flat-lined is about it. Prozac doesn't make you feel better, it just makes you feel less. It's even an anaesthetic at the physical level. Life on Prozac is a kind of vanilla hell. The Kidner quote is rather good. But as Fromm and Marcuse both realised, any attempt to make the rules of society take account of human needs would lead to the creation of a more humane and just social system – it therefore has to be suppressed with the utmost force in order to keep the vicious train of capitalist exploitation on its narrow track. Then the boss class dare to tell us that the social system is the way it is because of 'human nature' – two words they have already bled of any sane meaning. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Interestingly, Kidner criticises even Fromm for falling into the aforementioned industrial mindset: "Fromm, like Freud, is...caught up in the great delusions of industrialism: that a human realm independent of nature is practically realisable and sustainable, and that '[man] must proceed to develop his reason until he becomes the master of nature, and of himself.' " The point is that any viewpoint that makes an enemy of nature in this way is doomed to failure. (John Gray suggests in Straw Dogs that the Enlightenment illusion that humanity is qualitatively different from the natural world leads to such dangers.) Kidner has some time for Marcuse, however: "It is not so much a question, then - as Marcuse himself points out - of envisioning a ' nonrepressive' society within which instinct could be fulfilled, for such straightforward 'fulfilment' will be oddly unsatisfying; but rather one in which instinct and culture can engage in a conversation or a dance, which extrapolates from natural structure in a way that remains faithful to it." | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
>>>it therefore has to be suppressed with the utmost force in order to keep the vicious train of capitalist exploitation on its narrow track. Btw, careful: They'll call you a conspiracy theorist. They'll say you're just seeking attention. They'll say you're David Icke. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.110.253.167 |
No, it's not a conspiracy. It's overt policy, blatant and public. Look at McCarthyism. Look at the US-backed coup in Chile that replaced a democratically elected socialist president with a fascist dicator. Look at Kissinger's statement: "We cannot allow communism to take over a country due to the stupidity of its electorate." If communism were in conflict with the essential dictates of human nature, why have such violent measures been necessary to prevent it? It's like cutting a jaguar's feel off and then declaring it ill-equipped by nature to run. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.110.253.167 |
Marcuse is indeed more radical and more subtle than Fromm. He is, however, much harder to read. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.194.190 |
I agree with Joel about Prozac. I found it just made me care less, and I stopped taking it. I tried a few others (both for depression and neuropathic pain) such as Cipralex and Seroxat, but didn't like them either. The older tricyclic anti-depressants are way more 'heavy' in terms of side effects. Tramadol works well as an anti-depressant, and it's not even prescribed for depression. It's a pain killer that works on two levels: as an opioid receptor agonist, and on the serotonin and noradrenaline levels in the brain (similar to SSRIs such as Prozac). Unlike other anti-depressants, you don't have to wait for several weeks for it to start working - its effects are immediate. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
>>>No, it's not a conspiracy. It's overt policy, blatant and public. I know. It's just that whenever I've made similar sounds here in the past, I've been savaged as a looney leftie. Joel, have you read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine? Absolutely stunning. Literally. It goes all the way from the CIA's funding of torture in the 50s, via South American interventions in Chile, IMF meddling in Poland, what Tiananmen Square was really about, the Russian Oligarchs, the privatisation of mililtary and medical provision, Indonesia under Suharto, Israel, South Africa and the Freedom Charter, and the tsaunami in Sri Lanka. Disaster capitalism. Scary. Conspiracy theory? Fuck off. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.110.222.122 |
I'll get hold of it, Gary. Not been reading nearly enough non-fiction in recent years. Though I've read lots of Klein-influenced newspaper articles. At least we can easily buy socialist newspapers in the UK. Craig commented recently that Marxism is no more acceptable in the USA than Nazism. I don't know if that means that Marxism has had less impact there than here in the past, or more impact – after all, why ban something if it's not a threat? I can buy the Morning Star [for non-UK readers, that's the daily paper of the Communist Party of Britain] in any one of a dozen local newsagents, but it hardly poses a threat to the system. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
I decided recently to give both extreme attitudes to globalisation a fair hearing, so I read in the pro camp: Collosus by Niall Ferguson and The Lexus and the Olive Tree by Thomas Friedman And in the anti camp: Freedom Next Time by John Pilger and The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein I can report that what's disturbing about the former perspective is its almost wilfully neglect of the social impact of 'structural readjustment' on markets which succumb to IMF loans. Neither Ferguson nor Friedman say anything about Pinochet's activities - little things like flying dissidents out over the sea in helicopters, slitting open their guts and chucking them out; or the 'disappearance' (read: torture) of Union leaders; and far too many other atrocities. These books are theoretical tracts about the long-term benefits of a global market, with absolutely no sense of the corporate abuse it entails, let alone its silenced victims. You can get all that from Pilger and Klein. A more even-handed account of globalisation is Will Hutton's book on China. He shows how the imposition of democracy (even if we accept for a moment that the Western hegemon has that in mind) is hopeless without an institutional infrastructure in place to deal with accountability, justice, etc. Witness the exploitation of Russia. Hutton also goes on to detail how the Bush adminstration has essentially unravelled decades of legislation designed to hold corporations to account, and on the basis of its escalating debt (born of rampant consumerism) is heading for the rocks. China's buying up all its debt, yet China has serious problems of its own: state-controlled industry, export-based economy. It's all going to get messy. The US may retreat into its former protectionism; China may grind to an internally-combusting halt. And ageing, decadent Europe isn't in a position to rise to the fore. Result: a power vacuum... | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.110.236.40 |
Thanks, Gary. Some important stuff there. I've been mulling over the quite different US and UK responses to the 'threat' of socialism... In the UK, the Communist Party, the Socialist Workers Party and similar organisations are essentially an activist base for campaigning on particular issues: war, privatisation, racism, globalisation, the trade union movement and so on. At that level, they have a limited but definite impact. Everyone knows the chance of such organisations 'taking over' is non-existent. What I hadn't realised before is that the same scenario existed in the USA in the fifties. The Communist Party was essentially a base for organised campaigning on such issues as civil rights and trade union rights. But the American ruling class, unlike the British, decided that such campaigning was unacceptable in itself – hence the invention of the 'Red threat' to democracy, and the stamping out of organised socialism in the USA. It wasn't enough to defeat the left, they had to eradicate it. Which, of course, is a pattern the US has repeated over and over in its foreign policy: if you let people vote, the results might threaten 'democracy'. So to protect democracy, you kill it. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
As E M Forster once said: two cheers for democracy. US-meddling in world affairs is genuinely nightmare-inducing. They trade on the soft power of their Mc-Disney culture, yet the truth is that such a velvet glove contains the iron fist of violent, elite-serving hegemony. Klein's chapter on the privatisation of military and medical provision is terrifying. After the dot-com bubble-burst, there's one rock-solid investment opportunity: war and disease. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Friedman, to his credit, argues that for democracy to work effectively within the context of capitalism, business must be held accountable by legislation, a rock-solid justice system, absolute freedom of the press, and a network of Unions. This is in fact good for business. The US and the UK and much of Europe has developed such an institutional infrastructure over centuries of war: that is, in return for the taxation required to fund such ventures, the public has demanded something in return - these structures. The problem is that Friedman doesn't seem to acknowledge that a) the Bush adminstration is gleefully overturning much of this system; and b) foreign countries without a history of such systemic development have absolutely no understanding of such a system. So foreign policy that endorses democracy is doomed to failure since it rests upon the idea of democracy, and not the lived world correlates - that is, how the natives live their lives. It's as easy to change a cat into a dog by a quick course of Pavlovian conditioning: but that's what shock therapy - the Chicago school's charming euphemism for bombing the fuck out of countries, then demanding economic structural adjustment (privatisation, labour flexibility [the sack], etc), then torturing dissidents - seems to involve. The sad result is a hardening of existing anti-Western rhetoric and action, as is happening now in insurgent-ridden Iraq. | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 212.74.96.200 |
>>They trade on the soft power of their Mc-Disney culture, yet the truth is that such a velvet glove contains the iron fist of violent, elite-serving hegemony Sounds like the Romans. Though they didn't have McDonalds . . . Question, though: would the world be a better place without the US in it? I think probably not. And no, I know it doesn't excuse anything. Just thought I'd mention it. I'm off to wash my car. Dangerous policy. Last tiem I did that it chunked out on me halfway across the country . . . | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
>>>Question, though: would the world be a better place without the US in it? I think probably not. All this is about a particular brand of ruthless capitalism of which the US is the principal - though not exclusive - proponent. Ferguson traces the emergence of this 'way of being' to the way the US developed its collective states, though many of them were purchased from Mexico, etc. It was when it started meddling in Central America and then in Korea and then everywhere that the grip took hold. In short, when it abandoned protectionism in favour of globalisation. The end of the second world war was a major turning point; it allowed the US to dictate the world economic system via GATTs, which gave way to the World Bank, IMF and WTO. But this latest shift was a consequence of the collapse of the USSR (and not 9/11, as most seem to believe). | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.12.179 |
Gary: I'm mostly ignorant on these issues, but I would note: most if not all of the specific examples you cite of aggressive American "interventionalism," is indeed post-WWII. Prior and during (half of it), the United States took an essentially "fortress America" approach; then, it was dragged into two world wars, but less dragged than seeing it had to pull up its sleeves and slog in... because it saw that letting things be, led to disaster - a disaster that would most certainly spread its tendrils to America. Since then, the approach has been: to the best of our abilities, the world shall conform to us from now on, to prevent (what we perceive as) further disasters. But one can't believe power corrupts, and not believe power always and eventually corrupts. Everywhere. If you take that tack, you're faced with a central choice: us, or them. Every nation has had to face that at some point... some abuse the implications of "us or them," some anticipate unfairly "us or them," some react wrongly to "us or them"... but unless you're willing to choose "us" over "them" - which is the over-morality to all lesser-moralities - you will eventually perish as an "us," when the "them" chooses their "us" over yours. This is the Bush doctrine (that Sarah Palin got wrong) in a nutshell: When it's us or them, choose us - before you even have to choose. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.12.179 |
Joel: I think it's an historical thing - the U.S. is a mere toddler, compare to the UK. Ups and downs, revolutions and kings, a history that stretches back to indefinable mists, makes for a hardier stock than a two-hundred year-old, birthed-from-the-brain country, that's still uncertain about maintaining its singular identity. Uncertain, meaning, overreactive. I think the U.S. is a deeply repressed nation. We are still young enough to be idealistic, but not old enough to cynically wink-and-nod at crumbling "moralities." Socialist ethics/programs are firmly ensconced in U.S. systems of government... but we don't want to acknowledge that, because to acknowledge that is tantamount to failure. This is a puritan-founded nation; where the heretic must be burned as a witch at the stake, rather than found out to be an "alternative lifestyle" posing far more threat to the puritan's mind than any horny devil does. Communism here has mostly been reduced, actually, to a "Morning Star" degree: it's a non-factor. Politicians running as Communists are rejected out of hand: a Communist and a foil-hatted UFO-hunter are seen as equal. Nazism, by contrast, is patently pernicious; it can't be joked about, or looked at in anything remotely resembling a favorable light - to broach that subject, is to be Satanic. We tried that tack for a long time, doing that to Communism... it didn't stick, but somehow, laughter took care of the problem.... Two anti-Communist propaganda cinema must-see classics? The short RED NIGHTMARE, and I WAS A COMMUNIST FOR THE FBI. The "red scare," for producing these two wonderful films if nothing else, was not all bad.... | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Craig, you're right. The US has always been reluctantly imperialistic, to such a degree that it even hides its imperialism behind a discourse of anti-imperialism - that is, it intervenes as a way of preventing other imperialist expansion and only, as it were, becomes imperialistic that way. If it had wanted (and McCarthy did want), it could have smashed Korea and Vietnam, but the US people have always been troubled by the notion of "empire". You're also right that the US has at its heart much that is socialist/liberal. The institutional infrastructure I mentioned above allowed capitalism to really take root. However, as I claim above, the Bush administration is seriously distorting this system, and there were elements of it that were distorted from the outset. For example, the rule that a company can be treated as a person in matters of law, with all a person's rights, led to decidedly dubious corporate activities way before WWII. Check out Haiti, Cuba, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic, and their political relationship with American banks, fruit and sugar companies. In short, what I'm suggesting is that it isn't the US per se that's at fault, rather a particular brand of ruthless capitalism promulgated by a certain kind of rugged individualist who, perhaps, the US is eminently (and unwittingly) designed to nurture. I think we can supplement that with your stuff above about the puritanical 'youth' of its collective mindset, too. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
The only real option is to give so much to poor countries that we all become on the same level. That we deliberatly pass up on cheaper imports and neglect our own export power to favor the poorer countries. Forcing other super powers to take imports that are unreliable (due to the inherent temperament of the weather in poor countries) and expensive. Then we'd have to prop them up when things got bad. Be a police force when corruption sets in, as it often does. Basically rule over them in a way that doesn't look like we are. One country that has been held up as proof that Globalisation destroys is Mexico. Yet North Mexico, that has grasped Globalisation, is doing far far better than South Mexico, which hasn't. Mexico is set to be in the top five economical countries by 2050. So I've heard. It is already the 12th. Yet people cite this country as proof that the IMF destroys countries in favour of US. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
The climate is an issue, yes (and for all of us soon :<). >>>Be a police force when corruption sets in, as it often does. This is what I'm talking about when I refer to accountability, justice, etc. Without the instititions, things get messy. That's why many countries are years from democracy. It can't be thrust upon them. Re: Mexico - for every Mexico, there's a South Africa. Conditions for the great majority are just as bad under the new leadership. A few billionaire Blacks notwithstanding. As can be deduced from above, globalisation does have its positive side. It's just the way it's enforced that's disturbing and that few people in favour of it are willing to discuss. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
>>>Mexico is set to be in the top five economical countries by 2050 Btw, is this judged by GNP or per capita income? Crucial difference. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Mexico: "Ongoing economic concerns include the commercial and financial dependence on the US, low real wages, underemployment for a large segment of the population, inequitable income distribution (the top 20% of income earners account for 55% of income)" | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
I assume it was GDP. I can't find the source. But this I found... http://otrebmuh.livejournal.com/3391.html Haven't read it yet. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
And if it is GDP rather than per head then that can surely be the problem of the internal government. Like I said the south of Mexico HAVEN'T taken on Globalisation. They are the poorest. And they have very poor education. If there is any corruption here it is surely internal. The IMF often do blame their failures on this sort of corruption. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
Is South Africa a problem created by Globalisation or interfering Western powers? | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Gross inequality is always the result of embracing the free market. It's central to the system. Now whether you accept this as an acceptable price to pay is your decision. I personally see it as an unacceptable 'winner takes all' situation with all that this leads to. Most of the above, however, is about how this system is enforced, and it ain't pretty. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
>>>Is South Africa a problem created by Globalisation or interfering Western powers? Yes. The ANC was duped. And business only turned against Apartheid when it was staining its reputation. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
>>>And if it is GDP rather than per head then that can surely be the problem of the internal government. It's a problem engendered by structural adjustment: privatisation, labour flexibility, etc. All dictated by the IMF. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Let me repeat: I don't dispute the fact that the free market drives up living standards. But I'd qualifiy that with the following: without an institution framework in place, corruption is inevitable; inequality is inevitable; there's a question about whether capitalism is really desirable anyway (check out such fey tomes as Oliver James' Affluenza). The main concern is how painful this transition is for most countries and how little those enforcing actually care about the people who'll suffer as a consequence. It isn't just poverty; we're talking violent suppression. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
>>It's a problem engendered by structural adjustment: privatisation, labour flexibility, etc. All dictated by the IMF. Well that's what some people tell me, but they always fail to provide exact evidence of it. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
General Pinochet. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Poland. Russia. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Argentina. Brazil. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
? | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
That's LESS exact. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Just take a look at some of the material on their structural adjustment periods. Make up your own mind. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
It's getting the info is the problem | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
The net is no good. It is just biased to the hilt. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
That's the problem. It's hard finding an objective perspective (if such a thing is possible) on any of this stuff. That's why I decided to read pro and anti books in order to make up my own mind. But the key thing for me is: Pilger and Klein report from the 'coal face' - they're there, where's it's happening. Friedman and Ferguson are journo/academics. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
Mmm. None of those choices seems that reliable. Coal face? As in dealing with people who have been directly influenced by the changes? The people most likely to be biased? And it is the reportage I'm saying is biased. I have no reason to believe that Pilger or anyone else is unbiased. In the end most of what they give is unchallenged. There's no debate. I know that an offer has been made by the IMF to Joe Stiglitz to debate what he says about his old organisation. But he doesn't seem to want to discuss it. Prefers to talk to the people who are already biased. There's no debate involving the people in the know. I wouldn't believe anything, net or printed (it's basically the same) until I've seen an exhaustive debate. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
I am biased myself. Because all this stuff falls in the catagory of conspiracy theory for me. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
You must be critical in your reception of all this material, but it's essential to engage with it. Create your own debate by reading the rivals accounts. It's no use asking for objectivity since that is impossible. The problem with contemporary society is that there are few if any real venues for such debate. The media? Do me a favour. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/coverups/aida.html | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
http://www.imf.org/external/np/vc/2002/070202.HTM If Joe Stiglitz responded to this letter then I would call that a pretty reliable beginning of a debate. If there is no objectivity then you cannot trust your belief, surely. Or trust your faith in your belief. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
You seem to be suggesting here that you're unwilling to, as it were, 'take a side', whereas our past debates have certainly suggested otherwise. Have you shifted from 'belief' to scepticism? | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
From Ken's letter: "We at the IMF—no, make that we on the Planet Earth — have considerable experience suggesting otherwise. We earthlings have found that when a country in fiscal distress tries to escape by printing more money, inflation rises, often uncontrollably." Very mature. Well worthy of debate. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
I side against the idea that the US deliberatly destroys countries so Nike can get cheap labour. I find that fanciful. Nobody I discuss this with has shown me any real info that negates my opinion. I looked into Malawi, using the net alone, and found no evidence that the IMF were lying when they said that things worsened due to corruption in the Malawian government. I was discussing this very subject with a guy who has written 7 books on the subject...right here... http://www.bizarrocentral.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1471&whichpage=3 All I asked him were very simple questions that he didn't seem to be able to answer. And he just got angry that I would even ask for evidence. Which happens time and time again. Which strengthens my suspicion that it is all opinion and not much else. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
>>Very mature. Well worthy of debate. And now you seem to be doing it. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
>>>found no evidence that the IMF were lying when they said that things worsened due to corruption in the Malawian government. But that's the point (see above): that imposing a free market without supporting institutional development to combat corruption is never going to work. If the intention is to promote democracy, you can't just install the hardware without the software. That is the IMF's problem. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
>>You seem to be suggesting here that you're unwilling to, as it were, 'take a side', That's exactly what the guy on that forum said. What qualifies ANYONE to take a side? other than bias? Why should I take a have to take a side when no real debate has taken place. Are you saying you don't need that? | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
>>But that's the point (see above): that imposing a free market without supporting institutional development to combat corruption is never going to work. If the intention is to promote democracy, you can't just install the hardware without the software. That is the IMF's problem. So they should take over the governing and put in someone who knows what they are doing? Then they are accused of empire building. And when that forced government is taken out and the country sinks into corruption...the IMF is blamed. They go into sinking countries and try experimental measures to save it. Because the country does not come out as a major super power the IMF are then accused of making things worse. When In fact things could have been much worse without their intervention. They do an almost impossible job. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
At least they have a job. Unlike so many folk who suffer their structural adjustment programs. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
Do they suffer their structural adjustment programs? Or were they going to lose their jobs anyway? | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
What evidence can I provide for you that wouldn't be biased? | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
If Superman tries to catch a falling plane and some people fall out to their deaths...is it his fault? | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
>>What evidence can I provide for you that wouldn't be biased? If you can't then logically your opinion is based on bad faith. I knew I'd get to use that phrase eventually.  | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Actually, privatisation and labour flexibility demands mass sackings and dissolution of unions, all as a consequence of structural adjustment. But then I only read that in Klein's book so it can't be true. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
If I went to Chile and interviewed some of the people who lost their jobs, you'd just claim that they're biased. If I stay here and read a book about it, you claim the author is biased. What is anyone to do against such an attitude? | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
Assuming that is true, suppose that measure was necessary? And I'm not saying the IMF are perfect. I'm sure they make mistakes. Do they have more failures than successes ? Action Aid follow their actions closely. So do many people. Yet no evidence that can even be held up to convince the unbiased? | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
>>>measure was necessary Was Pinochet's torture of union leaders necessary? This is the crux of this whole thread: whether or not you agree with globalisation (and I can see both sides of the debate), is it justifiable to enforce it on countries prematurely in a way that leads to such atrocities? | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
>>If I stay here and read a book about it, you claim the author is biased. What is anyone to do against such an attitude? Spark a debate that actually goes beyond primary principals. With people at the core of this situation. Everything you know is a primary stage of a debate. Get to the 39th level of exchange and I might be able to make a judgement. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
>>Was Pinochet's torture of union leaders necessary? And the IMF suggested that did they? | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
>>is it justifiable to enforce it on countries prematurely in a way that leads to such atrocities? Maybe it is the only chance they had? See both sides? If so then you have to ask yourself that. Like I've said already. When a country shows signs of corruption the IMF get blamed. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
If Superman tries to catch a falling plane and some people fall out to their deaths...is it his fault? | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Er, what went wrong there. Sorry. Ignore the last message. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
Even Superman isn't perfect. Look at SUPERMAN 4. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
I have a vague recollection that the CIA was involved with Pinochet's torturers. Need to check it out in my super-unreliable book of biased facts. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Put the kettle on, mate. It's thirsty work, this. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/09/19/us.cia.chile.ap/ This? | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
CNN? Can you find me a more reliable source, please? | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20000919/index.html This? This has the actual CIA responses to the allegations. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
Many of the CIA notes are crossed out. Some would see that as proof of a cover up. I would suggest that anyone keeping notes of deeds such as this would be fools. Why would they have memos? They wouldn't. If they had actually taken part and promoted criminal acts there would be no paperwork. Surely? | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Yeah, you're right. Besides, the Nixon administration would never allow anything like that! | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.250.231 |
Wow. You've all lost me by now. But I can respond with clarity and confidence that indeed -- SUPERMAN 4 sucked. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Albie, take a look at this: http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews/brooklyn-rail The issue isn't always that the IMF/World Bank steps in to save struggling countries. Frequently a loan-friendly leadership is installed by dubious mechanisms. Hence the Chilean coup. Hence Pinochet's atrocities. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
The fear for the US, of course, was the triumph and possible domino-effect of socialist governments in South America. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 61.216.32.164 |
What's so terrible about CNN, specifically? Which news source do you trust, if any? Personally, I try to glean what I can from differing sources, but it's impossible for anyone who doesn't have first-hand experience of a situation to know exactly what is happening. Unless you're there to experience it yourself (presuming, of course, that you're equipped to understand and assess the facts objectively in the first place), all you really have to go on is accounts from people whose motives and personal biases, in many cases, colour their reporting. I admire journalists whom I sense are reporting what they see regardless of personal ideology, but when it's obvious someone has a strong bias for or against something, I find it hard to take them seriously. I don't see how Klein can be regarded as a particularly reliable or credible source. She seems to me to be as biased as they come (activist background, blatantly anti-globalization) and, what's more, she's a journalist, not an economist. I've read so much criticism about her getting facts wrong or distorting them to suit her argument (I don't know how much truth there is to this, but it bothers me, given her obvious bias) that it actually put me off reading her book. I'm sure it's an interesting read, but why would anyone accept at face-value that what she is writing is the truth? The only conclusion I can reach is that it would be because the reader shares the same outlook or personal biases, and therefore would naturally tend to accept her version. It's easy to be bowled over by someone who makes assertions or presents notions in a sensationalist way, especially when those claims coincide with an ideology that the reader tends to be sympathetic to. I don't know the full truth of these situations any more than anyone else on this board does, but I'd be inclined not to accept everything that comes from a clearly biased source, whether it be a journalist, an academic, or a news network. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 61.216.32.164 |
I found the following articles interesting; they provide a little balance, at least: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9384 The Klein Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Polemics and: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9626 Three Days After Klein's Response, Another Attack | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
>>>What's so terrible about CNN, specifically? My comment was obviously a contextualised joke. >>>Which news source do you trust, if any? Personally, I try to glean what I can from differing sources, Didn't I make it clear that I'm doing the same. See above. >>>I'm sure it's an interesting read, but why would anyone accept at face-value that what she is writing is the truth? The only conclusion I can reach is that it would be because the reader shares the same outlook or personal biases Yeah, because I'm such an uncritical zombie. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
>>>I admire journalists whom I sense are reporting what they see regardless of personal ideology, but when it's obvious someone has a strong bias for or against something, I find it hard to take them seriously. How are you making this decision about their bias? Objectively? Based on a few generalised facts - activist background, etc? Guesswork? Hunch? Might it be possible that they're passionate on the basis of what they've seen firsthand? Both Pilger and Klein have been among the people they write about. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Oh, and: >>>she's a journalist, not an economist. So what? What's so special about economists and their knowledge? "If all the economists were laid end to end, they'd never reach a conclusion." -- Bernard Shaw | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
When one source says that two and two is four and the other that two and two is nine, the unbiased view is obviously that two and two is six and a half. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Huw, I've just read that Norberg stuff: it says nothing that hasn't been said above. Yes, the US is a reluctant imperialist (though Norberg says nothing about well-documented subterfuge); yes, reforms can occur in peaceful democracies (though Norberg says nothing about those which are not institutionally ripe and the resultant horrors); yes, globalisation can lead to higher living per capita standards (though Norberg doesn't seem at all interested in attendant gross inequality and its consequences). So...what's your point? Was it just about Klein? No-one's fully adhering to her perspective here. Just want to make that clear. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.189.243 |
I was just trying to offer some balance. From your comments in various posts above it sounds like you were bowled over by her book and are just accepting that what she is writing is all factual. When I hear someone rave about a controversial book such as this one and end by saying "Conspiracy theory? Fuck off." then I get the impression that person has completely bought into her notions. Sorry if I got it wrong. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.189.243 |
And no, of course I don't think you're an uncritical zombie! I can see that you've obviously read more than one side of the argument. I haven't read Klein's book yet - I'll have to try to find a copy next time I'm at the bookshop - but some of the theories I've seen attributed to her seem dubious at best. Does she actually say that the Tiananmen massacre was used to push through pro-reform policies? Because that's ridiculous, not to mention downright offensive (I mean, to me personally, having known people who were actually there). That's not what Tiananmen was about at all. If anything, it temporarily hindered such reform, which was going to happen regardless of the uprising. The point of the crackdown was to protect the authority of the Chinese Communist Party; it had nothing to do with economic reforms, which had been going on for years already, and upon which the uprising simply had no bearing. This may help put it into perspective:http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=M0u-3iEDqBE YouTube - Johan Norberg: Naomi Klein on Tiananmen Square Forgive me if I'm unable to respond for a while after this post. I'm on my way into hospital later this morning for a whole day of neurological tests, and I may have to stay overnight, as some of them are invasive.  | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
It seems to me, on the basis of your post above, that you got as far as my post on Klein and then decided to skip the rest. I can't account for the comments about accessing different sources in any other way. Hoist by your own petard, really - you know, not reading around enough. Hope the treatment goes OK. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Btw, why exactly should I take the opinion of a Swedish academic affiliated to a Washington thinktank as unbiased? Because you've objectively judged him to be so, presumably. I envy you that power. I guess I remain at the mercy of frauds like Pilger. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews/brooklyn-rail What am I looking for here? I see no real evidence. I can see how the US would want the CIA keeping an eye on South America. But where is the proof that they did anything that wasn't born out of paranoia and not -as we were discussing- damaging countries so they could build sweatshops? From the IMF to the CIA? Now you ARE getting into pure conspiracy theory. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
"Two years after the CIA finished funding Cameron’s work, it published the KUBARK manual, a guide to torture that circulated throughout Latin America’s military regimes. It stated: “all of the techniques employed…are essentially ways of speeding up the process of regression.” As Pinochet’s torturers went to work with cattle prods and other tools of the trade,his economics advisors (nicknamed the “Chicago Boys”) in Klein’s words set about “speeding up the process of regression,” working to return Chile to an imaginary “pure” market. Both shocks left the public reeling, ready to submit. This was the shock doctrine in all its glory." Manipulative. The KUBARK manual doesn't condone cattleprods. You don't need to teach people to inflict pain. KUBARK is about more psychological things. I chose that point at random. Doesn't really stand up if you look beyond the words. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
"The only true history of the 100 years war is the 100 years war." We've reached an impasse in this discussion. You're claiming neutrality; I'm not. That's fine. I respect that. I'm just glad we managed to conduct this debate without shouting. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.189.195 |
Gary, as I already made clear above, I acknowledge that you have not limited yourself to one side of the argument. I focused on Klein because I got the impression from your first post regarding her book that you seemed a little too willing to accept it as truth. This bothered me mainly because of Klein's notions about the Tiananmen massacre, which I know to be pure bollocks. I provided the Norberg link by way of providing a little balance, and because he refutes so well Klein's nonsensical spin on the whole affair. I noticed you haven't commented on that since your earlier "conspiracy theory? Fuck off" post. I never claimed that Norberg was unbiased. I put up the link to his response to Klein's theories because I felt some balance was appropriate, since you were so enthusiastic about her 'shock doctrine' in your post further up, and also I honestly thought it might add something to the discussion. I posted the link to his comments on the Tiananmen massacre because in this instance, at the very least, he appears to be on the money. I'm sorry if I've offended you in any way, but when I see something I think needs commenting on, I'm going to comment on it. Again, sorry if this offends. I didn't realise it was required that I respond to or touch upon every point that's been made (there are so many posts to go through, and the time I can spend here these days is more limited), As I said, I focused on Klein mostly because of the Tiananmen thing, which I thought was just dead wrong. I'm sorry if you got the impression I was ignoring the rest of your posts, or something. I just don't have the time, or energy, with my health the way it is at the moment, to tackle everything, so I tend to concentrate on the stuff that stands out most to me or to which I feel able to add something meaningful. No disrespect was intended, I assure you! As for the "hoist by your own petard" comment, I'm honestly not sure how to respond to that one, other than to say that I don't see how, and that I'm a little disappointed. I thought we were having an honest, open discussion. I'm just putting forward my views, not saying they're more valid than yours or anyone else's, just different. I don't know why you'd assume that I don't 'read around'. I'd wager that I do, or at least try to. For what it's worth, I did a lot of research in international relations and Asian civilisation after my thesis, in preparation for my graduate work in interpretation and translation, and continue to read up on things as much as possible to this day, although I'll readily concede it's not nearly as much as I'd like. I don't come on here and trumpet my knowledge, but that doesn't mean I'm less knowledgeable than you or anyone else here. I'm not quite sure why I should need to point this out, but there you are. Thanks for asking how my tests went. It didn't go as I was hoping it would, unfortunately. The news was much worse than I'd expected - it seems that the problems I knew about are far more severe than I'd imagined, and I also discovered I have other problems I'd never even anticipated. Basically my spine and nervous system is fucked. Everything seems pretty futile at the moment, to be honest. They've put me on some new epilepsy medicine, so I suppose that's worth a shot, at least. I'm going to bow out of this now, as it's taking too much out of me, and I don't want to risk any more bad feeling or friction. Sorry again, Gary, if I caused any. No hard feelings, I hope. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
God, Huw, very sorry to hear about the tests. There's no friction at all. It's debate. And I'm sorry, too, if I've said anything that's pissed you off. The comment about 'not reading around' was simply in reference to this thread, and nothing else. I know nothing of your general reading habits. How could I? Peace, man. And best wishes. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
Have you read Klein's book. Gary? What did you do to check and challenge the info? | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
>>>I noticed you haven't commented on that since your earlier "conspiracy theory? Fuck off" post. You're right. I didn't. That's because I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Reading Ferguson was a good rebuttal of Klein in many ways. But just because Klein may be 'controversial' on some issues, it doesn't follow that she should be dismissed on all. Good thing to read her and make up your own mind. Pilger, too. Anyway, we've all had good input into this debate, which is an important one. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
>>>Have you read Klein's book. Gary? What did you do to check and challenge the info? Yes. And to figure out what I thought about the issue, I read other material which offered alternative takes on globalisation. On the basis of this, and ongoing reading, I'm making up my own mind. What more can anyone do? | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
"Collosus by Niall Ferguson and The Lexus and the Olive Tree by Thomas Friedman" How much did they deal with Klein's points directly? | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
They didn't. The Klein is a newish book. But there's huge overlap in the central issues: the process of globalisation, etc. Read it and see what you think. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
So you haven't checked or challenged Klein's book...exactly. Did you google her name to find any discrediting info? | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
The thing is that above you wrote: "There's no debate involving the people in the know." Well, that's fair enough, and may well be true. So what alternative (other than indifference) do we have than to set up such a debate inside ourselves by accessing pro and anti material? Short of 'being there' (something which you claim would lead to even more bias), all we have are secondary sources. You also write: >>>The net is no good. It is just biased to the hilt... I wouldn't believe anything, net or printed (it's basically the same) until I've seen an exhaustive debate. Well, unfortunately we have no choice. You yourself have admitted seeking validation for your point of view via sources: >>>I looked into Malawi, using the net alone, and found no evidence that the IMF were lying when they said that things worsened due to corruption in the Malawian government. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
>>>Did you google her name to find any discrediting info? Some pro and anti reviews, yes. After I'd read the book. I always do that with anything I read. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
>>>Did you google her name to find any discrediting info? You see, now you're asking me whether I sought recourse to a medium that you've already discredited as "biased to the hilt"! Cake. Eat it? | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
Well, I was merely dealing with what you knew. If that's what you trust. I'm not saying I believe the IMF is innocent in Malawi, because of things I read on the net. I said I found no evidence. Others would use the net alone to suggest there was evidence(without actually giving it.) But you seem to WANT to believe despite there being no thorough debate. I don't understand why you would do that. You wouldn't question someone with mental illness for five minutes and proclaim their ailment. I see a lot of people on the web with your view and they are simply haters of the USA. And often are Western themselves. If there is no debate then don't have a set opinion. Don't be convinced by either argument. Surely that is logical. | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
Isn't the problem with the world that people take sides too early for little reason? | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
I mean, have you ever emailed the IMF with some of your queries? | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
>>>I see a lot of people on the web with your view And what is my view? | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 77.86.108.178 |
You clearly side with the anti-globalists. You clearly believe the US uses the likes of the CIA to destablise countries. You believe the IMF intends to further destablise those countries to benefit the USA. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
No, this is my view: "Let me repeat: I don't dispute the fact that the free market drives up living standards. But I'd qualifiy that with the following: without an institutional framework in place, corruption is inevitable; inequality is inevitable; there's a question about whether capitalism is really desirable anyway (check out such fey tomes as Oliver James' Affluenza). The main concern is how painful this transition is for most countries and how little those enforcing actually care about the people who'll suffer as a consequence. It isn't just poverty; we're talking violent suppression." I said all that ages ago. I actually have mixed feelings about globalisation - but very few about the way it's being enforced in some cases. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Admittedly, if I'd read only Klein, I'd - potentially - be wholly anti-globalist. That's a debate or sorts, no? | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
So I haven't actually taken any sides. At least not the ones you assume there to be. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.227.26 |
"Basically my spine and nervous system is fucked." Very sorry to hear that, Huw. What is the overall prognosis? | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.184.218 |
Thanks, Hubert. I still have to meet with the pain specialist and neurosurgeon next week to talk about treatment, but the doctors who did the tests yesterday (a neurologist and an orthopedist) told me that what I'm feeling is severe neuropathic pain due to continuous, long-term injury to the nervous system. The tests they did (the weirdest one involved inserting long needles into different muscles, then giving me electric shocks) to test nerve response showed that the nerves in my spine are damaged and also that my nervous system has undergone changes over time, affecting the way that pain signals are interpreted. He said that sometimes I'm feeling severe pain when there shouldn't be any, and mentioned a lot of different types of pain syndromes - allodynia, dysesthesia, and more that I can't recall. Some of the pain I'm getting is due to abnormal nerve firing (similar to what happens in epilepsy, hence the epilepsy medicine he gave me). I didn't take in all of what they were saying, as we were speaking in Chinese with lots of medical terminology, and there was a lot of info to digest, but basically it's a spinal/neuropathic problem. Also, they said I have severe spondylosis, and whereas previously I'd thought the damaged vertebrae and nerves were limited to my lower back, they said they now think it's more extensive, extending up to my thoracic vertabrae. They also reiterated what the doctors said last time about the spinal stenosis and bone degeneration being severe. It was a lot to take in, and to be honest it's all a bit muddled in my head right now. I'm hoping to go over it all in detail next week at the pain clinic, so that I have a clearer picture. The doctors all recommended surgery (possibly multiple surgeries), otherwise it will continue to deteriorate. I've felt it getting worse over the past year or so (I have to use my 'Dr. House' cane to get about more and more, which I hate). I want to look into the surgery options in more detail, and get a second opinion before I make any decisions. The operation I had before didn't fix it, and there's no guarantee further ones will, although the docs seem to think it's essential to relieve pressure on my nerves. I'm going to forward my medical records to a spinal institute in Virginia (my aunt lives there, so I could stay with her if I go), which seems to have a good reputation. Other than that, its basically a matter of long-term pain management. The drugs I was being prescribed in the UK are only used for cancer patients over here (they are overly strict with opiate medication here), but the doctor told me if there is clear proof of an ongoing painful condition that's not responding to the usual anti-inflammatory drugs, he may be able to help me get prescriptions. Basically, the only things that help are strong opiates and various muscle relaxants and anti-convulsants. I'm hoping the doctor can start prescribing something useful when I see him next. Sorry for the long-winded reply! It's all a bit overwhelming at the moment. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.242.126 |
Huw, you have my sympathies and, of course, my very best wishes. This all sounds terrible. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.119.156 |
I hope that you can find a way through all this Huw and hear from the spinal institute soon. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.216 |
Yeah, you take care, Huw. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
The very best of wishes that things improve, Huw. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
I'm very sorry to hear all this, Huw. Take care, and I hope there's real improvement soon. As a medical journalist I'm continually struck by how fast medical technology is progressing. Though of course the human body is still the same. One thought: assistive technologies can be a valuable aspect of pain control. I hope you have a good physiotherapist to advise on such matters. |